# Season of Sexism #2: The Fake Geek Girl; plus Origins Award Winners, and Red Aegis' designer dream t



## Matt James

Thanks for mentioning our project! We can't wait to watch it grow and thrive.


----------



## delericho

I'm pretty sure the "fake geek girl" thing comes from the same place as the old cliche of the guy in the pub who gets shot down by an attractive woman and therefore tells his mates that she's a lesbian. Or, indeed, the nice guys/jerks dichotomy.

It's about salving wounded pride - it's not that _you're_ unattractive, it's that _she's_ not attracted to men, or _she's_ only attracted to bastards, or _she's_ a fake. As long as there's something external to blame, it saves you from facing some unpalatable truth.

And just as there is such a thing as a lesbian (though the woman in the pub in the first paragraph almost certainly wasn't one), there probably is such a thing as a "fake geek girl". Indeed, saying that shouldn't even be all that controversial - it's not exactly news that some (generally young) women sometimes pretend to be something they're not for the attention. (As, indeed, do men.)

But saying they exist is not the same as saying they're common - they're not. And it certainly doesn't make it any less offensive to describe someone as a "fake" because she doesn't welcome your advances. Or to deploy your oh-so-clever "fake geek girl test".

(Hell, it's probably offensive to assume that a woman at a convention would be open to being hit on at all. I daresay that in many cases she'd much rather be left alone to enjoy the convention. Having, very occasionally, been the target of unwanted attention, I'm quite aware that it's actually not as much fun as you might think.)

And I think that's why there's plenty of noise about "fake geek girls" and almost none about "fake geek guys" - it's being driven by heterosexual males. They're not attracted to geek guys, fake or otherwise, so they don't much care. Which is unfair, and sexist, and offensive, but there it is. Sorry; men suck sometimes.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

The fake game girl thing is also an outgrowth of the fact that the geeks have _won_. When I was in high school in the 1980s, the girls I swooned for wouldn't have been caught dead reading a vampire novel (which would have meant Anne Rice at that point) or a giant series of fantasy novels (the Wheel of Time, most likely) and would be baffled if they thought anyone their age still cared about superheroes.

But today, those same girls, now women, watch and discuss every episode of True Blood and Game of Thrones and go with their girlfriends to drool over Captain America and Thor. (In my case, my wife prefers Iron Man's smart ass commentary.)

Whenever you have any group suddenly expand in size -- in this case, geek culture going mainstream -- there are always members of the earlier members of said groups trying to push some or all of the newbies back out. This happens with interest groups, political groups, cultural groups and so on. Given the nature of some of these OG geeks, it's wrapped up in sexism this time, possibly because telling a handsome guy with good posture and fashion sense that he's not a real geek raises the spectre of long-ago school yard fights for some of these would-be badasses, and it's easier for them to yell at women instead.


----------



## Umbran

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Whenever you have any group suddenly expand in size -- in this case, geek culture going mainstream -- there are always members of the earlier members of said groups trying to push some or all of the newbies back out.




You don't even need that growth in size.  Drawing lines between Us and Them has been happening in fandom (and everywhere else) forever. For RPG-relevant examples: every time you see someone frown upon someone else's playstyle, and very attempt to classify an edition as "not D&D" is basically just an attempt to draw a line between the true, loyal, hardcore fan of X, and everyone else who isn't.  This part of it is by no means gender-specific.  

Humans have this basic urge to try make themselves look better up by tearing others down, and an arrogance that the speaker is an authority that gets to pass judgement on the worthiness of others.  Kind of pathetic, but common, I'm afraid.

On top of that is the basic sexist assumption that whether she's a geek is linked to her being a girl.  

The most ugly bit is not just sexist, but sexist _entitlement_ - that the guy "deserves" to have a girl, and to degrade, shun, label, and shame the girl if she doesn't give over.  The basic assumption is that her existence is primarily about her relationship to the man.


----------



## darjr

congrats to all the origin award winners! Especially to the Hall of Fame winners!


----------



## NewJeffCT

I've never heard of the "fake" geek girl before, but I can definitely say it's true about a woman in gaming gets a lot of attention, be they real geeks or fake.

Also agree with Whizbang - when I went to college in the mid 80s, there was an RPG/D&D club on campus.  There were maybe 100 gamers, if not a bit more than that, and I only remember seeing one female.  Nowadays, it's a rare gaming table I'm at that doesn't have at least one woman (heck, my FLGS has been running Lair Assaults with a woman as DM), and I'm guessing if there is still an RPG/D&D club on that campus, it's probably 20-30% women.  Still a minority, but definitely a lot more.

And, Game of Thrones has certainly helped.  Whenever I post on Facebook or a non-gaming forum about GoT, most of the respondents are female, which surprises me since it's a dark and brutal world where women are often relegated to second class status.  (True Blood & Twilight as well, but I've never read the books or watched the show/movies)


----------



## Spryte

Sadly, I'm not surprised by this video - though it's great to see so many people denouncing the fake geek girl concept. I think there are a lot of things at play in this though, not just one factor, and it's built on a variety of stereotypes. "All smart girls look like geeks" and "fighting is only for boys" to name a couple. Part of it probably stems from a sense of propriety, in that traditionally gaming was for guys, and now they have to deal with the "girl factor" - and heaven forbid if the female is actually better than they are. Of course there actually are a select few out there who play the part of geek girl to get the attention, and that certainly doesn't help anything! What I think a lot of the people tossing around that name don't realize is that being a female at a male dominated convention can be unnerving as it is. The last thing most of us want is additional attention based on our gender - save that for when we dominate at the game!


----------



## Jeremy E Grenemyer

Looking forward to Red Aegis!


----------



## Alan Shutko

This is absolute cheating.  Bringing in a bunch of UK geeks with their damn sexy accents to support ANYTHING is a terribly underhanded ruse.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Clearly, we need interviews from French and Brazillian cons as well.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

I'll say this about "fake geek girls":  It's been my experience that most geek girls tend to limit the scope of their geekiness more than guys.  Most geek girls I've met are Anime geek girls or Vampire geek girls or (insert topic here) geek girls.  It's rare to meet one who is into: RPGs, Miniature games, Magic the Gathering, Anime, Comic Books, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Computers/Technology, Board Games, and Video Games all at the same time.  Whereas I know...quite a few guys who like all of those things.  Plus, those guys are not just INTO all of those things...they have libraries of board games, they've memorized the plot of every episode of Star Trek, they built their own computers, and so on.

It's certainly possible this is a result of many geek girls being new to geekdom and just beginning to explore their passion for it.  Because of this, their lack of knowledge on subjects that we as geek culture consider important can come across as a lack of desire to learn about them.  Given we're a culture that is pretty much defined by our almost obsessive desire to learn more about our subjects of choice, that can come across as "fake".

I think there is a severe difference between someone who likes Star Trek because they've seen a couple of episodes and kind of liked that Kirk guy...and someone who has seen them all and argued with their friends over how the warp drive functions.  One has a mild interest in science fiction.  The other is a geek.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It's rare to meet one who is into: RPGs, Miniature games, Magic the Gathering, Anime, Comic Books, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Computers/Technology, Board Games, and Video Games




I am an indisputably geeky dude- one of the nicknames i have in my gaming group is The Grand High Nerdus.  And even so, to use 2Ed terminology, I have Major Access to only 5 of those, and Minor Access to the other 5.  OK, maybe 6 & 4.


----------



## delericho

> It's rare to meet one who is into: RPGs, Miniature games, Magic the Gathering, Anime, Comic Books, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Computers/Technology, Board Games, and Video Games all at the same time. Whereas I know...quite a few guys who like all of those things.




The problem comes when some guys use that to build a test for "fake geek girls". As if, somehow, a girl at a convention has to justify her right to be there. (And, even if that weren't offensive to demand such a justification, surely "I came to a convention" should be more than enough?)

The other thing is this: I would almost certainly fail any but the most basic test for "fake geeks". I don't, and have never, played MMOs. I've never LARPed, or played Magic, nor had any interest in either. I've seen very little Anime, and while I've read up on the big stories in comics, I've read almost none (especially since Marvel's "Transformers" comic ended in '91). I've painted plenty of minis, but I've almost never played any of the games.

So, am I a "fake geek"? Or does the fact that I've gamed for 25 years qualify me? Or, as I suspect, is it that I'm a guy, and therefore immune from having to justify myself?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

He's a mole!!!  _*GET HIM!*_


----------



## delericho

Yeah. My wife was shocked to discover that I'm secretly normal.


----------



## Mike Eagling

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'll say this about "fake geek girls": It's been my experience that most geek girls tend to limit the scope of their geekiness more than guys.




And every geek girl I've ever known still had an unhealthy obsession with shoes that puts my obsessions to shame.



delericho said:


> a girl at a convention has to justify her right to be there. (And, even if that weren't offensive to demand such a justification, surely "I came to a convention" should be more than enough?)




Purely on that basis they out-geek me.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

delericho said:


> The problem comes when some guys use that to build a test for "fake geek girls". As if, somehow, a girl at a convention has to justify her right to be there. (And, even if that weren't offensive to demand such a justification, surely "I came to a convention" should be more than enough?)



Oh, I agree.  It is insulting to test people.  Though, I've been to enough conventions to know that not everyone there really cares about the convention.  This applies to both men and women.  Though, the numbers are lopsided in terms of women.  They come because their significant other really wanted to go and used their like of Sailor Moon or Angry Birds as justification that they would really love the convention.  Geek guys can be ever hopeful that they can turn their girlfriend into a geek.

Simply showing up for a convention doesn't make one a geek.  Though, being forced to go to a convention doesn't make someone a fake geek either.


delericho said:


> So, am I a "fake geek"? Or does the fact that I've gamed for 25 years qualify me? Or, as I suspect, is it that I'm a guy, and therefore immune from having to justify myself?



I don't know.  Don't know you well enough to make that decision.  Not sure I really know anyone well enough to make that decision.

Though, I have to admit that simply playing D&D doesn't make one a geek.  There are plenty of "weekend gamers" who play D&D once a week or once a month as their one and only geeky activity.

I've met a couple of guys like that.  They didn't fit in with us because they didn't get any of our references and nearly 25% of the time we spend playing D&D are making Star Wars, Anime, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Monty Python references.  Often, I wonder if we get together to revel in our geekiness as much as play D&D.

They'd get frustrated that they didn't understand any of our references and we'd get annoyed that they didn't seem to find them funny.

I think "fake geek girls" go in much the same way.  People don't so much make "tests" to see if they are geeky enough, some people just don't fit in with the geek culture.  There's nothing most geeks hate more than having to explain geek culture references:

"That guy failed to eat that cake, he dropped it on the ground."
"Maybe that's because 'the cake is a lie'"
"Huh?  What do you mean...the cake is right there!"
"Ugh...there's this game called Portal.  In it, there's a computer that makes you go through all these tests.  It's kind of insane but it keeps promising you cake.  Then, when you get part way through the test chambers you see 'The cake is a lie' written in blood on some of the walls.  It's obvious that previous test subjects wrote them and...You know, nevermind...it was just supposed to be funny."

Sometimes it can seem like it's a test.  But it's more like we just expect all geeks to know this stuff and when they don't, we're not sure how to react.


----------



## Mike Eagling

Majoru Oakheart said:


> "That guy failed to eat that cake, he dropped it on the ground."
> "Maybe that's because 'the cake is a lie'"
> "Huh?  What do you mean...the cake is right there!"
> "Ugh...there's this game called Portal.  In it, there's a computer that makes you go through all these tests.  It's kind of insane but it keeps promising you cake.  Then, when you get part way through the test chambers you see 'The cake is a lie' written in blood on some of the walls.  It's obvious that previous test subjects wrote them and...You know, nevermind...it was just supposed to be funny."




Then apparently I'm not a geek, seeing as I've never played Portal?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Mike Eagling said:


> And every geek girl I've ever known still had an unhealthy obsession with shoes that puts my obsessions to shame.



Heh.  I'm still one of those people who doesn't ascribe to the "If you are obsessive over anything, you are a geek" philosophy, which I know is fairly common.

Otherwise, we'd have to consider sports geeks part of our community.  Most of us joined the "geek community" to get AWAY from the sports geeks who used to make fun of us for playing computers games during our lunch breaks in high school.

I go with the old school definition of geek.  Basically, if there was a well posted in USENET group about the subject in the 1990s, it qualifies as a geek subject.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Mike Eagling said:


> Then apparently I'm not a geek, seeing as I've never played Portal?



No.  Everyone misses at least a reference or two.  I still miss Buffy references because I refuse to watch it.  Sometimes someone makes a joke about an anime I've never seen.  No big deal.  That's why the safe references are as mainstream as possible.  Star Wars, Star Trek, and Monty Python are the safe ones that almost all geeks have seen.

That being said, geek culture has become a thing.  I have a feeling a good half of my friends haven't actually played Portal.  They'd still get the reference because they hang out on the internet in places where these references get used.

People only get frustrated when they have to continually explain ALL their references.  Geek culture is the same as many other cultures.  In the same way that you'd be made fun of in a group of sports fans if you said something like "Who are the Lakers?" the same thing happens when you constantly show ignorance of the trappings of geek culture without attempting to fix it.

When I miss a reference I normally say something like "Where is that from anyways?  Oh, it's from Farscape.  I haven't watched that yet, but everyone says it's good.  I'll make a note to watch it when I get the chance."


----------



## Mike Eagling

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Heh. I'm still one of those people who doesn't ascribe to the "If you are obsessive over anything, you are a geek" philosophy, which I know is fairly common.




I think you've misconstrued what I meant, which was that I know geek girls but they always have "traditionally female" interests in addition to the genre stuff. I'm unsure whether or not that supports your earlier assertion that "most geek girls tend to limit the scope of their geekiness more than guys", it was really just an observation.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> "Who are the Lakers?"




The irony here, of course, is that I've got absolutely no clue who or what the Lakers are! 

The flaw in your definition of geek, as I see it, is that it comes across as quite localised: it's restricted to the in-jokes of your social circle, the group of people you got your geek on with. I don't think that applies any more.

I've not played Portal because I spend too much time playing Total War or Skyrim. I've no idea who the Lakers are because I come from a different continent. There is still a lot of common ground that the "average" geek will likely know but the culture is now enormous. It has a history spanning a minimum of 60 years, crosses international borders and the gender gap. Declaring someone to be "other than geek" because they don't get a narrow set of obscure references is outdated.


----------



## Morrus

I don't think it's even possible for an adult with a job and/or family to be fully knowledgeable about all genres of geekdom.  I know nothing about CCGs, MMORPGS, or Manga, for example.  I know quite a bit about RPGs (but not many, if I'm honest), a bit about DC comics, less about Marvel comics, little about other comics, plenty of sci-fi (but there are entire swathes I've never seen), a widish smattering of fantasy novels but by no means all of it, almost nothing about building or programming computers, but do run a website about tabletop games, nothing about American sports and little about British sports, haven't played Skyrim or Dragon Age II, didn't finish Arkham City (but enjoyed what I played), and am not much of a boardgamer (but am becoming more of one as I get older).


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Mike Eagling said:


> I think you've misconstrued what I meant, which was that I know geek girls but they always have "traditionally female" interests in addition to the genre stuff. I'm unsure whether or not that supports your earlier assertion that "most geek girls tend to limit the scope of their geekiness more than guys", it was really just an observation.



Ahh, yes.  Then I agree with you.


Mike Eagling said:


> The irony here, of course, is that I've got absolutely no clue who or what the Lakers are!



They are a basketball team.  Though, that's the extent of my knowledge about them given my complete lack of knowledge about sports.  My point was that in Sports Fan circles in the US, not knowing that would be a big deal.  We're not in those circles, so it doesn't matter.


Mike Eagling said:


> The flaw in your definition of geek, as I see it, is that it comes across as quite localised: it's restricted to the in-jokes of your social circle, the group of people you got your geek on with. I don't think that applies any more.



I think at this point the internet has created a kind of global geek culture.  It isn't about the jokes in my circle of friends.  It's the same jokes you'll see Wil Wheaton make in a speech at GenCon or reference in an episode of Tabletop.  It's the same jokes Leo Laporte will reference on This Week In Tech.  It will be referenced in every YouTube video, on message boards all over the internet, and on Big Bang Theory(I believe it has referenced both the "arrow to the knee" joke from Skyrim and the "Cake is a lie" joke from portal at this point).

Sure, there are some regional differences.  However, in this age of high speed communication most geek culture disseminates very quickly.  A video game becomes very popular, it gets great reviews.  By the end of the week there are articles on websites talking about how experiencing the game is a MUST HAVE experience.  Tech news shows are talking about its release and what it means for the industry.  People, sucked in by the pressure of knowing that a number of their friends will want to discuss the game and that spoilers will be appearing all over the internet force themselves to complete it as quickly as possible so as not to be left out.  Within a couple of weeks, you are seeing people dressing up in costumes as characters from the game at conventions.

I used a video game as an example.  But the same thing happens with big geek movies.  I can assume that nearly 90% of the geeks I know will have seen Iron Man 3 by this point.  The slightly less geeky ones that put more focus on the non-geeky portions of their life will have skipped it.  However, nearly everyone else will have gone.  Most because they really wanted to see it.  The rest because they didn't want to be left out of the conversation.

Once a geeky movie, tv show, or video game comes out, it enters the geek culture almost immediately these days.



Mike Eagling said:


> I've not played Portal because I spend too much time playing Total War or Skyrim. I've no idea who the Lakers are because I come from a different continent. There is still a lot of common ground that the "average" geek will likely know but the culture is now enormous. It has a history spanning a minimum of 60 years, crosses international borders and the gender gap. Declaring someone to be "other than geek" because they don't get a narrow set of obscure references is outdated.



I think this is where the disconnect is.  There is a strong, core geek culture that is always keeping up to date on geek culture.  They check gaming news sites nearly daily, they spend weekends attempting to finish the latest game, they have a couple of conventions a year picked out.

Meanwhile, there is a more "cottage industry" geek community filled with people who might self identify as a geek but geekdom doesn't really affect their daily lives.  They might go an entire week without having anything geeky affect their lives.  Their lives are filled with work, taking their kids to soccer practice, watching a hockey game on tv, going out to dinner with their non-geek friends and discussing taxes and weather.  These people often pass as perfectly normal most of the time.  Most of their friends may not even know about their geekiness.

The conflict tends to happen at places where the two camps of geek meet, like conventions.  The core geeks gather together to revel in being around people who are as obsessive as they are.  And often, male geeks see conventions as one of the only places to meet women who share their likes.  A number of women are "cottage industry" geeks.  It can come across as fake.  Many geeks feel that geekdom isn't something you make time for once a month or once a year.  It's what you do every day.

I'm not condoning it.  I'm just explaining what I see.  I know it can be extremely disappointing to see a woman at a convention wearing a pikachu costume and think "So, they are likely a video game player AND an anime fan and a pretty obsessive one at that to wear a costume...I'll go talk to them"; only to find out that the only video game they've ever played has been Pokemon, they've never seen the show or any anime and the costume was their friends idea.  So was coming to the con.  But they are finding it very interesting seeing all the people in their....Space Trek costumes and playing strange games they've never seen before.

It can feel like our private place has been invaded by outsiders.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Morrus said:


> I don't think it's even possible for an adult with a job and/or family to be fully knowledgeable about all genres of geekdom.



It isn't possible for anyone to be fully knowledgeable about everything.  Though that doesn't stop us from trying most of the time.  Heck, I think that's why even geekdom is divides into its own sub-communities based on what are our favorite geek passtimes.


----------



## Mike Eagling

Majoru Oakheart said:


> They are a basketball team.  Though, that's the extent of my knowledge about them given my complete lack of knowledge about sports.  My point was that in Sports Fan circles in the US, not knowing that would be a big deal.  We're not in those circles, so it doesn't matter.




Well, even if we agree on nothing else we have this in common. I know next to nothing about UK sports. It's probably because I was born in Watford*. Solidarity brother 


* This is an equally obscure football joke that would literally have my sporty friends howling with laughter!


----------



## Umbran

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'll say this about "fake geek girls":  It's been my experience that most geek girls tend to limit the scope of their geekiness more than guys.




Yah, but as any geek should know* - the plural of anecdote is not data.  



> It's rare to meet one who is into: RPGs, Miniature games, Magic the Gathering, Anime, Comic Books, Sci-fi, Fantasy, Computers/Technology, Board Games, and Video Games all at the same time.  Whereas I know...quite a few guys who like all of those things.  Plus, those guys are not just INTO all of those things...they have libraries of board games, they've memorized the plot of every episode of Star Trek, they built their own computers, and so on.




That's nice.  I don't play minis games, I haven't touched M:tG in a decade or more, I don't regularly watch anime, play board games or video games.  

You want to tell me that I'm not a geek, then?  Do I not pass the geek test?

If I pass a geek test, so does a woman with similar interests and investment to mine.  Your geeks that have no spare time for anything other than geekdom do not stand as the base definition of the beast - they are instead the extreme of the beast.  When the extreme is used as the standard definition you get a skewed view of the universe.  



*By what I see of Majoru's definition, anyway - this point is fairly central to science literacy, and I am pretty sure his definition of geekdom includes a basic level of understanding science. Unfortunately, geeks are actually no better than anyone else at remembering and applying it when speaking about what they believe.


----------



## innerdude

Mike Eagling said:


> * This is an equally obscure football joke that would literally have my sporty friends howling with laughter!




To say nothing of the fact that you Brits' definition of "football" is decidedly inferior to our American version.     (Hopefully the "tongue-in-cheek" aspect of this comment is fully understood . . . All you British Premiere League-rs, don't come burn down my house, mmkay?)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mike Eagling said:


> Then apparently I'm not a geek, seeing as I've never played Portal?



_
*whistle*_
Nothing to see here, nothing to see here.  Please move along.


----------



## Alan Shutko

Perhaps it would make things much simpler if we had a worldwide geek certification organization.  Similar to technology and other certifications, there would be a base curriculum that would be tested, and there could be additional concentrations available to certify deeper, more specialized interests.

Once you were certified, you would be given an NFC badge that would advertise your certification level.  Fellow geeks could determine your specialization by using their smartphones.  Obviously, people who have iPhones aren't geeks so the fact that iPhones don't do NFC doesn't matter.  I suppose an iPhone-wielding geek could add-on an nfc reader of some sort.

I think enworld would be perfectly positioned to begin this certification process.  It should provide a decent income source.


----------



## Umbran

Alan Shutko said:


> Perhaps it would make things much simpler if we had a worldwide geek certification organization.




Because, as we all know, geeks "organizing" anything makes it simpler!


----------



## Dragoslav

I wasn't aware that the "fake geek girl" label was being thrown around so frequently as to have become a problem until just now. My first exposure to the phrase was in the context of people scoffing at the use of "generic sexy woman + video game paraphenalia/references" in order to pander to or appeal to nerds. 

If my only exposure to the phrase had been from this video, I would assume that the phrase "fake geek girl" was being used to assert that all girls who claim to be geeks are fake, and that the label was therefore completely exclusionary based solely on sex. However, in truth, the phrase is used (or at least originally meant) to contrast "people who pretend to be geek girls" with "girls who are actually geeks." Therefore, the exclusion isn't based on sex but more broadly on people who try to cash in on what's currently "cool" in a disingenuous fashion. It's the same reason that some people have a problem with the show The Big Bang Theory, that it isn't truly an outgrowth of geek culture but rather an attempt to cash in on a contemporary trend.

Beyond that foundation, this issue becomes a gender issue by nature of the largely secondary status of women in the creation of mainstream culture. Nowadays, video games are extremely popular, but while a significant majority of men regularly enjoy them, far fewer women do. So if a woman wants to be a part of the mainstream, i.e. to not relegate herself to traditionally "woman's" areas and hobbies (cooking, sewing, fashion, etc.), then she has to essentially make her way into a "man's world," since what's mainstream tends to be what men enjoy. The problem arises, I would say, from a disconnect between what those in the mainstream believe and what someone entering from the fringe of the mainstream believes is required to be a part of the mainstream, e.g. a person who says, "I play Angry Birds all the time on my phone when I'm at work and my boss isn't looking. That makes me a geek, right?"


----------



## Alan Shutko

Dragoslav said:


> If my only exposure to the phrase had been from this video, I would assume that the phrase "fake geek girl" was being used to assert that all girls who claim to be geeks are fake, and that the label was therefore completely exclusionary based solely on sex. However, in truth, the phrase is used (or at least originally meant) to contrast "people who pretend to be geek girls" with "girls who are actually geeks."




Even that is exclusionary because there's no phrase for "fake geek boy".  Nobody talks about it. On the other hand there's a fairly consistent experience that geek girls have of people assuming they're only there because of their boyfriend, or (more recently) that they're faking it to be '"cool" in a disingenuous fashion'.

My thought is folks should get over the fears that someone is "attempt[ing] to cash in on a contemporary trend" and let folks apply whatever labels to themselves they wish.  Life is too short to be some sort of identity police, making sure people are "True Whatevers" or reviling them for being fakes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Once you were certified, you would be given an NFC badge that would advertise your certification level. Fellow geeks could determine your specialization by using their smartphones. Obviously, people who have iPhones aren't geeks so the fact that iPhones don't do NFC doesn't matter. I suppose an iPhone-wielding geek could add-on an nfc reader of some sort.




Personally, I'd rather have an iPhone than the Android I currently own...and if I get the chance, my next phone will not be a smartphone at all.  I kinda hate them.  I want my phone to be a phone _first_, and not a single one is like that.


----------



## Alan Shutko

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Personally, I'd rather have an iPhone than the Android I currently own...and if I get the chance, my next phone will not be a smartphone at all.  I kinda hate them.  I want my phone to be a phone _first_, and not a single one is like that.




I'm going to have to strip your geek card, unless you find one with a rotary dial.  Perhaps retrofitting one of those ancient Bell telephones that are more durable than a tank with a cellular antenna.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bah, humbug!

I still carry an iPod Touch, an iPad2, and occasionally, a laptop- its not like I'm not wired.

Part of my issue with smartphones is the interface.  If I get a call, I have to use those virtual buttons to pick it up...but, for whatever reason, they don't like my fingers.  I can't tell you how many calls I have lost because my phone refused to recognize that I was trying to interact with it.  Then, of course, I have to call them back.

Real, physical buttons don't have that issue.

And a device like an iPod Touch or tablet usually doesn't have that time pressure built in, so if it takes me a couple extra seconds to launch an app, its no big deal.


----------



## Dragoslav

Alan Shutko said:


> Even that is exclusionary because there's no phrase for "fake geek boy".  Nobody talks about it. On the other hand there's a fairly consistent experience that geek girls have of people assuming they're only there because of their boyfriend, or (more recently) that they're faking it to be '"cool" in a disingenuous fashion'.



That's part of the larger, systemic problem that I addressed in the last part of my post, that women don't have the agency that men have in defining mainstream culture. A man can pretty much do whatever he wants and be assured that he will fit into a more-or-less mainstream niche, while women don't have that luxury. Until a sex becomes more entrenched in a particular sphere, unfortunately a person's sex sets him or her apart from the people who are more typically associated with that sphere, which is why, on the flip side, you had phrases like "male nurse" for men in typically woman-dominated occupations. Hence, nobody would have thought to use the phrase "geek boy" at all.

The pejorative "fake geek girl" developed as a response to a previous phenomenon of the specifically gendered "geek girl" trend. With competitive gaming groups or individuals marketing themselves or being marketed as "geek girls," it suddenly became a gender issue. Before the advent of the "geek girl" label that grew in popularity a few years ago, nobody would have used the phrase "geek boy" not just because geekdom was male-dominated, but because female geeks--while less common--were more often just considered geeks who happened to be female. The "geek girl" label wasn't really a "thing." The "geek girl" label is a mixed bag because, on the one hand, it's a statement of empowerment, i.e. an assertion that women can enjoy and be as knowledgeable of/competent with the geeky things that men enjoy, but on the other hand it risks creating an even greater divide between the sexes by highlighting the differences between "geek guys" and "geek girls" instead of the similarities that unite geeks.

So, unfortunately, just like many things in society, there's a difference in how this fraudulence is expressed based on sex and gender. Men who fraudulently make use of geek culture tend to do so in non-sexual, gender-neutral ways like corporate marketing (pandering to "geeks" in advertising, The Big Bang Theory [according to some], etc.), whereas with women, due to having less agency in mainstream culture, it has a specifically gendered expression. And in that respect, this issue is no different than the myriad other issues in society related to gender inequality.

I'll note that I've always been one of the ones to argue that we're all just "geeks" regardless of gender, and that it didn't need to become a gender issue in the first place. Unfortunately, that's a pretty Utopian ideal.

EDIT: Oops, this post ended up being longer than I intended, so I'll add the disclaimer to not mistake my wordiness for conviction, as I'm more interested in just exploring ideas rather than making absolute conclusions. As usual, play whatever you please.


----------



## Umbran

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Personally, I'd rather have an iPhone than the Android I currently own...and if I get the chance, my next phone will not be a smartphone at all.  I kinda hate them.  I want my phone to be a phone _first_, and not a single one is like that.




I am also a dumphone user.  If I want a computer, I have a computer that is a bazillion times better at computer tasks than my phone would be - and if making my phone a computer compromises my ability to make phone calls (which it does), then I say no thanks!


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Dragoslav said:


> instead of the similarities that unite geeks.




Geeks are united?! Someone should inform the intrawebs!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hmmmm...

Somebody go down to the trademark office and file for the organization, "Geeks United International".





...G.U.I. for short.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Umbran said:


> Yah, but as any geek should know* - the plural of anecdote is not data.



Of course, I wasn't trying to be scientific.  Just stating what I've observed, because in this situation what is observable is really the point.  People ask where the "fake geek girl" meme comes from.  I say because the average geek looks around and sees a number of women that aren't as deep into the culture as the guys.

I think the real issue is that at the beginning, geek culture kind of grew up mostly in tech circles in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s.  Where you needed to be able to program, work in a tech field, or have an obsession with fiddling with modem strings just to access the culture(BBSes, very early internet).  That was a field that was almost entirely male.

Over the years, the geek culture has become more and more open because it's been easier to access.  The definition of geek got broader and broader.  Which is why geek culture has so many subgroups now.  It's now in sub sub sub groups at this point.  When "People who like My Little Pony" are considered to be a subset of geekdom...it's been split pretty far.

I think some people see some newer geeks who have just discovered their geekdom and showed up to a convention with their geek qualification being "I saw the batman movie and avengers"...it frustrates some people.  And before people accuse me, it doesn't frustrate me.  I'm happy to see new geeks of any kind join our community.


Umbran said:


> That's nice.  I don't play minis games, I haven't touched M:tG in a decade or more, I don't regularly watch anime, play board games or video games.
> You want to tell me that I'm not a geek, then?  Do I not pass the geek test?



I'm not attempting to say that someone needs to pass some kind of test to be a geek.  However, those are the types of activities that make you a geek.  If you are really into(or have EVER been into if you have no time now or just grew out of it) at least 2 or 3 of the items in the list...you are solidly in geek territory.  The more of them you are into, the more geeky you are.  Though I've forgotten to put a couple key ones up there like science.

Being a geek is about a mindset where those things are the kind of things you'd probably like.  I currently don't really watch anime.  But I've enjoyed a number of them in the past when I had friends who were way more obsessed with anime and we'd watch together.  I own a warhammer 40k army, but I last played years ago because the friends who really wanted to play moved away.  I wouldn't have time for all of it if I wanted to.  Though, those are amongst things I like.


Umbran said:


> If I pass a geek test, so does a woman with similar interests and investment to mine.  Your geeks that have no spare time for anything other than geekdom do not stand as the base definition of the beast - they are instead the extreme of the beast.  When the extreme is used as the standard definition you get a skewed view of the universe.



I think, for old school geeks, being a geek isn't something you join or you dip your feet into because you like one aspect of it.  It was a lifestyle that came natural to them and you couldn't separate from them if you wanted to.  It isn't something they make time for.  It IS their life.  It was easy to qualify someone as a geek in 1990.  If you knew what the internet was and had ever logged in, you were probably a geek.

One didn't use the internet at that point without dedication.  It required knowing a lot of stuff and likely having access because you were a computer science student at a university.  You socialized almost entirely with other geeks because no one else knew what you were talking about.

Geek used to be something that affected your personal, social, and professional life.

It's gotten to the point where I go to GenCon and attempt to talk to D&D players and it feels like we're speaking an entirely different language.  I find that as long as someone is geeky, I can find enough common ground to be friends with them.  Over a number of years, I've met people from ENWorld and attempted to have conversations with them.  I went to a meetup and felt like I didn't really fit in.  Like I was TOO geeky for that crowd.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Umbran said:


> I am also a dumphone user.  If I want a computer, I have a computer that is a bazillion times better at computer tasks than my phone would be - and if making my phone a computer compromises my ability to make phone calls (which it does), then I say no thanks!



Wait...you make phone calls?  I think I make maybe one of those a week...if that.


----------



## Alan Shutko

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's gotten to the point where I go to GenCon and attempt to talk to D&D players and it feels like we're speaking an entirely different language.




I don't think that's geekness. I think that's "similarity to me".  Geekness ranges all over the map.  I program, have an undying love for Babylon 5, paint minis, think Mentzer D&D is the one true edition, soldered a sidelight into my GBA, and first learned assembler on MC68k.  I have very little in common with people who love anime, have been LARPing since 1993, who play Warhammer, who play anything resembling an MMORPG.

Guess what, they're all geeks. There have always been hardware geeks, software geeks (of varying persuasions), music geeks, you-name-it-geeks.  There are some overlaps, but there's so much diversity and variety that I have to say  you to any attempts to limit or otherwise exclude people.


----------



## Mike Eagling

Majoru Oakheart said:


> When "People who like My Little Pony" are considered to be a subset of geekdom...it's been split pretty far.




This, I think, is the heart of the problem. I don't have an interest in My Little Pony. My sister played with these toys when we were children and they represented everything that I, as a "geek" child, stood opposed to. They weren't anything like my role-playing games. In a similar way, Pokemon (referred to upthread) was something that children played with when I was a teenager: "Pokemon has nothing to do with my (geek) culture!" sounds exactly like something I would have said back then.

But part of my "geek identity" stems from still being interested in the things I was interested in when I was younger. Just because I became an adult didn't mean I had to put away childish things. Quite the contrary, it meant I could afford to buy more of them. 

So, it doesn't surprise me that people younger than me have a similar attitude, that the things they were into as kids are now part of the wider culture. The culture has grown. It has become wider. Yes, it has become increasingly mainstream. I see that as a good thing. I wish it had been this mainstream when I was younger. For a start I'd have had a bigger pool of people with whom to enjoy my interests.



Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's gotten to the point where I go to GenCon and attempt to talk to D&D players and it feels like we're speaking an entirely different language.  I find that as long as someone is geeky, I can find enough common ground to be friends with them.  Over a number of years, I've met people from ENWorld and attempted to have conversations with them.  I went to a meetup and felt like I didn't really fit in.  Like I was TOO geeky for that crowd.




Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I've lost count of the number of conversations I've had with "real people" where I've felt very much out of place. It isn't much fun. But I've realised that some of these people are actually quite interesting in their own right--and unless I want to spend my life in a cave it's beholden upon me to understand their world too. Unless we're talking about the bat cave. If I get to spend my life in the bat cave everyone else can go screw themselves.


----------



## Umbran

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Of course, I wasn't trying to be scientific.  Just stating what I've observed, because in this situation what is observable is really the point.  People ask where the "fake geek girl" meme comes from.  I say because the average geek looks around and sees a number of women that aren't as deep into the culture as the guys.




Yes, and I'm saying that it is BS to be drawing lines based on perception of how "deep into the culture" a person is.  



> Over the years, the geek culture has become more and more open because it's been easier to access.  The definition of geek got broader and broader.  Which is why geek culture has so many subgroups now.  It's now in sub sub sub groups at this point.  When "People who like My Little Pony" are considered to be a subset of geekdom...it's been split pretty far.




Exactly my point.  There's a whole lot of things that are geeky.  So, failing to meet any one person's definition is pretty meaningless.  "The culture" is a very large thing now, and not keeping up with that fact is not a valid excuse to treat people badly.  



> Geek used to be something that affected your personal, social, and professional life.




And?  Times change.  Use that big honkin' geek brain to keep up, I say!


----------



## billd91

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Over the years, the geek culture has become more and more open because it's been easier to access.  The definition of geek got broader and broader.  Which is why geek culture has so many subgroups now.  It's now in sub sub sub groups at this point.  When "People who like My Little Pony" are considered to be a subset of geekdom...it's been split pretty far.




This is, as far as I can see, inevitable. There's simply more things to geek out about and there will always be additions of more things to geek out about. It'll simply be harder and harder for any one geek to cover the whole set of geeky things and we'll all just be involved in various subsets, some of which may overlap and some of which may not. And what these self-appointed gatekeepers of geekdom need to get through their heads is that there is no tenable gatekeeping.




Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's gotten to the point where I go to GenCon and attempt to talk to D&D players and it feels like we're speaking an entirely different language.  I find that as long as someone is geeky, I can find enough common ground to be friends with them.  Over a number of years, I've met people from ENWorld and attempted to have conversations with them.  I went to a meetup and felt like I didn't really fit in.  Like I was TOO geeky for that crowd.




It's like that on these boards too. And the problem, if problem it is, is only getting more noticeable. There are some people who might as well be from alien planets the way they talk about D&D compared to my experiences.


----------



## billd91

Dragoslav said:


> I wasn't aware that the "fake geek girl" label was being thrown around so frequently as to have become a problem until just now. My first exposure to the phrase was in the context of people scoffing at the use of "generic sexy woman + video game paraphenalia/references" in order to pander to or appeal to nerds.




I have to say that when I first heard of this phenomenon, attacking the "fake geek girl", I thought it was a reference to booth babes - models brought in to pander to the undersexed male demographic. But it was shortly thereafter I heard of it being directed at cosplayers and I cottoned on to its scope.

Frankly, I don't care how deep someone is into geek culture. Even if they show up at a convention to primarily attract attention as a provocative cosplayer, as some clearly seem to, I don't care. They're there and mingling amid the geeks, wearing something geeky, and participating in the event and experience, helping to make it a success with their admission fees and buying concessions from the local vendors. Who gives a flying f whether they're as geeky as Igor from Dork Tower?


----------



## Spryte

Dragoslav said:


> So if a woman wants to be a part of the mainstream, i.e. to not relegate herself to traditionally "woman's" areas and hobbies (cooking, sewing, fashion, etc.), then she has to essentially make her way into a "man's world," since what's mainstream tends to be what men enjoy.



I think this is a key part of the problem. 30 years ago this would have been true, but time change and some have a harder time keeping up than others. As a female back in the 80's you basically had a choice - be part of the mainstream female perception or join the ranks of the geeks. There wasn't a lot of middle ground, at least not publically, and it was difficult to belong to both worlds. Today, however, things have changed. There are boys in cooking classes and learning "women's hobbies" without criticism, and women have proven they are more than capable of serving a great snack they whipped up while they GM their local gaming group. Having skills or interests in the traditional female areas doesn't have to mean that you cannot also have skills in areas considered "geeky", and while people are starting to realize it, it's slow going in some circles.


----------



## Mike Eagling

billd91 said:


> It's like that on these boards too. And the problem, if problem it is, is only getting more noticeable. There are some people who might as well be from alien planets the way they talk about D&D compared to my experiences.




I'm assuming in such cases those other people are expressing their own experiences of D&D. Is that not useful, by providing alternative perspectives and thus a different insight on something "known"?


----------



## Umbran

Mike Eagling said:


> I'm assuming in such cases those other people are expressing their own experiences of D&D.




It would be good if they were.  Often, they are.  Sometimes, they are presenting it (willfully or thoughtlessly) as if their own experience was IT, and that other things should be discarded.

Rather like the person trying to label someone as a "fake geek girl" is trying to discard a person.

*sigh*


----------



## Morrus

billd91 said:


> It's like that on these boards too. And the problem, if problem it is, is only getting more noticeable. There are some people who might as well be from alien planets the way they talk about D&D compared to my experiences.




That's not just you.  I see it as a feature, though, not a bug.  There are so many way to play D&D (not even bringing editions into account) that it can be quite eye-opening.  I've learned stuff here I'd never had learned had I not been exposed to different outlooks and playstyles.


----------



## Mike Eagling

Umbran said:


> Sometimes, they are presenting it (willfully or thoughtlessly) as if their own experience was IT, and that other things should be discarded.




Yeah, that's clearly unhelpful.

Of course, the flip-side of that (hopefully) is those who inadvertently present such ONE-TRUE-WAY-ism might learn something too.


----------



## Dr Simon

To the topic in point, back when we played in college (late 80s or so), we started as the typical male group but we were joined by some of our female friends mainly because one of them fancied one of my friends. By the standards of some of those bloggers in the video piece, a "fake geek girl", although such a term didn't exist back then. 

However, turns out she really enjoyed the gaming and carried on with it when she went off to university. I don't think you can denigrate anyone's reasons for trying the hobby - better that somebody does than mock from a distance.

(She got her man, by the way, but the gaming lasted longer!)

And now for some side-tracks:



Spryte said:


> There are boys in cooking classes and learning "women's hobbies" without criticism.




Interesting point. Back when I was at school in the 80s there was only one of my male friends who went on to do "Domestic Science" as it was then known. However, most of the Michelin star chefs are male, perhaps because that aspect turns cooking into a prestige competition. And it could also be argued that the likes of Heston Blumenthal have made cooking "geeky".



NewJeffCT said:


> And, Game of Thrones has certainly helped.  Whenever I post on Facebook or a non-gaming forum about GoT, most of the respondents are female, which surprises me since it's a dark and brutal world where women are often relegated to second class status.




My wife, who is usually lukewarm concerning anything fantastical, really loves GoT. I think it's because it's as much character driven as anything, with less reliance on swoopy visual effects like most blockbuster films (something that annoys me these days too). Also, although the setting may have an authentic mediaeval attitude towards women's rights (or lack thereof), it's got a lot of powerful female characters, and quite varied in the way that they exercise power, from the manipulative feminine wiles of Cersei to the feisty defiance of Arya.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Spryte said:


> I think this is a key part of the problem. 30 years ago this would have been true, but time change and some have a harder time keeping up than others. As a female back in the 80's you basically had a choice - be part of the mainstream female perception or join the ranks of the geeks. There wasn't a lot of middle ground, at least not publically, and it was difficult to belong to both worlds. Today, however, things have changed. There are boys in cooking classes and learning "women's hobbies" without criticism, and women have proven they are more than capable of serving a great snack they whipped up while they GM their local gaming group. Having skills or interests in the traditional female areas doesn't have to mean that you cannot also have skills in areas considered "geeky", and while people are starting to realize it, it's slow going in some circles.




Sure, maybe some boys in cooking classes, but my daughter's dance school still hands out end-of-year awards to the boys that go to dance class, for being brave enough to go against conventional wisdom and go to dance class.


----------



## Puggins

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Otherwise, we'd have to consider sports geeks part of our community.  Most of us joined the "geek community" to get AWAY from the sports geeks who used to make fun of us for playing computers games during our lunch breaks in high school.




I have to point out that you were most likely not getting away from sports geeks.  Much like your definition of what constitutes a "geek" and what constitutes a "fan" of Star Trek, there is a wide- WIDE- gulf between what constitutes a sports fan and what constitutes a sports geek.  

A sports fan follows his favorite team or a number of favorite teams.  He may get deeply, emotionally involved with his teams. 

A sports geek STUDIES sports, getting into deep minutiae that the average sports fan derides or passes off as useless or nerdy.  I know many, many sports fans.  I know very few sports geeks- I'd like to say I'm one of them, but that's placing myself in a place I probably don't belong.

You might've heard about one of the most famous sports geeks- Nate Silver was an analyst for Baseball Prospectus, which is an organization which scientifically studies the game of baseball and provides an excellent analysis of why teams do and don't win.  He transitioned into political geekery and successfully predicted the result of all fifty states elections in 2012.  He is the very definition of a geek in both the political and sports world.

I have a feeling a game geek might feel comfortable around sports geeks and political geeks.  All geeks feel the need to study and analyze their passion, regardless of what that passion might be.  You might have different loves, but you have a very similar mindset.


----------



## Janx

NewJeffCT said:


> I've never heard of the "fake" geek girl before, but I can definitely say it's true about a woman in gaming gets a lot of attention, be they real geeks or fake.




Me neither.  Speaking sexistly here for a second, I can't imagine any chic who's not a geek who would take the time to strut the halls of a gaming convention to turn down the unwelcome advances of geeks.

It's well known stereotype that a girl can be herself (namely, be female with a pulse) to get the attention of a geek.  it seems improbable that anybody so interested in that demographic would need an extra layer of "fake geek" in order to secure their attention.

Methinks anybody who's gonna rant against girls in their hobby probably has deep issues and needs a visit to the Exodus clinic.


----------



## Campbell

Honestly, I view this issue mostly as a reaction to the mainstreaming of geek culture. I've heard similar retorts against hipsters wearing Star Trek or Nintendo t-shirts. It's pretty much bull in my book. People are diverse. We like a lot of different things and no one is required to fit anyone else's narrow definitions of what a geek is.

While I see geek tests pointed at females most of the time, I've also been on receiving end. I have some fairly geeky interests, but football, wrestling, weight training and heavy metal were just as much a part of my upbringing as D&D, comic books, and Magic. Half of my D&D group in high school were on the wrestling team. I was in a World of Warcraft guild that included most of my platoon when I was in South Korea. The guy that hosts our L5R game is a dedicated home brewer. I've never really understood the desire to self-identify as a geek and only do geeky things, but I've definitely gotten my share of weird looks for wearing a Lions jersey to conventions and the like.


----------



## vonmolkew

delericho said:


> The problem comes when some guys use that to build a test for "fake geek girls". As if, somehow, a girl at a convention has to justify her right to be there. (And, even if that weren't offensive to demand such a justification, surely "I came to a convention" should be more than enough?)
> 
> The other thing is this: I would almost certainly fail any but the most basic test for "fake geeks". I don't, and have never, played MMOs. I've never LARPed, or played Magic, nor had any interest in either. I've seen very little Anime, and while I've read up on the big stories in comics, I've read almost none (especially since Marvel's "Transformers" comic ended in '91). I've painted plenty of minis, but I've almost never played any of the games.
> 
> So, am I a "fake geek"? Or does the fact that I've gamed for 25 years qualify me? Or, as I suspect, is it that I'm a guy, and therefore immune from having to justify myself?




Guess I'm a fake geek too....though my wife would say otherwise.  Just recently visited the Antietam battlefield - she called me a geek.  Just bought some dice at a new local game store - she called me a geek.  I just finished re-reading Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman - again with the geek.  Guess I don't get this whole "girls being fake geeks" thing.  It seems to me that if a woman is carrying around a three-ring binder full of Magic cards and knows what the terms "mana" and "tap" mean - she must be a geek.  For what it's worth, I only know the words but couldn't exactly tell you what they mean - seeing as how I, too, have never played Magic nor have ever wanted to.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

"Tap" is a word that can have a variety of meanings, depending on whether the context is ordering a beer (or medical procedure), playing a CCG, learning how to use a hammer, watching a classic mocumentary, taking a class in dance, or composing a rap song...


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Really glad the video provoked such a response! It was a fun couple of days interviewing and talking to people about it all. And another round of public thanks from me to Our Esteemed Editor for putting me on first!

Much of what I'd put in a post here I've already said in the video, of course, but I think it's interesting that in this thread (which is overwhelmingly sensible and well thought-out) I'm still seeing some of the same stuff, although at a much lower level. Frankly, my opinion is that _it doesn't matter what I think of someone else who is doing something geeky_. At a convention? Great! Playing D&D? Great? Missing what I think are common and obvious references? So what? It's got absolutely nothing to do with me. If someone says to me "I'm a geek!" then they're a geek. I do not need to ask questions or have them justify it in any way, it's simply not important to me.

And that, in a nutshell, is why this topic irritates me so much. I simply don't think about how geeky someone is when I meet them at GenCon, or playing boardgames in London, or online. Their gender is utterly irrelevant to me - what matters is the person in front of me, how they act, what they say, how they game. I'll treat an irritating or arrogant women exactly the same as an irritating or arrogant man.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart

Mathew_Freeman said:


> And that, in a nutshell, is why this topic irritates me so much. I simply don't think about how geeky someone is when I meet them at GenCon, or playing boardgames in London, or online. Their gender is utterly irrelevant to me - what matters is the person in front of me, how they act, what they say, how they game. I'll treat an irritating or arrogant women exactly the same as an irritating or arrogant man.



I agree 100%.  The only reason this used to EVER bother me was back when I was looking for a girlfriend.  I felt kind of shunned by the world when I was younger for being a geek.  Because of this I had bad luck with women.  Probably still would if I didn't have a long term girlfriend.

So, I'd go to conventions partially as an way of meeting women that I had a hope of having something in common with.  Only to mostly discover that most of the women at conventions didn't share most of my interests and were just as willing to write me off as "too geeky"(and therefore undesirable) as the women outside of the conventions.  Meanwhile, I'd be attending the conventions with a group of 6-8 people who were just as many geeky interests as I had....so it seemed like these people existed.  Just no female versions of them.  I can remember feeling rather frustrated that there was a lack of females that I felt I could open up with completely before they'd hear me say something about myself and decide I wasn't interesting anymore.


----------



## Bagpuss

I didn't know if this had been linked yet, but I think if we are concerned about Fake Geek Girls then we also need to be worried about the rise of the Fake Nerd Boys.
[video=youtube;mE3AjaABwC8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE3AjaABwC8[/video]


----------



## Alan Shutko

I knew I was a fake.  Oh, well.  Time to stop pretending.


----------



## zychrias

I can't wait to see what Matt James and his cohorts are doing with Vorpal Games and the Red Aegis project.  It sounds exceptional!


----------



## Morrus

zychrias said:


> I can't wait to see what Matt James and his cohorts are doing with Vorpal Games and the Red Aegis project.  It sounds exceptional!




It's a very cool idea!  I'm definitely intrigued!


----------

