Tags
female role models, geek culture, geeks, hypermasculinity, hypersexuality, nerd culture, nerds, role models
The image below has been making the rounds on my Facebook. It originally popped up on my feed on the page for “It’s Okay to Be Takei”, and has been posted around by about five or six other people. Images travel fast on Facebook:
A ten-picture graph, showing five women on top and five women on bottom. The five women on top are, from left to right, Snooki from Jersey Shore, Bella Swan, Kim Kardashian, Kat Von D, and Lady Gaga. They are captioned “Pop Culture”. The woman on the bottom row are, from left to right, Aeryn Sun from Farscape, Zoë Alleyne Washburne from Firefly, Susan Ivanova from Babylon 5, Jadzia Dax from Star Trek: Deep Space 9, and Samantha Carter from Stargate. They are labelled “Geek Culture”. At the bottom is a caption reading “Female Role Models: Fuck Barbie. I’m Buying My Daughter a Ray-Gun”
Images like this irritate me. I don’t like the self-congratulatory aspect of geek culture which appears to have become an epidemic spread via images on websites like Facebook. But what good is complaining when I can, instead, unpack the image and try to start a dialogue on why geek culture needs to take a good, long, hard look in the mirror before patting itself on the back for the creation of such great female role models?
I’ll start with some minor quibbles before building up to the big stuff. The women in the top row, except for Bella Swan, are all real people. The women in the bottom half of the image are all fictional characters from television shows. Wouldn’t a more compelling, interesting, and challenging comparison for celebrating an alternative to mainstream role models for girls have been real-life women who are involved in geek culture? How about Lauren Faust, creator of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic? Or Lindsay Ellis, the Nostalgia Chick? Rebecca Watson, from Skepchick? Jane Goodall, the world-famous Primatologist? Dr. Alice Roberts, from Digging for Britain? Lisa Randall, the Harvard Physicist? Kate Beaton, the brilliant comic artist? Or Mayim Bialik, the actress turned neuroscientist turned actress? All of these women are talented, famous, and well-known for being badass in their decidedly geeky fields. I would love to see them celebrated as role models for budding geek girls.
I’m also interested in the particular pictures that the original creator of the image elected to use to display the differences between the top and bottom rows. The women in the top row are all more scantily-clad (except for Aeryn, who is wearing a tank top) and posed more suggestively and passively than the bottom women. This was obviously a deliberate decision on the part of the creator, and it caught my eye for two reasons: It reeks of slut-shaming, and secondly, it appears to be an odd denial of the amount of hyper-sexualization female characters in geek culture receive from creators and fans alike.
Since the focus of the image is on who makes a good “role model”, it would appear that the message of this image is that you can’t be a sexual being and a good role model for girls. Cover up, if you want to be respectable and badass, respectable women don’t draw attention to their sexuality so flagrantly!
Not to mention, geek culture does have a serious problem with taking hyper-sexualization of characters in media like television, movies, and comic books to ridiculous levels. There are already a couple of blogs, like Escher Girls and Comic Art Corrections dedicated to pointing out and correcting the laughable misunderstanding of basic human anatomy of some artists, in their quest to make as much boob and booty visible on a character in a single pose. I can still remember cringing in pain when I was first told the story of how Jeri Ryan in Star Trek: Voyager was literally vacuumed into her catsuit for the role of Seven of Nine and needed to shut down production of an episode if she had to use the bathroom because of how long it took her to peel out of the stupid thing. When I first saw Star Trek: The Next Generation as an adult, I created a drinking contest out of how many times the camera zoomed in to get a better view of Deanna Troi’s cleavage.
And, in the ultimate break of my irony meter, there are people on the comments section of the original image complaining about their favourite female characters (including Seven of Nine) not being included on the list, because they are, and I quote, “way sexier than any of the ones in that pic”.
What also bothers me about who was chosen to exemplify the traits of a “good role model” is that the characters are involved in combat in some way or another, hence the conclusion that one should buy their daughter “a ray-gun” instead of a Barbie. It’s a good time to be a tomboy, with Katniss Everdeen, Merida, Black Widow, and other tough ladies on the big screen, and women like the ones above on the small screen. That’s great! But why is that the most laudable, or, as the image tells us, the only acceptable way to be a woman and express yourself? There are multiple ways of being a woman, or being a man. Images like this seem to set up a dichotomy, where you are either a tough warrior woman, or a passive, overly sexual tart, with no in between or chance to go by your own rules.
Images with dichotomous messages like this concern me because I remember my own childhood of despising femininity and seeing it as the weaker, confining, less desirable option, wanting instead to enter the world of masculinity, of fun, and freedom; a form of internalized misogyny and femmephobia I am still recovering from, even now as a proud femme geek who loves expressing myself through traditionally “feminine” interests like crafting, fashion, jewellery, and making my own beauty products. The best part about enjoying those interests is that I am definitely not alone in them. Geek culture is full of people, women, men and gender rebels alike, who are great crafters, seamstresses, bakers, knitters, costume-makers, and creators. I wonder how many of them had a childhood filled with Barbie dolls for whom they designed outfits and hairstyles, and were still capable of having a jolly good time playing with ray-guns as well, rather than thinking of it in a purely either-or context?
If I ever have a daughter, or a son, I am not going to teach them that there’s only one way to be properly masculine and feminine, and that possessing stereotypical “hypermasculine” traits, like playing with ray-guns and lightsabers, doesn’t mean they are better in any way than those who like to play with E-Z Bake ovens or dolls. And I want to take part in creating a culture which isn’t hostile to femininity or which rewards only certain ways of expressing it. I hope geek culture takes part in that transformation, rather than inhibiting it by being stuck in outmoded ideas of the “right” way to be a woman or a man.
As a fellow autistic geek girl I can see your point. While I love the geek women posted in the picture it’s for reasons other than how they dress. For instance, Sam Carter: highly intelligent and loyal. Zoe Washburn: tough because she’s had no other choice in life, calm and collected in even the worst situation (she’s seen everything and more) – gutsier than Jayne but just as happy to be girlie and silly with the crew and her husband.
I grew up with a Girl’s World, Sindy, Barbie… also a train set and a Scalextric and Action Man. I preferred playing “boy” games in the school playground but I also enjoyed dressing up, learning to bake and playing with makeup.
I love sci-fi for what it is – not who plays which character (although there are some seriously hot ones out there).
Me as well, I love these characters, but I do not think that people are examining the forces that went into the creation of these characters closely enough, which is why I chose to write this post.
And something else I forgot to mention: All of the actresses playing these characters, great actresses as they are, were also at least partially picked for these roles because they are conventionally attractive. Geek culture can crow about being progressive and woman-friendly when their standard of beauty (thin but with breasts and booty, tall without being too tall, lustrous hair, full lips, a small nose, and a petite Disney princess waist) is at least 40% more inclusive and diverse than mainstream culture’s. I do not see that right now.
I agree; as much as I love all things sci-fi, I can’t think of an example of a sci-fi female who was just an ordinary girl. Well, there’s Katherine Tate, who was amazing as Doctor Who’s Donna Noble; tall yes, but not especially attractive and definitely not skinny. I don’t understand why Amy Pond and – now – the Doctor’s new companion have to be gorgeous to the point of being model material.
I have to admit that I wouldn’t put Amanda Tapping/Samantha Carter in the “ridiculously hot” category (unlike Gina Torres who couldn’t blend in to a crowd if she tried). She certainly has a pretty face, but I would probably still pass her on the street without realising I’d just brushed shoulders with one of England’s most famous sci-fi actresses. I think Elisabeth Sladen was that way too; quietly attractive but certainly no Amy Pond. I believe that she was only so easily recognisable because she had so much media exposure with Doctor Who.
I hate how Jeri Ryan had to be vacuumed into her suit. Why sexualise a woman who is already extremely pretty? Another reason that I prefer Ezri Dax to Jadzia; all of Ezri’s sexuality came from her bubbly personality and not her face or figure (she was very very cute but her character wasn’t “beautified” like Jadzia).
I wonder how much of the gorgeousness is a halo effect – “oh, they’re on TV, they must be gorgeous by default!”. There are plenty of photos of models, celebs, actors, people in the public eye who look plain or even unattractive out of context.
Pingback: Real outsider to “geek culture”: up yours. Again. « I Still Find It So Hard…
Really really great piece.
And thanks for linking Escher Girls! I completely agree and I’m getting really tired of the self-congratulatory “we’re better than mainstream culture” meme because it means people don’t look in-house and the massive problems with racism and sexism in geek culture. Also, now a days, geek culture and pop culture are hard to distinguish in general, so I don’t even get the distinction.
Like you, the slut shaming in that image really bugs me too, especially since they’re using REAL women in the “pop culture” part of the image, so these are real women’s choices not the choices of creators. It really does come off as “I want my daughter not to be a slut”. e_e
Also, they should compare likes to likes, you talked about using real people at the bottom, but you could also use fictional non-sci fi TV characters at the top: Olivia Benson from SVU, Bones from Bones, various characters from Criminal Minds, etc etc… this is a cherry-picked straw comparison, and I think it’s really unhelpful anyways b/c it implies that geek culture is less misogynist or problematic for women than “pop culture” and that’s seriously not true.
(also I feel these memes often have an element of elitism and classism, we’re smart, you’re stupid, we’re sophisticated, you’re trashy, we’ve got class, you’re sluts)
Oh you’re welcome. I’m a HUGE fan of Eschergirls, it means a lot that you liked this post! /fangirl
You’re very right about geek culture and so-called “mainstream culture” being more and more difficult to differentiate, and I really like the idea of one-upping this meme with Benson and Bones, I just love them.
You’re also correct about the classist element, while I was critiquing this poster, I was strongly reminded of another one I saw a few months ago, which juxtaposed a variety of famous Western scientists and writers with an image of Snooki, saying, “If you don’t know who THEY are, but you know who SHE is, then you’re what’s wrong with our culture”. It’s very easy to rest on one’s laurels and think that one has dominion over what’s intelligent and worthwhile in our culture, but why don’t more of them take time to question why there’s such a huge divide in what people know and how they learn it?
Thanks for a really clear dissection of why this image is so troubling. I found your post while trying to work it out, as someone had posted the image on a gaming thread on a forum I frequent as proof that geeks are not sexist. He is not pleased at the responses he is getting from female gamers.
I love geek culture, and female characters, and attractive clothes. But I get awfully tired of, well, vacuum-fitted women characters. Some more variety would be appreciated. And I really, really hate when male geeks try to claim more enlightenment than mainstream culture by way of having violent, kick-backside women characters (Come to think of it, by now isn’t geek culture rather more solidly mainstream? It certainly isn’t as lonely and isolating as when I was a kid.).
So again, thank you.
You’re welcome! I’m baffled that someone would think a single image of cherry-picked examples of both mainstream and geek culture would silence the legitimate criticisms of geek culture brought about by women who are involved in it, but I guess I underestimate some people’s power to convince themselves of their own superiority and lack of accountability.
Pingback: I’m Not the Only One… « The Quixotic Autistic
I’ll make this comment since it’s something you (maybe) overlooked (or maybe just didn’t feel worth commenting on). Among the scifi women they are all, at best, second in commands (Aeryn Sun being the one that you could make an argument is in command). Why not have actually people in command like Weir from Stargate: Atlantis or Janeway from Star Trek: Voyager?
I did wonder that myself, specifically, about why Janeway wasn’t included. My guesses range from the benign (Janeway had a bit of a personality/consistency problem due to the writing problems with Voyager) to the somewhat depressing (All the other choices are younger and more conventionally beautiful, after all) to the dull (Maybe the original creator just wasn’t a fan of Voyager)
I also thought about, but ultimately decided not to mention, the fact that Zoe is the only woman of colour on the bottom half, since I think geek culture’s problems with inclusion of POC are on par with its gender troubles. I can save that for another day.
Susan Ivannova would have taken command of Babylon 5 but left, and was shown to make a further military career offsite up to high ranking general before taking command of the “Rangers” as the (next) one.
I would point out that our pop culture awareness of the people you describe as “real” in the top images is actually a fictitious construct created for pop culture consumption. While they are portrayed as if they are real, the public personae are as make believe as the bottom depicted persons.
I don’t really see how that’s relevant. They are still “real” in the sense that they are presenting as themselves, they’re not in-character the same way Sacha Baron-Cohen is when he becomes Borat, for instance, or characters with separate distinct personae who make it clear that it’s a deconstruction or a parody like Stephen Colbert. The only one of those women who would possibly fit that construction is Lady Gaga.
And the vitriol and misogyny directed at them by so-called “enlightened” geeks is certainly meant to insult the real women, not a construction.
Since none of us in any way knows these people but through media which is often fabricated to titillate or deliver schadenfreude I do not see how anyone could expect the noise that is pop culture to reflect reality except in revealing its consumers as grotesques of humanity. There are real world heroes but you won’t see them on tv except in 30 second news stories. But there’ll be 30 minutes of lies about people willing to debase themselves to pop culture for cash. Yeah consumers of media should be ashamed that every single one of the women pictured has got bikini or less pictures out there because they all need to make house payments and what easier way to do so than feed the beast. Maybe not relevant just an observation.
I find it interesting that it takes the only (obviously) male comment to blow a hole in your “real people” argument, and you respond with “I don’t see how that’s relevant.” it is absolutely relevant, you made it so by bringing it up. Every person in the pop culture list is manufactured.
P.S. You’re entitled to your opinion, of course, but I doubt the creator of this image put this much thought into it.
“I find it interesting that it takes the only (obviously) male comment to blow a hole in your “real people” argument”
I find it interesting that you think that you’re somehow qualified to talk about what constitutes a good female role model when it is apparent that you are rather contemptuous of the intellectual capacities of women as a sex.
I completely agree with your original post and was forced to immediately share it. The “my culture is better than yours” thing is annoying. And sorry to burst the bubble of whoever made this, but geek shows are popular culture too, and a very important of it too.
Still, I think John Arnold is right. The difference between Borat, Colbert, Gaga and the featured women is negligible. Reality TV has very little of reality, the shows all have script writers. So comparing with real women in science doesn’t make full sense either.
Needs more Xena and Buffy!
Pingback: Sunday Link Encyclopedia and Self-Promotion « Clarissa's Blog
Thank you for this great post. Indeed, tightly clad and tough women with big guns seem to be some sort of male fantasy, but that has absolutely nothing to do with positive role models for women, and it isn’t progressive or feminist in the least. To connect this fantasy with one’s future daughter is totally repelling.
You put into words why I am unable to identify with geek culture.
You’re welcome. It is indeed, mostly male fantasy, which is why it bothers me when it’s presented as some sort of superior positive alternative.
i could not read it all but i sort of agree with you you blab ( or as you put it blog way to much )
but then again i dont
all the floosies at the top are all barbies and had barbies when they grew up
and was a role model as real as they are they are still fake like the barbie doll
if the girls of today have a zoe doll or a Sam carter doll i think you will find a better stronger breed of women
not the sluts we have today
So you think that being a “slut” means that a woman can’t a “better, stronger” person?
You completely missed the point of my post then. I’m a strong, smart, independent, proud slut who loves every single sci-fi television show on the bottom part of the chart AND who grew up playing with Barbies, AND who listens to Lady Gaga.
The type of dolls or TV shows a woman has as a child will not affect the number of people she sleeps with as an adult, and the number of people she sleeps with as an adult doesn’t affect her worth as a person.
This ain’t rocket science.
No one quite as qualified to select female role models as a misogynistic troll…
So you would totally hate it then, michael, if you had a daughter that grew up to be a business owner, employer, artist and former world record holder then?
As far as strong women go, Kat Von D is right up there, both in the picture and the real world of successful role models. Read about her, it’s quite inspirational. But you’re right, of course, she’s pictured here looking like a “slut” with all the flesh and the tattoos And that means her achievements are worth a lot less than an idealized woman dressed in a classy, yet still sexy outfit who is second in command on a smugglers ship. Gotcha!
I wish they’d included Kaylee from Firefly instead. She’s feminine, unashamedly sexual and am awesome engineer. She’s so good she replaces a guy! Also as a rule she dislikes violence, but isn’t afraid to kick ass when those she cares for are threatened.
I agree that Mayim Bialik herself is a good choice, but the character she plays irks me slightly; “Hey, you’re not model hot, so you must therefore be kooky and weird, with probable autistic traits!”
Great post though
That is irksome, but I’m honestly so happy to see a woman who isn’t model pretty on mainstream television (I miss Leonard’s beautiful, plus size geeky girlfriend from season 2!) who has my mannerisms that I’m almost (emphasis on almost) willing to overlook the fact that she’s made the butt of so many jokes. Her having a sexual identity (and possible queer tendencies) softens the blow a bit in my opinion, since I was concerned that they would think her lack of model beauty would mean she’d have to be asexual like Sheldon. There’s all sorts of unfortunate implications in that.
The doctor? Oh god I LOVED her. So, so sexy. I see what you’re saying about Amy, and I have laughed myself silly at her on occasion, I admit! I think to start with she was portrayed as quite asexual,ie happy with Sheldon’s friend.who is a girl arrangement but they’ve moved away from that, thank goodness, and developed her as more than just female Sheldon.
As a new dad to an infant daughter I am finding it very difficult to navigate through the purely objectifying attitudes of most men in contemporary culture.
I’d like to see the image remade with the bottom row compared to a list like this: Ada Lovelace, Marie Curie, Mary Shelley, Jean Rosenthal, & Amelia Earhart
Happy Father’s Day to you!
And may I commend you on getting to the root of the problem for women trying to develop a healthy self-image and identity: “the purely objectifying attitudes of most men in contemporary culture.” That’s the real culprit, not Lady Gaga or Kat Von D posing in a bikini. Your daughter is going to be alright if you already recognize that.
I was bothered by two issues
1-The inclusion of Lady Gaga as a negative pop culture role model. As the mom of two young girls, I think there are FAR FAR FAR worse choices for a role model than a woman who is an incredibly talented singer/songwriter and activist for LGBT equality and self acceptance. I actively have encouraged my 3 year old’s interest in Lady Gaga–she proudly calls her “my favorite” when we talk about music.
2-The willful ignorance of geek culture’s problematic relationship with female empowerment/objectification. Seven of Nine is guilty of whatever sins they’re assigning to the top row of women.
Thank you for also pointing out the “real” vs “fictional” aspect. I’m also a big fan of Lindsay Ellis, and would have liked her pointed to as an example of a positive female geek role model (or Mayim Bailik, etc).
You are very right. While I do have my problems with Lady Gaga, boiling her down to one sexual pose is very reductionist, the way some fans of Mad Men completely ignore Joan Holloway’s character development and motivations and just focus on her body.
I think it’s also valid to critique the idea that sexuality is a negative or anti-feminist trait. When I think about the women I’d like my daughters to grow into I absolutely first think about intelligence, strength, and confidence.
However–it would be an incomplete process if they aren’t self-aware sexually as well. I want them to be unafraid to identify as whomever they are and love whomever they love. I want them to be comfortable with becoming sexual on their own terms without listening to whatever voices would slut-shame them. To that end, I also think of Lady Gaga as a strong role model–her sexual imagery is at time a social critique. And when it isn’t, I don’t necessarily see it as a negative either–sometimes sex is just sex, and that’s okay too–I don’t think it needs to always be about love or sacredness.
Full disclosure–I’m an erotica author, so my views about sexuality are certainly influenced by that.
Indeed! A sexual identity and sexual expression are not to be condemned, they’re to be celebrated. Self-worth and value as a role model do not decrease or decline in relation to being a sexual being. That’s a big reason why the modern twist on the Madonna/Whore dichotomy that image displayed was so problematic.
I’ve been seeing this image ALL over the place, and, at first, I hesitated to share it. Now it annoys me, and I couldn’t put my finger on why. So thank you for articulating it. I had picked up on the slut-shaming aspect, but hadn’t gotten as far as the cherry picking and masculine aspects of these characters.
There are a lot of ways to be a strong woman, and I think a young woman could do a lot worse than to support gay rights, as Lady Gaga has. I’m not commenting on the rest because what I’ve seen of them has failed to impress me. But are they really role models?
That’s the funny thing: I don’t remember anyone ever saying that they were role models. I’ve noticed that there’s this ridiculous attitude at play where every woman in the public spotlight is supposed to be a role model for young women, I saw similar shaming applied to Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Hannah Montana, and Hillary Duff in their day, with no similar pressure applied to famous men. I’ll be a lot more impressed with the “role models” rhetoric when we start seeing someone chiding Charlie Sheen for being a bad role model for boys. They’re not pop culture illiterate compared to girls, and they are just as capable as seeing who the grownups watch and talk about on TV and in magazines, so why are female celebrities singled out for their supposed antics?
They strike me more as cautionary tales than role models. We hardly hold them up as the feminine ideal. Yes, the media is obsessed with most of them, but not because we’re meant to emulate them.
They might not criticize Sheen about being a role model, but for men athletes are constantly put through the ringer about how they’re bad role models every time the moral gardians decide there’s a crisis.
You forgot about Felicia Day.
Also a worthy real-life alternative. I simply threw together this list at random, so I didn’t get a full scope of great women who I would be proud to have my children admire and look up to.
Great post, and I totally agree. Also…how many of these characters were created by women? Geek culture is just as patriarchal as “pop” culture.
An EXCELLENT point! Thank you for that insight, I didn’t even think to mention it, though I did mention female creators of geek media as an alternative.
Just to toss an opinion in the mix, this article has some good and bad points, but I don’t feel your solution works very well in reality.
The examples of badass women provided in your article may be amazing, but I couldn’t pick any of them out of a line up. And an image that compares five oversexed pop culture women to five unidentified women wouldn’t get shared on the net. Yes it’s a cultural issue that we don’t know who those women are but we do know who snookie is. But that issue is with American culture, not geek culture.
As a secondary concern, it muddled your point for me when you complained that the five geek girls are dressed in masculine clothing in one paragraph, then started in on how hypersexualized women are in geek culture in the next.
How is it muddling, exactly? Being stereotypically masculine the way women in geek culture are portrayed (Carrying a big gun, killing a lot of people, being in a traditionally male-dominated profession like engineer or soldier) isn’t incompatible with being hypersexualized, and it was me pointing out that it’s profoundly hypocritical to pretend that geek women are always valued for being badass on their own terms, rather than being treated as sexual objects by their creators and their fans.
Also, I can easily recognize pictures of any of the women I mentioned as potential substitutes, your ignorance is not my failure. I didn’t immediately recognize two or three of the women in the top row, but a quick googling went a long way.
It’s muddling because you can’t reasonably complain one that the creator of the image (as a representative of geek culture) used masculine undersexualized images in one paragraph and then complain in the next paraphrase that geek culture is oversexualizaing women.
And yes I would expect you could recognize them. They are your examples, it would be silly if you didn’t. But my point was that the majority of the viewers would not recognize them and so using them in this image wouldn’t serve much of a purpose. Is it lame that amazingly smart people are not celebrated as rock stars in our culture? Yes. But don’t blame that on geeks.
All I’m trying to saying is that the women selected aren’t as bad choices as you make them out to be. Yes many of them are involved in conflict, so what? Aeryn was brought up as a soldier and escaped her programming to become and intelligent and interesting leader. Zoe stood up for her beliefs and fought a rebellion against a tyrannical government, she was also a strong leader and had an great relationship with her husband. Dax was part of a federation of cultures dedicated to scientific and cultural expansion. All of them were strong smart and sexy. Would it be better if they were real? Yes. And if I have to choose a role model for my baby girl in comparison to a drunken airhead with a sex tape, then I’d say I could do a lot worse! If that’s slut-shaming then so be it.
There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there’s more than one way for geek culture to fuck up on its depictions of women. Oversexualizing and slut-shaming are not mutually exclusive, and often frequently overlap, not just in the geek community.
Also, your argument that the majority wouldn’t recognize them has been invalidated by the many counter-images featuring amazing real-life geek women to counter this poster that have been popping up on the internet, in this very thread, which are receiving very positive reception from the people who matter: Geek women.
If all you have to offer is that type of flailing anti-logic and slut-shaming, then please get off my blog. Slut-shaming is not welcome here, as per the comments policy, particularly when the user has been told that their behaviour is inappropriate, and commenting on here is a privilege, not a right.
Got it, any opinion that diverges from yours = bad and wrong. I’m not a geek woman so my opinion doesn’t matter. Check. I felt your article and your responses had some positives but your overall point was poorly conveyed to me as a reader. That’s just one opinion and as you said, this is your blog which I will happily get off of now.
Thank you. I agree with your points. It’s part of the reason I made a counter-image (it can be found on my facebook). I have 3 daughters. I want them to have strong, positive female role models. Fictional characters are great and all, but I’d rather my kids look up to real people who make a difference in this world, who exemplify intelligence AND success, who have earned their positions through hard work and dedication.
Wow Sara, that image is brilliant! Thank you for sharing.
Thank you!
Well I wouldn’t rule out fictional characters entirely – sometimes it can be freakin’ difficult to find someone IRL that you can relate to. I’d say that anyone can be a role model for anybody, while still remembering that they are imperfect and *that’s fine*.
(Also I wish there wasn’t so much focus on Science is Best, especially as someone who grew up in a country where anything except Science was seen as “stupid people’s business”. Whatever your interest, go for it.)
I agree, Creatrix, which is why I picked women from a diversity of fields for my examples, like writers, artists, critics, and bloggers. I think what defines a geek isn’t just the field you’re in, it’s the passion, dedication, and love you put into your craft.
Don’t know if you’ve seen one of the meme image responses (which does include Mayim Bialik included) to the original you posted, but here’s a link: https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/550850_4185238557352_1781582606_n.jpg
I’d seen another one (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/198417_3757046318352_2035337867_n.jpg) But this is the first time I saw this one, and I think both of them have an excellent message. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks so much for that image–as well as your comments about POCs (People of Color) relationship with Geek Culture! We “non-Caucasian” in the Geek fandom culture tend to talk about that issue a lot amongst ourselves if not within the broader Geek Culture!
You’re very welcome, Jon!
Thanks for stopping by to offer your insights.
As a mathematician I feel obligated to inform you you’ve spelled it wrong in your image. Just FYI.
THANK YOU. This picture was going through my Facebook feeds and it frustrated me SO MUCH because of what you said. I too grew up being deeply femmephobic because I was trying to rebel against enforced gender norms (I was like a RadFem in the making), and it’s taken me a while to realise that being sexual or being physical/looks focused or even just “conforming” to femininity for whatever reason doesn’t make you a lesser person. Just because one is more known for superficialities doesn’t mean they’re any less a person worthy of respect.
Hell I’m rather tired of the idea that “strong” = “violent”. Even the Pretty Barbie Princesses are strong! Diplomacy, politics, hospitality, social skills, discourse, aesthetics – all skills worthy of note. People rag on Bella Swan for being in an abusive relationship, yet forget that for many people *she* is more relatable than those who have magic powers or geek tools to help them save the day, that run on perfection.
And YES to Ami’s comment about classism. This notion that someone is “trash” or “bogan” or whatever as a means to discredit them – argh!! You may like this rant that was going around the Internet not too long ago about that:
http://ugly-feelings.tumblr.com/post/24177958296/sometimes-i-just-want-to-get-a-fake-orange-spray
I sympathize with your story, Creatrix Tiara. And that is a GREAT tumblr post.
i think you missed the point of the image. the pictures used for the pop culture row are clearly biased, but that doesn’t make it a sexual vs not sexual argument, its about what the characters and individuals represent in terms of character and integrity. the characters are leaders, and honorable hard working individuals, and the pop culture row are clear opposites of them.
the entire compilation is not intelligent, its clear that the author of it was not well versed in pop culture, but it still presents a reasonable argument – should we look up to women that make their money from divorcing football players and getting drunk on national television, or should be look up to hardworking, tested leaders?
So tell me, please, why is Kat Von D included in the “pop culture” group? She’s an artist, an entrepreneur, and actually quite intelligent in her own right. If that’s not being a hardworking, tested leader..
See also: Lady Gaga, who supports a veritable empire of creative artists and designers and has created a spectacular brand for herself, as well as championing LGBT rights and the message of being true to who you are. Regardless of any issues one might have with Kat Von D or Lady Gaga, both of them are extremely successful and savvy businesswomen.
I could possibly make arguments about Snooki and Kim Kardashian along the savvy-construction-of-a-marketable-brand lines, but I admit I don’t know much about either of them.
I think actually, that the primary message of the image is pretty straightforward: to trumpet geek culture as somehow being a superior alternative to mainstream culture in terms of its treatment and portrayal of women, which is, as this post and every female commenter has pointed out here, an intellectually dishonest argument teeming in hypocrisy and serious cognitive dissonance.
And nobody ever suggested that women and girls should look up to any of the women in the top image as role models. That’s a figment of people’s imaginations, apart from Lady Gaga and Kat Von D, most of the women in the top image have received little else but ridicule, slut-shaming, and scrutiny from the mainstream media and from “geek culture”.
To be honest, all points above seem well thought out and correct with a bit of opinion taken into consideration. My opinion is this: The image was initially created to achieve a number of things (possibly at least) – 1: Create recognition for strong willed female characters in sci-fi roles, 2. To create recognition for sci-fi in general, 3. To remind people that attractive womenexist in sci-fi, and 4: a wholehearted dig at pop culture as being fake, and full of trampiness.
For me, I choose to embrace the first three, and whilst understanding the 4 factor, it is a very opinionated and divisive decision on who to go with – I myself think that what the Kardashian clan and Snooki and Jersey shore counterparts stand for is something that should be inherently discouraged of viewing by anyone under 18 – to ME it is filth and rubbish.
I like to see strong female leads in TV shows, and whilst there is of course certain objectification in all shows of women, I find that in many sci-fi shows, there is a good dose of the inverse for the people who would like to see the men topless and /or flexing their muscles once in a while.
I named my daughter Jadzia – obviously, because we loved the name, but to us, it also represents a strong woman, willing to take charge and be an interesting and integral part of a great show (also for the Polish background, but initial idea from DS9).
Few points to consider:
1. If the titles of Role Models had not been attached to the picture would we be here.
2. If the pictures of the “geek” girls been a bit more risque, would we be here
3. If we had taken out the likes of Lady Gaga and Kat Von D and installed people like Paris Hilton or similar, would we be here?
On the internet, everyones opinion can be heard. At least we get to discuss it now
Both pop culture and sci-fi are for entertainment – I just know in MY mind, which is more enriching, teaches better values (mostly), and has less tarty, smutty, sexual overtones…
I think it’s problematic to express such a negative attitude towards so-called “smutty” and “tarty” overtones, and equate expression of sexuality with filth. There is nothing wrong with being a sexual being. There is however, something wrong with shaming other people’s sexuality and sexual expression or claiming that it’s dirty or “filth and rubbish”. Should I have a daughter some day, I will be a lot more concerned about people slut-shaming her when she’s older than I will about whether or not she wants to play with barbies or ray guns.
This is such an interesting (and divisive) issue. I think that one of the important things to consider is that pop culture (whether it be mainstream or Geek ‘sub-culture’) can objectify women. Geek culture does offer some interesting ‘masculinized’ versions of role models, but is that really what we want?
I think that I’ve been involved in far too many ‘interesting’ communities that I can’t NOT understand how the assymetric dynamics for sex and gender works themselves out (for good or ill). Hearing horror stories from bellydancers I often play music for is only mildly mitigated by hearing how “pop music” bands seem to look at women (e.g. –”if a woman is in a band, then surely she must be screwing a band member!”) at the local, if not national (and international) level.
Ultimately, the issue has to do with how much we (meaning Western Culture) tend to sexualize women at the expense of creating this stereotype of women as sex objects dispite evidence to the contrary. In a way, this photo-meme is just bringing this issue our in the open and displaying the false dichotomy that has to deal with how one culture is compared with one sub-culture!
Jon: Exactly! Will you comment more on my blog? I just love what you have to say and think.
First, apologies for the misspellings! But it has been some time since I’ve had the opportunity to explore some of the *ahem* feminist issues you bring up, but since I’d posted the original (and the ‘response image’ I posted here above) to my facebook wall (as well as some of my facebook pages), I’ve had so many interesting conversations and comments!
I’ve long wanted to bring up some of these issues at my own blog, since I have this unique relationship working with women performers, but I’m sad to say that being a male (as well as being someone who often works with women in male dominated industries) I’ve had little opportunity to really make much commentary about some of these issues.
I’ve subscribed to you blog, so I hope to contribute more to some of the discussions you bring up as they very much impinge on some of the side issues I deal with in the music business I usually deal with in my blog!
Thanks Jon! Welcome to my blogroll.
1. Yes, because the issues of slut shaming and glorifying geek culture as a sexism-free paradise would still be problematic.
2. Yes, because comparing scripted fictional characters to real women and finding the fictional and idealised women to be better examples of womanhood would still be problematic.
3. Yes, because the slut shaming and intellectual elitism of belittling some women for being too shallow/too slutty/too stupid and valorising other women for being tough/aggressive/science-oriented would still be problematic. And also the above points re: glorifying geek culture and idealising fictional women over real ones.
This is such an excellent summation.
Nice insights. My nephew really hated the image for pretty much all the reasons that you mentioned. I thought it was a little annoying too. I decided to make a poll of my friends and create an alternate image that attempted to make the same fundamental statement without the problematic aspects (or at least with those aspects muted).
I’ll keep your article in mind while working on it!
Good luck, M.A Melby! Have fun with it, and look around the comments of this article if you want to get an idea of other alternative images people have created in response to it, there are a few examples.
Marian! Great to see you here!
Thanks! I know my husband went to the Escher Girl site and found some interesting images there. What’s kind of fun is that my friends didn’t seem the least bit interested in voting for *bad* role models to feature, but were much more interested in voting for the good ones. I suppose that’s a nice thing! – but also seems to point to simply not being aware of problematic role modeling unless it is someone who essentially capitalizes on people loving to hate them – like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian.
*waves at Jon*
Exactly! I haven’t voted in your poll mainly because I ALWAYS have issues with how polls are constructed and how they then to highlight things that I just don’t find relevant–but knowing you, I’ll go make my options known!
I changed my premise, though I may make a couple more before I’m done: http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/turn-about-is-fair-play-with-abs/
This is a great post! I was just having a similar discussion on Facebook after a few friends posted this image and it rubbed me up the wrong way. It reminds me a lot of all those “women – what happened?” images you see floating around. I am all for offering *alternative* images of women for girls (and boys, for that matter!) to look up to and identify with, but I wish we could do that without tearing down women for being sexual or femme or not intellectual enough.
Precisely, Sarah. It boils down to one sentence, really: Diversity is good. Petty, combative hierarchies are not.
Not only do I think you’re seriously over thinking this, I think a few of your points simply aren’t right.
To start, I would argue that you’re wrong in saying the women on the top are “real people” they aren’t any more real than those on the bottom. Celebrities all have a public image they carefully cultivate with the help of teams of people. This is no different than acting in my opinion (lady gaga, far right, is the best example, but applies to all.) None of the ten are “real people.”
My second point to make is that you’re over thinking an image that is required to be one dimensional in order to have a message. The entire medium (if one can call it that) of captioned images requires that it be dead simple, enough simplicity to convey in less than a few words. Comedy regularly sacrifices nuance and detail in order to play with generalizations and stereotypes.. The same happens with political satire for example, but choosing New Yorker cartoons to be grilled for lacking nuance is rarely done, and I think you shouldn’t have done it here.
Finally, sure they could have written “tri-corder” instead of “ray-gun,” but thats the kind of thoughtfulness I would expect out of corporate advertising, not a home made MSPAINT production. This is a comedy posting made in 30 seconds by someone at home looking to make others laugh. You’re expecting way too much copyediting for a comedy image made by a regular jane or joe, and I’d like to suggest your standards for comedy images be a bit lower in the future.
What’s that? A commenter telling me what I should care about/write about and accusing me of overthinking things and being sensitive, and then whining It’s just [Comedy/A Tv Show/An image]?
I’ve got my first stamp on my anti-feminist bingo-card, ladies, gentlemen, and gender rebels!
P.S, I don’t especially care if you think I’m overthinking this or not discussing it up to your own ever-so lofty standards. If you want to decide what deserves scrutiny and commentary, start your own blog. I only feel more and more validated by the amount of male commenters throwing a hissy fit about this post and then trying to dehumanize the women in the top row of images to validate their own prejudices.
Leah, maybe I shouldn’t have posted. You didn’t make it clear that dissenting opinions weren’t allowed on your blog. If you really don’t want a discussion, please say so in advance so that I can avoid putting careful thought into a considerate reply that you will ignore completely.
On the other hand, if you’d like a discussion, please don’t reply in the hurtful manner with which you just did.
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument
Some bedroom reading for you.
P.S. I’d like to respond strongly to your accusation that I’m anti-women for believing that celebrity (both male and female) is frequently based on a manufactured image rather than a true picture of that person. I actually consider myself quite a strong pro-feminist. As above though, I’m probably wasting my keystrokes since discussion isn’t welcome here.
I didn’t say that you were anti-woman, I said that that argument was anti-woman, which it is. I only ever see it used against female celebrities, and it’s only being touted in this thread by clueless male commenters as if it’s a magical end-all justification for sexist words and thoughts towards the women in the top row.
You don’t get a special gold star for saying that you’re pro feminist; actions speak louder than words, and if you’re not willing to examine your own behaviour and thoughts for residual prejudice and eradicate it, you fail as an ally.
Leah, thanks for the reply to the content of my post. No matter what the tone is we can’t discuss without some back and forth so thank you. I have no doubt that there are plenty of dumb guys posting here and elsewhere who are looking for any remotely sane line of discussion they might use to justify a pre-conceived idea that you must be wrong.
I think if they looked carefully they would find they are posting only because they somehow believe you cannot be right. For my part I think you’re absolutely right: there is extensive use of stereotype in the image, the wording is poorly chosen, and taken as role models it offers no room for variation or nuance, so I don’t think I’m in that camp.
You said this must be an anti-women line of thinking because you only see it applied to women. I appreciate your offer to use some introspection, and I have: I did find male examples come easily, and the fake-ness of many male celebrities is a joke. I’m quite willing to supply a list of male celebrities whom I think rely on a manufactured or one-sided image of themselves.
I would not be surprised to find more female celebrities defining themselves by stereotype than male celebrities, that should be expected in a world where feminism has some work still to do, but I don’t think it weakens my point that a huge number of celebrities on both sides of gender reinforce and hide their actual self behind a caricature.
In place of the 5 women in the image, I’d list Tom Cruise, Justin Bieber, Brad Pitt, 50 Cent, Morgan Freeman, and pretty much any member of pro-wrestling or boy-bands, as males who rely heavily on a manufactured image of who they are in order to maintain their celebrity. Tom Cruise broke his image when he began giving interviews for scientology, and it hurt his marketability. If that makes him ineligible I’d offer Jackie Chan or Chris Rock as a stand in replacement. All of them have parts of normal human emotion that could not be shown in public because it would hurt the image they maintain.
All I’m trying to say is that a very wide range of celebrities, both male and female, cannot show the full range of emotion and in fact try to act within a certain character that plays well with the public’s image of who they are. To me, this makes many celebrities as fake as any written character in a show.
Even if you disagree, at least now you’ve seen it used against male celebrities, as it absolutely should be.
That is a fair comparison, thanks for sharing. When I usually hear about male celebrities having an “image” or a persona that they project, the first examples people usually offer to me are ones who deliberately cultivate one that could better be described as an “alter ego”, like Marilyn Manson, Sacha Baron Cohen, Stephen Colbert, or Barry Humphries (creator of Dame Edna) They usually garner praise for these portrayals too, as being satirical and a chance to offer introspection. The criticism of the Kardashians and Snooki never seems to engage in this, however, hence my skepticism.
To be fair, all of the women in the image are constructed to a degree. That’s just the nature of being a celebrity that is known to a mass audience primarily through some form of mass media. The only ones who really know any of these women–outside of their media personae–are their families and/or close friends. It’s the nature of the beast for performers of any kind that the public will just get select slices of our lives and construct an image of us via their interaction with us through media or the stage.
That being said, there is definitely a continuum of constructed-ness where the bottom row (and are simply one particular character each of the actresses have portrayed all the way up to Kim Kardashian who isn’t portraying a character in this image, per se, but has portrayed characters. Actors (as well as Politicians, Athletes, Musicians) can be celebrities outside of any particular role they’ve played while still implicitly being somewhat of a mass audience construction.
Now, if the bottom row had focused more on the actresses behind the [arguably] most famous role they’ve played, the analogy would have been more balanced, but at the same time it wouldn’t have worked as a point of comparison. You would need actresses who are primarily know for their so-called geek roles. Maybe a Sigourney Weaver or Lindsay Wagner, or Lena Headley, Milla Jovovich, and Summer Glau if you wanted actresses that are more recently active in geek themed franchises. I’m not sure that kind of tactic could have worked as the point for the geek women was to focus specifically on their roles as characters.
And obviously, as one of the commenters above stated, there are plenty of positive role models to be found in pop culture franchises. In the end, it was all about cherry-picking for a very specific effect and what makes it “work” is also what makes it “wrong.”
Thanks for reading such a long post thoughtfully, Leah. I can see why it doesn’t work…picking parodies of stereotypes to equate with people who are actually stuck in stereotypes…definitely a line of thought destined to fall flat on its face. I tried to think of female stereotype parodiers and the best I could come up with was Tina Fey…there aren’t many good examples that come to me and there’s probably a feminist blog post in that, somewhere.
I appreciate your engagement with me, it says a lot of good things about your personality. I’ll definitely come back to read more of what you have to say in the future.
So, what KILLS me about that list: where’s Inara from “Firefly” fit in that stupid dichotomy?
On the bottom of the list, for being canny, independent, highly trained in politics and the wielding of power, strong-willed, and patient as the day is long for tolerating the constant bitchy judgment from Mal, or on the top of the list, for using her looks and body in the service of her career?
Also, oh, the internet, where people will accuse you of overthinking a topic within a multi-paragraph, point-by-point reply.
Thanks for this post. My initial reaction was F-YEAH F**K BARBIE!
I’d quickly realized though, that there was massive issues with the picture. You analyzed the problematic aspects beautifully. Delighted to have found your blog too!
<3
I agree somewhat, though to some extent many memes can fall apart, and have their intent somewhat muddied, when subjected to extended analysis. I think it’s overly simplistic to say that is indicative of any specific agenda on behalf of the creator though, because as you point out we have no way of knowing for sure why they chose the images they did.
Also, while I do agree with the analysis, I confess I did not see this image in the same way.. the reason for that was because I saw it on Claudia Christian’s fan page ( http://www.facebook.com/ClaudiaChristianFanPage ) first, so my immediate thought wasn’t “Ivanova the character” it was “Claudia Christian the actor”.
I also did not recognise anyone from the top row apart from Bella; Facebook had cut off half of Lady Gaga so I didn’t recognise her at first, so my perception of them being “real people” while the bottom row is characters was completely askew. So, in my head I was comparing Bella with Ivanova.
Cherry-picking is the biggest criticisim I would level against this; the top row is clearly picked out to highlight what they consider negative female rolemodels in pop culture, and the bottom row is highlighting what they would consider good female rolemodels in geek culture.
The whole thing falls apart when considered in more detail precisely because of this clumsy cherry-picking.
I would also ask “Why is Bella on the top row?”
I would think an actor portraying a character in Twilight would have more in common with an actor portraying a character in Firefly, or Star Trek.. In my mind Twilight is still pretty heavily within geek culture. Ok, so Bella is often considered a poor female role model but I would hardly think that puts her in the same category as Snooki. So why choose Bella for the top row? Because Twilight is popular yet the image creator didn’t like it? When one considers the demographics of the audience of Twilight compared with, say, Firefly.
Anyway, I didn’t have a point at all really, so hope my comment at least gave some context to why some of us geeks decided to share this about to begin with.
That image got me toweringly pissed off as soon as I saw it, and you articulated exactly why just beautifully.
I am so very glad that I was not the only person who felt this way about this image.
One of the biggest issues I’ve had with “geek” culture is that these people really think they are enlightened when they are so very, very not. And because they’re being all self-congratulatory because they think sidekick girls with guns and token black people are somehow all great and affirming, they fail to see how misogynistic, homophobic and racist they are. And because they think they’re OK, it’s harder for them to get that there’s a problem.
Well, I think I might be the one who has to dissent on a few of your points. You state that among the top row, only Bella Swan is a fictional character and not a real person, I suggest that this statement is flawed in a fundamental sense. The Top row of people are as much characters in our mass media culture as they are real people, if not more-so. I might be wrong, but is not the upper right image of “Lady Gaga?” Are we contesting that what we see is a “Character” developed for the public and nothing more? In a very real sense what we see in Lady Gaga is identical to what we have gotten in Larry the Cable Guy. This “Media Character” is present in all of the individuals on the top row so I think you’re ignoring that in favor of forming your point but missing a greater point, sexualization is prevalent in all forms of media, but the media characters created by pop culture are just as sexual as those in geek culture. I’m not going to insult you by implying that geek culture isn’t sexualized, I can think of moments when each of the female characters in the “Geek” row were depicted sexually. But that doesn’t change the idea that each of those characters is in fact a positive role model, Aeryn Sun is a top of the heap Peacekeeper who follows whats right and helps save the galaxy against its own warlike hubris, Zoe is a warrior woman and second in command but could easily own her captain, Susan Ivanova is strong in mind and will and one of the best star fighter pilots, Jadzia Dax is a top notch science officer and action-type herself, and Samantha Carter? Rose from Captain to full bird Colonel in 10 years, accomplished pilot, multiple degrees in sciences, and hoo boy, she blew up a sun. What really makes these characters great? They aren’t plastic. They all have feminine traits as well, they aren’t just “women doing men’s jobs.”
I disagree with the idea that the women in the top row aren’t “real”, wholeheartedly. I think that that is a dehumanizing and misogynistic idea which is being furthered as a means of justifying this awful image, especially since the only people I’ve seen who have been making that argument that the women aren’t “real” are men. They are real in the sense that, even if they are “characters”, they are presenting as themselves. They aren’t media characters in the way that Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat is, or Brian Warner’s Marilyn Manson, or Stephen Colbert’s alter-ego on the Colbert Report. Especially since a common criticism of women in the top like Snooki is that they are so “fake”. If she were acknowledged as a fabricated character, that would be a moot point now, wouldn’t it?
You are honestly arguing that “Lady Gaga” is a real person? Are you high!? Her real name, for one, is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, she admits that Lady Gaga is part of a persona, and that its a stage name. They are presenting FICTIONALIZED REPRESENTATIONS OF THEMSELVES. The people behind the characters are real, yes, but no one is saying that Kristen Stewart ISN’T a role model, they are saying BELLA SWAN isn’t. Its not misogynistic to suggest that the people themselves are not worthwhile, its that the characters they portray are not. And if you could get off your goddamned high horse insisting that just because I’m a guy means my opinion on this matter matters any less then you would see what I’m trying to say is more than just “oh hur hur, they are fake” its that “the persona that these people portray are diametrically opposed in terms of their status as role models.”
Lady Gaga might perhaps be a persona, but she is an awesome role model. A self-made multimillionaire who got there peacefully through work and talent? Who runs anti-bullying campaigns? Who brought avant-garde art into the mainstream? Don’t like her music?
Doesn’t matter. Still a genius, and the single best role model on the picture.
I have to disagree with you, Leah. As an empowered female, I look up to the geek culture women, because they show a delineation between “male” and “female” roles. In fact, this is a matter that is explicitly addressed in Samantha Carter’s case numerous times. I think you’re missing the point of this picture entirely, and feel that, because YOU misinterpreted the message and took offense, that every woman on the planet should also take offense to this. I have to call B.S, madam.
As Drendar has so eloquently stated, the upper five women in this picture are nothing more than acts put on by real people in order to maintain their 15 minutes in the spotlight, because, let’s face it, fame is fleeting and it’s very easy to get addicted to it. Therefore, there are very REAL people who will be more than willing to put on a character, or “become fake,” if you will, in order to stay in that limelight. That is the point that Drendar was trying to make. But, the fact that you’ve misinterpreted that as well makes me wonder….
Either way, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Drendar, in that you are taking far too much offense to something that you obviously have misinterpreted, and should, in fact, get off your high horse, because gender does NOT invalidate opinions. If you were such a gung-ho person for equal treatment, you wouldn’t need SEVERAL outside opinions to tell you that.
Good day.
*yawn*
That particular brand of treehouse climbing is quite passée, you are not a special snowflake who gets a cupcake and a crown for disagreeing with me and siding with teh menz. Feel free to respond differently to the image from me, but you have no right to tell me what I should and should not be offended by, and I never suggested that you should be offended by it as a woman or a geek. Projections projections.
Actually, the whole “freedom of expression” thing means that I have every right to say what it is that I feel you’re projecting. And everything you postulated in that ENTIRE blog was nothing more than a rant about how women should NOT be suckered into the idea that geek culture doesn’t sexualize women, which connotes to everyone who reads it with objectivity a) you don’t understand what it is you’re criticizing, and b) because you don’t understand it, you’re vehemently against it, and any opinion that is able to accurately and objectively describe it.
As for “being a special snowflake,” unlike you, I’m not looking for gratification for my response. I just wanted to show you that there are women out there who disagree with you–more than likely those who are able to accurately process implicit information.
One last piece–I’m not a snowflake. My uniqueness is derived from a set of carbon-based molecules, not crystallized water.
You can’t seriously be misunderstanding freedom of expression that badly. I am not a government agency. I am not Barack Obama or Stephen Harper, therefore I cannot, by definition, take away your freedom of expression/speech. I can, however, say what goes on in my space, and there are limitations on what can be said on this blog: (http://quixoticautistic.wordpress.com/commenting-policy/)
Now please, go away. If you feel that strongly about this, I encourage you to start your own blog rather than spewing all over mine. I promise to neither read nor comment on it if you will offer me the same common courtesy.
Freedom of expression is a universal right, not merely a restriction placed upon government agency. I believe Laika is correct in declaring vociferously against the (honestly) narrow-minded argument you lodged against her original post. In case there was some confusion, that was *not* an ad hominem attack, it was a forthright assessment of your opinion as represented through your words. You can feel free to hide behind your administrative control over this blog, but in truth I do not see how it is in your interest to rely upon that as a rhetorical tool. Beyond that, it is rather hypocritical of you to demean someone for a perceived ad hominem attack immediately after making one yourself.
The internet is all about the collection and distribution of information, and one of the most important kinds of information is the personal opinion. As the individual in control of this blog, you can, of course, administratively fiat whatever regulations you are able to enforce. By the fact that you have ranted against people posting things you don’t like (not just Laika, I see), rather than censoring them, I suspect you don’t actually have control over what people say. If that’s the case, and you really don’t want an open forum, then move yourself to a site that allows you to restrict posts. Stop childishly attacking people for espousing opinions with which you disagree.
I actually do have the power to restrict people’s posts, including the power to edit them, move them to spam, or report them to wordpress. I haven’t used that power yet, but I think that if one more person pushes my buttons my telling me what or what not to do on my own blog, I’ll edit yours and Laika’s comments to read,
“I’m a stupid moron with an ugly face and big butt and my butt smells and I like to kiss my own butt.” Or maybe one of my other favourite Simpsons quotes. Maybe another TV show entirely.
See, I’m not afraid of being called childish. I rather relish it. I’m not a professional, I don’t get paid to do this, and the amount of whiners on this thread is testing my patience. That’s a lethal combination for poor fuckers like you.
Don’t like it? Leave. It will save me the trouble of banning you.
I don’t understand one little bit why this “but the women on top aren’t real either” is somehow supposed to invalidate Leah’s argument. That argument seems utterly irrelevant to most of what she said, and I consider it plain disrespectful to refuse to engage her larger point meaningfully because you (and to be fair, several other commenters) are too busy being deliberately obtuse and then getting pissy because she doesn’t just go “oh my, how wise you were to point that out.”
No one is saying the “geeky” women aren’t good role models – I love most of them myself. What every woman but one has said so far is that it’s plain ridiculous to a) give geek culture some mystical pass because 10 years ago or more sci-fi shows had some strong female characters, b) set up a dichotomy where female strength is somehow divorced from female sexuality, and finally c) judge women solely by their perceived promiscuity.
I had a whole closet full of Barbies and I’ve never noticed any adverse effects. Personally, I will buy any daughter I have toys that reflect her interests and tell her she is fine just as she chooses to be. Because there’s more than one way to be a badass and sure as shit more than one way to be a woman.
Good lord, thank you thank you for getting that!
Probably Ill advised to post this here–but whatever. I actually agree with your analysis in most ways. I’m not buying my girls a ray gun–the firm grounding in sciences will do–and the basic introduction to boxing will be good enough.
I’d like to address the sexism in geek “culture” comment. Of course geek culture is sexist. Most traditionally geek pursuits were male created and male consumed. The universes were replete with chin mail bikinis, magic lassos and yes–ray guns. Did you ever stop to think that the vast majority of the fiction that enabled it was all about wish fulfillment?
My experience is probably far more antiquated than yours. I saw star wars in the theatre when I was eight. I was one of the kids who got the empty action figure boxes for Christmas in seventy seven. I played the original dungeons and dragons until the original runequest kicked its ass and didn’t look back. I had the commodore 64 and before that had one of the original word processors–the one with a processing unit the size of a filing cabinet with the monitor and keyboard together in one space 1999 unit. I actually had to defend my RPGing against accusations of satanism from authority figures. My sodality bought the dark phoenix saga in the original printing off the shelves and geeked out over days of future past.
And never–never in all that time was there ever a vagina in the vicinity.
It simply wasn’t there. Sex was something that might as well have been a ray gun or a radioactive spider bite. So now with my years of hindsight I view the emergence of women into geek pursuits with mixed feelings. I have always thought that it was all about the love of the genre or whatever that might be, and whoever wanted to take part was welcome. And to a degree they are–your love for whatever you want is, in no way shape or form, my business. We can speak on things and the conversation will be what it will be.
I did bring women into the “Augusta” of the gaming group and most of them worked out well enough–but when they came in, the successful ones understood that they were entering into a group that had at least thirty years of history together and was based on chain bikinis, and frighteningly powerful psychokinetic redheads. it took all of them a while to understand the dynamic. It seemed to fractuous, too loud at times. The dynamic–too rough–but the successful ones adapted to the dynamic and added to the whole. But not without trying first to change it.
In my sodality, in many ways the pursuit of the geek was about the unattainable. It was setting rules and hierarchies for boys who had little to no control in the real world. Lets face it-none of us were going to be captains of the hockey team. So the geek was a safer world. To dream silly little dreams that would mean nothing to anyone. The worst of all was that idiotic dream of someone who actually likes you for who and what you are. You know, the one you grow out of if you are a man.
The one you can actually attain if you are a woman.
So yeah the above is leavened with some anger. Where the fuck were you when I was sixteen. Where the fuck were you when the pursuit of these things was viewed as the equivalent of an especially juicy skin infection? How the fuck do you get to jump in now after the road was laid down by the men who were social pariahs for doing it? And you don’t like the view? Part of me would very much like to tell you to deal with it or step off. Or better yet–do as you have–create your own and leave us out of it.
Geek culture is sexist because geek culture is afraid of women. It always has been and it always will be. This because geek culture was originated with men and men are afraid of women. They always have been and always will be. And you know what?
They should be afraid.
The one thing you can be certain of in any interaction with a woman is that they will seek change. Unless you are a psychopath–they are going to come out on top because of a simple truism.
The truism is demonstrated by the women on the top row. Sexy in the mix is an advantage. Sexy in the mix with a basement dwelling troglodyte is kryptonite. Their respective talents are variable–but the common denominator is the ability to get a penile response–and that is going to upset the apple cart no matter how you look at it. Add it to the other skill sets involved and you have a winner.
Each of the women in the bottom row of that picture is a fabricated joke using the same framework as the ones above but slathered with a sci-fi trope. A fantasy figure in fantasy worlds. But you know that right? That sexism exists because the traditional geek guy doesn’t want an actual woman. And that is because the traditional geek guy has already had an education in power imbalance his entire life. He knows he isn’t going to win. That’s why the love of minutia–the protectiveness of the universe he had created around him. In one place he set the rules. One safe place. When you burn that down, expect hostility.
Expect ignorance and anger and guys who just don’t get it. You can take a societal look at the relationships between men and women cry sexism and declare that it is somehow a man’s world.
But one on one–it was always a woman’s game.
So what do I tell my girls? Be smart. Educated yourself. Love what you do. I’m here to help you for as long as I am alive–but understand that you also have an advantage by looking good and taking care yourself. Use it as far as you are comfortable using it. Because brains and hard work are the foundation–but beauty is a tool that can make it all easier.
Why are you assuming that all women have this power? I do not have power over men. I’m not a conventionally attractive woman, and most women do not fit into that mould. So much for that power.
Also, I hope anyone else who comes into this thread to accuse me of man-hating reads this comment first, because there is literally nothing I could honestly say which would be more hateful of men than this line of thinking. Nothing is quite as misandrist as dehumanizing men into snivelling cowards who quiver and shake like Jell-O at the idea of women being equal and included, and believes it to be the same as women having power over them.
To this point I would only suggest that you might view the SMBD community. Look at the relationship of the dominant and submissive and then ask who actually has the control.
I’m part of the local kink community actually, and dom/sub relationships seem to be, at least in my cozy corner of kink, quite genderblind- I’ve subbed and dommed for both women and men in the past. What point are you trying to make exactly?
“The worst of all was that idiotic dream of someone who actually likes you for who and what you are. You know, the one you grow out of if you are a man.
The one you can actually attain if you are a woman. “
This is one of the saddest and most telling things on this whole comment thread.
Apologies. My bitterness is showing. Abusive relationships come in a variety of flavours–fall out and recrimination all seems to be blue and red.
I…had a Commodore 16 black and white, and played original DnD, etc. Still have all the original Dragon magazine copies and the sad imports from Britain that described LARP only we didn’t HAVE padded weapons so we used sticks until the Eye Incident And Wow, I Didn’t Know Foreheads Bled That Much Holy Crapola.
I’m a girl. My gaming group in 1987 was all girls. Some of us bought boys into it – male friends we’d made. The one thing I learned about the dudes was they sure did love the sidestories to do with rape for their female PC’s development, but honestly, they were fourteen, I guess? And hey, they packed it in when told, except for the dude who later precipitated what was called the LARP Crossbow Accident.
But I really don’t get ‘The worst of all was that idiotic dream of someone who actually likes you for who and what you are.’
Because that never happened for us. We weren’t sexy, or cool. We were nerds. Nerrrrrrds. And RIGHT WHILE our male friends were complaining that women didn’t accept them, I got some lectures on ‘I think of you as a sister, but if you like maybe wore some better clothes or looked a bit more like Traci, she’s acts cute, even you think she’s cute-’
So you know, if you’re anecdoting, I guess so am I? Because my experience as a nerd girl, as a nerd born in the 1970s, was different. And reading ‘LEAVE OUR HOBBY’ is pretty damn weird.
Dude, you leave my hobby O.o I’ve been here for nearly thirty years, running con games, designing comics, doing stuff, selling things at stalls and being in general friends with dudes who actually get that geek culture can be problematic.
I come by my misogyny honestly Leah. I have the support, child alienation and horror stories enough to justify it–should i ever feel it worth justifying to you. ( Don’t hold your breath)
But regardless–I was speaking about boys growing up at the time I did. And what I have seen reflected in various places and meets and cons . Maybe things are changing. It would be nice to think so. Men–of my age and experience–generally don’t give a shit anymore–its been burned out of them/us–and having been deep, deep inside geek culture for thirty years or more–I can tell you that I have more contempt for it now than I ever did growing up. The obvious transparency–the adolescence of it–and the contempt/worship for women–oozes from it.
I don’t need a brace of women as equals when the men as equals I deal with are quite sufficient. The question should be–why should I give enough of a shit to even give it a try? The known quantity being preferable in most cases. Especially when most interactions are fraught. We can say what we want–but we all do learn by our experiences right?
As for you not having power–i believe you stated that you have had sex? I’m assuming you didn’t pay for it–so I’m guessing someone found you attractive to go for it. Now go look at an average game night and realize that attractiveness is a two way street, but one end is outweighing the other. I did notice the lipstick and the nice haircut–is that mascara on your eyes? Just wondering. So is it that you are applying these things becaseu they are socially expected or is it “just to make you feel good about yourself”?
Oh and men are dehumanized — disposable really. If you are so inclined–look at the Disposable Male theory–perhaps some thoughts for rumination–I would caution you though that the rhetoric surrounding the theory is not reflective of the veracity of the central premise. There are crazy fuckers on the internet.
Or don’t. I suspect the world will keep turning either way.
Why, yes, I’ve had sex with people. Lots of people. With women, with men, with nonbinary people, but mostly with women, as a preference. It wasn’t a matter of power dynamics, it was, in most cases, a matter of “Hey, we’ve known each other a long time/just met, you seem pretty cool, why don’t we try having fun together?” I don’t remember seeing anything about needing to domineer over people or use my looks as “bait” to get them interested in sleeping with me in The Ethical Slut. Respect, communication, and mutual kinks go a lot further than relying on attraction alone.
As for the make-up, I consider it self-expression. I’m not Scarlet Johansson or Christina Hendricks, but I do enjoy the artistry behind make-up and researching the history of different looks. It’s not for the benefit of the male gaze, but for self-expression. Others can enjoy it if they want, but I created it, and cherish my ownership over it.:)
Hey, man, you asked: “The question should be–why should I give enough of a shit to even give it a try?”
Based on your posts here, my answer would be: because it sounds like you yourself would benefit from a society which was fairer and less judgemental toward everyone, which is exactly the kind of culture the best of feminist critique strives for.
Precisely. One of my favourite feminist credos is this: “Patriarchy hurts everybody”
Men are just as hurt by the hypermasculinity and devaluing of femininity that I discussed in this post, just in different ways. So they should take an interest in seeing it dismantled as well.
I’d still rather give my daughter a ray gun than a Barbie. and the first thing I’d teach her to shoot would be the TV set.
I like your sense of humour.
WONDERFUL! Thank you. Also, Lady Gaga is a BAMF and _is_ a wonderful role model.
Pingback: The Problem With Geek Culture’s ‘Female Role Models’ | Con Games
I would argue that NONE of those pictured here are in fact “real” people. Even the four on the top are characters created for our entertainment, even if they share the name with a real person. Most of their public display is an act.
I also think it’s silly to take this picture at all seriously. The article’s “what are we teaching our kids?” tact is way off in my opinion. Internet graphics like this aren’t teaching our kids anything. It’s not implying you can only live your life in one of two ways, which the author raises valid objections to, but is instead just supposed to be a funny juxtaposition.
How can we take the “I’m buying my daughter a ray gun” line seriously, when such things don’t even exist?! This 4 line joke is not worth 1143 words of exposition discrediting its validity. But to each their own I suppose.
If you don’t like me writing about it, you don’t have to read it, and you certainly don’t have to comment on it. I do not take kindly to people telling me what I should and should not write about. Also, the fact that this one post has gotten over 20,000 hits and has broken my record for comments after me blogging in relative obscurity for four years tells me that this kind of criticism did in fact, strike a chord with people, and was 100% warranted. Feel free to write whatever you want on your own blog, and I promise to neither read nor comment on it.
I’ll feel free to read and write whatever I like, anywhere. Why are you taking this as a personal attack? It certainly wasn’t meant as one. It’s an opinion, like yours.
The fact that this is popular, and “struck a chord” with so many people, as you say, makes it an even better place to share my view. I notice plenty of dissent in the comments above. That tells me you’ve stirred up controversy, which is great but don’t go flaunting your 20,000 hits stat around like they all agree with you.
I honestly think that image was unfairly analyzed. There are things that deserve study to determine the deeper meanings and greater repercussions. Other things deserve to be taken at face value and promptly forgotten. I think this image fits in the latter and I’ll feel free to express that opinion here and anywhere.
Wrong again, your opinion is not welcome “here and everywhere”, it is subject to the terms of each website you post it on, whether it’s a personal blog, the Prime Minister’s website, or the comments section of the Globe & Mail. The comments policy, if you missed it, can be found here (http://quixoticautistic.wordpress.com/commenting-policy/) My blog is not an open forum, it is my personal space, and having wi-fi and a computer doesn’t give you Carte Blanche to it. One more outburst of childish entitlement and I’ll ban your IP address so fast it will make your ISP dizzy.
Once again, if you want to write about what you think is ever so important, wordpress, blogger, livejournal, and other platforms are free, convenient, and easy to use.
It’s not “slut shaming” that puts the 5 women on top, it’s criticism of the culture that both promotes indiscrete and vulgar behavior as well as declares it tabboo. The point of the graph is that the characters represented on the bottom (and yes, her list of real-life women would be appropriate as well) are not required to be a part of that cultural expectation of sexualization because their actual capabilities as heroes/professionals stand on their own and are appreciated by geek culture because they’re awesome and not because of the gender of the awesome. Yes, the symbolic language does tend to reflect a paradigm of sexualization, but that is much more a consequence of popular culture defining language than anything else. The fact of the matter is that the women in the top row represent fame out of pure sexuality, whereas the characters in the bottom row are famous because of the things they do that have nothing to do with sex. And that was the point of the image, I believe: to show that geek culture has a predisposition to acceptance of people and characters for deeds that at least equals the acceptance of people for the sexuality they evoke.
Here is what you need to take away from this entire conversation: “Why are you assuming that all women have this power? I do not have power over men. I’m not a conventionally attractive woman, and most women do not fit into that mould. So much for that power.” -Leah Jane, 18 June 2012 at 6:09 pm. She’s socially inept, jealous of people who have any real understanding of social situations, and is resentful of anyone who can explain things in that area which she is not already able to grasp.
Unless I come to you with a $100 cheque for an hour’s session and you have a diploma in Psychiatry, kindly lay off the attempts to psychoanalyse me, it’s very obnoxious, especially when it sounds less like me and more like Veronica Lodge.
Also, you are acting as if getting famous off of sexuality/sexual expression is somehow inferior or degrading compared to getting famous/acknowledgement in another field. That’s silly puritanical nonsense. It implies that any careers tied to sex work are less legitimate than other fields, which is, surprise, a sub-type of slut-shaming. Nice try, but no cigar.
Actually, I made no such claim about the value of sexuality. What I said was that the positive aspect of geek culture being commented on in the picture is that sexuality has a place along with a whole plethora of other characteristics, whereas popular culture only focuses on the sexuality of women, with any regularity. I’m actually saying that such sexualization is good, in concert with the other character aspects included with the geek culture idealizations.
As for the psychoanalysis… if you want your readers to think something different, behave differently. As it stands, that’s how you’re coming off. Don’t get mad at me for being observant and honest.
You don’t speak for all of my readers, you speak for yourself, and how you perceive me. I don’t particularly care how I come off, either to you or any of my other readers. I do not owe anything to them or you, I’m not a professional writer and I don’t depend upon them or their opinions of me. Also, tone arguments (http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Tone_argument) are so very passée these days, try something a little bit more fashionable when trying to criticize me. I hear that pulling out a dictionary at random as if I don’t know the definitions of the words I’m using is popular these days. Or there’s always the old classic of telling me I need to get laid, nobody’s used that in a while!
My opinion of you aside, I have not relied upon a tone argument here, nor am I pulling out a dictionary to puff up what I have to say. I agree that I don’t speak for all of your readers, and I have not claimed to do so. Quite the contrary, all I’ve done is read what others have had to say and tried to present my assessment as frankly as possible. Please don’t diminish my argument because you’re caught up in the (very human) complex of your own cynicism, arrogance, and insecurity. In point of fact, you appear to enjoy being enraged by the commentary you’re encountering here. Again, that would be an observation and not an accusation.
As for your independence from the opinions of your readers, there is a niggling logical inconsistency in your claim. It is wonderful that you are self-confident enough to stand your ground and refuse to give up control of the situation, but if you weren’t seeking the opinions of others, you wouldn’t have started a blog in the first place. And there’s nothing wrong with wanting to be heard! But as a human being, you have been neurologically designed and psychologically conditioned through acculturation to both seek and desire feedback from other people and claiming otherwise is an insult to yourself as well as your readers.
Gone from psychoanalysis to Evo-Psych. You must have double majored at Google University.
I started this blog because Livejournal got invaded by too many Russian spambots and Blogger was majorly screwing up and kept crashing, so I moved to wordpress. As the title implies, this was originally an autism blog, then figured “What the hell, I’ll write whatever I want in between posts on autism”. There’s only four people I desire feedback from on this blog: My girlfriend, my two editors for the autism pieces, and a fellow blogger I admire. Everyone else is either an extra bonus, or an inconvenience. Your dull attempts at analysis are putting you in the inconvenience category.
I do hold multiple degrees, and none of them were issued by Google. You may find my analyses dull, but what they lack in precision is a consequence of limited information and not of inaccuracy. I remind you that you have control over this entire train of commentary, and yet you have done little but bluster about how righteous you are and how wrong, unworthy, sexist, or immature your challengers are. Nothing that I’ve said is dull, except insofar as the material being criticized might so be. In fact, very little included in these responses has been dull excepting the occasional momentary agreement between you and a responder. If you’re interested in interesting conversation from me, then discuss what I’ve had to say as I discussed what you had to say.
Considering I haven’t violated a single one of your policies, I would consider it a laughable irony to be banned for my “childish outbursts”. I would urge you to reflect seriously on your motivations for doing so, but since this would fall under the category of telling you how to run your blog, I won’t.
That being said, I can see now why you’ve been blogging in obscurity for years. If you can’t accept criticism and dissenting opinions then you’ll never be able to open up dialogue. People enjoy conversations, not lectures, unless you’re writing purely for entertainment. In that case, this entire piece is no better than the picture it criticizes.
I understand that you object to my opinion that this picture isn’t worth writing about, yet here I am spending time writing to YOU about it. Ok. Hypocrisy noted. What I mean to say is I think you’re over thinking some things, and that we can let this image be what it is: a joke. What I DO NOT mean to say is that this article was a waste of time, or that I didn’t enjoy reading it, which I fear you may have misconstrued as my meaning.
You have a wonderful talent with words: It would be a shame to waste that with a taking-my-ball-and-going-home attitude.
“In that case, this entire piece is no better than the picture it criticizes.”
Rob Chase, you are awesome.
You sir, have encapsulated my entire thought process on this. Well spoken, Rob Chase!!
The image may be a joke to you, but for me, it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I’ve been dealing with the stupid, masturbatory gloating of people involved in geek culture for years now in stony silence, and seeing this stupid image on people’s facebooks, right under and above images which had pictures of women gaping open-mouthed, captioned with urges to “Give me your hot wet load… of laundry”, “make me a sandwich” jokes, and photoshopped images of Samus Arran without her armour or Zero Suit on, I decided the time had come to vent, especially after the Lara Croft origin story debacle, the Catwoman cover controversy, and the “Women in Video Games” Kickstarter disaster, proving that geek culture was not only not exempt from misogyny, but in fact, wallowed in it like a Klingon targ.
I wrote it as a personal catharsis, normally this blog is reserved for autism blogging with a few random observations about sex, academics, and book reviews thrown in at my fancy.
The only reason this blog post got popular is because I posted it on my facebook and it spoke to a lot of my geek friends, who shared it on their facebooks, and on reddit, tumblr, twitter, and livejournal. I’m guessing they were sick of that crap as well, and this image just happened to be the one that made me finally lose my temper.
What a patronizing fuckwad you are, Rob. I rather doubt this blogger needs your approval or your contributions.
anyone who supports this woman is a fucktard….just sayin. you woman are an idiot. i can’t even begin to point out your stupidity with this post. and all of you arguing over it….IT’S A FUCKING MEME WHAT THE HELL IS THE GODDAMNED PROBLEM….let the stupid bitch rant, the best way to deal with idiots is to ignore them…..or with a high caliber bullet, but since the law tends to frown on that, i suggest ignoring. unless you’re good a disposal of bodies….then do the world a favor and raise the collective IQ 20 points by starting with this woman. end rant.
You know, it’s really not a good idea to make threats against people when commenting on their blogs, which record your email and IP address.
In other words: I’ll be reporting you to the RCMP. Good day, and please do not come back.
wasn’t making threats, learn what is serious and what is not. its a rant, just like a meme. just dont like stupidity in the world and it seems to be a growing problem. just saying some people wouldve been better off being swallowed.
I will leave that to the discretion of your local police, who will receive this after the RCMP, since your IP address was included in my report.
I’ve received “not serious” or “just joking” threats and comments before, and the police definitely didn’t think it was funny. You can explain your brand of humour to them.
Oh, come on. Obvious trolling.
thats good. to know, im sure theyll get a kick out of it, considering that i know alot of em. and the sheriffs wife taught me in school. small towns FTW
Regardless of whether you receive consequences for your actions or not, I appreciate the example of exactly why geek culture does not deserve any brownie points for being progressive. One troll’s behaviour is worth a thousand words.
Now please, get off my blog before I ban you.
Hey, by the way, I give a fuck. Just so you know.
Leah, he is not a Geek. I am a geek… This guy is just someone who thinks he can’t blow off steam anonymously by trolling you.
There are a lot of men who feel oppressed and sexually repressed by women at work because they cannot express certain things they find natural, like looking at sexy lady pictures. I agree with men on that.
Problem is, men forget that women have feelings too and calling someone a fucktard is inappropriate and demeans not the recipient but the poster.
I love the saying “I know you are, but what am I…”
Men are “oppressed” and “sexually repressed” by women? Where to even start with this, oy vey…
First of all, where in the universe is it the case that the poor widdle needy men are denied access to “sexy lady pictures”? How do you explain the lad mags and the freely available porn on the internet, of which 99.999999 % is aimed at hetero men? And furthermore, how does the abundant existence of rape porn fit in with your world view of repressed guys that the ebul women are keeping from expressing their “natural” feelings? “Natural” feelings, by the way, which are largely manufactured by an unaccountable industry that is completely indifferent to women AND men.
And you mention that these sexually repressed unicorns are succumbing to their sexual repression “at work”? Nice one. Are you really going to tell me that you are crying salty tears for men who are not allowed to bring their porn to work?
Men do not have a right to demean and dehumanise women with pornified images that present women as mere fucksocks, regardless of whether men have now conditioned themselves to get off on that. I am lucky enough to know plenty of men who have no trouble grasping that.
You scoff at my above statements. That’s probably because I didn’t add %sarc% to the end of it…
My bad.
“Wouldn’t a more compelling, interesting, and challenging comparison for celebrating an alternative to mainstream role models for girls have been real-life women who are involved in geek culture? How about Lauren Faust, creator of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic? Or Lindsay Ellis, the Nostalgia Chick? Rebecca Watson, from Skepchick? Jane Goodall, the world-famous Primatologist? Dr. Alice Roberts, from Digging for Britain? Lisa Randall, the Harvard Physicist? Kate Beaton, the brilliant comic artist? Or Mayim Bialik, the actress turned neuroscientist turned actress?”
This is my favourite bit of the post and a great point.
I have to admit, I find the vehemence of your negativity to be somewhat self-defeating at points. The ‘take no prisoners’ style of feminist critique can be very effective, or it can feel like a marked lack of generosity that paints feminism itself in an ugly light. It feels here like there are more nuances to be got at.
It’s a terribly flawed image in the message it’s trying to present, but what you dismiss as the self-congratulatory aspect of the venture I would say is more giving yourself a tick for getting something right. For all that’s wrong with geek culture, it has a strong selection of women authority figures, who can be typically found in assertive poses. If geeks are going to pat themselves on the back for anything at all, surely it should be this?
^this, you sir have the right idea. no trolling intended here. i salute you sir.
Well, you know, no offence but it might have helped if you’d said something like that instead of launching some quite nasty remarks at the blog owner. You can disagree and still respect where someone is coming from, right?
Actually, you know, on second thoughts, ‘the vehemence of your negativity’ is a stupid way to put it. Sorry. Really, it’s that I think your points are basically sound, but I also think it’s better to permit just a few brownie points, while giving the full and complex context that the image itself avoids. You know, I think it’s good that people are saying, “This is what I like about my subculture – the cool female characters.”
It is good that people are noticing that there is something positive about female characters who are competent and play their part in saving the day. But I don’t want it to be said in a way that trashes other women outside of or inside the subculture for any reason, and I want it to be done in a way that acknowledges the gaps that still exist.
After all, what is the world’s biggest room? Room for improvement.
True – and I should say, I’m a bit influenced by Jane McGonnigal’s ‘Reality is Broken’ at the moment, which makes very strong arguments about the role of positive self-reinforcement in driving people towards genuine self-improvement. Essentially, she says, I think, that it’s good for people’s general attitudes and generosity and preparedness to achieve that they get frequent (perhaps even hyperbolic) good responses to small positive things they do. Which is why games become so addictive!
Leah’s mistake was to attack too many levels at once. The misogynistic insinuation that only androgynous dressed women in power are good role models is an insidious message in the above picture. Her error was to blanket Geekdom as a whole when it comes to the message. It was only one idiot who created this meme. There is no proof that the “artist” is a geek.
At first glance (Level one thinking) the picture makes sense. And that’s where Leah’s comments are correct, it’s actually quite chauvanistic and oppresses a woman’s right to be both feminine and powerful.
The labels Pop Culture and Geek Culture are contrived and should not be accepted as societal norms. Remember, POP culture defines all other cultures because it’s the societal “popular” norm that creates the definition for all other labels. Labels gotta go.
That is a fair point Jon, but it boils down to something we say a lot in the queer community when talking about celebrities or big companies expecting praise for being somewhat LGBTQ-friendly: You don’t get accolades for being a decent human being, and that is not what being an ally is about. It’s great that geek culture has a lot of great woman characters, and that there are many creators taking positive steps forward to include better female characters, more people of colour, more disabled characters, and more queer characters (The DC Reboot not withstanding…)
But I think the proper attitude isn’t “Wow, we’re great!”, it’s “Well, we’ve still got a long ways to go, what needs improving?” I think that constant self-praise risks becoming navel gazing, and can stagnate progress already made, when the focus should instead be on what we might have missed, so that we can become better than before, and raise the bar further so that others have to climb higher to reach it.
I do hope that makes sense.
It does, and that is entirely, entirely right.
I try to tentatively come down somewhere in the middle, because when you get the commenters who don’t get it, I think it’s better to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that somewhere deep down, they’re *trying* to get it right, but the human urge to be self-defensive is incredibly powerful, and so you get the excuses, the ‘it cuts both ways’ speeches etc.
Although I fully understand that it gets bloody tiring reiterating the same points after a while, and that patience wears thin.
I’ve been blogging for four years, and I think I may have picked up some bad habits from Tumblr bloggers, who have to deal with a lot more anonymous haters than wordpress bloggers like me, so they tend to shoot first and ask questions later. I guess I should try to remember that my commenters are like me in that they are A.) only human, and B.) on a learning curve.
If this post goes on any longer, I may just set up an FAQ section to preserve my mental health.
“I find the vehemence of your negativity to be somewhat self-defeating at points.”
I find it refreshing. I like a feminist blogger who doesn’t sugarcoat anything.
Thanks. I’m quite tired of the “tone” argument, and annoyed with being told that I could appeal to more people/readers if I changed the way I address these topics. I don’t want readers who need every truth I write to come with a spoonful of sugar.
All well and good, except that geek culture has been patting itself on the back for the same handful of female characters for upwards of 10 years. I do in fact get sick of this “oh but we loooove strong women because Ahura!” reasoning, when Ahura was created before I was born. I think when the more recent crop of a subculture’s prominent female characters are at least 20 years old, it’s time to stop the back-patting and get working. Particularly when geek culture seems to be doing its best to water even those down – DC reboot anyone? Lara Croft origin story?
” Particularly when geek culture seems to be doing its best to water even those down – DC reboot anyone? Lara Croft origin story?”
Bingo! Right again!
i will leave but first, allow this bit of tact i have. i will apologize for my outburst. i was out of cigs and pissed at the amount of stupid some people have for blowing things like this out of proportion and not having a sense of humor. which is something you seem to be lacking. its the same as if you dont like something a page post on fb. do you report or just unlike. the best thing to do, is unlike. why ruin everyone else’s fun because YOU feel offended/annoyed by something. seems absolutely ridiculous to me. just like with this, was there any need at all to really post this? geek culture will do what it will. now, i personally believe not a single women on the top row is a good role model. Lady Gaga has a good freedom of expression thing going, but she takes it too far. there’s no tact. much like with my previous comment. Now madam i think its time you learned to stop being so easily offended. no need to rant about stuff like this that people are having fun with. they will have their fun. now, i will be leaving but not for the threat of being banned but because i have to go to my work where i work all day with Alzheimer’s patients. lifes to short to get worked up over stuff like this for long. so everyone just needs to chill the fuck out.
good day
Does anyone want to give this guy a special golden turd award for the most impressive fauxpology in the history of my blog? Right down to using disabled people as props to make himself look saintly! Remarkable!
The fact that you’re an adult, when I had you pegged as a 15 year old kid who spent too much time on XBox Live, frightens me more than your death threat does, I hope you know.
i apology was not false, thank you very much. i smoked my cigs i feel better and i realize i ranted a little early. now as far as using disabled people thats a little harsh in my opinion. i am a CNA. i have to care for these people. i am no saint, far from it in fact, considering i claim no religion and have my fair share of character flaws. just realize the stress im under from 12 hour shifts. and coming home to the chaos that is my home. i ment my apology whether or not you believe that is up to you. i was looking for something to vent my frustration at, found it and blasted. Now, i realize what i did and i am apologizing for it. take it as you will. i have bad nic fits. at this point its whatever. yall have fun with this post. and as i said before it wasn’t false apology. but the odds you believe that one are slim. farewell.
If your apology is genuine, then I’ll accept it. Next time though, I’d encourage you to consider something my grade 5 teacher told me once: “Don’t be sorry, just don’t do it”. There are plenty of ways to deal with anger that don’t involve threatening people. You can find one, I am certain.
yes there are, unfortunately, my time for stress relieving hobbies isn’t that great. my apology was genuine. as i said, nic fits and frustration. maybe tomorrow after i come home and sleep i will be able to input on this debate in an intellectual fashion. until then once again i am sorry. good day, night or whatever it is in your time zone.
This image just cropped up on my Facebook. I like it.
http://i.imgur.com/f2ZZ9.jpg
Oh I like it too! Anything with Rachel Maddow!
Because it’s liable to come up, here’s my original post where I talk about why I included Kari and Daenerys.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4171149635924&l=cf60a081b9
Leah Jane, you make some valid points – but I think I still feel more angry about mainstream culture’s attitude towards predominant ‘role models’ (and I’m using that term loosely as I think this has been implied by some of your commentators) – in my eyes geek culture is at least trying, something I rarely see in the mainstream. I agree geeks are not saints and accolades (cookies) aren’t necessarily deserved. I’m speaking as a fuddy duddy prudish (kindof) scientist working in predominantly male profession who has seen the ugly side of sexism more than once, and yes, I liked the poster and unfortunately would take any of those fictional characters as a role model for myself and my daughter over any of the real ones presented (although I have no idea who the woman is next to Lady Gaga). This is likely partly due to the fact I’m not fond of ‘raunch’ culture (depicted in either gender, but predominantly mostly aligned with women) or the supposed empowerment it gives women, although if women want that and it does empower them – that’s great – I have no wish to ‘slut shame’ I’m just not a fan of who I think (and this is my opinion) are empty celebrities, and will likely never take strength from those wishing to be that way. I wish it was Jane Goodall (or Diane Fossey) or any of the other celebrated women you mention who are up there but the sad fact is the mainstream wouldn’t have a clue who they were (and a large proportion of those in geek culture are no different and wouldn’t know them either I’m guessing.)
My career is also in the Geek culture and I also have been inundated by male sexism and all those scantily clad pictures. However, I find men to be very hot and I am not above having me a nice 300 poster in mu cubicle. So I cannot have a double standard and expect all those men to act like priests and we all walk around the cube farm as androgynous beings with no flavor, color, sex or creed. Boring work place that would be.
I find the insinuation that only fictional women who wear androgynous clothing and pack a gun as if to say aggression is best to be disturbing as well. I am proud of my femininity and will wear 3″ high heels to a meeting. Sure, i won’t wear a deep cleavage blouse, but I won’t be wearing a crewcut/turleneck collar as well.
Guess my role model when it comes to dress was Sybil Shepherd on Moonlighting. Her clothes were feminine yet high class and demanded respect in a woman of power kind of way. Her hair was soft, yet she held her ground against her annoying and very chauvanistic employee played by Bruce Willis.
Another one of my role models was Lee Iococa. He was an engineer who got his MBA and became CEO of Chrysler. Still remember the front cover of his biography where he’s sitting at his desk with his feet on the desk and his arms folded as if he’s on top of it all.
So maybe we should be less worried about how much skin a certain person shows, and instead focus on their character and what message they are sending via their actions and attitude.
“So I cannot have a double standard and expect all those men to act like priests and we all walk around the cube farm as androgynous beings with no flavor, color, sex or creed. Boring work place that would be.”
The workplace doesn’t need to be sexed up, trust me. Some people have enough trouble maintaining appropriate boundaries there, and too many of them have power over others. If I were your supervisor I’d make you take the 300 poster down, just as I’d make a man take his cheesecake poster down. Unprofessional.
Also, you’re entitled to be femme if you want, but as a non-girly girl your oen contempt toward “androgynous beings” grinds my gears. It’s also not a little bit ignorant w/r/t people who actually aren’t on the gender binary.
What I find most disturbing about “geek culture” is the assumption that there is such a thing as opposed to “mainstream culture”. It’s symptomatic of the increasing trend towards tribalism. We have become a world of factions in which everybody wants to identify as an oppressed minority.
When middle-class college educated Americans begin complaining about the tyranny of the “mainstream” I think it’s safe to say that identity politics has reached its nadir.
“What I find most disturbing about “geek culture” is the assumption that there is such a thing as opposed to “mainstream culture”. ”
I was reading through these comments wondering how long it would take someone to point that out.
There might, at one point, have been such a thing as a ‘geek culture’ separate from ‘mainstream culture’; but these days, the idea that comics, videogames and sci-fi TV shows like Star Trek are anything other than mainstream is ridiculous. (The fact that this image includes a picture of a girl from a series of movies about vampires as ‘non-geek culture’ shows how silly and arbitrary that distinction is.)
It’s the label ideal. Peeps say racism is dead. That’s a load of bull. Racism is alive and we all do it. We label others in specific stereotypical groups so that we can describe them in a general way and not have to be bothered with specifics.
I am an engineer and have been told by many that you can’t truly be a geek without the double E (Electrical Engineering). Nerds are all of us eggheads who spend more time studying in college than partying. Dorks are those who actually care about the difference…
What’s so funny is that POP CULTURE defines GEEK CULTURE. Geek has been labelled as anything intensely focused on a specific subject. So I’m a Geek Horticulturalist and I’m also a Geek Strategema player. I’m also a Trekkie. However, Start Trek has always been misogynistic from the short skirts in the Original Episodes to the overly covered up bodysuits in The Next Generation and offshoots. Either the women are shown wearing something totally useless in utility or shown wearing something totally androgynous.
The Pop vs Geek picture is simply one idiot’s interpretation of society. It does not reflect all of our sensibilities. Such insidiously subliminal messages should be called out. Thanks to Leah for speaking about the sexism and thanks to Misha for speaking about the disturbing labels.
Initially, I was very upset that someone wanted to take this image apart. Being a geek girl, I was very excited to see some of these awesome characters trouncing the pop culture icons. But once I started reading your dissection, I was highly impressed. We need REAL examples of REAL geek girls – the Felicia Day’s of the world. Being a super-feminine geek myself, people find it so hard to accept that a woman can be feminine, sexually attractive (and active), AND a geek. I applaud you for taking a stance, not against geek culture, but against continuing the stereotypes of geekery and who can and cannot be a geek. Thank you.
Thank you very much, notajellyfishLaura!
I know it can seem instinctive to want to protect subcultures or cultures we consider ourselves members of, especially when it’s composed of many people who didn’t fit in elsewhere. But we need to be introspective so that we can be more inclusive, so I have no regrets about critiquing this image.
The difference between the two sets of women is more than just “slut-shaming” and whatnot. Let’s look at the top row:
1) Seems to portray a persona of idiocy, drunkenness, and a need to be partying constantly;
2) Plays a character whose entire identity revolves around whether or not a boy likes her;
3) Trades on her sexuality because it’s the only thing going for her other than her trust fund;
4) (Admittedly I know very little about Kat von D, except that she trades on her sexuality more than strictly necessary);
5) . . . Lady Gaga is ok, although she seems to scream for attention in every outfit she wears.
Now compare that to the bottom row:
1) Portrays a strong, intelligent peacekeeper who fights for what she believes is right;
2) Portrays a strong, intelligent, kickass soldier / wife who is invaluable to her crew;
3) Portrays a strong, intelligent commander; later portrays a First Lady who doesn’t just shrink behind her husband on those issues she’s passionate about;
4) Portrays a strong, intelligent officer whose insights and ability are admired by her superiors as well as her subordinates;
5) Portrays a strong, intelligent officer who saves her team’s bacon on more than a few occasions and eventually gains command over her own base and, later, her own ship.
Let’s ignore the uglier aspects of geek culture for a brief moment and focus on which group of women you would want for a role model for your daughter or niece.
I for one would choose the group who represent strength, intelligence, and self-reliance over the group who represent stupidity, weakness, and/or a need to be desired for their bodies rather than their skills.
Except you missed the point that it would be perfectly possible to make an image featuring five examples of strong, capable, intelligent women from mainstream culture, and five one-dimensional hypersexualised women from geek culture. Someone else has already done it in these comments. The selection of women in the original picture is not representative of ‘geek culture’ or ‘mainstream culture’; it’s cherry-picked to make a facetious point, so that geeks can pat themselves on the back and feel superior to that awful, sexist, ‘mainstream’, while completely ignoring that ‘geek culture’ suffers from exactly the same problems.
I didn’t miss that point; I’m fully supportive of examples from mainstream culture of strong, capable, intelligent women. I merely find no fault in the comparison as presented in the original image.
The original image features five women from mainstream culture seen (for whatever reason) as role models, and contrasts those five with five characters from science fiction. I don’t care that it’s cherry-picked, that the positive group is composed completely of fictional characters, or that it ignores the sexism so often prevalent in geek culture. I care about the underlying message, not the speaker. The ideal is more important than the conduit.
Do we complain about the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence as wrong because the people who drafted them were flawed? Do we chuck out ideals on human equality because some of the people who espoused them owned slaves? We might view Thomas Jefferson or George Washington as a kind of hypocrites for failing to live up to the ideals they espoused, but that doesn’t denigrate the ideals themselves.
The problem is this comparison shouldn’t have been made at all. What should have been compared is two women in the same situation with different characters.
Leah is right to complain about the whole societal norm of calling down sexy women and showing that androgynous dressed women are more acceptable role models. Yes, Snooky and the Kardashians are dumb, but not for how they dress, but how they act and what their priorities in life are.
Plus, when you show a bunch of Sci-Fi characters and no real women role models you also insinuate that women in power can only be found in fiction.
Also, guns are not masculine. They are simply tools and women SHOULD learn to use them as they are the great equalizer. There would be much less rapes and domestic violence if women were just a bit more dominant and able to hold their own.
Sure the Barbie ideal is wacked, but so is the idea that a woman should dress in clothes that show very little of her figure. Why can’t women be sexy and smart and powerful at the same time?
You will find sexy pictures of women in any “culture”. Just like you will find strong women role models in the same cultures. You can find just as many half-naked pictures of men in the same cultures. Why do you think us women love the movie 300?
We need to stop being so prudish and sexually repressed. A woman can be both sexual and strong. What is wrong with being sexy? Men fear a woman who is both intelligent and beautiful; hence, the reason why there’s so many religious edicts against a woman leading men, uncovering her head, wearing gold/makeup/alluring clothing, etc…
Then you get women who buy into the shame. We get the twisted view that if we are eye candy to men then somehow we have been lessened in value. It’s the direct opposite ladies. Men worship beauty, so be proud of yours and know that it gives you power over men. Your brain is also beautiful, keep it in shape as well because a sexy rocket scientist is the bomb!
Oh sure, girls shouldn’t be having sex, but by 18 they are full grown and unless you teach them to be proud of their sexuality, they will never reach their full womanhood potential. By not teaching them a sexy woman can be the dominant one you are in fact raising them to be submissive to the pressures of the high school bad boys. Women need to be taught that what they have is awesome and how to shape it up to be the best and only accept the best from their prospective mate.
Wish we still had finishing schools, just imagine a young lady who had bearing and control and was on her way to an engineering college. Such a lady would someday rule the world. So shut up about your prudish ideals, you are doing young ladies a disservice.
AMEN to your comment, Heidi!
Thank you Leah. We need to be proud to be women and that includes our body, mind and spirit.
“Men worship beauty, so be proud of yours and know that it gives you power over men.”
Pussy power isn’t shit. Men don’t “worship beauty”; too many of them think they’re owed it. Some women aren’t attracted to men. And we already have enough influences in society telling girls they have to be uber-femme.
In-frikkin-deed. I’ve been told I’m attractive, yet my “feminine wiles” have gotten me nowhere in life. I can’t even use them to win an argument with my boyfriend, he’s immune.
Pingback: Super villainy is hard, let’s go shopping!: 9 questionable representations of women in “geek culture” | Sci-Fi, Movies, Comics and Quiche from a Pop Disciple
“Got it, any opinion that diverges from yours = bad and wrong. I’m not a geek woman so my opinion doesn’t matter. Check.”
Oh, here we go. The person arguing against your points is not agreeing with you? BWAAAH, must be because you’re a man and she’s just a mean man-hater. You’ve never been contradicted by a woman before, I take it? I mean, why would you otherwise come to such a ridiculous conclusion?
Ummm… I think she got pissed when “whogivesashit” called her and her followers “fucktards”…
One can have a dissenting opnion, just please refrain from rhetoric or name bashing or cussing.
I did lose my temper when dealing with some people on this thread, but that was after hours of having people present the same bullshit theory to me about how “Oh Snooki’s not a real person your argument’s invalid”, and dealing with attacks to my personality (Jealous of people who understand social situations? Really?) That was before the “fucktards and bullets” comments.
When it comes to moderating and responding to comments, I’m like a mirror: I’ll only reflect back what I was already given by the commenters.
Is this in reply to me, because if so I may have left my comment in the wrong place? My point was that Justin (up thread) didn’t have one. I never wanted to come across as disagreeing with Leah Jane, who has written a great piece here and has conducted herself with tact and intelligence in the comment thread.
“Cussing.” Yeah, how fuckin’ terrible, using fuckin’ nasty-ass words that might make ladylike layyydeeez like Heidi-poo clutch her pearls and grab her smelling salts.
The point here is perception, im sure the pop characters on top are actually quite intelligent and the fictional characters on the bottom sure had plenty of sexy scenes. But they arent portrayed that way! Personnally i’d rather tell my daughter she can be a brilliant scientist or a command rank officer than shake her ass on a stage.
In what bizarre universe is Mayim Bialik a good role model for anyone.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/21/say-it-aint-so-amy-farrah-fowler/
I’m aware of her tendencies towards what Orac calls “crunchy parenting”. She’s also a baalat teshuva, so she already has a propensity towards believing things without evidence. But this doesn’t erase her accomplishments as an actress. Does Christian Bale’s horrible temper mean he’s not an awesome Batman?
That’s great, except your post isn’t about her accomplishments as an actress. You were specifically talking about role models.
You said: “Wouldn’t a more compelling, interesting, and challenging comparison for celebrating an alternative to mainstream _role models_ for girls have been real-life women who are involved in geek culture?”
You also said: “Or Mayim Bialik, the actress turned neuroscientist turned actress? All of these women are talented, famous, and well-known for being badass in their decidedly geeky fields. I would love to see them celebrated as _role models_ for budding geek girls.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t want “budding geek girls” celebrating an anti-vaccine science denying actress an a good role model.
I don’t care how good an actress she is and you shouldn’t either. She contributes to the erosion of herd immunity and the infection of small children. That leads directly to illness, serious injury, and death.
This is to say nothing of her attitudes about autism.
It is pretty disingenuous to try to minimise this stuff as “crunch parenting”.
That’s great, except your post isn’t about her accomplishments as an actress. You were specifically talking about role models.
You said “Wouldn’t a more compelling, interesting, and challenging comparison for celebrating an alternative to mainstream _role models_ for girls have been real-life women who are involved in geek culture?”
You also said: “Or Mayim Bialik, the actress turned neuroscientist turned actress? All of these women are talented, famous, and well-known for being badass in their decidedly geeky fields. I would love to see them celebrated as _role models_ for budding geek girls.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t want “budding geek girls” celebrating an anti-vaccine science denying actress an a good role model.
I don’t care how good an actress she is and you shouldn’t either. She contributes to the erosion of herd immunity and the infection of small children. That leads directly to illness, serious injury, and death.
This is to say nothing of her attitudes about autism.
It is pretty disingenuous to try to minimise this stuff as “crunch parenting”.
Please go be a douchey McNitpick someplace else. Ten year old girls don’t read Babble or Woo websites, they are not going to know that Mayim Bialik is a big fan of attachment parenting or homeopathy. But if I have a daughter who is as big of a fan of Blossom as I was growing up, whom I can tell “She went on to get a degree in neuroscience!” that will be alright in my book. Also, I’m an autistic blogger, writer, and speaker who speaks with parents and both public and private organizations about autism, I do more than my fair share to dispel myths about vaccines. I do not particularly care if you think I’m somehow an evil co-conspirator or complacent in woo just because I like an actress who disagrees with me politically and morally.
I also had people complain about me using Rebecca Watson as an example of a role model because she hurt their pwecious fee-fees when she told them to not bug women at conferences in the elevators. You can’t please everyone.
That’s a fantastic attitude, Leah. You want young geek girls to view anti-vax Bialik as a role model because those young girls won’t be reading anti-vax sites. Do you want to re-think that a little? If she’s their role model, when those views eventually become known to them, they’ll have more influence, because they’ll be delivered to them by their beloved role model. What is the point of a role model if not to influence people, to make their followers want to be like them. Have you thought this through _at all_?
I cannot believe that you compare complaining about Bialik because her views lead to child death with complaining about Watson because she put some misogynists off side.
Your comparison with the two, along with your minimisation of this issue (she’s into “crunch parenting” rather than “vaccination denialism”) stinks to high heaven of a childish refusal to admit you picked a bad example and replace her with a better one.
Amazingly enough, I grew up admiring Blossom, I watch The Big Bang Theory, and I’m a pro-vaccine adult. I trust the intelligence of my future daughters and other girls to not implicitly trust everything that’s said by a celebrity they admire and respect as the gospel truth, and to do their own research and thinking! Agency’s a hell of a powerful drug.
And my attitude is more that of someone who is quite sick of people telling me how to run my own blog and who feel some kind of ownership over what I write because they have a basic command of both computer skills and literacy. As I’ve repeated more than I care to count on this thread, if you don’t like what I write, the choice of role models, or anything else about this post or my blog, you are perfectly within your own rights to stop reading mine and start your own, it’s easy and free. Write the most amazing, eloquent takedowns of Mayim Bialik that you can muster, and maybe you’ll learn to stop telling me what I should and should not do or write. You are not my editor, my mother, or my rabbi, and those are the only three people who can get away with that.
Since when did role models have to be perfect and exemplary in all ways? I grew up looking up to Madonna, but I didn’t film myself writhing naked under a sexy man, or hump a stage while wearing a wedding dress. And those were very public parts of her persona.
Eesh. No wonder it’s all fictional women on the bottom row, if real, live women can’t possibly be perfect in all ways and are therefore lacking as role models.
A very good point, Alice K. I don’t equate being a “role model” with having to be up on a pedestal. The thing about pedestals is that they are very high, narrow places to be, and it’s very easy to fall off of them. I can still remember the first time I was old enough to really understand what douches Percy Shelley and Lord Byron, two of my favourite poets, had been towards the women in their lives. Did I never read their poetry again? Did I decide I hated their poems? No. But I read them in a new and different light. Byron and Shelley are dead, but this also applies to living celebrities I’ve vehemently disagree with on more than one occasion, including, but not limited to, Hugh Laurie, Natalie Portman, and Lady Gaga.
Funny how everyone I look up to is different from me, and flawed in some way. However shall I discern the difference between what I want to emulate, and what I want to accept of my heroes?
What an effort! It’s too much! Someone fetch my smelling salts!
This thread became much too long to get through everyone’s comments, so these points may have been well-covered; but I had to respond, because I was one of “those” that posted this picture on Facebook – because the characters represented hold much more than the single picture of them portrays.
To me, the image represents meta-types. It’s not how they’re dressed, it’s what meta-type of woman they represent by their behavior or their character’s behavior. I agree with you that the choices could have been better (Marie Curie, Boudicca, Amelia Earhardt, Rosa Parks, etc.). I could replace the pictures in the bottom row with the women in my life I would be *happy* to have as role models to my daughter(s). Well, some of them, as with some of the men I know, they’re not all good role models!
Although the bottom row are fictional characters, the top row are people putting on a public persona as well, in essence: fictional characters.
Frankly, I didn’t recognize any of the women in the top row, except Kim Kardashian, and that was incidental; but I recognized every character played by the women in the bottom row.
I have no idea what Snooky is like in real life (does she get a chance to have one, ever?). She could be a blithering idiot or completely brilliant. However, the persona she is portraying in public is not one that lends itself to respectability. Please, before you bite my head off, if I knew who any of the Jersey Shore doofuses (the males – “The Situation”??) were and they behaved like idiots in public (I think they do, but I try hard to avoid pop culture); I would not want my son(s) to grow up to be like them, as much as I would not want my daughter(s) to grow up to be like Snooky.
Now, I also have no idea what Amanda Tapping or Claudia Black are like in real life. They, too, could be blithering idiots (doubtful) or completely brilliant. The characters they portray are good role models for women, in my opinion, because they exhibit strength of character, intelligence, determination, a never quit attitude, AND they are not short (at all) on feminine grace, poise, beauty, or charm when they’re not tied up fighting some foe du jour; sometimes even when they are…
Mind you, as you don’t know me, you don’t know that I grew up getting to know *many* extremely intelligent women. Many of whom are still in my life in one way or another; a fact for which I am grateful; as I am grateful for my extremely intelligent male friends.
One thing I often like to say is that “it doesn’t matter how you slice a sub-culture, there are good people and bad people within it”. The same things hold in the *large* cultural slice of genders: men, women, or the variety in between…there’s just a wider variance of good & bad!
Oh, and for the record, i also have had a problem with how the women of geekdom (esp. fantasy and anime art) are portrayed. I have since I was a little kid, despite loving the stories upon which the art was plastered. Who the hell would go into battle wearing bikini chainmail?!?!
Pingback: Yet another FOAD to “geek culture”. Proposed examples of what autistic culture looks like. « I Still Find It So Hard…
Excellent article and discussion. Sorry that geek guys are such simple beasts. As far as a worthy geek female role model goes , the one I don’t see discussed here at all would be my personal favorite, Dana Scully. Get your daughters a Kindle Fire with an attached Amazon Prime membership and indoctrinate them for free by streaming the entire X-Files canon via wifi.
Fantastic article, thanks for sharing.
Pingback: Pretty Women « Writing Lesbians
Pingback: Tagging the Web Daily 06/24/2012 « PAB Skunkworks Weblog
Biailik? no thanks. I agree that she’s a horrible role model. Whether it’s for little girls, adults or anyone in between. Being an antivaxer and a woo peddler is just too big a crime IMO. Real role modeling is more than just image, there has to be some substance, and Bialik – just no.
“if you don’t like what I write, the choice of role models, or anything else about this post or my blog, you are perfectly within your own rights to stop reading mine and start your own, it’s easy and free. ”
But obviously people are not free to disagree with you in the comments without being accused of ?
Pingback: Turn about is fair play – with abs. « SINMANTYX
Pingback: The cake is a linkspam (26th June, 2012) | Geek Feminism Blog
Pingback: Gotta give the geeks some credit! « SINMANTYX
I can only speak for 2 of the images on the bottom (Zoe and Dax), but those women are strong, independent, confident, *and* very sexual in their respective shows.
In nearly every episode of Firefly, Zoe and Wash make reference, direct or implied, to the physical aspect of their relationship. The point is that it isn’t the defining part of Zoe’s character. Its part of who she is, but not the focus. The focus is, she’s a badass.
The same is true about Dax. There is good portion of a season while Dax and Worf are ‘courting’ where they end up in sickbay with minor injuries from their intimacy. Dax is always a very sensual character, but that never detracts from her being a brilliant scientist, and an honorable warrior. In short, Dax is a badass.
Amen sister. The whole point of feminism or of the woman revolution or whatever is that women have a choice right?
I think that when people participate in femme/feminine-bashing under the guise of being forward-thinking or advancing women’s rights, they fail to realize that the choice to be femme is not what the problem is. The problem has been (and continues to be) the expectation that women MUST be femme and submissive and docile.
Repeat with me: It’s not the choice, it’s the expectation!
I hadn’t seen this image yet but you are spot on about the (unwarranted) self-congratulatory nature of it. Geek culture a better place for women? Has the creator of this image ever OPENED a comic book? Barbie would blush at those proportions! Or better yet, been a woman in a comic book store?
This image doesn’t reflect my experience of being a girl geek. I would humbly point to Buffy, my own role model who had sex, cared about shoes, and still saved the world, but there’s race problems on that show. Nothing is perfect, I do appreciate attempts to create interesting, complex, strong, feminine characters in sci fi, but I’m not handing over the crown just yet. Not even to Joss.
Fucking spot-on. Late to the comments, but I loved every word of this post.
I often feel alienated from most “female role models” because so many of them tend to be just generically bad-ass Action Girls who are often the only female in vicinity and aren’t allowed to have humor or a certain “people-ness” about them. It’s the difference to me between Futurama’s Turanga Leela in Season 1 vs. Season 2 onward. In the first season she was the nagging mother figure to the rest of the gang, and despite her ass kicking she never felt fun or interesting as a character. But later on in the series her faults and quirks made her really “pop”.
Toph from Avatar: The Last Airbender is another example of a kick-ass female done right. She’s one of the most skilled benders in the series, but she provides a helluva lot of the jokes and humor that make the series such fun to watch.
Women with ray guns are all well and good, but give me some wisecracking goofiness in my female leads, please!
Pingback: Gender and Geek Culture: August Gender Reader « The Lobster Dance
I wonder if it’s possible to love this post any more than I already do?
Thank you for using some time in order to post “Geek Culture Wants a Cookie & A Pat on the Head for Not Creating Kim
Kardashian The Quixotic Autistic”. Thank you
once again -Twila
Hello this is kinda of off topic but I was wondering if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML.
I’m starting a blog soon but have no coding skills so I wanted to get advice from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
I think the keyword there was “who gives a fuck.”
Brilliantly said. Loved this article!