UPDATE (October 4, 2009): This piece was originally titled "Nerd Assertiveness and Blindness to Privilege." It was pointed out to me, when this piece appeared on Sociological Images, that my use of the term "blindness" as metaphor in the title constituted a pretty powerful expression of able-bodied privilege. I've changed the title to reflect this, and thank the commenter for calling me on this. The original title remains over at SI.
Today's XKCD strip bothers me, a little. It reminds me of the discussion about assertiveness amongst nerd guys brought up when Gabe and Tycho at Penny Arcade were talking about "pick-up artists" (PUAs) a while back.
Here's my issue: I get that a lot of straight guys (and women, but I want to primarily talk about men here) who identify as nerds (or don't, for that matter) have confidence issues, especially around romantic or sexual interests*. But I also think that messages like the XKCD strip really reinforce that idea of isolation and make the world out to be filled with potential mates -- if only you'd just talk to them! There's some truth here, in that it's pretty hard to meet people if you find it hard to talk to communicate with others. But the more insidious, unintended message I'm seeing is one that just feeds into the PUA logic -- given enough confidence and skills, all women are yours for the taking.
I know some people are probably going to think I'm reaching here, and are going to say that it's just a comic, and maybe just meant to make a cute little statement about how everyone just wants to make a connection. Sure, and I think there's something to be said for nerd guys shedding the whole Nice Guy complex and acting assertively. The problem is that there's a fine line between that and the PUA viewpoint I described earlier. That woman next to you might not want to talk about her netbook. She might not be interested in you, specifically. She might not be interested in men, generally. She probably wouldn't have the same reaction as in the strip, because society teaches women that they should expect male attention, and calling it out isn't usually looked too kindly upon.
So this is the crux of the issue for me: nerds really are members of a subordinated masculinity, and from within that viewpoint it's easy to dismiss anything which says that you are privileged and not downtrodden. Once you're in that space, it's really easy to start thinking in a certain way that says you're not privileged just because you're a man -- and I think things like this XKCD strip can contribute to that way of thinking.
Of course, any man who falls farther from the pinnacle of hegemonic masculinity is less privileged than his more "masculine" counterparts, but he's still a man. Nerd discourses sometimes let us forget that, and let us think we operate outside the system, because we're not like those other, sexist guys -- but it's a fantasy. We can be better than that, but it means telling ourselves the truth, and not pretending that our interactions with women -- even a simple conversation on a train -- aren't influenced and structured by the patriarchy.
*Note: I realize that I don't mention queer nerds here. I don't have a lot of experience with the topic, besides an understanding that nerd communities can be just as homophobic as more mainstream groups. Also, most of the discussions I've seen around nerd shyness have been in terms of male shyness towards women -- summed up in the Nice Guy trope. I think this definitely speaks to the silencing of queer nerds in certain communities, but it also leads me to believe that this phenomenon is primarily an issue for a certain type of (self-identified) heterosexual masculinity.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've been thinking about this lately; I appreciate how you put it together. Thanks!
ReplyDeletewell said.
ReplyDeleteHow awesome is your line of thinking? I've talked about this with some other women, but the fact that you're a guy just gives me more hope for humanity.
ReplyDeleteI'm not quite sure I understand.
ReplyDeleteIf a guy wants to talk to a cute girl on a train, he shouldn't?
How does wanting to interact with someone you find attractive immediately imply that all women are yours for the taking?
Developing the confidence to introduce yourself to someone is a far cry from the manipulative false-image-projection techniques of the PUA community.
Can you expand on this idea of subordinated masculinity? Can you fault a man for not wanting to settle for that role? And if you are so disturbed by this, what is your ideal inter and intra-gender interactions between strangers? Must they simply ignore each other?
Anonymous, I'd suggest looking into Raewyn Connell's "Masculinities", which outlines the concept of hegemonic versus subordinated masculinities quite well.
ReplyDeleteI'll say this: it's not about talking or not talking to someone on a train. A lot of the responses I've gotten to this piece have suggested that I don't think men should ever speak to women in public places. This isn't the case, obviously. I'm making an argument for an awareness of other people in public places (especially women) that we often lack as men. In fact, I regret using the term confidence in the original article. Confidence is all well and good, but I think what's more important here is consideration.
Others have talked about this too. You might find the discussion at Shakesville helpful. (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/09/comic-fail.html)
Great post, lots of food for thought.
ReplyDeleteHmm, thanks Matt. I'm the original Anonymous; just wanted to let you know I'm not a one-time surfer commenting into the ether and I appreciate you taking the time to answer me.
ReplyDeleteI will go ahead and read the books/articles you've suggested. But my initial reaction to your response:
Assuming we do end up becoming more aware of gender differences in the way we interact and perceive our social rights in public places, where does that leave us?
What should change in our behaviors as a result of a deeper understanding of any apprehension that we may unknowingly cause to women?
I think the idea of consideration sums things up, as well as being aware of any sense of entitlement we might have, as men.
ReplyDeletePerhaps an even more important thing to acknowledge is that many women are coming at this from a different place than men are. As men, we rarely -- if ever -- have to be concerned about being attacked or raped when we go out. We don't have to worry about if that person eying us on the train or trying to make conversation is liable to explode at any minute.
This was summed up really well over at Shapely Prose with the term "Schrodinger's rapist". How can a woman know whether any particular guy is actually just some nice dude, or is dangerous? In a public situation with so little knowledge about the other person, it's practically impossible. So when a woman says that she thinks it's better to play it safe than sorry in public places, I absolutely agree -- especially since the tradeoff is personal safety versus possible hurt feelings. There's just no comparison, here.
That's really what I want to drive home, and what I hope men who have read this are getting -- that the lived experiences of men and women differ so much in this respect. Another way of putting it: men fear that women will laugh at them; women fear that men witll rape them.
I hate to recommend more reading for you, especially since you said you'd read the things I already mentioned (cheers), but the discussion at Shapely Prose on this topic has been really fantastic. There's kind of a huge number of comments now, but if you get the chance, I would really recommend taking a look at some of them.
http://kateharding.net/2009/10/05/would-it-kill-you-to-be-civil/
This is why hats need to come back in style. A tip of the hat used to mean more than just 'kudos'. A tip of the hat was silent, kind, courteous, a greeting in passing and an invitation to converse if the tip-ee so desired all wrapped up in one.
ReplyDeleteCourse, there was all that hat-head...
In this scenario, we're dealing with a group of people that are introverted.
ReplyDeleteI think Randall Monroe may be dealing with real life experience when it comes to writing his web comic. In real life, among geeks, this is a very common meme.
Are you just upset because, if you reverse which person is thinking what, suddenly the comic doesn't make sense? As in, the inability for role reversal reveals a bias about each of the sexes?
I think it's fair for comics to make observations that reveal our nature, that make us think critically. No scratch that, I think it's right.
Your criticism is interesting, but shallow. Why are you holding the men reading this comic up to a higher standard than the women? Why is it up to men to recognize their interactions as part of a patriarchy, without holding the women up to the same standard? Why are you assuming that this comic merely encourages the men who read it, and doesn't offer encouragement for the women also? Communication goes both ways.
This comic is about introverts. One girl, one guy, both incapable of believing their self-worth to be higher than it is in the eyes of the other. And that's not a bad thing. Neither is helping them recognize and find one another.
Wouldn't a shallow analysis be one that says "there's nothing to see here, move along"?
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you'd care to look over at SI and SP, you'd see that your "omg ur overanalyzing" bullshit is pretty well played out by now. Thanks for trying, though.
Yeah sure...
ReplyDelete"Wouldn't a shallow analysis be one that says "there's nothing to see here, move along"?"
ReplyDeleteYou seem to have confused "shallow" with "terse".