Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Slut-shaming Geek Police

I stopped blogging for a while.  I'm starting again.  More to come when I have the motivation to actually write it out.

SO THERE WAS THIS THING!

http://geekout.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/24/booth-babes-need-not-apply/

John Scalzi wrote a really good general-purpose response to this fuckery, but it didn't really address all of the horribleness, so I'mma have a go at it.

First thing's first.  By what standards, exactly, is douchecanoe Joe Peacock determining that a certain set of ladygeeks are "pretending to be geeks for attention"?  It seems like his thought process went something along the lines of:

  1. See a number of "hot chicks" in "skimpy outfits" at conventions
  2. Experience cognitive dissonance because of internalized sexism and/or fallacious ideas about social hierarchies
  3. Knee-jerk rejection
  4. Rationalization of knee-jerk rejection

Seriously, there's a lot of rationalization going on up in here.  I get the impression that he really wants to not be sexist, and he understands that the things he's saying are pretty much straight-up sexist, and that he's really uncomfortable with that.

Like, for example, dude wants us to know that it's not ALL the women who are fakes.  The good girls - you know, the ones who keep their clothes on - are fine.  But not the slutty attention-whore sluts!  Those ones are just pretending!

Oh, sorry, I put words in his mouth there.  He didn't actually call them whores or sluts, he just decried these "models-cum-geeks" for strutting around wearing skimpy clothes and being nearly naked.

ಠ_ಠ

Interspersed throughout are some repeated jabs that these ladies aren't as hot as he thinks they think they want him to think they are, along with some lip-service to feminist media critique.

Pro-tip for well-meaning dudes:  It doesn't matter how feminist your media inclinations are if you don't actually treat real live women like people.  Well, okay, it matters a little bit.  But in comparison, ehn.

In case there is some confusion here, let me explain.  Using womens' outfits to impute not only their Dudebro Fuckability Number (6-of-9, ugh), but also their interests, history, emotional issues, and basic motivations?  Not actually treating women like people.  Especially when that imputation boils down to "Women who dress slutty are attention whore bimbos! And they're barely 6s, at best!  SHUN THE NON-BELIEVERS! SHUNNNNNNNN!"

Even in those circumstances where women do choose to wear a skimpy outfit in a subculture they don't really follow to get sexualized attention because they want an ego boost... so the fuck what?  How exactly does this negatively impact you, Joe Peacock, or anyone else?  Blah blah blah fakers poaching off your subculture, what the fuck ever.  Get off your damn hipster high horse, and listen to John Scalzi.  You are not God Emperor of geekdom.  Keep your slut-shaming whinge to yourself.