They key difference is that those worlds are fantasies. As in, not real. As in, hypothetical.

Right. Absolutely correct. That is a large part of my point. I’m saying that a part of the issue is, IMHO, confusion between what fiction writers think *could be*, in a fantasy world;and what actually is. And I think the failure to understand what “is” is due to issues that these folks often do not appreciate.

Unlike us feminists, who - aside from apparently not being geeks and nerds ourselves - all sailed all through adolesence as part of the “in” crowd. Most of all, we all totally got all those silly rules right from the get-go.

You’re right; I shouldn’t have said that, probably. There’s no good way to make that point. I was not trying to draw a distinction so much as explain cluelessness.

I do understand how it’s easy for someone to think that. The bone of contention here is that they would think that because of sexism, not because of anything else you’ve mentioned.

Right. And there’s (more than, but let’s deal with) two types of sexism. There’s a certain malicious sexism based upon an assumption of how things should be, and a certain passive sexism based upon how all of society is.

I tend to think of “entitlement” as belonging to the first category. Thinking a bit more deeply, I guess that there’s no external, objective distinction that lets you call the malicious sexism “entitlement” and the passive sexism leading to the same (or similar) behavior something else.

I still think there’s a difference. I’m not as certain that it matters.

#

Wow. Sorry. Good point.

In that case, these hypothetical people are hypothetically being douchebags. In which case, it’s hardly productive to hypothetically refrain from pointing out the hypothetical douchiness of their hypothetical actions. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Correct. It is quite proper to attack those hypothetical people.

Thinking that the person who hypothesized about them holds their views is foolish, at best.

Look: like many folks, I like to hear myself talk, so I do. I also feel that the mindset of a certain set of folks might be interesting to others. So I talk about it.

And I know some folks think that means I’m defending them, or that I’m saying “they’re wrong but you don’t have to be so *mean* to them!” That’s not what I’m doing. I’m talking, and thinking, and explaining what I’ve seen, and if someone thinks that what I say is useful, great, and if not, oh, well, it’s just another meaningless comment on Pandagon (or elsewhere).

Maybe I should have kept my mouth shut. Maybe just bringing up my thoughts on the matter was harmful to the discussion. But I know several congoing guys, and if I wasn’t so fucked up socially, I’d probably be one of them (and yes, I know *exactly* how ironic that statement is, trust me).

And I know that a great many of them are clueless, and sometimes dangerously so. But I also know that a great deal of that cluelessness is not malicious.

Which means what, exactly? I have no idea. It’s not like you really care if a guy has malicious sexism or not when he’s asking if he can feel you up. It’s not like you should base your response on “gee, I wonder if he’s devastatingly clueless, or an asshole?”

But I think it can help to think on these things. Maybe that’s just because I hate to think I’ve wasted this much time thinking about them .

But think about this. I just spent a few minutes thinking about why the books I described might be bothersome.

And what popped into my head was that they could easily trivialize the state of the world today, by suggesting that the problems we’re facing are small and almost meaningless, as if tiny changes would wash it all away.

Or, maybe it’s that you see many of the same harmful behaviors in those books as you see in real life, but they’ve been declared to be not-a-problem by the author-god.

Or, who knows what? I don’t know. That’s part of the point. Now, I’m trying to think about it. Now, I’ve got my eyes open. Maybe that matters.

Alternately, maybe I should have just kept my big mouth shut. (There’s got to be a better expression for blogs and blog comments.)

Dude, it’s a link. The point is to follow the breadcrumbs, not stand around and ask us what kind of bread the crumbs are made from. And the general idea of what it’s about should be pretty damn obvious, considering the conversation that led up to it being suggested.

Well, given the conversation that led up to it being suggested, I imagine that it’s possible that it’s hostile. I have no particular desire to face hostility from someone who I thought might have been trying to be helpful. It’s the emotional equivalent of a suckerpunch.

This kind of thing at cons isn’t generally promulgated by those who just want to grope.

Really? ‘Cuz the women I know who go to cons tell a different story.

The key difference is that, in those worlds, reality is different. Women aren’t constantly on their guard against rape; women who love having sex are not viewed in a negative light; you’ve got entirely different cultures.

They key difference is that those worlds are fantasies. As in, not real. As in, hypothetical.

Many of us have read those same books, btw. It would be those same books that sent me screaming from SciFi/Fantasy as an older teenager - after having read pretty much nothing but beforehand. You know, the ones where everything is exactly like it is here on Earth - except magically there is no rape! Or sexual harassment! Or anything of the sort. And yet, for some reason - the women still never talk to each other. The men are still the ones in charge. And the women, for some reason never say no - at least not for long. And god forbid they do any of the asking - unless it comes along with a bunch of crap about Earthlings/Anglo stand-ins being too hung-up on sex.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s tons of fantastic scifi/fantasy out there that explores gender and sex in interesting ways. But having cultures in which women are no longer “on their guard against rape” is rarely an accurate description of the non-creepy books.

Then, add in that many congoers are socially awkward in the first place, not sure of the rules or the reasons behind them.

Unlike us feminists, who - aside from apparently not being geeks and nerds ourselves - all sailed all through adolesence as part of the “in” crowd. Most of all, we all totally got all those silly rules right from the get-go.

(Are you under the impression that feminism is something you are born with? Buy at the grocery store? Just, how, exactly, do you think most of us managed to achieve our degrees in patriarchy blaming if we didn’t do it by digging deeper instead of continuing to try to follow rules that mystified us in our teens and early adulthood?)

As I said elsewhere earlier, the problem is not that I don’t understand. It’s that I do. In spades.

Mix those aspects together, and it’s easy for a group of them to think “damn it, why not? Why couldn’t it work? Why couldn’t ‘can I touch your breasts’ be just a question, like ‘hey, could I borrow your pen?’”

I do understand how it’s easy for someone to think that. The bone of contention here is that they would think that because of sexism, not because of anything else you’ve mentioned.

In the portion you quoted, I am speaking about a hypothetical set of people (that means they’re not real) asking a hypothetical question (there’s that word again).

Wow. Sorry. Good point.

In that case, these hypothetical people are hypothetically being douchebags. In which case, it’s hardly productive to hypothetically refrain from pointing out the hypothetical douchiness of their hypothetical actions. Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Dude, it’s a link. The point is to follow the breadcrumbs, not stand around and ask us what kind of bread the crumbs are made from. And the general idea of what it’s about should be pretty damn obvious, considering the conversation that led up to it being suggested.

Follow the link and be enlightened - or don’t. Just don’t ask any of us to hold your effing hand through the whole ordeal.

LongHairedWeirdo: kindly google “Men Who Explain Things”. Just like that, quotes and all. That first result? Read that.

I might be willing to, but you’ll have to explain first. I have no desire to be blindsided.

Kindly stop being an entitlement-denying asshole. Others have said it, but let me re-iterate, dipshit: a woman’s body is not the same as a pen

Since you are still unable to read for comprehension, let me make it clear. In the portion you quoted, I am speaking about a hypothetical set of people (that means they’re not real) asking a hypothetical question (there’s that word again).

Get it? I am not asking that question; I am speculating about the possibility of others asking that question as a hypothetical, and that, due to a “terrible” level of cluelessness over the human condition, and an inability to separate truth from fantasy.

Now: if your life is so empty that you have to add meaning to it by attacking imaginary slights performed by imaginary people, please, carry on.

Which argument boils down yet again to “nerdy guys get a pass because they’re, like, innately transgressive”.

No one said they get a pass. Why does “X is understandable” equate to “ignore X”? Why doesn’t “X is understandable but terrible” not equate to “stomp the holy fuck out of X because it’s terrible”?

I said it is a terrible idea. It is a terrible idea, and that it is terrible should be driven home.

And while the sexual fantasies found in much of the sci-fi seem really liberating to the male readers, it is still heterosexist and phallocentric, thus not very appealing to many women. As this dipshit and his friends amply prove.