scarlettina | Observing the "Fake Geek Girl" Discussion

Entry tags:

Observing the "Fake Geek Girl" Discussion

A day or two ago, a friend posted a link on Facebook that went to Alli Thresher's rebuttal to a blog post about "fake geek girls." I read it and then went in search of the original piece, written by Joe Peacock and published on CNN.com, Booth Babes Need Not Apply. A more well-intentioned but misguided thing I have rarely read. Go ahead, go read for context--start with Peacock and then go back to Thesher. I'll wait.

Google searches revealed that Peacock's piece has spawned not only Thresher's response, but a plethora of carefully-thought-out and well-written (not to mention occasionally delightfully snarky) rebuttals like these at DoctorNerdLove and Forbes.com (which always but shouldn't surprise me with its geek savvy), among others. (ETA: John Scalzi's response is the king of all responses, with thanks to

oldmangrumpus for the pointer.)

I am not in the least surprised that we're still dealing with this kind of sexism and purity testing. I'm not surprised that it's still the "POSER!!" accusation wrapped up in nuanced argument and published in the context of a reputable news outlet (though the idea of a reputable news outlet these days seems to be one that's fading fast and becoming a relic of another era). Mainly what I am is disappointed.

Geek culture is supposed to be about acceptance and joy. The oblivious sexism in Peacock's discussion is its own damnation. Purity testing makes it no different than the kinds bullying geeks have dealt with our whole lives by bullies who didn't find us straight enough or mainstream enough to socialize with. And so here we are, our own worst nightmare wrapped in TeeFury geekitude*, wielding the Light Saber of Truth and a Patronus Charm against girl-geek wannabes. ::sigh::

I hope for the maturing of geek culture to the point where these conversations don't happen any more. Based on the patterns of other cultural tribes (I'm thinking of certain male-dominated sports fandoms, mainly), I'm not convinced we'll see it any time really soon. I am, however, comforted by the rebuttals and the discussion taking place. Social growth and change take iterations of transgression, dialog, and healing. Sometimes helping someone grow up takes the infliction of a spanking. Spank away, internets. The culture needs it.

* (Note: For the record, I am the proud owner of two TeeFury tees--they are awesome.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I read the original CNN piece until I got to "pretty girls pretending to be geeks for attention" and my brain broke.

Yeah, dude, attention from male geeks is such a valuable commodity. And so hard to come by!

Yeah, that first sentence is a humdinger of WTF. Then again, the "Editor's note" about the author is pretty darn precious to begin with.

I'll admit that I find the overt level of sexual costuming at ComicCon to be weird - for purely research purposes I looked at a few hundred photos that Chris Garcia linked to yesterday and there were some amazingly attractive people on there...

That said, there were a lot of attractive men in the pictures too.

But, still, I don't really get ComicCon. I might not be the target market.

My take on Peacock's argument is that it isn't about sexualized costuming but about mundanes (non-geeks) dressing up in costumes to get laid by geeks. This argument seems laughable to me on the face of it, but it does fit in very well with the intertribal battles over who is and isn't a trufan that fandom has always been rife with. It's nice to see the younger generation carrying on in the grand old tradition, even if it's on cnn.com now.

LOL! I guess it's important to carry on traditions. ::sigh:: Purity testing must continue. Someone get me a lab coat, stat!

After being subjected to Alison Weston's (Pete's daughter) tirade at the 1998 Eastercon about how disgusting most male Fen were and how she was going to demand shower stations with soap and pictorial instructions at the entrance to cons, I am wondering who these women are and what they are expecting and whether or not Peacock has actually been to a convention :)

Comic-Con does have a certain "I'm just here to dress up" contingency -- like Norwescon, or Sakuracon, or Dragoncon -- but if you can make your way through the crowd, you'll find a regular convention with author panels and stuff underneath that.

The cool thing is that the convention's size and proximity to the LA movie/TV biz means those panels might include Matt Groening and the creators and cast of Futurama. The less cool thing is that you have to start planning WAY EARLY if you want to get into some of the big ticket items. Like, I ended up waiting in line for two hours and then sitting through Dean Koontz (who I'm not much a fan of) just to make sure I saw Joss Whedon (who I'm an enormous slobbering fan of).

The content does tend to be at least kinda-sorta comic-related, so if you have no love for the medium at all, it might not be for you.

I've never been much of a comic fan, which might be part of the problem.

I have read comics, bought comics and so forth and I watch a lot of media but it's books and the concepts behind SF that I tend to go to conventions for. Oh, and the drinking - I am a British fan after all... the convention bar is the heart and soul of a British con.

Oh, and the drinking - I am a British fan after all... the convention bar is the heart and soul of a British con.

Oh, yeah, that's an area where SDCC fails utterly. Paul and I went for years and always looked for the happening convention bar, without ever finding it. It might be that the con is too big, or the wrong type of crowd, or something. It doesn't really have parties, either.

I think that would be the deal breaker for me. I've been to many conventions where I've pretty much entirely missed the programme... with the exception of the items I'm actually on, purely because we were sitting in the Bar having our own convention.

That's how I first met Randy.

This has blown up Scalzi's blog too.

I'll admit that I have something of an issuing with costuming... but I can't work out whether or not that's because I just don't really get it, on the whole.

That said, looking at, say, Olivia Munn (google her for images) in the TV show where she routinely dressed in lingerie, bikinis, costumes and fetish gear to report on video games and SF... that leaves me feeling deeply deeply uncomfortable at an intelligent, highly capable actress (based on The Newsroom) basically being a slab of meat to titillate guys.

Where I have more of a problem with Peacock's central thesis is that women are dressing in sexy costumes to attract attention. As was said above... for the average geekish guy, you REALLY don't have to try that hard. Well, ok, I might be generalizing, but just saying ;)

I guess one of my issues with this whole thing is, to use your phraseology, what if I enjoy trying hard? I once had a geekish boyfriend say to me, "You're girlier than the girls I generally date, but at least you're not stupid about it." I was so astonished that I didn't know what to say. It was, at best, a backhanded compliment. I was aghast that my interest in presenting myself attractively could be seen as a detriment--and kind of insulted. Why should it matter to anyone but me how I present myself, either plainfaced or prettified? And why isn't it OK if I want to prettify myself? It was--is--just bizarre.

That I can understand, you've met M after all :)

That said, I still feel some of this crosses a line from self expression into something else. Olivia Munn dressing in a PVC maid's outfit and jumping into a pool of jelly on Attack of the Show doesn't strike me as sexual self affirmation but pandering.

Re: Olivia Munn in jelly: Pandering--absolutely.

But there is a contingent of fandom and the geek culture that seems to disdain and dismiss geek girls who like to wear a little eyeliner as if, somehow, it makes us less sincere, knowledgeable, or sociable. Maybe it makes us a little intimidating. It might actually require someone to up his social game--and that? Might not be such a bad thing.

But there is a contingent of fandom and the geek culture that seems to disdain and dismiss geek girls who like to wear a little eyeliner

They are wrong :)

Alison Weston's major complaint was that she was a) female, b) liked to dress as such, c) attended conventions, d) had read a lot but didn't think that just because you were at a convention that the normal social stuff got thrown out of the window. By all means men could speak to her but they should make sure they didn't smell and behave like a human being.

I think she might have had a point, especially with the hygiene issue.

Having said all this, that night I did sneak off with a costumer who was categorically not Alison Weston.

Ah... happy days.

There's no question that she had a point. And good for you! ;-)

I'm assuming you've seen John Scalzi's reply? (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/07/26/who-gets-to-be-a-geek-anyone-who-wants-to-be/)

My only comment is that I wish there were this many girl geeks when I was younger...

There were. But many of us weren't dressing in costumes, so we got utterly overlooked.

Thank you for that link. Scalzi, as ever, is awesome.

You know, I was thinking about this, and realized that I do tend to roll my eyes at SDCC when the male geeks stop, right on cue, to ogle/photograph/drool on the super-hot professional booth babes dressed up like Lady Death or whatever. So I was worried I'm a hypcrite.

But then it occurred to me -- this guy has a problem with somebody -- who has he got a problem with? Not shallow guys, who want to ogle women and judge them primarily on appearance. No, he's got a problem with "fake" geek girls who, in his perception, cater to that male gaze. Right. It's always the woman's fault.

I had a similar problem with the film Death Becomes Her -- although I enjoyed the performances and thought it was funny, it seemed to blame the female characters too much for their all-consuming obsession with maintaining youth and beauty, as if their shallowness were entirely a personal shortcoming and not in any way the result of external cultural forces.

EXACTLY! It's just more sexism disguised as, what? Chivalry for the "real" geek girls?

I wrote about this as well, and I sorta sum up the root problem thus: Geekdom is about sharing the things we love with others. If that happens to be cosplay or walking around cons wearing nothing but body-paint - why not? Just because you don't approve the things someone else geeks out about doesn't give you the right to dismiss the person or judge them as not worthy to participate in your geekdom.

First of all, I like dressing up in costumes. I love halloween. I don't usually dress up at conventions because I know I am hopelessly outclassed and get embarrassed.

That said, if I wanted to dress up as a female character, most of them are a) way more in shape than I could ever hope to be b) showing way more skin than I would ever be comfortable with, even if I was in super duper shape.

Yes, there are great female characters who wear clothes (Rogue springs to mind) and they are often young. I would feel weird dressing as a character half my age. I think that is part of why steampunk has taken off. It is good for any age and shape.

I have always been the girl outsider. Sometimes it has been uncomfortable listening to the boys drool over women. I noticed when the female characters weren't as tough as the male characters (and I always notice the skimpier costumes) but I never felt actively discourage.

So this guy is a jerk. Ignore him and move on with life. Or maybe get a pile of geek cards and stamps so you can approve someone's geekiness.

Very interesting discussion, and for the most part, very civil. I must give Joe Peacock some props for responding to John Scalzi's thread and basically admitting that he'd screwed up a lot of what he was trying to say. I think he may have even used the phrase "I showed my ass in public."

Yes, the friendly, welcoming nature of geek fandom is one of the things I love the most about it. I do miss going to cons...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Observing the "Fake Geek Girl" Discussion

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject