Excellent. Passing it around
PS Doctor Shark recently ran across fakeNerd girl in Wonderella
I was grooving with this video until the smug-looking "Mythbusters" dude popped up to harsh my mellow.
I think Adam Savage is the geek generation's Henry Rollins...always there for a sound byte or an appearance in an online video. As for this video (and song) itself...whatever...I guess it's cute. And cute is what life's all about.
I am playing this for my 10-year-old daughter as soon as she gets back from her "Hands-on Tech" and "Methods of Warfare" classes at summer camp this afternoon.
(sorry for the multiple post; this is my first time here and I fumbled a bit)
What a great song! Just wanted to tell that to the creators: Nice work.
Brilliant! Passing in around far and wide!
I am thankful to the Doubleclicks for being willing to put themselves out there and help us to have a conversation that we have needed to have for a long time. Our culture (nerds/geeks) has some deep problems regarding gender and sexuality, and does not tend to be very good at addressing them in a respectful and adult way. Let's all take this as a signal to talk about it in the open.
One thing I think is sad is that one of the pieces oft labeled as misogynist journalism of 2012 was Dear Fake Geek Girls: Please Go Away. If you actually take the time to read it, and actually take the time to look at who wrote it and what section of Forbes it's actually on, you'll find out she was actually telling fake geeks to go away. I don't know that I agree with her definitions, but yeah, I have definitely met people who think that playing Pokemon obsessively makes one a geek.
I do agree with her on one thing: it's weird to me that "geek" isn't an insult anymore. I know there are words that used to be terribly offensive that are acceptable now, and vice versa, but surely anyone who read that with a critical eye knew she wasn't saying geek girls were phony, she was saying that phonies are phony.
I don't say any of this to try to offend, it's just that Cory's brief writeup reminded me of the piece and what annoyed me about the writeup...but of course I wouldn't have brought it up on the sources who were the most offended, because as a man it wasn't my place to do it there.
I think the problem is that no one is calling out "fake geek boys" even though they surely exist (even if just to try to pick up the fake geek girls). If this were just a matter of "true geeks" calling out phonies, that would be one thing, but it's so often presented as a package deal with misogyny. Girls with geeky interests are disproportionately challenged to defend their true geekiness or else face a slew of insults relating to their gender.
This anti-geek girl stuff has always confused me, mainly cause all the girls I've known in my life have been geeky, so it's the norm for me!
Try reading Tara Tiger Brown's piece I referenced above. She does mention fake geeks, but c'mon, context. She's writing to women, for women, and about women. Of course she doesn't mention that.
And it amazes me how quick people were to throw Tara Brown under the bus. I mean...sheesh...how dare she say such horribly sexist things???!? She's telling people she doesn't see as geeks to go away??? Who is a tech writer who writes about women's issues in tech for a major publication who helped found LA Makerspace to decide what is geeky or not? Throw her in a refrigerator and throw the refrigerator under the bus, that horrible woman!
Seeing the problem yet?
She references Patton Oswalt's piece Wake Up, Geek Culture. Time to Die, to her credit That's a good one to read, too, and doesn't focus on women. I happen to agree with him. I mean, for Pete's sake, people who like Star Wars think they're geeks now.
To get back on topic, though, I see it as especially egregious that these women featured here have to defend their geekiness. I think having the brain power to write software for a particle accelerator should earn some respect, and I don't see why anyone would think that being into Lord of the Rings is something someone would do just to attract the guys. And like Patton Oswalt, I don't understand why liking "nerdy" things should make one a geek. I mean, my wife is a lot more socially active than I am, and yet she caught more inaccuracies in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey than I did. I don't see her as particularly geeky, but then I remember a time when that was an insult, a word chosen because of circus geek, as in you were some sort of freak not worthy of regular society, so it's not a label I'd choose for myself, let alone her.
I think that the problem is that geeks are now are taking it upon themselves to judge other people for their self-chosen labels. It just seems silly to me that I should waste any brainpower on trying to determine if someone meets my criteria for "geek", regardless of gender. They have chosen that label, and I will respect that.
Besides, "geek" is so broad a term these days that it has lost most of its meaning. If we tried to construct a least-common-denominator definition of "geek", e.g. one that is not violated by any person that is widely believed to be a member of the group, I doubt we would end up with anything meaningful. So let's just stop all the fussin' and the fightin'.
The point is that "fake geek" is a category that does not exist. If someone is proclaiming their joy at a game, a writer, a television show, then just enjoy it with them. There's no test to pass.
If "fake geek" doesn't exist, then really, "geek" doesn't exist.
OK, I swear after this one I'll shut up and go away.
To bring up another one from years ago, I remember how much flak Asia Carrera caught for labeling herself a "geek girl". Some people rejected her because she's, well, a porn star. What? Smart people get into porn? No wai! Others...ugh...decided that of course she was good with computers, she's Asian. Mega facepalm.
Mildly NSFW picture of Carrera rebuilding a computer That kind of picture probably didn't help the image any, but the first thing I noticed was that I owned one of those cases. The only thing I liked about it was that it came with rails for all the drives. Not even thumbscrews. You can see in the pic that there are two 3.5" bays which come out as one unit.
EDIT: Holy Jebus, I just realized something: in the photoset, it looks like she's removing parts from that case. I built a computer largely from eBay parts shortly after that, and got the case through eBay. I wonder...
Wow... in four sentences you not only manage to miss the point of the video, you successfully dismiss Adam Savage, Henry Rollins, the Doubleclicks, everyone who participated in the video, Corey for posting it in the context of how emotionally touching it is to him... and life itself.
Masterfully done. Really. Your contribution demonstrates an enviably efficient pose of ennui.
Everyone owned one of those cases at one time or another. As someone who spent 5+ years in PC repair I've dealt with way to many of them. A socket 370 with a generic power supply, ewwww. Not to mention cats and their hair on everything. (Only thing worse than pets are smokers.)
Actually, I think that "category X" can exist without "fake category X" existing. Some groups are only meaningfully defined by people claiming membership. For those groups, there can be no test which will determine fake vs. real aside from whether you think that the person claiming membership is doing so in good faith. And yet, the group is able to identify itself.
My poor wife comes from a family where the women begin losing their hair in their 30s. I can't tell you how much hair I've dug out of fans.
SirMarlorme, I respectfully disagree. I can only imagine how people would react if I called myself a "Maker" because I'd put together a few Lego pyramids.
This made me teary and smiley at the same time. When I saw Adam Savage I cheered. Cheered again to see Wil Wheaton. Yes, it is good to have allies who GET IT. Hooted (quietly, it's after midnight) for a few of the statements on the cards, especially the "I'm older than your mother..." one. Yo! I relate, geeky grandma that I am. Shared the video onward immediately. Thank you, Cory!
I suppose I should be more clear. There are some groups that only exist via self-identification, there are others that have specific or stringent criteria for membership. The Freemasons, for example.
However, your response brings up an interesting question: who determines group membership when there is no specific or tangible definition? Is it a simple majority of the group? Is it a unanimous decision? Some kind of circle of tribal elders? It's hard to come up with a consistent answer here.