Male IT geeks tend to think they are “low status” males.

Why are male IT geeks less successful in attracting women than other males, on average? Why are there few women in IT?

Among male geeks, a popular explanation for both these phenomena is that women avoid “low status” males, because women are programmed by evolution to have sex with men in exchange for men’s material resources.

the average person in the United States with an IT career makes $0.13. the average American household makes $0.096.

However, the average person in the United States with an IT career makes $0.13 per minute, while the average American household makes $0.096 per minute.

The average U.S. IT person earns 0.13 dollars per minute. The average U.S. household earns 0.096 dollars per minute.

The average American IT individual makes about 35% more than the average American household. In other words, the average American male with an IT career is “high status” in terms of economic position and adult social position.

Class privilege among male IT geeks from mostly white, middle-class backgrounds shelters them from the economic realities of most American families. Moreover, the male-majority IT culture allows sexist stereotypes about women to proliferate without being challenged. Spurned male geeks prefer explanations which blame women for their romantic failings and which reason that women are innately shallow, and these explanations are embraced by fellow male geeks with similar hurt feelings.

In online geek communities such as Slashdot, Digg, and Reddit, there is the common joke that “geeks” cannot get girlfriends (this language assumes that all geeks are heterosexual males, perpetuating the stereotype that women cannot be geeks, and the sentiment that women do not really belong in geek communities or IT). Many or most of these individuals have had little or no experience with women, yet they are confident in paternalistically making pronouncements about women’s psychology. Why would a man take advice about women from men who fail in interacting with women? Yet many male geeks do, nonetheless, because such rationalizations are comforting to those who are invested in believing in their moral and intellectual superiority.

For people who have had little real-life interaction with a minority group, their beliefs about the minority group are heavily shaped by the media. Disney fairy tales and fantasy-themed genres teach male geeks that women instantly fall in love with men who are rich, charming, famous, and good-looking.

What Disney Princes teach men about attracting women. Four Disney princes - Be rich, charming, famous, and good looking. Aladdin - Be charming, good looking, and appear to be rich and famous. The Beast (in human form) - Be rich and famous with a promise of charm and good looks to come later.

In other words, these “high status” males in fiction and the fictional women who fall in love with them are taken as data points concerning the general behaviour of women. Having failed in bedding women by being “charming” or “nice”, many male geeks tell themselves that the reason must be that they are not “high status” males.

Fantasy-themed stories catering to an older, male audience often do not require that the male protagonist be handsome. As long as the male hero displays bravery, good-heartedness, or saves the girl from some “jerk” adversary, the girl automatically falls in love with the hero. When male geeks follow this script and the fairy-tale happy ending does not come to fruition, they bitterly conclude that “girls like jerks”. Instead of these experiences serving as evidence that real-life love does not work like fairy tales, these male geeks modify their presumptions only slightly. They conclude that “girls like jerks”, and that we do so because we confuse jerk behaviour for high confidence, a trait of “high status” males.

Women are individuals, not instances of a one-dimensional, weak-minded “girl” stereotype that comes from fantasy books. Women do not all think the same, in same the way that not all men’s minds work like the mind of a stereotypical jock. A man cannot “make” a woman fall in love with him. However, he can probably find a woman who is attracted to him, once he accepts the fact that women are individuals and that our minds are diverse.

About these ads

53 Responses to “Male IT geeks tend to think they are “low status” males.”

  1. urbia Says:

    “Many or most of these individuals have had little or no experience with women, yet they are confident in paternalistically making pronouncements about women’s psychology.”

    Yeah, as a woman of Asian descent who’s worked in the IT industry and has applied for jobs and interacted with straight white male geeks at technical colleges, I can say that I’ve definitely seen this come up over and over again.

    There’s this sort of victim mentality as though they’re being screwed over by an unfair world, so they marvel at their so-called meritocracy among geek circles as if it were some sort of unique phenomenon among such ‘rational’ elite individuals like them – whether it be in a professional setting like an IT company or inside the virtual boundaries of a video game (both male-dominated spaces where women are assumed to be intruders). A reoccurring theme seems to be that they are more ‘real’ because, as rational intellectual geeky men, they are always right. ‘Political correctness,’ as it is defined by them, has no place in their circles for that reason. And so every discussion that challenges their straight white male and class privilege offends their sense of meritocracy is labeled as such – ‘PC crap that must be shouted down or removed so they can get on with their work and/or blasting Internet dragons.’

    Women are just assumed to be stupid or incompetent, and so every mistake that a woman makes in ‘their’ space cannot possibly stem from lack of information, direction, training, or mentoring (not to say that males don’t receive the exact same thing – it’s just not labeled as hand-holding, just ‘helping a brother out’). And this is used to justify lower pay, the glass ceiling, or marginalization from whatever virtual activity she’s engaged in among fellow geeky gamers. Despite all the available explanations for some event, they are barely considered and completely passed over for whatever explanation most conveniently supports ‘women cannot program / play video games / be an authentic part of geek circles’ because they are psychologically wired differently.

    And they wonder why they can’t get dates.

    We wonder why they’re considered rational.

  2. Ginsu Shark Says:

    I think there’s a social hierarchy aspect to this whole issue you might be missing, the way other people treated them most of their lives. When you spend your whole childhood being persecuted and harassed by people more socially acceptable than you (read: popular, often athletic, mostly assholes), in other words being treated exactly as if you were “low status”, you’re not going to end up with much confidence or self-esteem (to say nothing of this treatment making any issues with social interaction you already had even worse…).

  3. Restructure! Says:

    I think there’s a social hierarchy aspect to this whole issue you might be missing, the way other people treated them most of their lives.

    I don’t see how I’m “missing” this aspect, since I specifically wrote “adult social position”. Why would I specify “adult” social position, if I was not familiar with teen social hierarchies? I’m a geek too, and I was when I was a teen, so how would I not be familiar with this?

    I think the problem with most male geeks is that they do not understand the concept of intersectionality. Yes, geeks do face prejudice, but there are multiple dimensions of prejudice, others being gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. A male geek may experience anti-geek prejudice, but a female geek would experience both anti-geek prejudice and misogyny from both geek and non-geek men. However, when male geeks set up the dichotomy of “geeks versus girls”, collapsing the “girls” or women category into a monolith and ignoring female geeks, they see “girls” as the oppressors of “geeks”.

    That’s not how it works.

  4. urbia Says:

    Taking a break from playing this MMORG I’m on, I just thought of more to add about these ‘scripts’ among male geeks rationalizing that women just like ‘jerks.’ It drips with the victim-blaming mentality that I’ve seen all over the game I’m on. To put things in context, I’m on a very competitive Player-versus-Player game where the object of the game is to, first, level up your character to 50, and secondly, to gain points for killing other players of the opposite faction. It’s kind of like a PvP server of World of Warcraft (plain ‘vanilla’ Warcraft is Player vs. Environment and you can’t go around killing other players).

    I’ve noticed that after throwing myself into battle I’d get positive feedback until the day I ‘came out’ as a female player. And then would come strange, unsolicited comments from other players if I got myself killed or came close to it. This even included players I barely even knew! And players I don’t even remember coming out to – an indication that there was some talk behind my back about my real life gender, which shouldn’t even be a big deal in the first place.

    There’d be comments like, “Oh, she wasn’t careful,” or “She’s getting raped 2 vs 1, let’s go save her.” And the funny thing is that they’re never directed at me. They’re directed to other fellow male gamers. I’m being talked about, not to, even though we’re in the same group doing the same activity. The difference was really jarring after I came out. Like every time, “Oh, it’s her fault. I told her so.”

    Now, the funny thing is this. The way the point system in that game is set up… you don’t lose a lot of points being at the level I’m at. These are points you can ‘spend’ to get PvP gear, and then they’re subtracted from your total. And the less you have, the less you lose when you die. So at times, I will actually play more haphazardly knowing that this penalty is negligible. I’ll make the conscious decision to attack someone 5 levels above me and possibly lose (there’s always the expectation that people on your side will come help, called ‘zerging’).

    Yet despite my informed decisions, my agency is denied. And if my character perished and was in need of a resurrection, I could tell from the tone of voice on the voice-chat software that it was a major inconvenience to save this ‘helpless female.’ This hardly happened when people thought I was male. It was always, ‘Good going, good attempt,’ and so forth.

    Your Disney cartoon definitely reminded me of this and the ‘script’ in operation.

  5. urbia Says:

    P.S.

    Just for a bit of context, I am in no way an inferior player. I have a high number of kills compared to most people on my server and play a class designed specifically for PvP.

    Furthermore, this character is of the ‘glass cannon’ archetype, an offensive class that has very powerful Attack stats yet is very weak in defense. We are usually the first to go down in a battle anyway and can be 1- or 2-shot by other classes. In other words, this class requires a high level of skill and finesse to play and mistakes are very unforgiving.

  6. JJ Says:

    Maybe I’m way off here, but, from my perspective, charisma and empathy are at least as important as income class in establishing your place in a social hierarchy. The ability to “play politics”, and manipulate other people’s perceptions does not seem to be a common skill among people who choose to be geeks. If a man is rich and smart, but not handsome or charming, the best label he can probably hope for is “eccentric”.

    This can apply to geek women too. I think the average guy sees me as intimidating, unapproachable, insensitive, and unfeminine. (and really, this is quite true) I have better luck with geek guys, but it’s not really as easy as you would think it would be with the numbers so heavily in my favor. Often the social dysfunction just compounds.

    I don’t deny that in my mind I split the world into geeks and nongeeks. And I won’t deny that I generally assume nongeeks are “innately shallow” until proven otherwise. My entire life has reinforced the fact that I generally fail when attempting to interact with “nongeeks,” not just romantically, and not just men.

    I guess my point is that it’s not a class issue. You can be high status economically and in terms of privilege, and still have social disadvantages.

  7. Restructure! Says:

    And I won’t deny that I generally assume nongeeks are “innately shallow” until proven otherwise.

    Yeah, but the “explanation” is that women are “innately shallow” because of evolution, not that “non-geeks” are innately shallow.

    I guess my point is that it’s not a class issue. You can be high status economically and in terms of privilege, and still have social disadvantages.

    Obviously, since class privilege is not the only privilege. However, in the “women avoid low status males” explanation, socio-economic status is one of the main factors. For example, this guy said:

    Geeky paraphernalia marks a room as low-status. Non-geek identified people perceive such an environment as a place for their equivalent of toilet scrubbers, and want nothing to do with it or with the people there.

    However, toilet scrubbers and many other heterosexual men working minimum wage jobs still have wives, so the male geek with his Apple products or laptop bag is still high-status in comparison. Status is not a satisfactory explanation. (That guy specified “non-geek” instead of “women”, but it’s not an explanation if we’re talking about women versus men, unless the implicit assumption is that all women are non-geeks.)

  8. JJ Says:

    I think you’re average geek guy probably does assume that most all women are nongeeks. Of course, everyone’s geek/nongeek algorithm is a little bit different, but by my own algorithm at least 98% of the women I meet in real life I would classify as nongeeks. I lot of women say they are geeks, but would go glassy-eyed if I tried to talk to them about things I really care about.

    I have trouble even making platonic female friends; if I was a guy trying to find and marry a compatible geek girl, I think I would be very depressed. I definitely wouldn’t settle for a ‘low-status’ mate who just wants my money and Apple products. I’d be looking for an intellectual equal with compatible interests who could handle my personality quirks and my extreme obsession with whatever geeky interest I have at the moment. I feel lucky I am a girl, I did manage to find and marry a geek guy, and it’s wonderful (mostly).

    You can redefine the word “geek” so that more women qualify, you can make being a geek socially acceptable for women, you can corral more women into the CS department, but I’m still going to be lonely if I can’t find other women I can I identify with – and that’s the real crux of the problem. I’m not so sure social engineering can fix it.

  9. urbia Says:

    “I think the problem with most male geeks is that they do not understand the concept of intersectionality.”

    Personally, I’m mystified why male geeks would find intersectionality a concept difficult to grasp. When I code, I deal with all sorts of hierarchies and inheritance-related concepts, and it’s not exactly a huge logical leap to apply this to social science.

    It’s almost like they’re pretending not to believe in intersectionality for their own benefit. Well, it’s not exactly a bad tactic for someone intelligent enough to realize that ignorance is a get-out-of-jail-card-free for white people and racism. How many times have you heard, “Oh, he’s not racist, just ignorant, so just excuse what comes out of his mouth. Why be so sensitive/emotional?”

  10. Danny Says:

    Personally, I’m mystified why male geeks would find intersectionality a concept difficult to grasp.
    The reason this may be difficult for some male geeks is the same reason it may be difficult for any other walk of life. They are so off put by the prejudices and -isms that do personally affect them that they may be prone to not notice the prejudices and -isms outside their reality. Not saying its right, not saying its fair, just saying it may happen that way.

  11. Restructure! Says:

    JJ,

    That’s nice, but that’s not really the topic of the post. If I was a male geek, I would be very worried about having a false belief system that is heavily shaped by fiction (and I would not want to be a victim of social engineering at an impressionable age by a corporate entity like Disney).

    Kuhn’s criticism of Popper’s falsifiability is also relevant. When your hypothesis predicts X but you get ¬X, you know that something is wrong, but you don’t know which assumption to reject. Your hypothesis could be wrong, or an auxiliary assumption could be wrong. You could really go way off the course of reality, because of your cognitive biases and such.

  12. urbia Says:

    Danny,

    I wish I could believe you, but so many white male hipsters employ such -isms in making ironic and sarcastic quips, so more often enough they’re pretty aware of topics related to intersectionality. If their goal is to be witty, the worst thing to do is fail at the joke or point you’re trying to make, so it actually pays socially for them to become well-versed in feminist or anti-racist literature to turn around and mock it.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if geeks, being an intellectually curious bunch, do the exact same thing. In fact, being aware of their power and privilege may offer them a sense of security and make them more confident in making such remarks. They know they’re safe as long as they feign ignorance.

  13. Restructure! Says:

    Most IT geeks aren’t hipsters, though. Hipsters are generally in the humanities or social sciences, and take care in how they dress, and IT geeks are generally from computer science or related areas, and do not take care in how they dress. Even mainstream feminists find intersectionality hard to grasp. Read the ignorant comments on Feministing, for example. (See: Boycott Feministing)

    People who are oppressed in only one dimension tend not to get intersectionality. You probably see it in part because you’re a woman of colour, and you expect everyone to see it because it is so obvious to you.

  14. urbia Says:

    Restructure,

    Maybe it’s a regional difference, but from what I see the lines are blurring. I see and hear of a lot of ‘hybrids’ of IT professionals that share a sort of hipster/yuppie mentality. Some actively fight against the ‘nerd’ identity by trying to become more well-rounded, and the hipster identity might be naturally appealing because it’s not quite a jock identity but it’s still ‘cool’ because it’s an intelligent kind of cool.

    If you take a stereotypically geeky guy and try to turn him into a jock, it won’t work (physique issues), but all you’d need is a wardrobe change and he will make at least a passable hipster – they’re generally described as somewhat scrawny anyway.

  15. urbia Says:

    (I say regional but I’m in Canada like you – I meant from what I’ve seen of my brother’s friends that live in New York City.)

  16. Eclectic Says:

    While this doesn’t really impact the main thrust of your argument about the problem associated with constructing women as being categorically attracted to men of high status, I’m not convinced that IT geeks are high status.

    You point out that they’re paid well, but I’m not convinced this is a valid indicator of status. To me, status is very much a matter of perception by others. It’s a matter of how people view the job. There’s certainly a relationship between status and how much one is paid. A person in a higher paying job is certainly more likely to be viewed as high status, but other factors come in to play as well.

    For instance, people in the trades can make a great deal of money, but their jobs may still be viewed as “working class” and thus of lower status. For instance the view that “plumbers are people who work in shit all day” is a reflection of the status of the job that is divorced from the fact that being a plumber can pay quite well.

    I suspect that people in IT are in a parallel position. Their jobs pay well, but the job is associated with a) geekiness and b) servitude (“Hey, IT guy, how come my e-mail isn’t working. Come fix it!”). Neither of these are associated with popular conceptions of high status.

    Again, this doesn’t mean that their arguments are valid, but I’m not sure that, as a group, they’re viewed as having high status.

    Does that make any sense?

  17. Danny Says:

    People who are oppressed in only one dimension tend not to get intersectionality. You probably see it in part because you’re a woman of colour, and you expect everyone to see it because it is so obvious to you.
    I think its more than just the number of ways a person is marginalized/oppressed but rather its how a person is marginalized/oppressed. As a black male geek I understand how it feels to be marginalized/oppressed in those three ways however I don’t know how the marginlization/oppression of an asian female athlete feels. Yes I have no business trying to speak on the life of an asian female athlete but my lack of understanding doesn’t come from the number but from the items themselves for I am neither asian, female, or athlete.

    I suspect that people in IT are in a parallel position. Their jobs pay well, but the job is associated with a) geekiness and b) servitude (“Hey, IT guy, how come my e-mail isn’t working. Come fix it!”).
    Yes. I work in IT myself and I am all too familiar with this. In addition to that I’m a bit curious about that “Average IT person makes $0.13 a minute” value. Chances are that number is heavily influenced by the few at the top (upper level management) that make outrageous amounts of money (I’ve been in IT for 5 years and I JUST hit $22k/yr in my last annual review.) There are a lot of people that think being in IT means making big money. I laugh at those people especially when try to tell me that I make big money despite my assuranes I don’t.

  18. Restructure! Says:

    Eclectic,

    Their jobs pay well, but the job is associated with a) geekiness and b) servitude (“Hey, IT guy, how come my e-mail isn’t working. Come fix it!”). Neither of these are associated with popular conceptions of high status.

    This is true in many ways, but being low on the organizational chart does not mean that you are low in society. Other office workers may expect the IT department to serve them, but there are people in the office building like janitors, cafeteria workers, etc. who serve the IT people. (I think people generally don’t understand how complex computers are, and falsely think that IT people do not need to have any decision-making power to make the company run well, but people outside your company just care about how much money you make to determine your social worth.)

    Danny,

    In addition to that I’m a bit curious about that “Average IT person makes $0.13 a minute” value. Chances are that number is heavily influenced by the few at the top (upper level management) that make outrageous amounts of money (I’ve been in IT for 5 years and I JUST hit $22k/yr in my last annual review.) There are a lot of people that think being in IT means making big money. I laugh at those people especially when try to tell me that I make big money despite my assuranes I don’t.

    I considered this criticism before I wrote the post, and my prepared answer is that the set of non-IT jobs has greater variability in pay than the set of IT jobs. It’s U.S. IT people versus everyone else in the U.S., including celebrities (like Oprah, Harrison Ford, Beyonce), CEOs (like Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of Disney), professional sports players, doctors/dentists/surgeons, lawyers, astronauts, etc.

  19. Danny Says:

    I considered this criticism before I wrote the post, and my prepared answer is that the set of non-IT jobs has greater variability in pay than the set of IT jobs. It’s U.S. IT people versus everyone else in the U.S., including celebrities (like Oprah, Harrison Ford, Beyonce), CEOs (like Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of Disney), professional sports players, doctors/dentists/surgeons, lawyers, astronauts, etc.
    True but I think that variation among IT jobs is still enough to break the the assumption that to be in IT is to make big money. Just like the music industry I’m sure that number is high too but consider how many people in that industry might only go gold once in their entire career (and even more than don’t even get a gold record) vs the number of Beyonces that go platinum once a year. Yes the average for IT pay may be high but its only an average.

  20. Restructure! Says:

    True but I think that variation among IT jobs is still enough to break the the assumption that to be in IT is to make big money.

    Yes, but I never made such a claim, and you are also admitting that there is a stereotype that “to be in IT is to make big money” among society in general. However, “to be in IT is to make big money” can be true, depending on the financial situation of the person making the claim.

  21. S Says:

    Sorry for randomly interjecting here, but I MUST agree with this statement:

    “Even mainstream feminists find intersectionality hard to grasp. Read the ignorant comments on Feministing, for example. (See: Boycott Feministing)

    People who are oppressed in only one dimension tend not to get intersectionality. You probably see it in part because you’re a woman of colour, and you expect everyone to see it because it is so obvious to you.”

    THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS! One of the biggest issues I have with some feminists is that they think gender is above and all the only oppression. Whenever I point out race, disability, sexuality, etc., they usually say, “Well, being a woman already embodies all that.” WHAT? If this was true, then the second-wave movement should have solved ALL women’s problems, not just some (e.g: white, middle-class women). Moreover, in their haste to fight sexism, some have also used racist/ableist/homophobic/etc. language/actions. As a result, I’ve often had to bang my head against the wall and wonder why I participate in such feminist communities in the first place. More than once, I’ve had to remind some feminists (nicely) on why we need to consider intersectionality at all times, but it utterly boogles my mind that they don’t know this (or perhaps they are pretending to forget it) because anyone who has taken a course on Women’s Studies 101 will learn these concepts, such as white privilege, intersectionality, discourse, sexuality, etc.

    Or perhaps I am just expecting too much out of feminism in general.

  22. Linkspam may learn math anxiety, 8 February 2010 | Geek Feminism Blog Says:

    [...] Restructure! suggests that some undesirable male behavior in IT may be tied to male geeks’ perception that they are low-s…. [...]

  23. Mel Says:

    @JJ — There are a lot of different *kinds* of geeks, and this whole idea of there being one true definition of geek and anyone who glazes over when they talk is not a geek irritates the hell out of me. I’m pretty sure you’d glaze over when I talk about some of my (less computer-related, more obscure) geeky interests. The problem is not that women aren’t geeky, or even that women are categorically geeky in a different way from geeky men (both of which are not at all true in my experience).

    Or do you think women are really biologically hardwired to shallowly prefer rich “jerks”?

  24. urbia Says:

    @Mel

    I agree there are different kinds of geeks, both in terms of different (obscure) interests and in the possible personality traits. For example, the Myers Briggers career personality test identifies four different types of Rationals (NT). The geek stereotype is consistent with only one or two of the four – I’d say the INTP and INTJ. Extroverted geeks with social skills do exist, ie. ENTJ and ENTP.

    Hmm, that kind of reminds me. Another aspect of white privilege just occurred to me. I’ve noticed that it’s easier for a white male geek to portray himself as a well-rounded individual, but if you’re of Asian descent and come with the associated stereotypes, you’ll automatically be assumed to be shy and introverted. I don’t doubt that this is often used to justify keeping Asian-Americans out of leadership roles at IT companies (glass ceiling) as they’re thought to be ‘too passive’ and lacking in social skills… which might not even be true a lot of the times.

    In short, this makes me question whether or not geeks are really as oppressed as they make themselves seem. An INTP may be oppressed, but an ENTJ may just shrug it off, especially if they have white and male privilege.

  25. Dayita Says:

    “Why are male IT geeks less successful in attracting women than other males, on average? Why are there few women in IT?”

    I’ve been a woman in IT, in fact developing software, for 25 years now, and really, the answers to the questions raised in the posting are much, much, *much* simpler than power and privilege. I am not even beginning to deny the *fact* of male power and privilege in the IT workplace – well software development – but I don’t believe it is a determining factor.

    The simple fact is that the vast majority of my cow-orkers over the years are people who get along better with machines than with people. They lack social skills even amongst themselves, and, in the most pathological cases, celebrate their ineptitude as a badge of status within the sub-culture. There is such a fundamental lack of social awareness that one company I interviewed with tried to convince me that they their single-tier management structure (they had over 50 engineers reporting to just one! manager) made for an attractive workplace. At that point the interview was over for me, so I told my interlocutor that his management structure gave the heebie-jeebies because what he really had was a shop full of covert dominance games and I had no desire to spend my days playing them.

    One thing I did see at a company where I worked for seven years, was that while women *were* under-represented in software development, they were over-represented (relative to the gender ratio of the workers) in *managing* software-development and even formed the majority in some sectors of the business (interaction design being the most obvious). I suspect this has its roots in the usual socialization arguments – I mean *I* find it easy to relate to the machine, but women are taught by our society to relate to people over things.

    This is a major looming problem in the whole software development industry because most software development is now a massive social undertaking by people who are painfully inept socially. The usual managerial response is to treat people like parts of some giant factory machine. And the process of IT outsourcing is finally creating the sweat-shops of the 21st century. 60-hour weeks are common and there are unwritten rules about how the one with the most unbalanced life, reaps the largest rewards. It’s gotten to the point where I can’t wait to get out, but my parachute hasn’t popped open just yet :)

  26. Robert Wiblin Says:

    Way off.

    It’s not that they think they lack money – that’s their saving grace in finding a partner and they would be aware of that.

    It’s that they lack experience with women, as you say, that they act in an unattractive way, such that their body language inadvertently suggests that they are less desirable than other men (and that they have less money, though this is false in fact).

    Of course undergrads have neither charisma nor money, so they’re not going to do so well.

  27. Restructure! Says:

    Robert Wiblin,

    It’s that they lack experience with women, as you say, that they act in an unattractive way, such that their body language inadvertently suggests that they are less desirable than other men (and that they have less money, though this is false in fact).

    Please explain how “they are less desirable than other men” and “they have less money” are synonymous, connected, or associated with each other.

  28. Hmmmm Says:

    I think you need to examine his post closer. What he said was that their body language signals the fact that they feel as they are less attractive and that they have less money. Do you see the critical word? FEEL.

  29. Restructure! Says:

    @Hmmmm:

    The word “feel” is nowhere in Robert Wiblin’s comment.

    Or are you talking about another “post”?

  30. Bill B Says:

    As I see it, a woman CANNOT be a so called “geek”. The very notion of a female “geek” is a contradiction in terms. A male with few social skills but great computer skills may not do very well with women. That is your classic “geek”. Whereas, a female with few social skills but great computer skills has no problem finding male companions.

    All a female has to do is 1) go where men are, 2) look good, 3) be friendly and her acceptance by the opposite sex is automatic! She can pick and choose among the men who approach her. Males on the other hand, must actually EARN acceptance by the opposite sex. They must be interesting, charming, witty and socially skilled enough to gain and hold a woman’s attention. And they risk rejection! It isn’t fair!

    These social dynamics can make it very difficult for men to have genuine respect for women in general. Yet, society automatically places a low status on any man who CANNOT get women. And there, you have the essence of low status “geeks”.

  31. Restructure! Says:

    All a female has to do is 1) go where men are, 2) look good, 3) be friendly and her acceptance by the opposite sex is automatic!

    #2 is where the problem is for women. When you think of “woman”, you only think of conventionally attractive women, but most women are not conventionally attractive, and so they are not even on your radar when you think of “women”. You don’t even think of them as “women”.

    Do you think an overweight female geek has “no problem” finding male companions? How about a female geek with an acne problem?

    Repeat after me: …men imagine themselves less picky about looks because they don’t even see the women they reject.

  32. urbia Says:

    Why don’t we just decouple the ‘getting laid’ part from the geek definition?

    Pun so intended.

  33. Restructure! Says:

    I don’t agree that ‘getting laid’ is part of the geek definition either, but I got sidetracked by the (heterosexual) male-centric myopia.

    Randall Munroe is obviously a geek, but he is obviously getting laid as well, probably because he’s not a sexist douchebag.

  34. Women prefer good-looking men to high-earning men. « Restructure! Says:

    [...] allegedly does not.) Such male IT geeks then complain that their difficulty attracting women must because they are “low status” males who do not make enough money, even when IT is a lucrative [...]

  35. Lonewolf Says:

    I still think you’re missing Ginsu Shark’s social hierarchy argument. This is not so much an issue of prejudice (or any other cultural construct) as it is of PECKING ORDER (an innately biological construct).

    Male Geeks, when put in a situation with a variety of other males will generally end up at the bottom of the pecking order due to being socially maladjusted and (especially) physically unimposing. Financial means will not help them here since these instincts evolved long before the concept of money.

    This set of ideas does *NOT* postulate that women sleep with men in exchange for their material resources, but rather sleep with them based of their position in the male pecking order.

    Studies I’ve read say that the largest predictors of a male’s place in the pecking order are his height, muscular bulk and the size of his chin/jawline.

    The idea is that women want to sleep with men who are high in the pecking order so that their children, especially their sons, with inherit the means to assume high positions themselves. (google “sexy sons hypothesis”)

    Women will engage in long term relationships with men based on their financial means, but will still sleep with larger/more dominant men on the side, hoping to become pregnant by the dominant men and have the kids raised by the financial means of hubby. There is a co-relation between the most fertile phase of a woman’s menstrual cycle and her attraction to large men/desire to cheat on her husband.

    I think that when you hear “status” you think “socioeconomic status,” rather than biological status, hence the source of the confusion.

  36. Meta-Restructure: Top Five Most “Interesting” Posts + Delurking « Restructure! Says:

    [...] Male IT geeks think they are “low status” males. (February 1, 2010) [...]

  37. PM Says:

    Pecking order? What are we, poultry?

    There is not a single hierarchy within which everyone can be ranked. While I agree that there are power and status differentials, they change situation to situation, as different qualities become more or less relevant.

    Even the supposedly “hardwired” physical qualities that people are attracted to vary wildly with social input – any historical survey of what physical features are categorised as “dominant”, as well as the simple fact that supposedly “inferior” features continue to reproduce, shows that.

    Moreover, not everyone is looking for a partner based on power or status (of whatever kind). A woman who is confident of her own power, like a man confident of his, doesn’t need to seek power through a choice of partner.

    Finally, even those who have decided (consciously or not) that status is what they want will still take into account other factors. And they are more likely to do so if they are making an effort to be conscious of their own thought processes rather than just shutting down their brains with a lazy “what I like is ordained by God/Evolutionary Psychology”.

    Maybe fowl can only socialise in one dimension, but humans are capable of a little more sophistication – and variation. Making the effort is insanely interesting, and rewarding.

  38. Restructure! Says:

    Lonewolf,

    Women will engage in long term relationships with men based on their financial means, but will still sleep with larger/more dominant men on the side, hoping to become pregnant by the dominant men and have the kids raised by the financial means of hubby. There is a co-relation between the most fertile phase of a woman’s menstrual cycle and her attraction to large men/desire to cheat on her husband.

    Yet, if what you say true, then male IT geeks should have no problem finding girlfriends.

  39. Lonewolf Says:

    @PM
    I fully accept that there is more than one dimention to human socailization. We do not all live in a chicken coop with a “top rooster” taking whatever he wants and everyone else getting what’s left. However, we can only exist in one social dimention at any given time.

    This is the problem for our hypothetical IT geek: He will almost invariably end up at the bottom of the heap in the social dimentions where meeting women is an option. He will have been passed over for more physically imposing and less socially inept guys when he was in high school and college, and still gets passed over if he goes to a bar or nightclub or other venue where people are competing for mates.

    No amount of upward mobility at the office or among his (no doubt male IT geek) circle of friends will impress a random woman he meets at a coffee shop, let alone hold her attention when a jock in a sports jacket starts chatting her up like he’s not even there.

    @Restructure!
    I am not defending male IT geeks here; they have only themselves and the hand they were delt to blame for their misfortunes.

    The original jist of your blog entry is right. If they blame their lack of success with women on not having enough money, they’re being idiots. A lot of them blame their problems on “women being inherently crazy, irrational, bitches” this too is stupid. Women are NOT crazy for finding these guys unattractive!

    I’m sure a good percentage of them will end up being married by middle age, living in suburbia, and raising another man’s children.

  40. womensfrights Says:

    Listen, this article is dripping with contempt and iciness. I suspect that this article was written by a female who feels revolted that men out there are actually pining for females that make them feel complete and whole and put their faith in a system of accomplishment which in past used to reward males of every stripe with a conventionally attractive woman. The lack of remorse from this article smacks of female indifference, this is simply borne by the fact that average women today are freer to chase after the good-looking men without supposed consequence. The author must be female simply because most women have ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPT of the unending yearning that comes from being denied beautiful women and wonderful sex. You have no clue the level of torment men feel when they are forced to settle for moderately unattractive women and below. Men crave features in women that make them feel complete and whole. The resonance that comes from a pretty girl’s face is like nothing else. It brings the ultimate feeling of success and privilege. Men have genetic programming designed to make them feel horrible agony if this yearning is not quenched. Pure agony. Achieving a steady supply of beauty is the ultimate achievement for men. It isn’t for women because they just do not have the genetically instilled emptiness of longing. They just don’t. You never hear of women describing themselves as being hollow holes – except after being raped. But those are just tiny life moments in time. Men who get frozen out of a whole class of attractive females opens a void of emptiness unlike anything imagined in the female mind. Beauty is everything and you will find that having the few life lines to get those pretty females taken away is on par with becoming a slave.

    This is why you see scores of men slobby looking or out of shape. It is not because they are poor or feebleminded. No, it is because they were denied an attractive mate too often. They hit obstacles and barriers one too many times causing a spiral of negative reinforcement. They suffer so much rejection that they give up and the black hole of depression – genetically inspired – eats their soul up. Even the idea that some other guy is able to get a pretty girl that passes them on the street is substance for endless fathoming and misery.

    Often you find these types in IT because it is a sanctuary. A beacon of light if you will to achieve an endless supply of attractive blondes. That’s all that men want. On top of that most males instinctively know that the females they really want are giving love, happiness, respect, passion and pleasure in SPADES to guys who are perfect looking and everyone else be damned. In our current climate where women do not respect money and cloister towards men born with a genetic silver spoon the dating environment is one where the rich get richer so to speak.

    Being denied a beautiful female for any reason is the basis for hell on earth FOR ALL MEN. Even marrying a beautiful woman is not enough to quell the burning desire for attractive partners. This is the source of all the marital strife you heard of in the past. The classic 50′s father who wore wifebeaters and bullied his family was only like that because he wanted more… more beautiful women than the one he already got. Most of the ugly girls died as spinsters or “Great Aunts” where they belonged. This was because genetically women are better able to handle not having sex. They don’t have the emotion of yearning that turns men psychopathic – often after only a month. Women have NO equivalent. They don’t shoot up buildings or go on school rampages. Men NEED functionally attractive women who are young and represent high status so they feel as if they have a stake in our society and produce wealth to reinforce the sex they are getting. Right now females who are in high demand are trivializing their value in this entire system and giving themselves to a few men – making all the other men resent them for it.

    See this article is more depressing than it is illuminating. It means that the functional working types of society are grinding away at a hopeless system. The female author of this article makes another critical female error – assuming that men work their lives away for fun or for basic sustenance like women do. Men work to get sex, and only attractive sex at that. If money loses its merit as a method of attracting females, then the caste system of looks is locked in air tight. Because if there is no hope for men to achieve more than what they were born with, if women only go for looks and regard money as confetti, then the men who build and maintain things will DROP OUT.

    What the author of the article fails to realize is that the entire point of working and making money is to attract the most beautiful women possible and to leave the less attractive women at the wayside to raise the surplus children of these beautiful females. At least that was the social contract between men and their females. I can tell the author of this piece was female because she doesn’t consider that as a motive for making money in her article. In fact she ridicules it. Women go to work just to pad their egos and to pay for basic living arrangements, sex for most of them flutters in and out of their lives like a soap opera. This is where they mistakenly believe men do work for the same thing. They never conceive that men primarily go to work in order to have the status to attract them!

    Only recently have females been able to make wages in soft, sissy jobs where they can now get the things they want without marriage. This has also meant that a handful of pretty playboys are get all the attention, since with their basic needs covered women are free to offer themselves to guys on the most basic adolescent standard – looks. The engineers meanwhile are forced to ply away harder and harder for a sexy woman whose price goes up and up each year.

    If you take away the female in the equation then what is the point of working? These are jobs that women don’t like to do, don’t do very well, and are usually hideously ugly if they do like them. No. The best women (18-25, thin, open for sexual experimentation, Caucasian, or near causation) should be for sale and passed around rightfully so that these miserable pits don’t happen in the male population. All the hottest females should be cheap, accessible and breedable by most men. This should be the reward for working. The uglier girls can live a life cleaning toilets for anyone cares since they have mechanisms in their psyche to accept this. Most men merely have resentment.

    If money is no longer a criteria for appearing attractive to women then money itself loses value. Thus work loses value. Thus you find all this male bitterness about how the world is unfair. It is unfair if your sexual counterpart has abandoned you, rejects your money, laughs at your needs (ALL men want harems, period), and gives herself to the harem of some guy who was born pretty and doesn’t have to do much except work as a bartender.

    Women give themselves to one harem or another eventually. Many women attempt to disagree or rationalize this in some sort of dumb purity test of self-respect but it is true. Either they give themselves to the harem of a pretty boy who has his choice of females without having to produce any material wealth, or give themselves to the working man whose money is good enough for a wife and the occasional stripper. The effect on the production of our society is different depending on which harem the female relents to. Right now women have chosen to take the workers for granted.

    Even worse is the knowledge that more men are living to adulthood than ever before creating a 1:1 gender ratio in adulthood, when in the past usually there was a surplus of women to at least pass around and quell volcanic cravings. The time we are living in is a hell on earth for most men, as all the best women taunt them when they could be bought and sold like automobiles. (Imagine the entire US allowing men to choose women like how Vegas hires showgirls. It would be heaven!) Time will tell how long this imbalance will last.

    This article feels like an attempt to rub salt on the wound of males who already know that the entire sexual marketplace is driven by looks. The article merely drives home that they took a suckers bet by putting faith in the older system of accomplishment and reward. If female interests hijack this entire system by rewarding the genetically gifted – as we can see in the hookup culture – then tons of men will essentially be cast to the wayside to rot in pain. They will be cursed to nothingness due to their looks. The reason why men feel so much anguish when denied a pretty female is that they are genetically designed to accept work in exchange for beauty. It is a fair exchange in the minds of most men because civilization had created this genetic impulse that you work for the right to buy a pretty model of female. Taking this away by giving women the ability to mock the function of money is like ripping the fins off of a fish and laughing at it sink.

    For a man beauty is fuel, the ultimate fuel for his soul. Without it the man becomes a husk. The fat chicks and weird exotic chicks are no substitute for the casually attractive women that all men crave. It’s not like men are asking that much either – just a series of casual sex encounters with high quality women. Women don’t do hard labor jobs, they don’t innovate as often and they don’t file as many patents. They don’t take risks because they don’t have to. The entire reason for this is because they have no incentive. They get sex easily and thus can trivialize money if it comes easy enough. (Today’s service economy is for women like what the manufacturing economy was for men 50 years ago, jobs everywhere) Criticizing men for wanting the effects of their work to enable them access to high quality estrogen is counter-intuitive. You are essentially criticizing the mode of civilization.

  41. Restructure! Says:

    womensfrights,

    Thank you for the very entertaining comment. I almost have the urge to vote you up.

    I have another post on Women prefer good-looking men to high-earning men, FYI. At least we agree on that point.

    Men NEED functionally attractive women who are young and represent high status

    This is what it’s really about, which is why you say that men need “Caucasian” women, preferably blonde.

  42. Flewellyn Says:

    Wow, that “womensfrights” comment was an absolutely textbook case of misogynist entitlement. He’s treating women explicitly like objects to be acquired.

    If only that level of stupidity and hateful entitlement was fatal…

  43. Bob the Chef Says:

    I really hope all of you burn in hell. Resentment is a stinky cologne. Nietzsche would have a field day with your disgusting self-pity. You think someone owes you something? As far as I can tell, you are looking for a mother surrogate to love and nurture you. It’s people like you that make me hate our culture. Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not breed. No not raise any children. If utopias were at all possible, then the single class of people snidely preventing its realization, it is you. Stop with the pathetic self-victimization. Everybody gets shit some of the time.

    And come on! Have you ever worked with or gone to school with geeks? These people are some of the most needy, egotistical, arrogant, objectifying, shallow people around. It just causes my blood to curdle into gravel when I hear these dregs of human existence, these Letzten Menschen, accuse others of shallowness. Really? Because it’s really you who are shallow, settling losers, projecting your own shallowness onto others. Why would *anyone*want to spend time with someone like you? I’m guessing the only people that do are geeks themselves. Misery likes company.

    So yeah, while cliques may form in school when growing up, geeks aren’t any better. And it’s sickening to think some people fail deeply at growing up and maturing beyond childhood nonsense, wallowing in self-centered grudges. The world is *not* paying attention to you.

    http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.shtml

    womensfrights, you should, along with other geeks, seriously consider homosexuality. Your dehumanization of women, your lack of character and inability to see the worthlessness of accomplishments in the face of character. All of this can only function as a description of your own lack of humanity, your own base existence, and your own self-imprisonment in the imaginary hierarchy that you believe in. I agree that beauty is one of the most important values (I never said one should pursue women one considers ugly; this isn’t charity, which isn’t to say you shouldn’t treat everyone, without exception, as a human being), but you really don’t have an appreciation of beauty as you seem to think, and neither do the geeks. You’re all broken people, and in my opinion, worthy of the dustbin. Perhaps it’s a lack of compassion on my part to think you are examples of hopeless morons incapable of overcoming your childish, corny bitterness (yeah it’s that obvious). You’re not impressing anyone.

  44. Restructure! Says:

    Bob the Chef,

    Geeks are not all men or heterosexual. Although there is quite a bit of sexism among male geeks in general, womensfrights’ misogyny is something else completely, and not even representative of the typical misogynist male geek.

  45. closetpuritan Says:

    WRT the “women cannot be geeks because they could get laid whenever they want” argument: there’s also the fact that “being friendly” is not exactly an easy proposition for someone with “few social skills”, especially if that person is also shy (and the two often do go together). Shyness often is interpreted as unapproachability, coldness, or disinterest. It’s sort of like saying, “all someone with poor athletic skills has to do is be on a sports team!”

    Poor social skills, low self-confidence, and/or obliviousness can also cause you to miss what the other person thinks are clear signals of interest. The other person may then interpret this as rejection and give up. (As an example of the third factor, my boyfriend says that when he and I weren’t yet going out, he said hi to me and I completely ignored him. Since I had no idea that this happened, I must have been lost in my thoughts or something.)

  46. ThatQuietGuyNeeds2ToBAbused Says:

    I agree with womensfrights but like Flewellyn I wish it were fatal as well. Fortunately for us all, that wish will one day come true. Just not as fast as some of us may like. So now back to my time passing escapist existence until I receive that ok pass the F out of here. Have a nice day everybody.

  47. Male IT geeks think they are “low status” males. | Geek Feminism Blog Says:

    [...] This post was originally published at Restructure! [...]

  48. And… better « Newly Open Says:

    [...] and self-hating logic for me to think of myself as “bad at dating”, akin to what these guys are doing (although, I hope, less toxic to the people around me).  I’ve spent all of a year [...]

  49. Cessen Says:

    @Restructure:

    #2 is where the problem is for women. When you think of “woman”, you only think of conventionally attractive women, but most women are not conventionally attractive, and so they are not even on your radar when you think of “women”. You don’t even think of them as “women”.

    Do you think an overweight female geek has “no problem” finding male companions? How about a female geek with an acne problem?

    Repeat after me: …men imagine themselves less picky about looks because they don’t even see the women they reject.

    The universe doesn’t owe you a boyfriend. ;-)

    So, this is an impression I have based on the way these issues are typically talked about in the feminist blogosphere. But I may well be wrong. It might just be a tone thing.
    But I get the impression that within the feminist blogosphere, when women have difficulty finding romantic success, the complaint is typically considered legitimate (e.g. “men are sexist for…”). But when men face similar difficulty, the complaint is typically considered illegitimate (e.g. “the universe doesn’t owe you a girlfriend”).

    In my experience the complaints of both men and women with regards to romantic success tend to have varying spectrums of legitimacy and illegitimacy.

    I think in all cases it is 100% illegitimate to argue that anyone is ever obligated to date/have sex with someone else. And collectively that amounts to “the universe doesn’t owe you a ___friend”.

    But at the same time, I think certain subsets of men and women face difficulties in romance that are rooted in problematic social issues or cultural attitudes, and I think those subsets of people have a legitimate complaint, and deserve some sympathy as well as an effort to deconstruct these issues. (And of course they also deserve critique when their complaints become problematic in nature.)

  50. Restructure! Says:

    The universe doesn’t owe you a boyfriend. ;-)

    Of course not. :)

    So, this is an impression I have based on the way these issues are typically talked about in the feminist blogosphere. But I may well be wrong. It might just be a tone thing.
    But I get the impression that within the feminist blogosphere, when women have difficulty finding romantic success, the complaint is typically considered legitimate (e.g. “men are sexist for…”). But when men face similar difficulty, the complaint is typically considered illegitimate (e.g. “the universe doesn’t owe you a girlfriend”).

    I really don’t see this at all. The feminist blogosphere discusses discrimination against fat people, but they always have to make the clarification, “No one is forcing you to have sex with fatties,” to trolls who think that’s what’s being advocated when they are talking about treating people with respect. Also, discrimination against fat people is a different type of oppression than sexism, so it’s about skinny privilege, not male privilege.

    I think in all cases it is 100% illegitimate to argue that anyone is ever obligated to date/have sex with someone else. And collectively that amounts to “the universe doesn’t owe you a ___friend”.

    Absolutely.

    But at the same time, I think certain subsets of men and women face difficulties in romance that are rooted in problematic social issues or cultural attitudes, and I think those subsets of people have a legitimate complaint, and deserve some sympathy as well as an effort to deconstruct these issues. (And of course they also deserve critique when their complaints become problematic in nature.)

    Of course. When it comes to race, for example, black women and Asian men discuss how racism impacts their perceived attractiveness. I sympathize with this, except when some Asian men say things like, “White men are stealing our women,” implying that Asian women “belong” to Asian men, or that we are obligated to have sex with them. This attitude of ownership and entitlement usually comes from the male side, perhaps because traditional masculinity requires that a man is a man only if he has a woman, so many men take this to be their birthrights as men.

  51. Cessen Says:

    I really don’t see this at all. The feminist blogosphere discusses discrimination against fat people, but they always have to make the clarification, “No one is forcing you to have sex with fatties,” to trolls who think that’s what’s being advocated when they are talking about treating people with respect. Also, discrimination against fat people is a different type of oppression than sexism, so it’s about skinny privilege, not male privilege.

    Sure, I recognize this.

    But, for example, related to this post: class/status. (And let me emphasize that I agree with your post, here. Geeks as a whole have nothing to complain about in terms of financial/class positioning. So that’s not what I’m talking about.)

    The feminist framing of this issue that I’ve seen is to make it mainly about men (i.e. men won’t date women with higher-powered careers, etc.). But I’m pretty sure this is a more general issues, enforced by both men and women. A lot of women similarly won’t date men with notably lower-powered careers than themselves. And this isn’t because of “gold digging” or whatever, but rather for the same reason as the male side of it: it feels weird, it violates gender norms, it makes her feel like the “man” in the relationship. But I don’t hear much discussion about how (usually non-feminist) women contribute to this problem as well, and how it harms men.

    And it goes beyond just career/financial success. It’s also about relative self-confidence, relative intelligence, relative passion about things, relative age, etc. In general, men are expected to be “more than or equal to” their partners on the balance (not that there aren’t exceptions, but as a strong social trend). And conversely, women are expected to be “less than or equal to” their partners on the balance.

    Clearly this situation harms both men and women. But I only see the male-contribution and female-harm aspects of this addressed. And it feels like the female-contribution and male-harm aspects are usually dismissed as fictitious, or at least as secondary. Although, again, that feeling may well just come from the tone and slant of the discussion rather than from the actual views held.

  52. Restructure! Says:

    The feminist framing of this issue that I’ve seen is to make it mainly about men (i.e. men won’t date women with higher-powered careers, etc.).

    Personally, I am very bothered by this kind of sexism, because it seems like a direct extension of traditional sexism, when (non-black, non-poor) women were not allowed to work and had fewer rights. It seems like these men are trying to hold on to male privilege and are trying to find a wife who is more willing to do his housework and raise his kids.

    But I’m pretty sure this is a more general issues, enforced by both men and women. A lot of women similarly won’t date men with notably lower-powered careers than themselves. And this isn’t because of “gold digging” or whatever, but rather for the same reason as the male side of it: it feels weird, it violates gender norms, it makes her feel like the “man” in the relationship. But I don’t hear much discussion about how (usually non-feminist) women contribute to this problem as well, and how it harms men.

    Well, in general, if a person from my oppressed group argues in favour of our oppression, I would be even angrier at that person than at someone from the oppressor group. However, with regards to talking about those women in general, I’m not as bothered by them, because they are probably not misogynists, unlike the men who seem to want roll back women’s rights.

    I guess the distinction is between oppositional sexism vs. traditional sexism (i.e., misogyny):

    Serano contributes significantly to feminist theory and practice by providing us with a concise way of categorizing the different forms of sexism in Western societies. She argues that sexism is a two-fold phenomenon, consisting of “oppositional” and “traditional” elements. Oppositional sexism is “the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories” (13). A man should not have any of the “attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires” commonly associated with women, and vice-versa (13). Anyone who does not follow this schema, any manly women or womanly men, should be dismissed and punished for disobeying the divine, natural and social order that deemed the two genders to be mutually exclusive opposites. On the other hand, traditional sexism is “the belief that maleness and masculinity are superior to femaleness and femininity” (14). This type of sexism specifically demeans all feminine persons (many of whom are females) by characterizing their activities as frivolous and justifying their exclusion from certain jobs and positions of social authority. Thus, according to Serano, sexism is a commonly held belief system that conceptualizes males and females as strict oppositional categories and sets up a hierarchy in which men and masculinity are considered superior to women and femininity.

    Those women who adhere to gender norms are just oppositional sexists, but those men who won’t date women with high-powered careers are usually both oppositional sexists and traditional sexists (i.e., misogynists).

  53. Cessen Says:

    I like the oppositional vs ‘traditional’ sexism distinction. Though I would argue there are women that are traditionally sexist as well. There are also women that argue female superiority (if you haven’t run into them, lucky you–but Mary Daly comes to mind as one example, and I’ve frequently run into the attitude that the world would be a better place if women ruled the world, which is an implied superiority argument).

    [...]unlike the men who seem to want roll back women’s rights.

    What about the men who don’t? I mean, really, these people count too.

    (And there are women who want to roll back women’s rights as well. Abortion rights being an obvious example.)


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers

%d bloggers like this: