Female geeks and nerds of the world UNITE!

[I like your sleeves. They're real big]

This post is inspired by a really really good thread on the often fabulous MetaFilter about geek feminism. Its not often that you get intelligent, articulate and thoughtful threads on gender issues. They very quickly descend into aggressive defensiveness and apoplectic rage. A bit like….

Person M: oh here we go – playing the gender card. when u chicks gonna to get over it??? we re all equal now!!!! Stop MOANING.

Person F: Great, out come the MISOGINISTS! Yeah, try being a woman in AFGANISTAN – women r made to where burkas!!!!!!! and they cant even go out of their home!!!!

You also by and large get 3 Person Ms to every 1 Person F. You get the picture...

Can I first draw your attention to some fascinating links from the MeFi thread:
Nerds and Geeks – book reviews on Pandagon
Feminist Geeks
How People Explain Female Geeks – Geek Studies
Cerise - Female Gamers website

I don’t want to reiterate all that was said on the thread – it really is worth reading – but I just thought I’d show my solidarity with the female geeks and nerds out there (for I acknowledge the difference betwixt nerd and geek) and echo their frustrations with geek/nerd men. It boils down to this: we expect more from you.

Yes we live in a sexist world, a society that objectifies women and where the pay gap hangs on stubbornly. But sexism, as with racism, homophobia etc, is borne out of ignorance if not a concerted effort to maintain supremacy.

Nerds and geeks should therefore understand power dynamics and – after years of having your head shoved down toilets – you should understand bullying and marginalisation. You are intelligent, often leaders in your obscure nerdy field, you should be able to comprehend the concept that equality does not mean ‘the same’ and that there may be a theory that draws together gender stereotyping, the pay gap, the lack of rape convictions, the glass ceiling, and the way that what women wear has almost become an international crisis.

You are scientists (or at least you look like one) so you should be able to interrogate evidence rather than fall back on lazy stereotypes. There are women involved in opensource software, that know their Petri dish from their agar plate, know the difference between mode, mean and median, and watch songs about PCR on YouTube. AND IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY HAVE A ‘MALE BRAIN’.

But most of all, you must not believe that your special exclusive little subculture, which skilfully excludes all the jocks, the stupids, the popular kids and quacks, is immune from the machismo that excludes women and turns them off even more than your lack of personal hygiene.

As mentioned in the MeFi thread – rape jokes in WoW, soft porn images in software presentations and sexually violent anime are the same as titty calendars, sexually violent porn and rape jokes in the locker room. What makes it worse is that female geeks and nerds expect more from you.

This guy has the right idea…
*Disclaimer: contains massive geekiness and schmaltz. Apologies*

More reasons not to be a Goddess

I got a response from Mark! (background to this here) Unfortunately, it has simply added to the barriers I have in being a Goddess. We can now add "I smoke cigars" to my list of unGoddesslike behaviours.

Hi Mark

I'm not sure that I meet your Goddess requirements by any measure, however, I am intrigued as to why you are doing this. Why are you being so specific about the kind of woman you are looking for and do you think having a 'shopping list' is the best way to go about it? These are genuine questions.

The main thing that I find troubling is your definition of 'surrender' and 'control'. Taking surrender to mean "give up or agree to forgo to the power or possession of another" - doesn't mean your control over a woman? If you have zero interest in wanting to control a woman then why have you defined the necessary length of her hair and size of her waist (no exceptions)? It is certain that you do not want an equal relationship but very much want to be the "powerful" one. There just seems to be a tiny bit of cognitive dissonance going on here.

Thanks for your time.

Naomi

**************************************************

Hi Naomi,

Thank you for your response. I doubt if I can resolve to your satisfaction the "congnitive dissonance" you perceived, but I will make a brief attempt.

Your quoted definition of "surrender" is from the dictionary, and is NOT what I mean by that word... I am talking about spiritual "surrender," which is the most EMPOWERING thing in the world. It means surrendering the ego and dissolving into God. Numerous women who have responded to my web site KNOW this and it is what they WANT in a relationship. See, e.g., the writings and videos of Sri Sri Ravi Shankar... he talks about this extensively.

As for my "shopping list" why do you narrowly point to the "hair" and "waistline" items on my list? Why not take issue with the fact that I seek a woman who is "believes in God"? Or that I seek a woman who "is extremely intelligent and creative"? Or that I seek a woman who is "tobacco free and drug free"? What if she chooses to become an atheist, or she chooses to smoke cigars? Am I "controlling" her by stating otherwise in my profile?

I dislike it when women smoke, and I have no interest in a relationship with an atheist. Likewise, I dislike it when women have short hair or are overweight. I am seeking a woman to whom I will be attracted on all levels, and if she chooses to do dumb things (rather than being "intelligent" per my profile), then that will be a huge disappointment to me. And I will WEEP if she chooses to cut her hair short or she chooses to start eating junk food and gets fat.

Furthermore, if you look at most women's profiles, they have THEIR "shopping lists" and I often see things like "clean shaven" or "toned" or "athletic". What if the man choses to grow a beard, or become a couch potato?

God bless you.

Mark

************************************************

Yes, I did quote the dictionary definition of 'surrender' - my bad. I'm replying now, will keep you updated....

Made Up Science

The fab Rebecca from Skepchick.

See my earlier blog on L'Oreal's use of SCIENCE to sell colourful fat to rub on your face. Oh, and how supportive of women is L'Oreal? Very. As long as you're not black.

Am I the Goddess you're looking for?

[Kali, Hindu Goddess of Death]

I was obviously deeply excited to see this website where a hunk of a man was looking for a ‘Goddess’. I was obviously fantastically keen to apply, but there were a couple of things that I thought would get in the way for eternal happiness with ‘Mark’. What do you think?

• I don’t believe in God.
• I don’t really believe that Mark is on the brink of a large-scale financial success
• I don’t believe he does speak DIRECTLY to God.
• I don’t like people who CAPS words unnecessarily or over-use exclamation marks!
• I don’t really think he is looking for a woman with a razor-sharp intellect or at least the other few of thousand words kinda undermine that desire.
• I find pre-nuptial agreements offensive.
• I don’t mediate every day, unless you count sitting on the bus on the way to work, staring zombie-like out of the window.
• I don’t chant, unless you count shouting catchphrases like “Oh for fuck’s sake” or “he is such a fuckwit”.
• My mind is rarely peaceful.
• I have frequent “unwelcome thoughts” and constant “mental chatter”. Some unwelcome thoughts include the idea of bald, middle-aged fuckwits filled with sexual intensity *shudder*
• When I get hurt or upset I stew on it for weeks, sometimes years.
• I frequently feel hatred and the desire to hurt people, but then I probably spend too much time on the internet.
• I don’t unconditionally love many people. In fact I don’t much like most people. I even hate some of my closest friends.
• I don’t think I ever had childlike innocence and I have a particular suspicion of middle-aged men who want a woman to be childlike.
• I have bad posture.
• I have a fairly trim waistline – which I think gives me extra points. But I wouldn’t be willing to keep it trim for a man because I have self-respect and prioritise my relationship with pies and cakes over any man. No exceptions.
• My hair has grown recently, mostly due to my laziness but I have spent many years with a crop and if there is any thing that would make me cut it all off again it would be a man wanting me to grow it for them. No exceptions.
• I have a fairly low voice for a woman.
• I’m not fantastically healthy (see relationship with pies and cake).
• I am mostly tobacco free, but then do often have a fag when I’m pissed and high.
• I’m not a vegetarian and would rather die than never eat sausages again.
• My room (as I don’t own a house) is dirty, chaotic and full of crap
• My main mental health issue is the frequent desire to kick men in the balls. But I am trying to deal with it.
• Saying “outside the box” makes me want to kick Mark in the balls.
• I’m pretty unreliable which I, but no one else, find endearing and lovable.
• I’m not an actress and feel no desire to become one.
• I wouldn’t be willing to travel the world with Mark or appear on TV with him because its crass, cloying and the heteronormativity of it makes a little bit of sick appear in my mouth.
• I don’t really think that a sacred sexual union with Mark is crucial for manifesting his Global Vision. But would ostensively be to get his rocks off.
• I haven’t been a prostitute and think that if men want their ‘Goddess’ to be one its because they wish to dehumanise, purchase and own a woman for her sexual services
• I don’t long to be worshiped as a Goddess by a man. Its creepy.
• I don’t want to be controlled by someone and believe submission, surrender and the looking a particular way for someone else are fundamental to control
• I don’t really like 100% straight people, they are massively dull.
• I don’t respond to anything as a LADY and I’m not a GIRL. I’m an adult and condescension makes me want to kick men in the balls.
• I like walking on the street side of the pavement as it allows me to run away faster.
• I like to make choices and exercise my free will.
• I don’t own any vases.
• I like music.
• I watch downloaded telly.
• Mark doesn’t seem funny – apart from in a funny-weird way.
• I don’t want to live in Los Angeles.
• I find the top Mark is wearing in the ‘August 2004’ pic offensive.
• I think he does want to control his Goddess. Otherwise he wouldn’t have written 6000 words on exactly what he wants from a woman right down to the length of her hair and how long she mediates for each day. And that creeps me out.
• I do indeed have a tendency to accuse men of being controlling when they try to control things.
  

But, but I am NOT a Scientologist!!

I’ll email him and see how I get on – fingers crossed!!!!

Men, no women, are responsible for rape

The whole 'she was asking for it' line has almost become a cliche when talking about rape. Unfortunately, it's still a prevalent attitude. Back in 2005, Amnesty International launched the results of an attitude survey into rape which found that a third of people felt that a woman was wholly or partially responsible for being raped if she was being flirtatious.

This survey has been replicated by various different organisations including the Scottish Government and the findings are pretty consistent.

It is in this context that you should see if you can spot any differences between the headline from a press release from the University of Leicester:


And the story that resulted in the Daily Telegraph:


Notice any difference? Go on, look really hard.

In the study, psychologists at Leicester Uni asked men to consider themselves in various scenarios with a female acquaintance and find out if or when they were more likely to coerce a woman into sex. The scenarios differed with the acquaintance wearing different clothes, drinking alcohol, being aware of her previous sexual partners or her being assertive.

The main finding was that men who considered themselves sexually experienced were more likely to coerce women into sex. These men found resistance from a woman sexually arousing. Interestingly, alcohol had the opposite effect than expected with men more like to coerce sober women rather than those that were drunk.

Yet Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent, states that alcohol has a bearing on whether men will coerce a woman into having sex. He also says:

Sophia Shaw at the University of Leicester said that men showed a "surprising" propensity to coerce women into sex, especially those that were considered promiscuous.

Now, this is not in the press release and may have come from a phone interview. But it does look like he has mixed up women's promiscuity with men's. Remember, the Leicester Uni headline was "Promiscuous men more likely to rape".

So what's going on here? We already know that a large proportion of people will happily admit that under certain circumstances women are responsible for being raped (let alone those who think it but wouldn't admit it in a survey, it being a rather despicable view). So does Richard Alleyne in the Daily Telegraph just think that maintaining that belief is more palatable for his readership? Is he intentionally playing into our woman-blaming culture? He is the 'science correspondent' so you'd think he would know about study design and, you know, the results. So, he seems to have willfully misrepresented this study to again make women feel responsible for their own rape or sexual assault.

This has also been blogged on here, but they seem to have just worked from the Telegraph article rather than the press release or original study. As the headlines show above, that is never a good idea...

[And thanks to @CliveAndrews for sending the articles]