Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds

PvtVoid writes: "Jeopardy champion Arthur Chu pens a heartfelt takedown of misogyny in nerd culture: 'I’ve heard and seen the stories that those of you who followed the #YesAllWomen hashtag on Twitter have seen—women getting groped at cons, women getting vicious insults flung at them online, women getting stalked by creeps in college and told they should be "flattered." I’ve heard Elliot Rodger’s voice before. I was expecting his manifesto to be incomprehensible madness—hoping for it to be—but it wasn’t. It’s a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto, except for the part about mass murder. I've heard it from acquaintances, I've heard it from friends. I've heard it come out of my own mouth, in moments of anger and weakness.

What the f*$# is wrong with us? How much longer are we going to be in denial that there's a thing called "rape culture" and we ought to do something about it? ... To paraphrase the great John Oliver, listen up, fellow self-pitying nerd boys — we are not the victims here. We are not the underdogs. We are not the ones who have our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly by other people's entitlement. We're not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.'"

Comments

#notallgeekyguys

[fche]

"Itâ(TM)s a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto ..."

You hang around a weird/scary bunch of angry geeky guys. The "manifesto" becomes far-out well before the murder-intent plans.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Austerity Empowers]

How could anyone even remotely think it's a "standard frustrated geeky guy manifesto". I would wager his particular problem is shared my more than a few people who visit this website, or at least was, long ago. I find it impossible to believe that most of us chose to blame women for not making themselves available to us in our every moment of need, to blame other men who were seemingly getting that treatment for our own failings, and in general feeling such an intense narcissism and sense of entitlement to think the whole world (men and women) owe to us our ideal experience. This guy was off his rocker, I don't know if his problem was psychological or poor upbringing, but I don't think in our most desperate hour do the majority of us think that we were OWED any form of gratification. Honestly the whole thing is insulting to men and this article, to geeks.

As politically incorrect as it is to say, there is such a thing as 'boys being boys', as much as there is 'girls being girls'. I have limited experience with the latter, beyond cursory comments from my sibling. But boys will say stupid shit inspired by whatever transitory self-hating emotion they were inflicted with at the time, let loose with the grease of whatever chemical they chose to release it with. It may be hateful, self indulging, offensive or outrageous but it's usually done "with the guys" often after rejection or some failure. The emotion is vented. I don't believe for a minute that the majority actually believe their press, or would act on some idiotic revenge fantasy, or even remember their own bullshit the next morning. "Rape culture" is nothing more than vigorous internet trolling that has fed on itself and become a mythical monster that better adjusted males know is utter crap, but which the mentally unstable lock on to and embrace. It's as believable to me as video game inspired violence, in that it happens, but the problem was never the game. Does the presence of "pedo bear" imply the existence of a widespread pedophillia culture?

This is just another excuse to be outraged. We can't blame guns because he killed more people with knives. So let's focus on the ravings of an obvious madman, and let's take them seriously!

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I did all of the above. Not murderously violent, but violent enough that I acted out in inappropriate ways.

It is safest for such men to consider *any* sexual contact outside of marriage to be rape- because it's certain that unless you have put a ring on that finger, any consent you think you have received will be revoked retroactively, and you'll be charged with rape anyway.

As for proof of a widespread pedophilia culture, I suggest you read this article analyzing the topic as it is treated in the DSM-V

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[LordLimecat]

The article you linked has a ton of issues. The biggest beef I have with its claim that it sidetracks the conversation to say "not all men are like that' simply because some are. But the context of such discussions is as a "problem" that urgently needs addressing; in that case, whether the thing is common or extremely rare would make an enormous difference in how we approach it.

One might ask whether we should have a hashtag #StopWomenDrowningBabies or something; certainly the thing happens, so clearly this is an important discussion to have, right? Except that its quite rare, and while its bad, its not a "problem" (AFAIK) that we as a society need to (or realistically could) "fix".

I dont know what the statistics are on rape, or how big the problem is, nor do I really want to discuss that (because I am not equipped to do so). But if someone wants to come out and say "men need to stop raping" I think its appropriate to point out that this isnt a universal phenomenon and that "men" arent the "enemy"-- because thats how it very often comes across.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[fahrbot-bot]

It is safest for such men to consider *any* sexual contact outside of marriage to be rape- because it's certain that unless you have put a ring on that finger, any consent you think you have received will be revoked retroactively, and you'll be charged with rape anyway.

Although, "putting a ring on that finger" doesn't automatically give you perpetual, on-demand sex privileges. It's always her (or his) body, not yours - regardless of any expensive jewelry you shelled out for. (Just saying...)

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[rabtech]

"ItÃ(TM)s a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto ..."

You hang around a weird/scary bunch of angry geeky guys. The "manifesto" becomes far-out well before the murder-intent plans.

What planet do you live on? This is a very common thing among nerdy guys, though slightly less so with the younger generation thankfully.

Why does every single discussion about women in tech immediately result in a bunch of denials, followed by pats on the back (upvotes) as dudes congratulate other dudes on how much of a not-problem there is?

From one white male nerd to the rest of the community: Come on, you can't be serious? Women are treated equally to men in tech? Really? Really?

The evidence is all over. You can see it on twitter, in forum posts, or just by asking any of the female geeks you may know.

To claim otherwise is to endorse a lie. If you've helped clean up your little corner of the world, excellent and good on you! But please don't pretend geek/nerd culture has no issues with women.

* As to what happens in other communities, who gives a shit? That is irrelevant. I'm concerned about our community. We should have better standards, especially those of us who were bullied as kids before the dotcom boom when being geeky started to be seen as at least not completely aberrant behavior.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[jellomizer]

Often the Nerds/Geeks are often classified with the same group of people with other issues, such as autism, and ADHD. In general conditions that make the person not quite fit into culture. This is different then the Nerd/Geek who is very interested in some particular areas, that isn't the same as what everyone else is interested in. Band Geeks, Computer Geeks, Comic Book Geeks... Jocks are Sports Geeks, but our society says that is an Ok obsession.

But people with these issues are added to the same group, they will often hang out with the other geeks, just because we are accepting of their particular quarks.

However some people who are part of the culture have dangerous quarks, for example they try to fit in, because they see a negative aspect of the popular kid, and tries to emulate the negative aspect. Oh look the cool kids curse , so I should curse too, but I will do it with more gusto so I will be cooler. They pick up the negative aspects and get use to them and becomes part of them. Thus they learn anti-social behaviors in an attempt to be more social.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[1s44c]

We didn't have this conversation about environmentalism after the unibomber and we don't need it about some fringe internet trolls now.

I believe the unibomber was against technology because it dehumanizes people, not because of environmental issues. Many believe his arguments were valid although his method of protest was ineffective and harmful. This has nothing to do with a frustrated kid going crazy, blaming all women for his social isolation, and trying to kill them all.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Theaetetus]

I did all of the above. Not murderously violent, but violent enough that I acted out in inappropriate ways.

It is safest for such men to consider *any* sexual contact outside of marriage to be rape- because it's certain that unless you have put a ring on that finger, any consent you think you have received will be revoked retroactively, and you'll be charged with rape anyway.

You do know that there hasn't been a marital exception for rape in any state for about twenty years, right?

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[CrimsonAvenger]

Most of us chose more mundane messages than 'kill all women'.

Whatsisname didn't want to "kill all women". He wanted to kill all of the Alpha Phi girls.

Alas, when he went out to get his revenge, they ignored him, and he didn't manage to kill even one of them. Instead he was reduced to spraying a crowd of people walking near their Sorority House, killing two women who were NOT Alpha Phi's.

Pathetic. If you're going to go to the trouble of putting your master-plan for revenge and world domination online, at least make sure you can carry it out first.

Yes, by the by, I'm making fun of whatsisname. He apparently thought he was awesome, but underappreciated. He wasn't awesome, and it looks like the ladies appreciated him exactly as much as they should have (not at all).

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[doggo]

Did you not bother to read the article? Also, if you don't know what the statistics are on rape, hey, you could... look them up. And if you don't want to discuss these issues why bother to post anything?

Again, did you read the article? 'Cause one of the points of the article is that women know not all men are rapists, so you being defensive about it doesn't help anyone, least of all you. Maybe if you shut yer yap long enough to listen to the issues you'd be "equipped" to have a discussion.

" Why is it not helpful to say 'not all men are like that'? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this. They already know not every man is a rapist, or a murderer, or violent. They don't need you to tell them.

Second, it's defensive. When people are defensive, they aren't listening to the other person; they're busy thinking of ways to defend themselves. I watched this happen on Twitter, over and again.

Third, the people saying it aren't furthering the conversation, theyâ(TM)re sidetracking it. The discussion isn't about the men who aren't a problem. (Though, I'll note, it can be. I'll get back to that.) Instead of being defensive and distracting from the topic at hand, try staying quiet for a while and actually listening to what the thousands upon thousands of women discussing this are saying. "

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Mr. Slippery]

"Why is it not helpful to say 'not all men are like that'? For lots of reasons. For one, women know this.

Most women probably do, though there are handful of misandrist dingbats out there. It would be useful for women who are not misandrist dingbats to disassociate themselves from that group. You don't get points for making prejudiced statements about Group X and then saying "Oh, I know not all members of Group X are like that."

And men know that rape is wrong, except for a vile handful of predators who are not going to change because of some internet discussion. It would be useful for men who are not vile predators to disassociate themselves from that group.

(I am assuming all present are familiar with and will not fall into the fallacy of the extended analogy, and will not think I am saying that misandrist statements are comparable to rape.)

Women, if you want to end the phenomenon of men saying "Not all men are misogynist," don't make statements that imply all men are misogynist.

Men, if you want to end the phenomenon of women saying "All men are misogynist," don't make statements that imply you are misogynist.

All, if you don't want people to respond defensively, don't makes statements that imply you are attacking them.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Mr. Slippery]

Not everything is about you. As a man, you should not be offended when those who do rape get called on it, just because they are also men.

Consider: African-American men are, statistically, far more likely to commit murder than Caucasian men are. Does an African-American man have a right to call racist bullshit if you tell him to stop murdering? Of course he does, and that in no way implies that he doesn't want those who do murder to get called on it.

In exactly the same way, men are, statistically, far more likely to commit rape than women are. Does a man have a right to call misandrist bullshit if you tell him to stop raping? Of course he does, and that in no way implies that he doesn't want those who do rape to get called on it.

I'm not saying you will, but it's possible you may surprise yourself one day.

You're just illustrated a huge part of the problem: a belief that ordinary men somehow, to their surprise, suddenly turn rapist someday. This myth is at odds with what we know about rapists: they are deliberate repeat predators with a pattern of offending from a young age and a high probably of cross-offending.

It's why the whole notion of "rape culture" around which so much of this discussion revolves is a distraction: rape is not the result of ordinary guys made confused by their culture about consent, it's the result of deliberate acts by violent assholes who know quite well what they are doing, and all the hashtags in the world won't change them.

If we actually want to stop rape, rather than have a feel-good self righteous flamewar, we need personal safety and bystander intervention training.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Skreems]

Ok, let's have this conversation. I'm assuming you've actually read a decent portion of his writing, since you seem to support the claim that it reeks of misogyny, and that you're not just parroting back claims from a bunch of people trying to fit it to a narrative (who haven't read it themselves either) right? It's available here if you haven't: http://www.scribd.com/doc/2259...

So let's talk. The boy clearly shows signs of blatant narcissism. In the first couple pages he brags about having visited 4 countries by the time he was 3, as if any child that age could gain anything meaningful from that experience. He goes on to describe a facile and warped world view, including how much joy he took in excluding his arch rival (a boy) from his 6th birthday party, classifying being denied entry to a roller coaster ride at 7 because of his height as "an injustice", and overall demonstrates a clear love of power, money, and status in settings that have no bearing on gender whatsoever. Where's the misogyny there?

He talks at length about how he refused to get a "low class retail job" because he's "an intellectual who's destined for greatness." He decides he'll be a screenwriter for about 2 weeks until he realizes they don't make much money, and then bails on it. He takes a college class, but quits halfway through because he's physically disgusted by the site of a happy couple sitting together every day. He took a janitorial job out of desperation, then quite after 5 hours because it was so beneath him. Where's the misogyny there?

There's a lot of misogynistic expression as well, of course. At one point he tells his mother that she should "sacrifice her happiness to secure his future" by marrying a rich guy she only wants to date. And yes, there's a lot of ranting about how women ignore him. But if you actually read even a little bit of it, it becomes very clear that this is a fundamentally delusional person no matter what gender he's talking about.

If you actually look at what he says, it's clear that he feels entitled to EVERYTHING. Not just women, but money, power, respect, friendship, and luxury. He's clearly not able to connect well with other people, and he basically viewed women as a prop in the perfect life of adoration that he felt he was owed. Is that misogynistic? Certainly. But taken as a whole his delusion was no more misogynistic than it was hateful of the entire human race indiscriminate of gender. Hell, he even killed twice as many men as women.

So then why is it that the outcry over this tragedy has immediately become slanted towards "violence against women!! men are terrible!!" The kid had horrific attitudes toward literally everybody around him, and was clearly an entitled little shit in every aspect of his life. In his world view all women were sluts and all men were intellectual nitwits and brutes, and NONE of them deserved to live if they got in his way. He outright said as much. Yet the social reaction to this not only emphasizes the effect it has on women, it actively EXCLUDES people from talking about the effect it has on men, and implicitly tries to lump all men in as perpetrators of the distorted mindset that Elliot Rodger had toward the world. It's divisive and bigoted, and frankly it's fucking disgusting.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Tom]

This is a conversation that's long overdue, and it needs to happen.

Uh, not. It's one of the most pointless and unnecessary conversations ever. No, I mean it. Hear me out.

It's not because the problem doesn't exist. It's because everyone who you actually can have an actual conversation with is already on your side. None of the people who are willing to engage in a dialog have a substantially different opinion. It's the assholes that don't do discussions, rational considerations and conversations with people outside their peer group that are your problem.

You're preaching to the choir, and in doing so, turning it against you. People dislike being held responsible for things they themselves hate, you know?

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[something_wicked_thi]

* Snip lots of unrelated, pointless crap *

So then why is it that the outcry over this tragedy has immediately become slanted towards "violence against women!! men are terrible!!" The kid had horrific attitudes toward literally everybody around him, and was clearly an entitled little shit in every aspect of his life. In his world view all women were sluts and all men were intellectual nitwits and brutes, and NONE of them deserved to live if they got in his way. He outright said as much. Yet the social reaction to this not only emphasizes the effect it has on women, it actively EXCLUDES people from talking about the effect it has on men, and implicitly tries to lump all men in as perpetrators of the distorted mindset that Elliot Rodger had toward the world. It's divisive and bigoted, and frankly it's fucking disgusting.

If you believe that's what's happening, I can only assume your reading comprehension skills are pretty terrible. Talking about misogyny in no way excludes you from talking about how his beliefs are harmful to men, too. In fact, I've seen several women say as much -- that this tragedy proves that misogyny hurts men, too.

And if you think that it was his narcissism to blame more than his misogyny, I'm not sure what manifesto you read. I read the one where he said this:

I don’t know why you girls aren’t attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it.

And this:

You throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentlemen. I will punish all of you for it.

And this:

You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true alpha male.

His narcissism is sexually driven, to my eye, and a result of his deeply held belief that women owe him sex because he's better. In other words, the problem is as much his inability to grant agency to women as his narcissism.

And if you think that talking about this in some way is bigoted against men, then frankly you're part of the problem. Just like that other guy who said there's no point in having this conversation because people already agree with us, you're completely oblivious to the problems that are right in front of you, and you can't see past your own defensiveness when someone tries to explain it to you.

To you, I say, shut up and really try to listen, and don't assume it's all about you. Are you really so narcissistic that you believe that these women who are speaking out are talking about you?

On top of that, you've completely missed the point that most of the women I've read are making -- that the alpha male culture that encourages misogyny is the cause of this, not the misogyny itself. We raise men to be narcissistic and misogynistic and to be "alpha males," and then we're surprised when they shoot people or rape women or beat the shit out of the gay kid in class. There's a reason the vast, vast majority of mass shooters are men, and it's not that women don't know how to shoot straight.

There was a really great video where Aron Ra talks about the effects of this poisonous culture on boys here. I'd recommend you watch it before you spend any more time accusing people of being bigoted against men just because they decided to talk about women's problems for a change.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Tom]

Why does every single discussion about women in tech immediately result in a bunch of denials, followed by pats on the back (upvotes) as dudes congratulate other dudes on how much of a not-problem there is?

Because we are sick and tired of being blamed for crap we hate ourselves.

Of all the men I know and for whom I know their personal opinion on the matter, not one of them is the male chauvinist pig that feminists try to label us all as. The typical man by my experience likes women, generally enjoys it when they're sexy and beautiful, while at the same time appreciating them as human beings and treasuring intelligence, empathy and other mental traits.
None of these men wants to take away womens right to vote, or decide for themselves who to marry, or to take any job they want, or to earn a proper wage defined by their performance and qualification. None of these men sees women as inferior in any way.

However, we are all so fucking tired of the labels and blaming going on in feminist circles, and the inability to speak out against it without being branded even worse immediately, that many men I know have taken to the defense you take when other options aren't easily available: Ridicule, sarcasm - humor in general.

That's how and why I joke with some of my friends that women belong into the kitchen and the kitchen into the cellar and (the joke goes on a bit, but it doesn't translate well into english as it's a play on words). Or why we laugh about chauvinist jokes. Or why we sometimes behave in the exact way the feminists hate all male chauvinist pigs for, in an innocent way (i.e. it stays purely verbal and within the group).

Because that's how human beings react to unjust blame. Call me a chauvinist and depending on my mood I might answer things like "so true my man, oppressing women worked for 10,000 years and as soon as we stopped doing it - bam - two giant world wars." -- which to any even slightly intelligent human being is immediately recognizable as a joke, but to extremists with an agenda, things such as humor apparently don't exist.

And the same is true of the other push-backs you see. Different forms of basically saying "stop lumping me in with those assholes you stupid piece of shit", just in a more indirect way because geeks don't say things like that to your face.

Women are treated equally to men in tech? Really? Really?

It's a self-fullfilling prophecy. The more you run around with a "treat me equal you assholes" sign, the less you'll get it.

It's also because you want others to solve your problems for you. If you feel inferior, that's your problem, not mine. If you think you are verbally abused - do you even have one fucking clue what many male geeks went through in school? When you're complaining about a dirty joke to someone who has been bullied for a decade of his life, the fact that he's an introvert and insecure is the only reason he's not laughing straight in your face.

The world is a cruel place, accept it. Nobody here is perfect, and when you encounter enough human beings in your life, a considerable portion of them will be a) assholes, b) on a bad day, c) misunderstood or d) just as bitter about the world as you are.

If you want to make the world a better place - great! Maybe you should start with not blaming people who have been on the receiving end of a lot of that themselves. They could be your allies. As soon as you stop treating them like shit.

Re:#notallgeekyguys

[Grishnakh]

On top of that, you've completely missed the point that most of the women I've read are making -- that the alpha male culture that encourages misogyny is the cause of this, not the misogyny itself. We raise men to be narcissistic and misogynistic and to be "alpha males," and then we're surprised when they shoot people or rape women or beat the shit out of the gay kid in class. There's a reason the vast, vast majority of mass shooters are men, and it's not that women don't know how to shoot straight.

I'm sorry, but unless I'm missing something, there's a big problem here. Guys like this shooter are not "alpha males". They're generally not that sociable, are introverted, and not very skilled at seducing women. The "alpha males", stereotypically, are the opposite of all these traits. The people over on /r/RedPill would call these guys "betas".

I'm not saying many "alphas" aren't misogynistic; they frequently are, but they're also good at using (and abusing) women. But being misogynist doesn't automatically make you an "alpha".

What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but there's nothing wrong with me. I would appreciate it if you stopped putting words into my mouth.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right! The problem with stereotyping all guys the same is a real problem and it's indisputable that it needs to stop.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[BStroms]

The problem is very real, but it doesn't change the fact it doesn't apply to everyone here.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[NotDrWho]

The irony is that Chu is attacking nerds for stereotyping all women. But in the process, he's stereotyping all nerds.

Look Arthur, we're all really happy that you've got a GF who you think this stunt will impress. But throwing one group under the bus to stand up for another still results in just as many people getting hit by the bus.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[DocSavage64109]

The best trolls are indistinguishable from serious comments.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[DoofusOfDeath]

The irony is that Chu is attacking nerds for stereotyping all women. But in the process, he's stereotyping all nerds.

Look Arthur, we're all really happy that you've got a GF who you think this stunt will impress. But throwing one group under the bus to stand up for another still results in just as many people getting hit by the bus.

Yeah! Bro's before ho's!

Oh, wait. Dammit.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[digsbo]

Now you're getting somewhere. I've never seen inappropriate or aggressive behavior towards women in any of the geek/nerd groups I've been in. In fact, I'd say most of them would get strong marks for showing full respect for women. That said, I am certain that reports of specific incidents and groups having a pattern of behavior are real. I recall one of the security conventions had a problem, which somehow didn't surprise me, knowing that's a sub-group of geekdom with its own dynamic.

Generally speaking, I have found the bigger problems tend to go with the more macho types though. Yes, occasionally you hear of a problem with a school group other than a sports team, but in the vast majority of cases, groups of men who are aggressive towards women are groups of men who are GENERALLY aggressive. Drug gangs, low grade thugs, etc., are all far worse, unquestionably, than "geeks".

It really sounds to me like there is a concerted effort to apply labels and groupings to what is really just an age old problem.

Now, on the other hand, can we address the reality that men are FAR more likely than women to be victims of violence, physical intimidation, violent crime, and other physical threats such as military hazards and other job-related physical danger?

The problem here is not that anyone is against ending violence against women. It's that we have blown what is effectively a rare occurrence (dude going nuts) being confused with a non-existent pattern of nerd rage, all being whipped into a social media shitstorm to make PC points in the press.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[NotDrWho]

No one likes hanging around "gross creepy dudes," not even other gross creepy dudes. This guy who Chu is talking about certainly wasn't being "allowed to thrive" by anyone. His own roommates didn't even like him.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[justin12345]

Exactly. Elliot Rodger’s was a textbook psychopath, probably somewhere between ASPD and NPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_B_personality_disorders).

That he had hang ups with women was a product of his brain not being capable of the normal range of human emotions, not because he was an introverted nerd.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Znork]

Yeah, I'm quite sure the vast majority of men I know are nothing like the deluded fantasies this guy spews out of his mouth.

I am, however, beginning to suspect that this guy and others like him are projecting some quite nasty things they're getting from themselves on to others. If he actually believes that 'we need to get that', then (unlike most men) he certainly does need to get that. And help. Because unlike most men, he actually is a fucking creep.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Obfuscant]

By letting them amongst our ranks,

We have about as much power to define who is "amongst our ranks" as we do to define who Anonymous is. "No true nerd ..." is about as useful as "No true Scotsman..."

and by letting them know it's OK to cyberstalk someone or that hey it's ok, she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks in our culture,

I can't recall the last time I told anyone any of that. I also can't recall the first time. That's because I can recall all the times, and the count is ZERO.

we are defined by them now.

Speak for yourself.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Ralph Wiggam]

This is exactly the clueless response I expected when I saw the submission.

The point. You have missed it. By a wide margin.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[ZahrGnosis]

"I don't know about you, but there's nothing wrong with me." Precisely. When the poster says "What the f*$# is wrong with us?", and at the same time uses "We" as if to group us all in together, the author is missing the point entirely. "We" are not all guilty of being misogynistic idiots. I'm open to a solid discussion of what "We" meaning all of us in the culture, community, country, or world can do about it, but don't lay this at the feet of "standard frustrated angry geeky guys".

This is like saying that video games cause violence... being a nerd doesn't make us misogynists nor mass murderers. There may be something wrong with you, there may be something wrong with lots of people, and you can bucket those people in lots of ways, but stereotyping any group (nerd, geek, woman, gay, etc. etc.) isn't helping.

Teach tolerance, patience, kindness, and practice those yourself. If you want to lobby for better mental health facilities, I'm right behind you. If you see abuse or stereotyping of any kind online and you want to call people out on it, please do. Start a hashtag, that seems to draw good attention to the topic, although there's a lot of talk about that being too much talking and too little doing. I personally think every bit helps. If you think there's a law that needs to be changed or something doable, speak up and I'm glad to listen and add ideas to craft it.

But don't rant about a problem, and group me in it because I have something (being a geek) loosely in common with someone who went completely batshit as if that makes us (geeks) more culpable than any other group while offering nothing constructive. Even if you have a correlation between misogyny and a cultural group like geeks, you better be damn sure that it's causal rather than just coincidental before accusing the culture, and given high incidents of rape culture in many male-dominated areas, it's very likely that it is NOT causal; at least not to an obvious and naive degree. And, by the way, not all males are misogynists either. It's difficult to not lump everyone in and accuse large groups, but it's important to put blame where it belongs. For the record, Chu's full article is much better than this /. summary at being balanced (surprise), but still many of the same issues exist. Big Bang Theory shouldn't get more scrutiny than Game of Thrones, for example, but it does, clearly, because it supports the author's point. I'm not giving it a pass either, just saying we need to level criticism evenly and appropriately.

"We" are not all the problem. You may be part of it, I don't know. Everyone has to be part of the solution. Some of us are trying to be without vilifying and pushing away those that are less aware.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[k3vlar]

As the guy who tells other guys to stop being so damn idiotic, I'm sick and tired of all these articles stereotyping men as misogynistic animals.

Look, I'm actively fighting this problem (and it is a problem, nobody is saying otherwise), with you. So why are you so quick to group me with the monkeys in our society?

Seriously. I'm sick of these articles saying I'm a bad person, and I hate women, and I'm a pig, an animal, and a rapist who should be ashamed of my physical urges.

Please focus on the individual bad apples, instead of grouping them as "men".

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Drug gangs, low grade thugs, etc., are all far worse,

vi users...

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[dirk]

Please back up your assertions with some facts. I don't buy for a second that men are more likely to be the victims of violence, intimidation and other physical threats. Men are more likely to do all of those, but they are more likely aimed at women. Was was the last time you logged onto XBox live and didn't hear some called a pussy or a girl or a faggot or some other slur? You know what every one of those are? You are basically calling the person feminine which is only an insult if you believe men are superior to women. When was the last time you worried about being raped walking home at night? Or being roofied in a bar?

Yes, not all men are like this. But all women have to worry about it. That is the point of the #YesAllWomen tag. You may not be a rapist or a violent person, but women don't know that. Th best way to put it is let's say 1% of men are violent towards women (which is probably low). You claim women shouldn't assume you are because it is only 1%. I have a big bowl of M&Ms and only 1% of them are poisoned. I happily invite you to try some, since only 1% of them are poisoned. Are you going to eat any? No you are going to worry your ass off and not touch any of them. And that is what women live with every day.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[harrkev]

The best trolls are indistinguishable from serious comments.

No, not trolling. Sorry, but there IS a grain of truth in geek misogyny. This toon is a humorous example:

http://www.geeksaresexy.net/20...

Also, when was the last time that you saw a woman depicted in a video game that was less than a "C" cup? Sorry, but if you were to go back a few centuries and give a woman a sword and armor, I am pretty sure that the armor would cover more than about six square inches of her body. Sorry, but in video games, women are sex objects (Metroid is the one notable exception that I can think of). Even as protagonists, they will dress scantily, while standing next to a male character that is so covered in so much armor that you can only see his eyes.

Perhaps part of it is that women are, in general, under-represented in geek culture. Guys are attracted to girls, but there are damn few of them floating around in geek circles. So, they go from being "people" to becoming something closer to a "trophy."

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[sandytaru]

If you're not calling out guys (and girls) when they are being assholes, then yes, there is something wrong with you. You may personally being the nicest guy on the planet, have a loving girlfriend/wife and a half dozen girls who are jealous of her because you are so great, and take in foster kittens on the side. But if you have a single bro/bitch friend who harasses women (and/or men) and you aren't telling him to cut that shit out, then yes, you ARE part of the "us" in question.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[sandytaru]

Creepy is in the eye of the beholder. A good friend of mine thought that the guy I eventually married was "creepy." She also thought that a former manager of ours was creepy, when I thought a different manager at the same business was creepy. Creepy is very much subjective, but the definition is "I am not comfortable engaging in a conversation with you and would not voluntarily choose to do so because you are doing/saying things that frighten me." You can't judge creepy by appearances - Elliot Rodgers was actually kind of cute to my older eyes - but you can immediately get warning bells on your CreepDar as soon as someone moves or opens their mouth.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[digsbo]

Please back up your assertions with some facts.

Fair enough. Please see table 7: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

A statistically significant higher percentage of victims of violent crime are male, consistently, across that survey's data.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[phoenix03]

Oh for fuck's sake, this stupid argument again? When was the last time you saw a guy in a action game that wasn't ripped? Look at characters like Dante in Devil May Cry. You don't see men getting all butthurt because the common perception of men in video games is pure alpha male, muscle bound. Perhaps you have some internalized male-hate, or maybe it's disdain for 'geeks'. Either way, you need a better argument.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Theaetetus]

The irony is that Chu is attacking nerds for stereotyping all women. But in the process, he's stereotyping all nerds.

Look Arthur, we're all really happy that you've got a GF who you think this stunt will impress.

And you're stereotyping anyone who speaks up for a group they're not a part of. Ever think that maybe Chu wrote this because it's something he believes in, rather than that he was just doing it to impress a girl? Of course not, because you don't think that way.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Kielistic]

I don't buy for a second that men are more likely to be the victims of violence, intimidation and other physical threats

Try looking into it. Crime stats don't lie. Unless of course you think women are getting beaten and just don't talk about it... Ever.

That women are more worried about being violently attacked does not mean they are more likely to be violently attacked. In fact this cultural belief that women have to be constantly worried about violence even though they are far less likely to be violently attacked might be why some people come to the notion that feminine qualities include worrying and weakness.

You going on about how "all women have to worry about it" is the problem. Fuck you and your gender stereotypes. Men have far more to worry about getting mugged and murdered than women do. Do I think that all men have to fear? Hell no. Being afraid of incredibly unlikely events is nothing but learned helplessness.

More than 1% of men are violent to women? Fuck you even more for that. Right now there are 300 000 men beating women in the United States I'm sure.

50 years ago you would have been right in there with the hang all darkies group. Same bullshit paranoia and made up reasons. Same sense of superiority.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[DNS-and-BIND]

I don't buy for a second that men are more likely to be the victims of violence, intimidation and other physical threats.

It's absolutely true. Go to fbi.gov and look at the stats.

Men are more likely to do all of those, but they are more likely aimed at women.

Wrong. Women do not make up the majority of crime victims.

When was the last time you worried about being raped walking home at night?

Most rape occurs between acquaintances. The prototypical "rapist with a knife" makes up a rather small proportion of these crimes. Again, fbi.gov. Facts are your friends, they help you become educated and disregard biased propaganda promulgated by political groups with an agenda. It sounds like you've been a victim of their false narratives.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Theaetetus]

By letting them amongst our ranks,

We have about as much power to define who is "amongst our ranks" as we do to define who Anonymous is. "No true nerd ..." is about as useful as "No true Scotsman..."

The Scots are pretty good about denying that the English are part of their ranks. We likewise have the power to shun people who we think shouldn't be part of our community. We can't stop them from calling themselves geeks, but if we kick them out of our cons, mute them in our forums, and otherwise refuse to deal with them, then no one is going to confuse us with them.

and by letting them know it's OK to cyberstalk someone or that hey it's ok, she was a bitch anyway or any number of inhuman and gross misogynistic streaks in our culture,

I can't recall the last time I told anyone any of that. I also can't recall the first time. That's because I can recall all the times, and the count is ZERO.

But have you ever heard someone else say it? Did you say that that's not acceptable, or did you just say "I'm not doing it, so it's not my problem"?

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[naasking]

I don't buy for a second that men are more likely to be the victims of violence, intimidation and other physical threats. Men are more likely to do all of those, but they are more likely aimed at women.

digsbo already cited the relevant reference showing that men have more to fear from others than women do, but are you really so suprised that male on male violence is more prevalent than male on female? Who gets in more bar fights? Who is the more likely victim of gang violence? There's still a stigma around hitting women, so when tempers flare in any situation, who is more likely to receive a punch to the face?

You are basically calling the person feminine which is only an insult if you believe men are superior to women.

That's not how insults work. Sure, the people who started using that insult probably believed that, but words have momentum and growing up in a culture that uses some words derogatorily means you're simply more likely to use them that way when conveying an intention. That doesn't mean the user has given even a moment's thought to what's actually been said. Trying to tie this to some mental attitude towards women as a whole is weak at best.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[floobedy]

That's the astonishing thing about this. I read some of Elliot Rodger's book, and he was obviously an extremely disturbed man, who had a severe case of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and also had other psychiatric disorders besides. At various points, he considered lashing out violently against society for the "injustice" he suffered when he did not win the powerball $400m lottery, which he felt he had been certain to win, and was entitled to.

He was crazy. He had a whole team of shrinks working on him, since he was age 8, to no avail. For much of his life he went to psychologists every single day, to no avail. He was crazy.

Yet so many people on the internet will find the moral or political lesson in it. For example: this massacre just goes to show how depraved Hollywood culture is (the editorial at the Washington Post said this). Or, it just demonstrates what's really wrong in American culture (approximately a third of the comments on scribd said this). Or, it just shows how the country has become too conservative, or too liberal. Or, it's a classic example of postmodern leftism run amok ('"ELLIOT RODGERS: PSYCHO SPEWING POSTMODERNIST CRAP"). Or, this is just another example of geek culture, even though Elliot Rodger obviously was not a geek, and spent much of his free time shopping for expensive Armani clothing.

The very silliest of these claims, was the contention that it shows what's wrong with geek culture. Elliot Rodgers was obviously not a geek. Quite the opposite, he had utter contempt for geeks. He considered them as not "alpha" males, and therefore beneath contempt, and he says so repeatedly in his "manifesto". The very first people he killed were his geeky roommates, whom he stabbed to death for precisely that reason. Claiming that Rodgers was inspired by geek culture is the most absurd of the moral lessons being drawn, and is even less serious than claiming he was inspired by postmodern leftism.

But it doesn't matter Elliot Rodgers was obviously not a geek. Even so, his massacre will still serve for Arthur Chu's moral indictment. The massacre can still be used as an indictment of geek culture, despite the obvious lack of any real connection between geek culture and Rodger's acts.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[radtea]

But throwing one group under the bus to stand up for another still results in just as many people getting hit by the bus.

The thing that all these finger-wagging missives fail to take into account is that masculinity, like femininity, is a social construct. There are underlying biological differences between the male and female populations, but there are also broad distributions of individual characteristics, and the gender binary model attempts to impose a crisp, discontinuous division between "masculine" and "feminine".

In doing so, it does violence to anyone who fails to fit very well with the nominal masculine or feminine ideals of the society they happen to find themselves in.

The feminist movement has done a reasonably good job, more-or-less, in pointing out how these forces operate to shape women's lives.

We have done a lousy job of appreciating that the same kinds of forces shape men's lives as well, so we get these ridiculous claims that individual men are creatures of perfect agency, utterly unaffected by the social forces that are attempting to bludgeon them into good little emotionless soldiers (or whatever your society's favoured model of masculinity is at the moment). Telling profoundly damaged, struggling individuals to "stop whining" and so on is the opposite of what they need. They need to be told: "I feel you pain, but I hate your behaviour..."

The utter lack of compassion for men, and the complete lack of awareness of how the social construction of masculinity affects them, is one of the most depressing things about the current discourse on these issues.

None of this excuses individuals who behave badly, but if we want men to get better, we have to stop failing them as completely and systematically as we are now. We have to start valuing their lives, their experiences, their reality, rather than simply hitting them harder with various real and rhetorical hammers when they refuse to fit into the socially constructed masculine role that has been prepared for them.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[AmiMoJo]

I can't recall the last time I told anyone any of that.

Maybe not you, but go and read any of the stories on /. about sexism in the past year. Every single one is full of comments about how the women has an axe to grind, is a liar, is herself sexist, how feminism is the enemy of all men and so forth.

Now go read some stories about there being very low numbers of women in science and engineering. All the comments are about how they just aren't interested, how they don't work hard enough, how they want everything on a plate so they can have kids and a fantastic career and what a bunch of selfish bitches. Any suggestion that it might be misogyny is simply rejected, and the blame placed on women.

It's a shame it took multiple murders to move the debate forwards to the point where the problem is even acknowledged, but I'm glad it has.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[digsbo]

FYI - since Geekoid correctly pointed out my referenced data didn't include homicide, please see table 4 here which shows men are homicide victims at about 4 times the rate of women: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub...

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[AmiMoJo]

There are plenty of non-ripped male characters in games. Often you don't even see your own avatar in an FPS. Take GTA for example, all the protagonists have been fairly normal looking guys. Half Life had a scrawny scientist. Even things like Call of Duty has guys who look fit, as if they were part of some kind of military unit, but not ridiculous muscle-man like and always clothed head to toe in armour and combat fatigues.

The portrayal of men in all forms of media is a problem, but it's nothing like as bad as the portrayal of women. For me the worst ones are female scientists. If the scientist was a man they would probably be older, definitely average looking. The female scientist is always young and hot, because having a world class mind on it's own isn't enough.

Re:What the f*$# is wrong with us?

[Bing Tsher E]

No, the point is much more complex than that. There are a lot of people who claim that Western Civilization is the problem, whereas it's actually the base for much of what's good.

Things are somewhat bad all over, but when you put on one of those Palestinian neckscarfs and parade around campus, you're over looking just how backwards elements within those cultures are. There are individual escapees from said cultures that need to be welcomed. But unconditional multiculturalism? No thanks.

yet another one of these stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Henry Rollins summed it up the best...

You say we're all the same.
You don't even know my name.
Sometime somewhere someone wants hurt you and I'm one of them
You think you know about me...
You don't know a damn thing about me!
So I take all the blame...

I'm not all men
I'm just one man
I'm not that man!

Re:yet another one of these stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. So much fucking this.

Men are not rapists. RAPISTS are rapists.

Wasn't the whole point of the civil rights movement of the last 60 years that everybody deserved to be judged on their own actions, merits, and efforts, not by which group they are born in to? This new bullshit where it's now socially "acceptable" to hurl insults, accusations, and blame at certain groups (you know the ones I'm talking about) because they're seen as somehow being descended from THE OPPRESSORS runs contrary to everything we as a society have been working to fix this whole time.

The idea is to stop generalizing and stereotyping groups, not change which groups you stereotype! For fuck's sake... seriously.

Re:yet another one of these stories?

[NotDrWho]

I think Henry Rollins summed it up the best...

He usually does.

Re:yet another one of these stories?

[Immerman]

>Men are not rapists. RAPISTS are rapists.

Even more relevant in light of that recent study showing that women are almost as likely to be rapists as men, but men are considerably less likely to report being assaulted.

Re:yet another one of these stories?

[lgw]

Most men are rapists if you believe all straight sex is rape. Some people believe that.

Most men could be a rapists if you believe that waking up next to a man who is far uglier than he seemed when you were completely drunk is rape. Some people believe that.

Most men are rapists if you believe that failure to support the radical feminist agenda is tantamount to rape (the reasonable feminist agenda having been achieved a while back - look at pay for women under 35 who've never had a kid - it's higher than similar men now). There are sincere arguments being made at some colleges that formal accusations of rape should not be questionable, that "conviction" (expulsion for the college etc) should follow accusation without any sort of hearing. Because rape culture.

There simple is no "rape culture" in Western civilization by the "physical assault" definition of rape - marrying off girls against their will has been passe for some time now, as has blaming a rape victim for the crime. But there's an entire cultural leadership based on convincing people that they are victims, and so a new definition of "rape' and "rape culture" was needed.

"Rape culture" predominates if you say it includes every man who desires to have sex with a woman who doesn't desire him. So what? How many more thought crimes do we need to invent? It also predominates in some other cultures around the globe still stuck in a medieval mindset, but that's never what the "rape culture" complaint seems to be about.

Re:yet another one of these stories?

[Anonymous Coward]

The lifetime rate of same-sex lesbian rape is 1 in 3 while hetero rape of women is 1 in 6. The Gender of Sexuality, Rutter and Schwartz.

When strength is no longer a factor, women are bigger rapists than men.

forever actually

[kick6]

How much longer are we going to be in denial that there's a thing called "rape culture" and we ought to do something about it?

Forever, because there is no such thing. Only by using the ever-expanding militant-feminist definition of rape which currently stands at "anything, at all, ever, that makes me in the slightest bit uncomfortable" can we possibly believe there's actually a culture of rape. What we ACTUALLY have is a culture of socailly retarded males and females, and culture of feminists preying on the socially retarded females and making them believe that they're entitled to waltz through never being made to feel uncomfortable, ever. This is patently untrue, and no amount of slut-walks can ever create a utopia where a woman - even a man - can leave a ladeeda life.

Re:forever actually

[NotDrWho]

I want to know where this "rape culture" is. Because I've lived a long time. I played high school football. I was in a college fraternity. And I've been around a lot of fellow nerdy computer programmers. And never ONCE was I in an environment where it was considered even REMOTELY acceptable to rape women or even seriously joke about it.

So maybe Mr. Chu can tell us where exactly where this "rape culture" is, because it sure as fuck isn't anywhere where I've ever been. But maybe he hangs with a different crowd.

Re:forever actually

[ClioCJS]

You don't know that nobody on your team did that. You think it.

Re:forever actually

[CanHasDIY]

You don't know that nobody on your team did that. You think it.

Which further reinforces the notion that this "rape culture" idea is nonsense, as if there was "culture" that approved of the behavior, anyone on his team that might have engaged in said criminal activity wouldn't have hesitated to brag about it.

Re:forever actually

[CanHasDIY]

I love how you get to define single-point rules that say "if X, then not Y", as if you are an authority on a nebulous concept that hasn't been defined.

Kinda like how you "got" to define OP's claim as "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?"

America has a weed culture, but because it is illegal, people don't usually brag about their use of it, despite our use being one of the highest on the planet.

Quick aside:

lol. "highest."

Back to point:

OK, so the day that someone opens a "rape shop" where a person can walk in and purchase the accoutrements necessary to rape another person (all labeled "not for illegal use," of course), and people start walking around in pro-rape tshirts, having Rapefest concerts in public parks, you can claim that there's a "rape culture" equivalent to the "weed culture."

Until that day comes, your "example" is nothing more than false equivalence.

Re:forever actually

[cryptizard]

You don't see it because you're not looking. It's not that people think raping someone is okay, it's that they don't think what they are doing is rape. They think, oh, she would have totally been down for it if she wasn't passed out so I'll just go ahead anyway. Or, she is saying no but she wouldn't have dressed like that if she didn't want to sleep with me. Or, she is just playing hard to get, she doesn't want to seem like a slut, I just need to keep going she actually likes it. People are great at justifying things to themselves. Nobody thinks in their own head that they are a *gasp* rapist.

Re:forever actually

[Ziggitz]

Seriously, the notion of rape culture is the most absurd and ignorant thing for anyone to suggest. If you are accused of rape publicly, every non sociopathic man and woman will scorn you forever, you'll lose your job, your friends and there's a good chance of mob justice taking you out before the legal system can if you aren't locked up right away. If you are convicted, the notion of rape being wrong is so innate that the murders and serial killers in jail will single you out as subhuman and likely take your life before long. To suggest that most men think rape is acceptable is to suggest most men don't have this same innate moral sense that you do. You have to convince your self that the majority of the male population is subhuman to hold the belief.

Move along , nothing to see here.

[sinij]

This must be another of these fake outrage threads.

Re:Move along , nothing to see here.

[lbmouse]

Well, it does belong perfectly in SRS over on Reddit.

Re:Yeah, but....

[sabri]

women are also bitches.

So what? You're an asshole. That does not give me the right to take your life.

Fuck you

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy went to the gym and loved to go out and take pics of himself and his BMW. He was not a nerd.
You will have to use the Asians or autists as scapegoats because we are not taking the fall for this one. Go to hell you piece of shit.

this dude is trying like hell to get laid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wonder how its working out for him after this.

I've been under a rock...

[MindPrison]

...most of my life, obviously - because I don't ever recall EVER seeing a geek/nerd in my circles stalking anyone, threatening a girl and never mind hitting one. I'd say they'd improve their life if they even TRIED to HIT on any woman at all.

Most of those I know are frightened at the very concept of dating, pretty socially awkward I guess, but kind and gentle caring people who wouldn't even DREAM of hurting anyone. Sure, they'll kick your mental-a** and hurt your coding feelings by pointing out the numerous bugs in your code, and flaws in your theories, and possibly sweep the floor with your ego in gaming, but no way they'd ever even lift a finger to actually hurt you.

Nerds are usually unsure of themselves, usually excellent at SOMETHING and not so much at everything else. This is usually because they have spent so much time coding and learning very complicated stuff that takes a LONG time of anyone's life, so it's bound to steal some time from the usual life that just about anyone else live, learning the ropes of networking and social skills.

I must have been living under a rock the last 30 years or so.

Re:I've been under a rock...

[tthomas48]

Well. You can go ahead and just read this comment thread for a start. All the people and reactions he mentions are in this comment thread in spades.

Misogyny, Entitlement, and [other classifier]

[jeffb (2.718)]

So, while the main threads of this discussion will certainly have no trouble sustaining combustion, what happens if we change the title to:

Misogyny, Entitlement, and Muslims

Misogyny, Entitlement, and Hispanics

Misogyny, Entitlement, and The 1%

Is it still open season on Nerds? Will I not get in trouble for binding "those people" to Nerds, as opposed to Blacks, or Jews, or... ?

Re:Misogyny, Entitlement, and [other classifier]

[Anonymous Coward]

They did the title that way because they're using the same tactics Gawker does. Post a headline that's intentionally controversial and contains opinions that are almost guaranteed to piss people off in order to bait people into clicking on their articles. Kotaku does this ALL THE TIME with video games. For instance, one of their most famed commentators is Patricia Hernandez, who frequently posts articles about how popular games are "sexist" and people should be ashamed to be playing them. Does Patricia Hernandez care about sexism? Maybe, who knows. Does Patricia Hernandez get paid by the number of clicks, and thus ad impressions, on her article? Yes, she does, and she likely cares more about her paycheck than calling out sexism that isn't there.

There's also people like Jason Schrier, who was outspoken about how sexist Dragon's Crown was (mostly for the large-breasted sorceress character). The artist behind the game did everything on purpose to give the characters unique silhouettes (since it's a Shadows over Mystara style action game), but Schrier wrote article after article about it, each one garnering thousands of clicks from people who clicked the article merely to tell him off. He actually garnered several thousand hits about how he was going to boycott one of the major trade shows/conventions (I think it might've been PAX) because the press passes for that featured art from Dragon's Crown on them.

Does Jason Schrier care about sexism? No, probably not, and most feminists would probably reject him simply for being male. Does he care about his paycheck? Hell yes he does.

There have been numerous articles examining Gawker's clickbaiting behavior, and this seems to be more of the same.

Re:Misogyny, Entitlement, and [other classifier]

[gstoddart]

This is such an underrated post. The logic behind "groups we are allowed to stereotype/insult" and "groups we aren't allowed to stereotype/insult" appears very flimsy to me.

Well, it goes something like this ... you are free to stereotype/insult any group you are a member of more or less with impunity. :-P

You may seriously piss people off if you do it about a group you are not a member of.

Neither is more accurate (they're both probably wrong), but you can at least say "hey, wait a minute, I am a whatever, and I actually believe I know what I'm talking about."

So, I can stereotype middle aged, over weight nerds any time I want. ;-)

I also have black friends, who are allowed to say many many things I wouldn't even consider saying. And, just as often, I find their stereotypes to be just as absurd as anybody else's.

And the same is true for my Indian friends. And my Chinese friends. And my Jewish friends. And my gay friends. They are all 'allowed' to (and often do) make the most absurd generalizations about their own group and it's 'okay', it's considered the opinion of an insider.

That the stereotypes are often wrong or somewhat insulting matters less when you're part of that group.

I don't know why /. keeps posting this tripe.

[spads]

And I am really not in the mood to exhaust myself (to some measureable extent) (once more) (is that the actual intent???) refuting A, B, C, and D,..., in such as this standard, packaged doggerel. Perhaps I will at least read the thing (first line or two) at some point, given some level of boredom.

All I can say, is learn to think for yourself, see what makes sense to you, do your best to comport yourself in a reasonable way, all things considered.

Heraclitus: Latent structure is master of obvious structure.

Neil Young: There's more to the picture, than meets the eye, hey-hey, my-my.

Andersen: The Emperor has no clothes!

Wow

[Poorcku]

"No, not the straw man that all men are constantly plotting rape, but that we live in an entitlement culture where guys think they need to be having sex with girls in order to be happy and fulfilled." I really don't know where to begin and which line of thought should i follow when answering this idiotic sentence. From the meta-level fact that we as a species need to have sex in order to survive? From the evolutionary point of view, where lust is a mechanism of encouraging and rewarding intercourse? From the psychological point of view where the need for intimacy self-fulfillment and for high self-esteem is highly entangled with need of finding a partner? So "what the fuck is wrong with us?". Maybe the correct question is: "what the fuck is wrong with him?"

Re:Wow

[misexistentialist]

It's the toxic idea that everything is the result of social attitudes and can therefore be optimized through social engineering. Such people will claim "race doesn't exist", "men and women are the same", "everyone deserves a comfortable wage" etc. with a straight face. Which is actually the same delusional mindset of Rodger, who wanted the government to make sex illegal.

You know what'll help?

[kruach aum]

Telling people who feel like Elliot Rodger that they're not a victim. This will help because 1) they'll believe it, and 2) believing it will solve their issues with reality.

Or perhaps not.

Perhaps it will simply fuel their hatred even more, because now they're even having the reality of their emotions denied, as if they're somehow defective in that respect too.

Assigning victims and victimizers here is completely irrelevant to finding out what's actually wrong with this situation, and how to fix it.

Re:You know what'll help?

[Immerman]

I beg to differ, one of the qualities of delusions is that they can stand strong in the face of evidence against them, but generally speaking they are hardly indestructible. And despite your assertion having the foundations of your ego demolished does not necessarily drive one to suicide, and in fact it can be very liberating. Emotionally devastating of course, but you find yourself standing in the ruins of your ego, having in a sense just experienced the death of the thing you have long called yourself. But of course you're obviously not dead, and that opens the door to realizing that "you" are something considerably more subtle and fluid than you believed, and capable of growth and change in directions previously unimagined while still remaining essentially "you". It's actually a not-uncommon "trick" among some Buddhist masters to logically drive their students to the realization that everything they believe and have built their life upon is false, opening them to fundamentally alter the way they perceive themselves and the the universe.

It's actually an experience I would recommend to anyone unhappy with their life - after all if the ugly guy living on a few dollars a month in some third-world nation can find reason to smile then clearly your inability to do so originates in *you*, not the surrounding world. And more than likely it resides not within the spark of consciousness itself, but in the self-description and world-description you've built up over a lifetime, both of which are going to be deeply delusional. Consider: you don't today understand how the world operates, not really. You don't even really understand how your own psyche works. And the foundations for your internal description of both were laid when you were far more ignorant and naive than you are today.

It's not about being a "nerd"...

[NitzJaaron]

...it's about how you were raised, what ethics and morals were instilled in your most influential years, and your overall social development. Being a "nerd" or a "geek" has nothing to do with it, except that it's generally more normal for people who are classified as such to have been socially outcast or on the fringe at some point in their early (pre-adult) lives.

This guy was a complete a-hole, that's a given. He was also from a wealthy family and had a tremendous sense of entitlement. I'd venture that a good part of his misogyny has a basis in that upbringing and entitled lifestyle.

Let's leave the labels out of it and have a real discussion about mental health and social attitudes for a change.

I don't think 'nerds' are capable of rape...

[Anonymous Coward]

What is this bullshit? Why is he talking about "us", how dare he try to include ALL men in this rubbish. Perhaps he needs to find better friends?

The correct term is Pathological Narcissist.

[LWATCDR]

Really people you have it backwards the cause was no misogyny that is a symptom.
If this guy had been gay he would have hated men that did not want to sleep with him.
If this person had been a straight woman she would have hated men that would not sleep with her.
If this person had been a gay woman she would have hated women that would not sleep with her.

They key here is Narcissist. It is selfishness taken to a pathological level. People like that hate those that do not give them what they want.

Re:The correct term is Pathological Narcissist.

[bluefoxlucid]

If this guy had been gay he would have hated men that did not want to sleep with him.

I had a 50-ish year old dude call me an arrogant little twatwaddle for thinking I wouldn't enjoy him giving me a blowjob. He said he's been suckin' off straight dudes since high school or some stupid thing so he knows I'm just being a prick.

He told me age brings experience and understanding. I told him age makes him old; understanding comes from correctly interpreting experience, up to and including knowing its boundaries. He wrote back a hilarious 4 page single-paragraph rant.

There was a time when I felt it was inappropriate to consider myself superior in earnest. Eventually I realized it's important to know where you stand, and where you don't; refusing to acknowledge the truth is always ignorance.

Re:The correct term is Pathological Narcissist.

[LWATCDR]

That was way too long of a conversation you had. I would have said no, go away.
No one should have deal that kind of harassment from any gender.

Re:Yeah, but....

[OakDragon]

Boy, that escalated quickly.

Stupid Blame Game

[Mullen]

Why is Elliot Rodger being put into the Nerd category? I have not seen anything on this guy that would put him in the Geek or Nerd category. What languages did he code in? What con's did he attend? What was his comic book/manga collection like? What technical degree's did he hold? This discussion has nothing to do with "misogyny entitlement nerds" but a genuine crazy kid.

Just because some guy is a Asperger social reject does not put him into the category of nerd or geek. Elliot has major issues and he blamed women and people who had social skills for his troubles. He was an entitled little shit who thought having a BMW, traveling the world and wearing $500 sweaters would automatically get him the girls. It turns out he lacked the one major component in the Get The Girl Formula that you really need, a personality. He found an outlet in Men's Rights/The Red Pill/Misogyny but he could have found an outlet in any of the other shitty beliefs that exist in our society like 9/11 conspiracies, Little Green Men and the Black President is from Kenya. Blaming a sub collection of a sub portion of our culture is not going to find the answer to the complex problem of what to do with truly mentally ill people.

Re:Stupid Blame Game

[emblemparade]

Why not read TFA?

Chu is using the opportunity that mysogyny is in the spotlight to discuss the problem of mysogyny in his own community, through his own personal experience.

He is not saying that Rodger is a nerd.

Seriously, read TFA, it's a thoughftul piece.

Misandry and Mental Health

[Anonymous Coward]

So much of what is coming out of #YesAllWomen is misandry disguised as fighting misogyny. Firefox is telling me misandry isn't even a word for crying out loud.

Elliot Rodger was a mental health issue, it had nothing to do with gender. Whether he got his orders from The Beatles backwards music, Allah or porn culture, the fact is he was mentally broken. Shame on the media and shame on you for distracting from the problem, mental health issues, and making it a gender issue just to get more tweets.

Despite men in the U.S. suffering violent death at a rate more than three times that of women we get campaigns to end violence, but only against women.

He could have gotten laid for less than the cost of the gun. He could have killed just women rather than more men then women. He didn't. Misogyny is an excuse, a convenient one for people to express their misandry.

Re:Yeah, but....

[KingOfBLASH]

That's because this entire submission should be modded -5 Flamebait

Is it me or is slashdot in real decline ?

[nomad63]

This is the 3rd post I am reading today, that has nothing to do with technology other than talking about an angry geek (this particular post, other are just similar). I knew the posting quality will decline after the resignation of R. Malda, but this is becoming ridiculous lately. Is this me or other old timers are feeling the same ?

Re:Open season on the white male

[ganjadude]

i cant speak for the OP, but hes not wrong. Every night there are murders that happen (yes... with a gun!) in chicago and DC and LA etc etc. We never see al sharpton or the talking heads on CNN or foxnews ever talk about those murders. We dont have congressmen pretending to all of a sudden care when a gang banger takes out another gangbanger, or worse hits an innocent bystander.

Every single day more people ar ekilled with guns due to gang violence than happened by this one sick fuck, yet we focus on the sick fuck rather than on gang culture??

Re:Yeah, but....

[DaveV1.0]

Yes, because every mean outburst against a woman ends with her dead. Oh, wait, no it doesn't. Now, stop being an asshole.

Dear Arthur Chu

[NaCh0]

Writing anti-male missives won't get you laid.

Hopping on the misogyny bandwagon will not get you laid.

Until you understand the differences of what women say versus how they act, you will continue to be powerless in your quest for attention.

http://www.returnofkings.com/3...

Re:Yeah, but....

[ShanghaiBill]

Boy, that escalated quickly.

Because this whole discussion is silly. Plenty of nerds are misogynistic jerks. But plenty of non-nerds are as well, and I have seen NO evidence that it is any more common among nerds than among the population in general. In the absence of evidence, associating "nerd culture" with misogynism is just stupid.

Throughout my career, I have worked with many engineers, programmers, and other nerds. My experience is that they are the least misogynistic people I have ever met, and they have mostly been polite, professional, and welcoming to their female co-workers. Have you ever worked with salesmen? Or construction workers? Nerds are saints by comparison.

How was he a "nerd?"

[spintriae]

It’s a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto, except for the part

Except for the part where it isn't. The manifesto is a lot of things. It's a case study in narcissistic personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, social anxiety disorder...you name it, it's in there, and you can spin it however you want.

The kid played WoW, so he must be a geek.

Never mind that he didn't excel in academics, that he never showed any interest in science, mathematics or technology, that he took a handful of liberal arts courses that he had to drop because the only thing he could concentrate on were girls. Does that sound like a geek? No, to me it pretty much sounds like everybody who isn't a geek.

Re:stupidest things possible

[gstoddart]

Dude, seriously, do you not have an emacs mode to tell you it's vi?

Friggin' emacs users, without an electric mode to do it for you, you can't do a damned thing on your own. ;-)

The funniest thing I ever saw was an emacs user stuck on a client site at the console of a Solaris machine which only had vi.

The whining was just pathetic ... but I neeeeed eeeemacs to get any wooooork done. Boo hoo. He was more productive when he couldn't type.

Ah, good times.

Re:Yeah, but....

[phoenix03]

Is there a way to get this submission removed? There is so much wrong with this idiotic article. It doesn't belong on Slashdot.

As Jim Morrison said...

[Anonymous Coward]

..."women seem wicked when you're unwanted."

Telling a bunch of people to "just stop" fails to address the underlying causes.

Geeks are frustrated because they don't have good luck with women. Rejection and loneliness results in the misogyny and creepiness lamented here. As a matter of mental self-defense, geeks decide that women are turned off by intelligence, and they (despite themselves) go around demanding that women should smarten-up and start finding intelligence sexy. Well, this is incorrect.

Women aren't turned off by intelligence. They are turned off by constantly being made to feel stupid. They are also turned off by bad social skills, bad physical health, and the inclination to play video games and study all day every day (rather than going out and doing something fun with friends).

If you want to get a real girlfriend, you are going to have to get over your sense of superiority, practice authentic humility, and be ready to give up a lot of your video-game time and study-time to instead go out on social events with a group of mutual friends, on a regular basis. Clean up your act, become what women want, and *then* you might get one. If you aren't willing to do this, then you have no business demanding that women start putting up with a bunch of stuff they don't like so they can have the privilege of being with you.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[Shakrai]

Geeks are frustrated because they don't have good luck with women.

Introverts don't have good luck with the ladies, regardless of how geeky they are. As you correctly note, making new friends (platonic and otherwise) requires putting yourself out there, which is very difficult for an introverted personality to do.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[Vyse of Arcadia]

study all day every day

ready to give up a lot of your ... study-time

I don't think that word means what you think it does. In my experience, nerd culture is more about cramming random science-y trivia facts into your skull than it is the dedicated pursuit of knowledge. Might as well say I study the back of the cereal box every morning. (Spoiler alert, they're still after his lucky charms.)

Also, it seems like there's a bit stereotyping underlying your post. Guess what, men are also turned off by constantly being made to feel stupid. They are also turned off by bad social skills, bad physical health, and the inclination to play video games and study all day every day (rather than going out and doing something fun with friends).

I don't think the dividing line here is men/women. I don't know that it's even geeks/non-geeks. Maybe it's closer to extroverts/introverts. Really what it seems like to me is that a minority of people who are dedicated to their hobbies are looked down on by people who pursue those hobbies only casually (or not at all.) Model train enthusiasts are going to have the same problems as video game geeks if they don't throw a little moderation into their lives. It's just that the latter is more common.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[ADRA]

Its all very true, but the reverse is also true. Its not just men that aren't hooking up. There are far too many women unable or unwilling to get to know men outside of their comfort zone and will often not connect with the right guys now or ever. They will still date the same douche bag cheating assholes they always have becasuse that's all they've ever dealt with, and maybe they finally get the chance to meet a good guy and either he doesn't meet her impossibly high standards, or else she just thinks he's gay, or weak, or whatever.

Are pooly socialized men bad at dating? YES. Are poorly socialized women bad at dating? YES. Next topic.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[Bengie]

Women aren't turned off by intelligence. They are turned off by constantly being made to feel stupid. They are also turned off by bad social skills, bad physical health, and the inclination to play video games and study all day every day (rather than going out and doing something fun with friends).

I can understand where he's coming from. Most women I've met fall under one of two categories, are smart and already taken by a significant other that they've known for decades, or boyfriend hopping because they want a "fun" guy which means they are not responsible and not marriage or father material.

My guess is he's talking about the second type. They complain about how all the guys they date turn out to be jerks, but they don't give a geek/nerd the time of day because they're not socially "fun". In my experience, many of these women seem to just need attention because of a lack of confidence in themselves. They don't like spending time with family and like to get drunk and party or talk about how horrible their life is.

Maybe if they stayed home and found some video games that are fun to play with their socially awkward boyfriend, they'd be more happy.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[LoRdTAW]

I suppose I am the stereotypical geek (hate the label but whatever) and most of this is my opinion and perception of being a geek. So here goes...

Geeks are frustrated because they don't have good luck with women. Rejection and loneliness results in the misogyny and creepiness lamented here. As a matter of mental self-defense, geeks decide that women are turned off by intelligence, and they (despite themselves) go around demanding that women should smarten-up and start finding intelligence sexy. Well, this is incorrect.

I don't think many of us geeks really try to talk to enough girls to even begin to call it luck. Its hard to explain but ill try. Geeks are mostly very intelligent people. And our intelligence usually means we probably have some sort of disorder which makes us obsess over our hobbies. Its a good thing in that we have the drive to go after very complex problems. We use our knowledge and skills to solve those complex problems that many people cant even begin to understand. And sometimes it leads to a feeling of superiority: "I can design a 3 phase brushless motor drive in my sleep but these fucking pudding brained jocks get all the girls! WTF!" The problem isn't the jocks or the girls, its you. You spent all of your time obsessing over your hobbies that you never bothered to even try to say "Hey, aren't you in my class with professor Bumblebee? bla bla bla nice day today... bla bla... btw I love that book your reading there bla bla bla..." But often it is also that we aren't exactly alpha males either. So we have a poor self image and feel that we don't stand a chance. That or we are too shy/awkward/anxious etc. So we internalize and build more motor drives, software and whatnot to try and prove ourselves without ever actually proving anything to anyone but ourselves. (Am I making any sense here?) Bottom line is we need to suck it up and just go and talk to girls. Even if its just to make some small talk. But even small talk eludes us as small talk for us is Terry Pratchett, Why X programming language sucks/rules or that we bought a new FPGA dev board to implement a damn motor drive. We have to put our crazy hobbies aside and think simple. Not because the girl is simple but to give you a more common ground to lead into a conversation. Maybe it will lead to something very interesting. But that maybe wont come if we don't try.

Women aren't turned off by intelligence. They are turned off by constantly being made to feel stupid. They are also turned off by bad social skills, bad physical health, and the inclination to play video games and study all day every day (rather than going out and doing something fun with friends).

This is part of the superiority complex that develops when we get mad at ourselves for not trying. So we blame them instead of admitting we are the fuck ups. Bad social skills aren't bad social skills. We can socialize with each other just fine as we share common hobbies and therefor can comfortably talk to each other. What we consider interesting might be boring, looked down upon (the whole "this shit is for nerds" nonsense, a social problem) or beyond most peoples understanding. The sloppy hygiene is a result of poor parenting, period. I was raised to brush my teeth daily, shower regularly, wear clean clothes etc. I do let myself get a little sloppy looking but that is when I am just doing whatever. When I go out I clean up, fix my hair and try to dress nice. Most of the time us geeks look at fashion and hygiene as a nuisance that just gets in the way of another 100 lines of code or 20 more pages in a good book. We just need a little discipline.

If you want to get a real girlfriend, you are going to have to get over your sense of superiority, practice authentic humility, and be ready to give up a lot of your video-game time and study-time to instead go out on social events with a group of mutual friends, on a regular basis. Clean up your act, become what women want, and

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[AmiMoJo]

Spot on. When you listen to Rodger's manifesto it's clear he has no real idea what women like in men, what makes them want to date and have sex with them. He considers himself the "perfect gentleman", but never talks about his good friendships with women or socialising with them. In all the stories in the media about him you never hear about him having close female friends. Big surprise, if some random guy who mostly keeps himself to himself and you know little about asks you out one day chances are the response won't be yes.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[RabidReindeer]

There are also a lot of women who expect "Mr. Perfect" and won't have anything to do with lesser life forms. Me, I would have been fairly happy just finding someone showing an interest who wasn't heavier than I was.

I don't know that I was bad at dating. No one would seriously consider me for a date until they'd grown old enough to be fed up with the abusive guys.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[badboy_tw2002]

I have a feeling your sample set is pretty small.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[serviscope_minor]

type. They complain about how all the guys they date turn out to be jerks, but they don't give a geek/nerd the time of day because they're not socially "fun"

I'm not entirely sure why you put fun in inverted commas there. Geek or not, being boring is not a socially attractive quality. If the person you're attempting to date finds you boring within the first date, then it is not ever going to be a working proposition.

they want a "fun" guy which means they are not responsible and not marriage or father material.

I cannot think of anything worse tha being stuck with a dullard for the rest of my life. Well, at that point since fatherhood appears to be involved, it would be 18 years I guess so the kid is grown before getting a divorce.

You are making a false dihotomy between fun people and people suitable for a long term relationship. It's not just a false dichotomy, it's also the mirror inverse of the truth. To have a successful long term relationship you have to be able to have fun together.

Maybe if they stayed home and found some video games that are fun to play with their socially awkward boyfriend, they'd be more happy.

Jesus christ man, how whiny can you get. The onus is on BOTH of you. BOTH of you.

No one, but no one is going to share every interest you have. If your only interest is video games, well, that's going to be a problem. Even if you do find a girl whose only interest is video games, that's going to get tedious after a while since video games isn't enough to sustain a lifetime of partnership.

They don't like spending time with family and like to get drunk and party or talk about how horrible their life is.

Yeah so, they have one interest and it's really bloody boring and tedious, right? Well yes you are right. But that's the same for you. If all you want to do is sit aroud and play video games then you're ever bit as boring and tedious.

The key: be a more iteresting person. Then seek out other, more interesting people.

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[Grishnakh]

It's a little difficult, but speaking as an introvert myself, it's not that hard, I just have to do it in limited doses to avoid overtaxing myself. I've had no trouble going on social outings, using dating websites, etc. I even managed to get married. But I certainly never managed to bed loads of women in my younger years like other men could.

I think it's more that just "putting yourself out there". There's various social cues that the successful men innately understand, which introverted men just plain don't. So we come off as "awkward", and don't understand why successful men can walk up to pretty women, strike up a conversation, and take her home to bed, and when the introverts try the exact same thing, they get nowhere (or worse, denigrated as "creepy").

Re:As Jim Morrison said...

[Shakrai]

So we come off as "awkward", and don't understand why successful men can walk up to pretty women, strike up a conversation, and take her home to bed, and when the introverts try the exact same thing, they get nowhere (or worse, denigrated as "creepy").

I would posit that you've already lost if you're deriving your self-esteem from one night stands. In fairness, it took me a long time to come to that realization, and I never would have accepted it as a virgin (*), but once I learned that life lesson it was very liberating. I've had the best sex of my life in medium/long-term relationships. Hook-ups and flings? Eh, they meet a biological need, but so does porn and a bottle of Astroglide.

As it is I've been without since last September. It sucks from the aforementioned biological standpoint (whatever did people do before the internet?), but my last relationship was with a complete psychopath, that I rushed into because it seemed better than being alone, and I have no desire to repeat that experience. I'll meet someone when the time is right, until then, well, there are other outlets for sexual frustration. Exercise helps a lot, and comes with the added advantages of making you more attractive and increasing your life expectancy.

(*) I lost my virginity late, by American male standards, at 23. I'm 32 now, so I invite the reader to take my "wisdom" for what it's worth.

I'm not taking responsibility for Elliot Rodgers.

[hey!]

First of all, let's point out the obvious: Rodgers killed twice as many men as women.

Which doesn't mean I'm saying violence against women isn't a serious problem, or that I don't care about the two women he killed. Gad are we really that simple-minded that it has to be one or the other? I'm only saying that Rodgers shouldn't be held up as THE paradigm for the way men treat women. Rodgers knew when he posted his manifesto that he was, in effect, writing his own obituary. He deliberately framed his future actions in full, cynical knowledge of society's sexism.

Let me make what should be an obvious point here: we shouldn't accept Rodgers' framing of his actions, for the simple reason he was a twisted person with a nasty agenda. Yes, his stated views on women were ugly, but going by his actions he hated *humanity* and chose targets of opportunity. He not only robbed James Hong, George Chen, David Wang and Christopher Michael-Martinez of collectively some two hundred years of lifespan. He successfully exploited our knee-jerk credulity so as to erase those kids from our consciousness as victims of his crimes.

As for "what is wrong with nerds?", that begs the question. Is there a problem with "nerds"? What is a "nerd" anyway?

The reason for media nerd chic is that feeling marginalized is ironically something most people can identify with. So is feeling emotionally vulnerable, and sometimes even isolated. And we all make regrettable and sometimes embarrassing mistakes in conducting our relationships with other people. But that doesn't mean we can't understand that "no means no", or that it's unpleasant and threatening to have unwanted attentions forced on you.

So if by "nerd" you mean "aggressively unpleasant person who blames other people for their reaction to his obnoxious behavior," well most of us aren't that kind of "nerd". The blockhead opinions of people like that have nothing to do with us.

If by "nerd" you mean "non-coformist who'd rather live with some degree of social marginalization than not act like himself," then you have to show us that this is tantamount to being an obnoxious and possibly violent twerp, which I don't think it is.

Those idiots who cheered Rodgers on are not my fault either. Maybe they're in part my problem, as they are a problem for everyone who has to live in the same society as they do. I may feel *concern* over their actions, but I don't feel a shred of guilt. Somebody else made them blockheads, not me.

Re: Yeah, but....

[xanthines-R-yummy]

Women are human beings. And YOU are an ass. There, fixed that for you.

Re:Yeah, but....

[DoofusOfDeath]

Boy, that escalated quickly.

It could be worse. Someone could have brought up Hitler. ...

Dammit.

Re:Yeah, but....

[NatasRevol]

You are the exact reason it does.

Re:99 nerds polite to females

[dskoll]

And the number of assholes is way under 1%.

You may be right. But it's also above 0.1%, which in any decent-sized convention is enough to ensure a few assholes. What's more important is that almost all the times, the assholes' assholey behavior towards women is not challenged by the non-assholes present. They tend to just watch.

I base this on having attended a few conventions with female colleagues and observing how they are treated. There's a sufficiently-high number of misogynists in geek culture and a distressingly-high number of apathetic bystanders to make many tech conventions pretty unwelcoming for women.

Re:Rinse Lather Repeat.

[Chatsubo]

I wasn't going to post in this thread because honestly I believe topics like this are lose-lose. But then I read this and.... logic like this not only illustrates that exact point, but it also burns my neurons: if geeks agree, they're agreeing to being rapists. If they don't agree, they're just defending their misogyny (and hence are rapists). Glad to see this isn't a witch-hunt...

Are you sure?

[JerryLove]

"We are not the ones who have our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly by other people's entitlement. We're not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.'"

Are you sure?

I mean: I've never been raped. That's a legitimate fear of many women that I'm unlikely to experience outside the penal system. But I've been shoved into walls. I've been dumped in a trash can (that was when I was 5 years old). I've had notebooks knocked from me, signs put on me, been punched, kicked, had my property vandalized, been ridiculed publicly, shot with a slingshot, hit with a car.... all for having been the different kid. All for having been the nerd.

Will I ever *really* know what it's like to be a woman? No. Will a straght woman know what a homosexual man goes through? Will a white person understand the plight of a black one? Will the Jock understand the Nerd? No. Will an American Christian understand the Muslim, Wiccan, or Athiest? No.

There are a lot of cultures of violence; not just the one against women. There are a lot of cultures that dehumanize, not just the one that dehumanizes women. The talking heads on this subject take an unjustified position of universal and unique persecution. Men should look at women as people, while simultaniously the talking head saying it doesn't look at men as people.

And as to this narccissitic murderer. I've no doubt he was masogynist, but it's wrong to say that he was the product of that culture. I've seen this guy before. He's the two kids at Columbine. He's the postal worker that went after his bosses. He suffers from narccissism and a feeling of persecution (which may have at least some level of truth) and blames others for his misfortune. In Columbine it was jocks. With many, it's their boss or neighbor. For this kid it was women (among others: He also lashes out at a lack of friends. IIRC: The majority of his victims were male).

So yes: There's a real problem with a culture in the US that dehumanizes women. It's real. It's bad. It needs to be fixed. It is, however, not unique; and it is not the reason for this particular murder spree.

Re:Yeah, but....

[phoenix03]

Great argument. Made an awesome showing of yourself there. Go man-hate somewhere else.

Ground down

[scaramush]

I haven't posted on Slashdot in years, but the response to this story made me want to come out of the woodwork.

So far In the comments I've seen:
--He isn't really a nerd! NOFP!
--Nerds don't hit on girls, so NOFP!
--He's using a stereotype! I'm not that guy, so NMFP!

I'm a woman working in a technical field and I've been at this game since 1996. In my current company, the men here outnumber me 9-1. When you add in a love of geeky pursuits (at one convention, I remember counting 3 women in a group of 500 men), I've spent a lot of time being one of the guys.

In the beginning, it was exciting -- thrilling!-- to be the only woman in a meeting. I was the exception! I was going to make it! I was better than those girly-girls with their silly pursuits. But, not only do I realize that was a stupid-ass position that reinforced the perceptions of women's interests being lesser than men, I'm just tired of it. Tired of little backhanded bullshit comments. Tired of having to laugh at stupid sexist shit to be one of the boys. And especially tired of being told there's no problem. And this is not just me. Again, it's necessarily a small data pool (see % above), but I've never met a woman who didn't have at least 3 stories about bullshit at work. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

Again, it's not that I can't hack it. I can. This isn't a poor me, come and save me post. At this point, my hide is tempered steel -- fucking bring it, world. It's that I shouldn't have to, and as I said above, it's fucking exhausting.

And it's more than just eating shit at work: We live in a world where literally yesterday a woman was stoned to death by her family for failing to live her life they way they wanted. (http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/28/world/asia/pakistan-pregnant-woman-killed/) . Our culture shames a woman for accepting sexual advances and blames her if she rejects them (http://nypost.com/cover/#covers-1401159702). There is literally no way to win as a woman.

Look, guys. Even if you've done a ton of soul searching, and you genuinely believe you're not part of the problem, go to the next step. The women around you are hurting. They're exhausted. They're being gaslighted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting) left, right and center. So if you genuinely think you're not making things works, figure out how to make it better. Find a woman to mentor. If you're in a meeting, and a woman's voice isn't getting heard, help her (although, please avoid mansplaining (i.e. "What Jane really means to say is...."). If someone say some bullshit about women in your workplace, call them out on it.

Sorry for this long cri de coeur, but you guys are my peeps and the responses broke my heart. You're my guys, my people, my tribe. Can't you back us up?

Re:Ground down

[PvtVoid]

Sorry for this long cri de coeur, but you guys are my peeps and the responses broke my heart.

Thanks for posting. Brave thing to do in this sort of toxic environment.

Re:Ground down

[kick6]

And the shit thing is, even after all that progress, they still have to put up with you

Yup, they do. And they should be thankful for it. On the scale of grievances women have to put up with, a few guys like me who don't immediately resort to white-knighting the fuck out of every female because she happened to blessed by the goddess with a vagina at birth is so incredibly minor, that it falls well below the irritation men have to deal with by not being allowed to be actual men for fear that it might make women uncomfortable. But this goes without saying as there's no ideology that surmises that siding with men might grant you sexual favors from women. Which is the key mantra of the white knight.

Re:Ground down

[joe_frisch]

I believe you that you have problems at your work. That shouldn't happen. One thing you can do though is to take your talent to a place where you will be treated well. Where I work (a DOE lab) there really is very little visible sexism. We have female scientists and managers, and until recently a female director. We encourage young women to start careers here through a variety of mentoring programs, though sadly not very many stay (for reasons that I think are unrelated to sexism). I'm not saying that I've never heard a sexist comment, but its really rare (I can think of only a few examples in 25 years), and the people who made them have been appropriately reprimanded.

I'm not saying that you *should* leave your work or that it is in any way your fault or responsibility. Its just that people can only fix things within their own sphere of influence. I can do my best to make sure women are treated well here, but there really is very little I can to to see that that happens at other companies.

There is probably a tendency for men and women who do not like sexist environments to move to better ones and that can lead to a large disparity between "good" and "bad" work environments.The people in each may have trouble believing that the other exists. In a similar way, people who are not sexist will not associate with people who are, with the unfortunate result that the lose influence over them. My friends are not visibly sexist because I won't associate with people who are.

I think there are a lot of people who are doing the right things in environments where women are treated well. By self selection they wind up having very little contact with places where women are treated badly.

So, to sum this up.

[DaveV1.0]

This is what I get out of these articles:

Men, especially nerds, are horrible, mean, vicious people and all men should be treated as such at all times. Women, on the other hands, are always innocent victims of abuse, are always under threat, and must live their lives like they are about to be raped because men.

So, women, do us all a favor, and just stop. Stop interacting with men. Stop talking to men, stop dating men, stop having sex with men, stop marrying men. Just stop, because if you hate and fear men so much that is exactly what any sane person would do.

I am so fucking sick and tired of hearing how there is something intrinsically wrong with me and that I should be feared because I have a Y chromosome. Fuck you too. I haven't hit, let alone raped, any woman, ever. I have been hit three times by a woman and not once did I retaliate as I could have. I took it. But, if I had hit her back, I would have been the bad guy.

If women wouldn't reward the behavior of bad men, then there wouldn't be so many bad men, but, as we know, women love bad boys right up until that bad boy is bad to them. When that happens to a woman, she thinks back to all the bad men she has dated and concludes all men are bad because the problem couldn't possibly her and her choices.

Don't want to be abused or get raped? Don't be friends with or date immature, over-entitled, sociopathic bad boys with a history of hurting other people including women. Start looking at character instead of abs, or clothes, or height or cars. Stop going to clubs, getting wasted, and giving your number to that hot guy in the sick shirt, let alone banging him in a one night stand. Find a better place to meet guys or shut the fuck up about how horrible the men you fuck are because that is you having shallow and/or bad taste.

Oh, and when you get drunk and then go home and fuck a guy, you weren't raped. You were irresponsible. If you can't keep your panties on and legs closed when you get drunk, don't get drunk.

Re:So, to sum this up.

[Uberbah]

Citation needed. Pretty sure that's not true.

Pretty easily to verify with Google:

More men are raped in the U.S. than woman, according to figures that include sexual abuse in prisons.

In 2008, it was estimated 216,000 inmates were sexually assaulted while serving time, according to the Department of Justice figures. That is compared to 90,479 rape cases outside of prison.

And that's just from prisons. There's also more men assaulted in the military:

Preventing sexual assault has frequently been framed as a women's rights issue in coverage over the past year, but the numbers show that it is very much a problem that cuts across genders. In an analysis of the final data, the Associated Press found that in terms of sheer numbers, there were many more men who were victims of assault in 2013 than women. "About 6.8 percent of women surveyed said they were assaulted and 1.2 percent of the men," the AP reports. âoeBut there are vastly more men in the military; by the raw numbers, a bit more than 12,000 women said they were assaulted, compared with nearly 14,000 men.â

To which there is a frequent "yeahbut women under-report rape", to which there is an easy "and that's different from men how"? That's 14,000 men in a macho man-up culture that have admitted to rape, so the real number is going to be much higher as well.

Re:Yeah, but....

[Beck_Neard]

The difference is that those groups aren't as self-blaming as nerds are, and they aren't so quick to take the bait. It's like if you gathered a bunch of guys in a room and shouted "misogynist!" and the nerd amongst them said, "I'm sorry!" even though he didn't really do anything.

Re:Yeah, but....

[DoofusOfDeath]

Boy, that escalated quickly.

It could be worse. Someone could have brought up Hitler. ...

Dammit.

No worries, it doesn't count as a Godwin until you actually compare someone to Hitler.

Carry on.

What are you, some kind of meme Nazi???

Re:That's not a proof of a widespread anything...

[BilI_the_Engineer]

And those comments show why the "for the children" crowd is full of brain dead thugs. If the topic of pedophiles even comes up, they react with violence and mindless persecution. Look at how it's suggested that pedophiles--even those who have raped no one--should be murdered. They don't even know what a pedophile is.

There are few groups more terrifying than the "for the children" crowd, who will sacrifice everyone's fundamental liberties, demonize mere thoughts, and murder innocents if they think it will protect some children.

Not my horse, not my wagon

[holophrastic]

This all falls well within the not-my-problem camp. There are problems in this world that are not mine, nor are they not my responsibility to solve. There are plenty of women alive to solve them. And if 1 in 6 have this problem, then there are literally hundreds of millions to solve them. Why the hell do you need me to do anything? If 1 in 6 women is too lazy to do anything about it, then really it doesn't fall on me to solve the problem for them.

I've got problems of my own, and I don't ask 1 in 6 women to solve them for me. I think they are more than capable of solving this one for themselves.

Last I checked, male university students don't get free escorts home at night, yet female university students around here do.

Me solving their problems would go against everything they fought for. I supported women's equal rights. Let them enjoy their equal rights.

They have the equal right to solve their own problems. I sure as hell won't fight their battles for them.

Talk about shaming language

[epyT-R]

1. There is no such thing as 'rape culture' or 'patriarchy.' In any other circumstance we'd view this kind of thinking as conspiracy. Like the other marxist isms, feminism needs a bogey man to justify the crazy inroads it demands on the 'oppressor' class, ie men. It needs to be something illusory, diffuse and easily redefinable so that any accusation or concession seems reasonable, no matter what. Feminists chose rape for this and now we have these girls running around thinking they're victims because a guy looked at them in a hallway, or were asked out in an elevator. (youtube elevatorgate).

A perfect example of how marxist ideologues target societies, organizations, and corporations on the rise. This particular example is the atheist conference scene, but the same tactics are applied everywhere.
http://www.youtube.com/playlis...

2. Enough of the victimhood bullshit. I tire of being labeled an 'oppressor' because of my sex or my skin tone. Don't tell me to check my privilege. Instead, try making cogent counterarguments if you believe me to be in error. If anything, this completely biased definition of 'equality' has given women the privilege. They can lean on chivalry of men (which is still expected) and/or on 'empowerment' whenever it suits them and society will back their play. Perhaps it's time for these feminists to check their privilege. The proof for it isn't some conspiracy theory. They get preferential treatment at college, in employment, in courts of law, in 'family' court, and in the street. It's in the law and its precedent, in the prison system, and in the homeless population, all male dominated. It's there every time she decides to have the kid while knowing full well neither of them have the money, dragging him (and the taxpayer) into destitution with her. Maybe I'll start giving a shit when "Her body, her right, her choice" also becomes "her responsibility" instead of his.

3. That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case.

Quit shaming men, regardless of their social proclivities. Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did. Every nerd or geek I've known was so timid and shy around women, it's HIGHLY unlikely that they'd have the balls to talk to or proposition women, nevermind 'rape' (and I use that term loosely) them. These rampant attacks by feminism on gaming and other nerd/geek culture is a recent thing, but it's just making the bullshit fallacies it makes everywhere.

Re:Talk about shaming language

[Theaetetus]

1. There is no such thing as 'rape culture' or 'patriarchy.' In any other circumstance we'd view this kind of thinking as conspiracy.

I believe you're interpreting the terms "rape culture" and "patriarchy" as implying that there's an organization controlling or promoting them, yes? Hence the reference to conspiracies.

There's no such implication. The Internet has a culture of trolling, but that doesn't imply that there's some Trollmaster behind it all. That our society normalizes sexual assault doesn't mean that there's some group of people encouraging it.

2. Enough of the victimhood bullshit. I tire of being labeled an 'oppressor' because of my sex or my skin tone. Don't tell me to check my privilege.

This seems to have nothing to do with the article. Chu never called you an oppressor.

3. That 1/6 ratio is bullshit. If that were true, police stations around the country would be inundated with complaints of rape. That's not the case... Quit lying about them too. One out of six men are NOT rapists. Chu must have a crazy self loathing complex to write what he did.

... you know that none of that is actually in the article, and you're really just making stuff up, right? Here's the quote:

We’re not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.

Does that say that "one out of six men are rapists"? Does it even say that one in six women are "raped"? Even if it did, what tremendous leap of logic did you perform to assume that if 16% of women are raped, then 16% of men must be rapists, because rapists only ever commit one rape or something? In fact, did you just see the words "one out of six" and flip out without reading the rest of the sentence?

Geeky guys kill how many people a year?

[Karmashock]

Tell you what, when geeks start killing people in the same numbers as pretty much any other group then you can lay this at our feet like we have a problem.

I'm pretty sure that per capita we're a pretty peaceful group. So how about this society... how about you apologize you apologize first?

I'm sure there are more mothers that have drowned their babies then there are geeks that have gone on murder sprees... So how about it mothers, care to apologize for your culture of violence and hate?

I thought not.

This whole thing is vastly over blown.

You want to know who is responsible? Crazy people.

Literally just people off their meds. You'll find them in every demographic. And it doesn't matter who they are... an 80 old lady so inclined could kill a lot of people. In fact, there have been little old lady serial killers. They tend to do it with poison.

But the point is that the geek culture such as it is, bears no responsibility for what is committed by literally ONE guy.

Re:Can someone explain rape culture to me?

[Jason Levine]

There is a subculture that excuses all that men do because "boys will be boys" and because "the girls must have been asking for it." This manifests itself in small towns where the star football player can rape a girl and she's driven out of town for daring to file charges. Or in conventions where women are groped because some jerk thinks the woman's costume is "skimpy" - thus that somehow equals permission to grab her body - and the rest of the convention goers either keep quiet or agree that the woman shouldn't have worn such a revealing outfit if she didn't want to be touched.

You and I might not engage in this behavior, but that's not enough. "All that evil needs to triumph is for a good man to do nothing." If we see any behavior like this (and this goes for women being assaulted as well as men being ganged up on for being different), we must immediately assist the person, summon the authorities, and stand up to any cultural institutions that deem this as being perfectly fine.

#YesAllMen

[Theaetetus]

You may think it doesn't happen but ask the women in your group how many times people have treated them like children, dismissed them, or behaved in a really creepy way even after being asked to stop **. Ask any reasonably well-known geek girl to show you her "death & rape threat" tweet or email folder and you'll see hundreds or thousands of them.

Absolutely. It's significantly telling that the woman who started the #yesallwomen hashtag trend on Twitter shut down her account after countless numbers of rape threats.

And yeah, the backlash to that, the point behind the #notallmen tag, and the strident denials in the comments here are all correct: not all men make those threats, or treat women poorly or dismissively...

But we've all seen it and failed to speak up. Like you said:

** I've personally seen it many times; once I even witnessed a guy ask a female geek how many guys she had slept with, then get righteously offended and angry when she said that was an inappropriate question. (To my own younger self's shame I did not step in and call him out at the time - something I regret).

And like Chu said:

I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything—because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was “normal,” because, in other words, I was a coward and I had the privilege of ignoring the problem.

I've failed to speak up, too, and so has every man. And as you note, that's the real problem. Sociopaths make up a tiny percentage of the population - they're the few men that the #notallmen tag refers to - but they're really good at blending in, particularly when we don't speak up about this stuff, or worse, dismiss it, deny it, or laugh about it.

As an analogy, consider how many Slashdotters are anti-cop... We readily acknowledge that not all cops are corrupt assholes who falsify evidence and beat suspects, but we rightly criticize the so-called "good" cops who don't do that, but also don't speak up and maintain the thin blue line. The cop who doesn't take part in the beating but merely watches, or who doesn't say anything when another cop deletes a cop-incriminating recording from a dash camera or cell phone isn't the bad apple in the barrel, but they've sure been spoiled by that association.

Well, that's us when we don't speak up when we see someone treating women badly. Maybe we can protest that we aren't doing it, but we're spoiled by the association. Our thin blue line is the "brocode" or membership as "one of the guys", and it can be really difficult to face the peer pressure against speaking up, and it's so much easier to say silent, or laugh nervously, or do anything other than say "that's not right". But if we're not saying it, then we're no better those those "good" cops who cover for the bad ones.

Re:Yeah, but....

[Kythe]

I've seen it. Frankly, this guy objectified everyone: women as things he wanted to own/obtain, and men as things that were in his way and from which he could obtain esteem, power, etc.

I think this tragedy is a little more complex than some are making it out to be.

A show of proof would be helpful here.

[westlake]

Now, on the other hand, can we address the reality that men are FAR more likely than women to be victims of violence, physical intimidation, violent crime, and other physical threats such as military hazards and other job-related physical danger?

My first response to up-modded but unsupported assertions like this is to look at the numbers.

Victims

Victimization rates for both males and females have been relatively stable since 2000.
Males were more likely to be murder victims (76.8%).
Females were most likely to be victims of domestic homicides (63.7%) and sex-related homicides (81.7%)
Males were most likely to be victims of drug- (90.5%) and gang-related homicides (94.6%).

Offenders

Males committed the vast majority of homicides in the United States at that time, representing 90% of the total number of offenders.
Young adult black males had the highest homicide offending rate compared to offenders in other racial and sex categories.
White females of all ages had the lowest offending rates of any racial or age groups.
The overall offending rates for both males and females have declined since 1990.
Of children under age 5 killed by a parent, the rate for biological fathers was slightly higher than for biological mothers.
However, of children under 5 killed by someone other than their parent, 80% were killed by males.

Sex differences in crime

[1980-2008 Stats sourced from a 2011 USDOJ report]

''Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherfucker in the world.'' ----Neal Stephenson

Don't just blame the guy

[Solandri]

The frustration stems from an inconsistency I've noticed in female behavior. I've asked a lot of my female friends the following, and none of them has been able to give me a clear, logical answer: At what point does chasing after a woman cross the line from flattering and endearing, to creepy and stalkerish? As best as I can tell, there is no consistent answer. It all seems to depend on how much she likes you. If she likes you, anything you do is flattering and endearing. If she doesn't like you, just asking her a second time after she's said no is creepy and stalkerish.

This results in a common, perverse situation. Women say they want men to respect their wishes. Nice guys (most geeks are nice guys) listen to this, and leave the woman alone after they ask her out and she tells them no. Jerks and abusive guys however don't. They persist in bugging a woman they like who's told them no, and somehow their strategy has a higher success rate at starting a relationship than the geek strategy of respect and listening to what the woman says she wants. Of the married couples I've asked, a clear majority started off with the woman disliking the man and being annoyed at his attentions, before he "won her over" and she fell for him.

So we have a fundamental disconnect between how men are told they should behave, and the behavior which actually works. Consequently a lot of they guys who try to be nice to and respectful of women and treat them as they say they want to be treated, end up being frustrated by "their inability" to enter a relationship. It's not at all surprising that some of them snap and leap to the extreme opposite of their previous strategy (from respecting women to misogyny).

(As a side note, I suspect this is why a significant fraction of women are in abusive relationships. Many women spurn the nice guys who wouldn't abuse her, who give up when she tells them she's not interested. The guys who would abuse her do not respect her wishes and persist, eventually winning her over, and she ends up in an abusive relationship. Look at women who seem to jump from one abusive relationship to another, and I think you'll find someone who puts too much emphasis on the man's persistence as an indicator of how much he likes her. That is probably the perfect filter for eliminating all but the most abusive guys who have zero respect the woman's wishes.)

Re:Don't just blame the guy

[unimacs]

The frustration stems from an inconsistency I've noticed in female behavior. I've asked a lot of my female friends the following, and none of them has been able to give me a clear, logical answer:

Because it's not about logic, it's about attraction. And men often don't get what characteristics are more attractive to many women. It's not women that don't like "nice" guys and that they don't want to be treated with respect. It's that they often aren't attracted to guys who struggle socially. They might feel sorry for them, they might like them as friends, but they're not romantically attracted to them. And let's be clear, you can be too nice. If you're being nice out of a fear of rejection or lack of self confidence, people can sense that. It's not a turn on.

My fellow males, you need to project confidence. You need to be comfortable with who you are. You need to be OK with getting turned down, and not crushed by it. And what I see far too often is guys frustrated that these incredibly beautiful women aren't willing to go out with them, while ignoring those women who gladly would.

Re:Rinse Lather Repeat.

[kick6]

You may be innocent, but what have you done to stop it? It's one thing to stick your head in the sand and go "lalala I'm not involved" - it's another thing to actively ignore it when you see it around you

Wait, what? It's now my fucking job to police every hetero social interaction in my vacinity to make sure that no feelbad is being created for a female? Ok, if it's my job where's my paycheck? No paycheck? Then what in the sphaghetti monster's flying green fuck would possess me to do such a thing, and why the hell are you shaming me for not already doing it?

Re:Yeah, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

His video is out of context from his larger "body of work" (including his other videos, other postings, and "manifesto"). I don't think anybody is saying that his video didn't contain primarily hatred towards women. It did. And the rest of his material also contained a substantial portion. I think that if you look past that, at the rest of what this kid said motivated him, it was his overall feeling of alienation and rejection - by everyone. He was overly-concerned with sexual conquest, as a benchmark of his self-worth. And that came out as misogyny, and the targeting of women.

But over a year ago, he wrote that he was going to START his killing spree, at his apartment, on his male room-mates. He also wanted to murder his little brother.

These were the people he felt most hurt by, because they didn't meet some expectation he had of "acceptance".

(and that expectation was what's wildly out of line here. It changes from someone just talking with him, to being treated as some god or supreme ruler with a secret underground breeding facility for women - - I don't care what is in our horrible "rape culture" - this is simply a screaming red-flag of extreme psychosis.)

I think this whole misogyny discussion is a mis-classification of where he directed his hate.
He didn't direct his hate against women (exclusively). He directed his hate against all people who were having a better life than him. And his definition of "better-life" changes as you go; from simply being accepted as a human being to, like his teenage black friend, who was getting sex (with "white women") at age 13. At some point, someone told him that if he wasn't getting laid, he wasn't "okay" - and he seriously took that to heart.

WORKSFORME

[radarskiy]

This is the social equivalent of closing a bug as WORKSFORME.

Even if we stipulate that that you yourself really have not witnessed the scenario, it is pretty arrogant to dismiss out of hand all other contrary evidence without bothering to refute it.

Re:Yeah, but....

[ShanghaiBill]

people like you come out and say it's not worth discussing

I didn't say it wasn't worth discussing. I said it was silly to discuss the "problem" in the absence of any evidence that the "problem" actually exists. These discussions always start with the presumption that nerds are all a bunch of women haters, yet base that presumption on an anecdote about a woman that was groped a few years ago by some jerk at a game conference. Sure, some nerds are sexist jerks. Some are also racists, child abusers, pedophiles, and even murders. Should we also discuss how racism, child abuse and murder are part of "nerd culture"? These are not "nerd problems", they are "human problems", and should be discussed as such. Misogyny is no different. It has nothing to do with "nerds" or "nerd culture" specifically. If you have some evidence that says otherwise, I am happy to hear it.

Re: Yeah, but....

[LocalH]

The problem isn't misogyny itself, on an individual basis, any more than the problem is invidualized misandry. The problem is when such hate is institutionalized, and I think it's arguable that institutionalized misogyny is at its lowest point in decades. If you start trying to tell individuals what's right and wrong to think, then you are dangerously close to Orwellian thoughtcrime for my tastes. What matters is how people act, which is where any protections need to be placed.

Re:Yeah, but....

[kaatochacha]

I'm wondering about a higher incidence of Aspergers among nerds. Those folks say all sorts of crazy shit and have no clue it pisses people off.

Re:Yeah, but....

[Wrexs0ul]

Not all nerds are Canadian, you insensitive clod! ...I'm sorry.

<- Canadian

Re:Yeah, but....

[sillybilly]

I think everyone in this Slashdot crowd looooves lesbian porn, filled with women and nothing but women. How can you call us misogynistic?

Re:Yeah, but....

[epyT-R]

critique of feminism is not misogyny.

Re:Yeah, but....

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Not all is, but, honestly, a lot of it is.

Seriously, the responses on here demonstrate that there is a huge problem amongst slashdot readers. You have to be willing to admit that you might not understand women's experience in order to have an honest conversation and learn something.

Re: Yeah, but....

[MaskedSlacker]

Well no, but you'd be hard pressed to call his targeting sexist.

Who's to blame?

[tripwire45]

Over the past several days, I've read several commentaries about Elliot Rodgers and his motivation for commiting several murders. These murders have been blamed on "white privilege", misogyny, a rape culture, nerd culture, a (of course) gun culture, and so on. From what I understand, Rodgers was in psychotherapy for many years. What hasn't been adequately explored (in my opinion) is assigning "blame" to the apparent fact that the shooter was mentally ill. Quite a number of the high media profile mass shootings within the past several years were committed by individuals with histories of mental illness. If there's any sort of answer to these tragedies or any way to address and hopefully avert future shootings of this nature, how about revisiting our system of treating mental illness in potentially violent people? Blaming men, blaming white people, or blaming guns doesn't seem to be an effective countermeasure.

Re:Gender-based stereotype

[phorm]

But this crime was specifically targeted against women

No. It wasn't. He killed both genders, including his male "nerd" roomates. Yes, he had a thing against women, but it's because he was a self-entitled prick and couldn't accept rejection. Yes, he's a f**cked up little man. He had a thing against women. Yes, geeks can improve their view of women as well, but drawing a correlation in wake of some psycho draws some very broad and un-necessary relations.

How about "the way they get to show heroism is by rescuing weak women, and that's fucked up?"

Only if you choose that as a focal point. It's one meme among many (and notably, one that seems to be expiring with time). As mentioned, there are also women who rescue weak men (moreso these days), and protagonists that save whole civilizations of humans or even aliens. Move on to Mario Bros 2 and the Princess is a playable character (and more useful as she can do that cool floaty thing).

Cherry-picking examples doesn't lend a fair viewpoint. Heck, some of the best games lately have opened the options for strong male or female leads. Mass Effect's Female Sheppard was one of the most bad-ass characters. Lightning from FFXII was a tough cookie (even though the gameplay itself was kinda crappy). I've not yet played "The Last of Us" but I've heard that Ellie is awesome.

I guess one thing to recognise is: Things are already changing in Geekland. Playable female leads in games are increasing. Strong female protagonists in films are also going up. You've got House but you've also got Bones. You've got Shrek, but you've also got Fiona (arguably the stronger of the two).

Hell, we still have people who believe that blacks are inferior (wasn't one of those guys a recent Republican candidate), or those like Ronald Sterling. You've got plenty who believe gays shouldn't marry. I'll bet a lot of those people also think women belong at home barefoot in the kitchen.

Some of those people are pretty visibly an anachonism, and almost laughable. They're dinosaurs.
Why wasn't the shooter popular (with women and/or likely most men)? Because overall his views are unacceptable in modern society. Unfortunately his crazy views were also sprinkled with an extra dab of insanity sauce.

Should we get rid of princesses trapped in castles? Why would we? There will always be type who prefers to be a "helpless" castle princess awaiting a shining knight. Not my type of girl, but they exist. I think the thing to remember is that nobody *HAS* to be a castle princess anymore. You can be a rockstar, a scientist, or even a galaxy-saving heroine. Maybe Mario will save Peach, or maybe Peach will save Mario... but there's no reason it can't be both ways not that one necessarily has to be negative. If Mario saves Peach and then says "get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich, woman", then we've got a serious problem!

I think a lot of my attitudes towards women did come from reading materials with heroic male characters. Ultimately, those characters were often respectful and their antagonists were the self-absorbed shits that I think we can both agree the world needs less of. Even if the female characters were weaker (and certainly not all were) there was always a respect between the genders.

There's nothing wrong with hoping for some level of appreciation from the opposite gender by being a nice guy and/or maybe even in hero in some cases. That seems like a cool thing. Learning the difference between being "awesome" (to yourself) while in reality being a prick (to others) is important though. Obviously, this guy was no Mario... more like a Wario or Bowser.

Re:Yeah, but....

[Pseudonym]

However the ones who were not professional were so far past appropriate it was cringe inducing as they self rationalized their behavior as being perfectly acceptable.

I think you've hit the nail completely on the head here. Geekery has more intelligent people in it than the average, and more of a history of being "outsiders" (say, in high school), and more autism. This is a volatile mix, and the result seems to be that there is no "middle ground".

I concur that almost all of the guys I've worked with have been perfectly professional and respectful to women in a professional capacity. We all make mistakes (and given what mainstream culture teaches us, it's unsurprising that we make mistakes in gender relations), but I've noticed that when male geeks have it pointed out to them that they did make a mistake (be it a joke which could be seen as sexist, or something else), they either completely get it or completely don't get it, to the point of coming up with elaborate excuses as to why the bad behaviour is acceptable.

You can see both extremes here in this very thread. In the thread, it seems to be pretty much evenly split between guys who get it and guys who don't, but I don't believe that these proportions are indicative of the industry as a whole.

Re:Yeah, but....

[Pseudonym]

I said it was silly to discuss the "problem" in the absence of any evidence that the "problem" actually exists. These discussions always start with the presumption that nerds are all a bunch of women haters, yet base that presumption on an anecdote about a woman that was groped a few years ago by some jerk at a game conference.

Nobody, I repeat nobody, is claiming that "nerds are all a bunch of women haters". Only a tiny number of nerds are women haters.

See, it's not just "a woman" who had a bad experience at a conference. It's that most women have had bad experiences (not all of them as bad as being groped, admittedly) at these events. It's a tiny proportion, but it only takes a tiny proportion.

A few act like floppy clumsy puppies and make obvious blunders which can make an environment uncomfortable for someone who doesn't fit the nerd stereotype. This is just ignorance, and it's nothing that a little bit of pointing-out can't fix.

But the real problem is this, and this is what most people don't get: Many nerds do not step in and stop their fellow nerds if they are creating a hostile environment, or otherwise make it clear to the few that certain behaviours are unacceptable, and most nerds are oblivious to what women and other minorities face in the community from the actions of the few.

Hopefully, the claim that "nerds are oblivious" is not a controversial statement...

You're absolutely right that it's not specific to nerds or nerd culture. However, we pride ourselves on being typically smarter than the average bear. We are natural problem solvers, if only that we can see a problem to be solved.