|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Fake geek girl
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The other kind of geek[edit]
In this "debate", "geek" almost always means "a fan of comics/games/movies/TV series". So the discussion of the ENIAC programmers is somewhat... irrelevant.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Eh, it's a matter of perspective. Fandom and STEMdom overlap a lot and are closely related in a lot of ways, and sexism in STEM fields is definitely relevant to the issue at hand. EVDebs (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) Agree with ZooGuard. We can't just jump from talking about cosplay to Marie Curie; that makes no sense. If we're going to say anything meaningful, we need to define what we really mean by geek culture, and preferably not just promote the assumption that anyone who works in science & technology is a "geek" by default. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Put it this way. True, not every STEM-involved person is a geek, but most are. In any case, the fact that most people can't make a list of five prominent female scientists without including Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, or Ada Lovelace is definitely a symptom of what's behind this article's creation. EVDebs (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. Gender imbalance & sexism within the sciences and gender imbalances & sexism within fan subcultures are two different issues. Sure, there's a demographic overlap & the one may influence the other to some extent, but talking about them interchangeably as if they are the exact same phenomenon is grossly oversimplifying this issue, as well as feeding the same stereotypes that promote this meme in the first place. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Not really. Gender imbalance & sexism within the sciences and gender imbalances & sexism within fan subcultures are two different issues. Sure, there's a demographic overlap & the one may influence the other to some extent, but talking about them interchangeably as if they are the exact same phenomenon is grossly oversimplifying this issue, as well as feeding the same stereotypes that promote this meme in the first place. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- Eugenie Scott, Alice Roberts, Dorothy Hodgkin, Joy Ridenberg, Odile Eisenstein - to go without using Google or with people I work with.
pathetic
21:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Don't derail this further, please.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, de-railing would involve me contesting repeatedly how that was actually derailment. So, this post would be derailing. moral 21:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose mentioning Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, Sally Ride, Jen McCreight, Lise Meitner, and blogger Dr. Isis would be derailing even further? (Or bringing up Natalie Portman and Kari Byron?) EVDebs (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of Sally Ride, I once went to a lecture by Helen Sharman. She taught me basic orbital mechanics. d hominem 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Speaking of Sally Ride, I once went to a lecture by Helen Sharman. She taught me basic orbital mechanics.
- I suppose mentioning Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin, Sally Ride, Jen McCreight, Lise Meitner, and blogger Dr. Isis would be derailing even further? (Or bringing up Natalie Portman and Kari Byron?) EVDebs (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, de-railing would involve me contesting repeatedly how that was actually derailment. So, this post would be derailing.
- Don't derail this further, please.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Put it this way. True, not every STEM-involved person is a geek, but most are. In any case, the fact that most people can't make a list of five prominent female scientists without including Marie Curie, Rosalind Franklin, or Ada Lovelace is definitely a symptom of what's behind this article's creation. EVDebs (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) Agree with ZooGuard. We can't just jump from talking about cosplay to Marie Curie; that makes no sense. If we're going to say anything meaningful, we need to define what we really mean by geek culture, and preferably not just promote the assumption that anyone who works in science & technology is a "geek" by default. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Debating Starships vs. Imperial Destroyers isn't the same thing as doing rocket science, and there is no necessary relationship between STEM people and Comicon fans. This story is about the latter, not the former. Find examples of important women in comix/sci-fi/gamer culture and they will fit just fine. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll need to find some links, although I'm sure Vox Day is good for at least three examples if you can stomach him, but there's definitely a perception of "fake scientist girls" in some quarters. EVDebs (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would be awesome in an article about sexism in the laboratory/world of professional and academic science. It is not relevant to an article about girls in Princess Leia metal bikini costumes. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- My argument here is that both issues are relevant here, and that was the spirit in which I started the article. Geekdom is not solely based on entertainment. EVDebs (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument is based on equivocating two different senses of the word "geek." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe from a certain point of view, but it really depends on your chosen definition. I think both sides are the same thing, and that's how I'm using it here. EVDebs (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Debs, you really think wrong on this. These are two different populations, each with their own specific historical, institutional and social dynamics. No doubt sexism is rampant in each; but it would be a weak analysis to conflate what happens to professional scientists in terms of gendered discrimination with what's at play for a girl in a WonderWoman costume or a Browncoat get-up. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe from a certain point of view, but it really depends on your chosen definition. I think both sides are the same thing, and that's how I'm using it here. EVDebs (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Your argument is based on equivocating two different senses of the word "geek." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- My argument here is that both issues are relevant here, and that was the spirit in which I started the article. Geekdom is not solely based on entertainment. EVDebs (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- That would be awesome in an article about sexism in the laboratory/world of professional and academic science. It is not relevant to an article about girls in Princess Leia metal bikini costumes. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Is it really all that different though? The common element to anything we refer to as geeky is that people willingly give up a certain degree of participation in the mainstream for an interest. By that reckoning, virtually anything STEM-related is inherently geeky, especially since people in those fields rarely get rich unless they take a job involving hazard pay or get really lucky on a patent or startup idea. Very much the same thing applies to recreational subcultures, genre lit, and the like, and the mindset we're discussing of women as incompetent dilettantes (and the ensuing gratuitous gatekeeping) is pretty much the same whether it's a professional, academic, or recreational setting. EVDebs (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- It is different. While your right in how you define "geek" (I suppose), when someone says "geek" that generally a mean a specific group of subcultures which has little to do with STEM programs. For example, 99% of all sci fi takes a massive dump on physics. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- EC Wait, anything in STEM is geeky because its marginal somehow? So all of those thousands and thousands of university math, chem, physics, engineering, biology and whatever else departments, all over the world, each with their thousands of undergraduates, graduate students and faculty,and the giant global corporate infrastructure to which they are tied and which infiltrate the lives of every single human on the planet to varying degrees are somehow not in the mainstream? Are you high? And what are the average salaries for people in those fields as compared to, say, artisanal craftsmen/people who work in the trades/folks who work in retail or manufacturing? I don't know, but I bet they're joining the middle class at a better rate than anyone else these days. You're comparing apples (a recreational consumer culture) with oranges (the basic mainstream that drives virtually every aspect of human existence to one degree or another). Stop it.Iit's a weaksauce argument, and I expect better here. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think what we have here is a classic lumper/splitter argument. The traditional way of solving these, of course, is a bloody, prolonged fight to the death over the issue that only ends when the journals decide to stop taking papers on the subject. Absent that, I think we might want to get some other opinions, especially specifically female ones. Also, I think this article probably shouldn't have been the one I started; a broader article of sexism and geekery of which this is but a section would have been a smarter idea. To the Saloon Bar for recruits? EVDebs (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've got some thoughts on what to put in the article but it's probably gonna be a couple of days before I get time to write anything proper for it. Re the STEM issue, we should mention that women are underrepresented/undervalued in STEM careers (a separate issue, which should be a separate article) & that there is a perceived connection between these careers & geek subcultures, based on some longstanding correlations; but we should point out the error in lumping them together: this is the same association fallacy which promotes the kind of distrust of geek girls we are talking about. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Allow me to "mansplain" from actual experience. Being an actual professional in a STEM field, I can say that the Big Bang Theory stereotype of all scientists being into comic books and conventions is wrong. They're as diverse in the rest of the general population. I have a pool shark, a fencer (one of the best in the country, apparently), a warhammer player, hikers, rugby fans, excessive drinkers, cricket players. Meanwhile, the people I know who do the whole "Doctor Who is the BESTEST THING EVAH!!!" thing, dress up, go to conventions and collect random crap are equally diverse professionally from truckers, history students, some science students, teachers, media professionals, technicians to DJs. There is overlap only insomuch that there's overlap between everything. Sexism is rife in both STEM and geek subculture - again, insomuch that it's rampant everywhere. Therefore any mention of male-female divides in STEM subjects is only relevant to the "fake geek girl" phenomenon in the same way that sexism within football fans is relevant. theist 10:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- Allow me to "mansplain" from actual experience. Being an actual professional in a STEM field, I can say that the Big Bang Theory stereotype of all scientists being into comic books and conventions is wrong. They're as diverse in the rest of the general population. I have a pool shark, a fencer (one of the best in the country, apparently), a warhammer player, hikers, rugby fans, excessive drinkers, cricket players. Meanwhile, the people I know who do the whole "Doctor Who is the BESTEST THING EVAH!!!" thing, dress up, go to conventions and collect random crap are equally diverse professionally from truckers, history students, some science students, teachers, media professionals, technicians to DJs. There is overlap only insomuch that there's overlap between everything. Sexism is rife in both STEM and geek subculture - again, insomuch that it's rampant everywhere. Therefore any mention of male-female divides in STEM subjects is only relevant to the "fake geek girl" phenomenon in the same way that sexism within football fans is relevant.
- I've got some thoughts on what to put in the article but it's probably gonna be a couple of days before I get time to write anything proper for it. Re the STEM issue, we should mention that women are underrepresented/undervalued in STEM careers (a separate issue, which should be a separate article) & that there is a perceived connection between these careers & geek subcultures, based on some longstanding correlations; but we should point out the error in lumping them together: this is the same association fallacy which promotes the kind of distrust of geek girls we are talking about. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
- I think what we have here is a classic lumper/splitter argument. The traditional way of solving these, of course, is a bloody, prolonged fight to the death over the issue that only ends when the journals decide to stop taking papers on the subject. Absent that, I think we might want to get some other opinions, especially specifically female ones. Also, I think this article probably shouldn't have been the one I started; a broader article of sexism and geekery of which this is but a section would have been a smarter idea. To the Saloon Bar for recruits? EVDebs (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- EC Wait, anything in STEM is geeky because its marginal somehow? So all of those thousands and thousands of university math, chem, physics, engineering, biology and whatever else departments, all over the world, each with their thousands of undergraduates, graduate students and faculty,and the giant global corporate infrastructure to which they are tied and which infiltrate the lives of every single human on the planet to varying degrees are somehow not in the mainstream? Are you high? And what are the average salaries for people in those fields as compared to, say, artisanal craftsmen/people who work in the trades/folks who work in retail or manufacturing? I don't know, but I bet they're joining the middle class at a better rate than anyone else these days. You're comparing apples (a recreational consumer culture) with oranges (the basic mainstream that drives virtually every aspect of human existence to one degree or another). Stop it.Iit's a weaksauce argument, and I expect better here. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Comic I saw recently...[edit]
Shows a girl reading/researching/working hard to make a geek costume and then getting called out a s a faker. Ring any bells? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've seen it but I have no idea where. I do know it very well might apply to a couple of very talented costume designers/cosplayers who also double as adult/fetish models, though. EVDebs (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Article has been done[edit]
Been there, done that. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- Well... that's most of the way there, but by definition Essay space is for opinion pieces. It definitely gives us a lot to work with though. EVDebs (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Amusing headscratchers[edit]
Obviously, guys can't be fake geek girls. But if a guy goes to a Star Trek convention as Scotty, is he no true Scotsman? If he does a cover of an Eminem song, is he Not The Real Slim Shady?— Unsigned, by: 69.246.218.157 / talk / contribs
My interpretation[edit]
When I read this article, I found that I strongly disagreed with the notion that "fake geek girls" are viewed as such because of sexual unavailability. Now, I am a geek, and an elitist, but my definition of fake geek girl/guy is not based on wether I would bang them or not. When I think of a fake geek, I think of some 22-year old Facebook afficinado "coming out" as a nerd because they watched an X-Men movie and found Hugh Jackman attractive. The best synonym for fake geek is, in my opinion 'poser'.— Unsigned, by: EuroBurro / talk / contribs
- Sounds about right to my ears. Also, don't forget to sign your posts! :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- My post is going to follow that vibe, although it is going to be essentially different. I feel there are some celebrity women who either overestimate their geekiness, or try hard to be a bit geeky so - in public eyes - they will seem a bit deeper than they may be perceived at first glance. It's all PR and it is irrelevant if you ask me, I couldn't care less about those celebrities, but to say that the phenomenon of fake geek girls doesn't exist seems like an unwinnable cause. Anyone? Loc (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)