Race and Nerd Culture

It may not be my place for several reasons to discuss this matter, but I do feel it should be acknowledged. Nerd culture, along with being predominantly male, is overwhelmingly white as well. In fact, nerd culture is strongly associated with whiteness more than it is associated with maleness, as indicated by the song "White 'n' Nerdy" and the commonly phrase "I'm so white" to describe just how nerdy someone is.

Now, I can sort of give anime and Japanese video games a slight pass for having mostly white and Asian characters. There aren't many people of color in Japan, so you can't expect a high level of them in the media. They do exist in anime, of course. There's Anthy from Revolutionary Girl Utena - though I can't shake the fact that she's the most dehumanized character in the entire series, constantly being slapped, literally being treated like a slave and an object, and being extremely passive and allowing herself to be handed from person to person. A better example of women of color in anime is one of the girls in Nana whose name has escaped me since it's been entirely too long since I've watched the anime or read the series and Wikipedia is not helping. I remember her being a much stronger character, but still relatively marginalized. At my panel, a girl mentioned that she understands why there are so few people of color in anime, but she's always thrilled when she comes across them.

The interesting thing when it comes to race and gender in anime is that there are very few protagonists who are women of color. However, in Samurai Champloo one of the male protagonists is dark skinned, and there is of course Afro Samurai, one of the few dubs my anime club agreed to watch due to Samuel L. Jackson's voice acting.

While it's understood why these characters are few and far between, what we need to acknowledge the impact it has on American anime culture. Not only does it perpetuate stereotypes and makes it seem as though anime isn't "for" people of color, it leads to people of color having very few cosplay options if they wish to cosplay within their race - the alternative is to cosplay a white or Asian character, and risk getting some pretty harsh and racist backlash from people at the convention and from commenters on any pictures or videos they appear in. Low representation of a group in any form of media can have a negative impact on that group's psychological well-being and self-esteem, as well as the way they are perceived in the surrounding culture.

What's harder to excuse is the low representation of people of color - as well as Asians - in American comics, video games, webcomics, and science fiction movies, as well as British movies and TV shows commonly associated with nerd culture such as Doctor Who and Harry Potter. These countries have much higher numbers of blacks, Hispanics, and other ethnicities that are barely represented in the media in general. I for one cannot name any black superheros, and while I don't know of every comic ever created, I am fairly familiar with the more mainstream ones. My favorite internet cartoon series, Neurotically Yours, has one black character - a squirrel, naturally, and a very stereotypical black character at that. Not to bash NY too much, I love the series and that flaw isn't really going to change that, but it's a flaw worth pointing out.

I remember watching a friend of mine play a video game with a highly stereotypical black character on it, and when I pointed out the racism he said "nah, he's cool! and it's funny!" Well, easy for white people to find racial stereotypes hilarious, and I'm not saying I don't laugh when black people make fun of white people, but white people are the privileged group, the one in power, so it is different when we laugh at anther race's expense.

Another reason why we see so few people of color participating in nerd culture has to do with the connection between economic status and race. It's not racist to point out the remaining de facto segregation still affecting many African Americans and Hispanics, or the racial gaps in wage, employment, and education. This means that statistically, white people are more likely than black or Hispanic people to be middle and upper class, and that's pretty much the class you need to be in to even partially participate in nerd culture. Being a nerd is expensive! Manga is expensive, anime DVDs are expensive, video games are expensive, going to a convention is really expensive, merchandise is expensive, hell even the cost of comic books can add up. Not to mention, in order to watch anime legally you need to either buy DVDs, get a Netflix account, have cable, or at the very least have an internet connection that supports streaming (it's really frustrating to watch anything on a slow connection) - all of which cost money, though these things are usually taken for granted by most people in my anime club. Schools that have anime clubs are typically the wealthy schools mostly attended by white kids, whereas inner city schools that are predominantly attended by African American and Hispanic kids hardly have the money for after school clubs at all. Get anime from the library? Yeah, a good library in a middle class community perhaps. People in low income communities simply do not have the same access to nerd culture as people in more affluent neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the costs associated with being a nerd can skew the racial makeup of the subculture.

There are multiple systems of privilege that exist in nerd culture as well as American society as a whole. The main difference is that nerd culture prides itself on being so egalitarian and so "past" discrimination that they feel it's okay to engage in "ironic" sexism and racism, and they don't ever feel the need to examine their privileges even for a second, because they're "above" needing to do so. Any hint that this isn't true, that nerds are just as susceptible to discrimination is dismissed at best and met with anger and extreme defensiveness at worst. This, and the fact that I'm becoming increasingly involved with the subculture, is why I am now choosing to focus on the systems of privilege, especially gender dynamics, within it.

Feminist Dating Advice #4: The Feminist Approach to "Who Pays"

(This one is for men and women)

The debate on "who pays" still rages on, and for feminists, it's not as simple as "the man" or "the woman." Feminism gets a lot of heat from men who are unhappy with the discourse that demands that men pay for most or all dates they go on, despite the fact that feminists aren't the ones perpetuating it - if anything, feminists are more likely to pay on dates than non-feminists. No I don't have an official statistic for it, but it's pretty fair to assume that someone who believes in gender equality for women also believes that men shouldn't be shouldered with all the financial burdens in a relationship.

First of all, it's important not to assume that just because someone's a feminist, they definitely want to either go Dutch or pay for everything, just like it's important not to assume that all feminists want to be dominant in their romantic and sexual relationships with men in general. Gender equality means that both parties in a relationship pay on dates. Being on a date means that, for the most part, one person pays for both people for each transaction - rather than each person pay for his or her self, which is something friends do when they're hanging out.

Now, if you ask someone on a date, whether you're a man or a woman, you should be prepared to pay for that date. Don't ever take someone somewhere, and then expect them to pay or say "by the way, you owe [X amount of money] for this." If you're expecting someone to pay for something you initiated, you should tell them in advance.

Douchebag story time: this summer a guy took me to the mountains for a weekend, and it wasn't until we got there that he said "oh yeah, you owe $20 in lodge fees for the weekend." Umm, what? I was a bit peeved for two reasons: 1) he hadn't told me that, and probably just assumed that despite being a full time student on a part-time hourly wage $20 would have been nothing; it wasn't a huge expense for me, but it was a substantial amount that I would have liked to have known about before going. 2) I felt that because he had initiated it, he invited me to go with him to a place that was practically his territory (property of a school club he, not I, was a member of), he should have at least offered to pay the fee. Being a feminist, and one who's constantly called out on less-than-feminist behavior, accused of not being a "real" feminist or being a "bad feminist," I didn't ask him to pay lest I risk sounding like a hypocrite. It wasn't a sexist move on his part, but it was a dick move, and one that I'm sure a lot of guys make in their attempts at more egalitarian dating dynamics. But guys, don't do this.

If two people agree to go somewhere in a "what should we do tonight" conversation, who pays for what is a little more up in the air. It can be decided based on who paid last and who has more disposable income at that moment, among other things - it's reasonable to have a dynamic where the person with more money, regardless of gender, pays more than the other. I've been in relationships where I paid more (almost all the time) because I had more money than he did, it just made more sense.

If you feel that you're paying more than the other and you want to make things a little more equal - guys, pay attention - sit the person down and have a conversation about it. Maturely. Without getting mad or making accusations. Before you go out on another date. Do not call the person out while on a date, get grouchy about having to pay, or murmur some hostile, passive-aggressive comment that's only going to bring down the evening for the both of you. This isn't something that should turn into a public argument.

In short, if you want gender equality in the relationship, you need to take gender out of the equation when deciding who pays.

The Politics of Holding Doors

A lot of people don't really understand why I don't usually like it when guys hold the door for me. They think I'm being overly sensitive, that they're just being nice. I know that, most of the time, they're only following gender roles.

Let's get this whole thing straightened out once and for all. Holding the door for someone who is right behind you is fine. That said, if I hold the door for the person behind me, I expect that person to go through the goddamn door. I can't stand it when the person behind me happens to me a man, and he just gets all nervous and insists I go through first while he holds the door for me. I have to wonder, is it really that emasculating to let a woman hold a door for you?

I also hate when a guy rushes ahead of me to get the door, just so he can be a gentleman. Sorry, but it's not polite to treat me like some frail being who can't push a door open by herself (it's one thing if I'm carrying a fuckton of luggage or something, but this usually happens when I'm completely unburdened).

Finally, I get annoyed when a guy stops to hold the door for me even though I'm still 50 fucking feet away from the door. Great, now I feel like I have to hurry up, or I'll feel guilty for taking up so much of his time. Really, I don't need that much kindness, go ahead with your day, seriously, I can handle the damn door myself.

Let's examine the gender dynamic, shall we? Guys rarely hold the door for other guys, women rarely do it for other women, and most men shudder at the very idea of letting a woman hold a door for them. Door holding is almost always a gesture done by men for women, and it sets up a power dynamic. Holding a door for a woman does not give her power, but rather puts her in a subordinate position where she's being taken care of; the guy is doing the muscle work.

If a guy is just trying to be nice, that's great, and that's usually only the case when he happens to get there first, I'm right behind him, and he lets me get the second door if there is one. If he's just trying to "be the man" in the situation, or prove his manhood, I get a little pissed off.

Cross-Dressing for Prom and Graduation

It's April, and for many high school kids, that means prom and graduation are just around the corner! This also means that every year, preceding those events, is a small slew of articles about girls wanting to wear tuxes to prom, and pants to graduation, in schools that forbid them from wearing anything other than skirts and dresses. When I first started seeing these articles, I was shocked that schools in this country still have such rigid gender roles written into their policies. So, it's time to counter a lot of the arguments for these ridiculous and outdated rules, and write in support of these young women who dare to break the mold.

Argument 1: Students need order! If cross-dressing is allowed, all hell will break loose and guys will start coming to these events in dresses just to make a mockery of the school, and there will be no way to stop them!

Reality: I'd like to know of one school where this was an issue. Really, my guess is it's pretty easy to tell who's cross dressing because of gender identity, and who is doing it as a joke. And most (responsible) parents are heavily involved in the preparation for these events, including overseeing exactly what their kids are wearing. You mean to tell me a mom is going to shell out all that money just so her son can wear a dress to prom as a joke? Or that a dad would actually let his son walk across the graduation stage in a dress just for the fun of it. Nope, not likely. In fact, in parts of this country where these gendered policies exist, I'm willing to bet that most parents of transgendered teenagers wouldn't let them cross-dress for these events either.

Chances are, if these dress codes were changed to allow for trans students to express their gender identities (if they so choose) at these events, little would change. The vast majority of guys would still wear masculine clothing, and the majority of girls would wear skirts and dresses, with a few of them wearing nice slacks and blouses for graduation if they don't have the time or money to buy a new outfit for the ceremony.

Argument 2: These schools just want girls to look nice! What, should we really allow these young ladies to wear JEANS to graduation?

Reality: Wearing pants does not mean wearing jeans or dressing casually for girls anymore than it does for guys. If girls wore pants to graduation, they would still be nice pants, khakis or slacks, and not ripped jeans like the people perpetuating this argument seem to believe (or want others to envision). Looking nice shouldn't mean looking feminine.

Argument 3: It's tradition!

Reality: Well that may be, but just because something has been done for decades doesn't mean it's okay. Our culture - fuck, our world - has had many sexist, racist, and downright brutal traditions for centuries, and sadly, many still exist (think segregated proms). It's still tradition for a woman to be handed off from her father to her husband at her wedding, symbolizing the transfer of property - tradition? Of course. Sexist? You bet. We need to stop perpetuating sexism, racism, and heteronormativity under the guise of tradition - some traditions need to be done away with.

We need to start implementing policies that acknowledge transgender students, allowing them to express their gender the same way cisgender students have been able to do for centuries. Forcing them to dress not in accordance with their gender identity and ignoring their needs in school policies only allows them to continue to be marginalized and invisible. So this year, when a news article pops up about a girl who may not be allowed to attend prom because she feels more comfortable in a tux, be sure to show your support for her!

Outsourcing of Domestic Work and the Increase of Class Oppression

The occupations of seamstress, prostitute, cook, nanny, and maid have been around forever - sometimes under other names, such as servant or slave, but the tasks have been the same. For centuries, wealthy people have been able to hire people to do things traditionally assigned to wives and daughters, allowing those wealthy women time and a little freedom to pursue their own whims. Since the beginning of feminism, as women have left the constraints of the home in pursuit of non-domestic tasks, someone else had to take up those tasks, and domestic and sex work became more common - but no less oppressed.

Nowadays, while having clothing custom made is reserved for the very wealthy, almost all of us buy our own clothes. This is common across social classes, and the people who do make their own clothes do it for religious reasons, or do it because the market does not offer the kind of clothing they desire. Sadly, this has a direct relation to the existence of sweatshop workers. As the demand for cheap, mass produced clothing has increased, so has the functionality of sweatshops, both overseas in impoverished countries and in the southern United States where migrant women slave away in the same conditions as the little girls in China, and have the same low level of political power. Notice that these sweatshop workers are also women - who better to take up the tasks that would be done by the women buying these clothes for their families?

The same goes for maids. Again, the ability to hire a maid is now held by many middle class women who require help with the cleaning because of the demands of their jobs. Again, these jobs are held by women in the lower class, and often immigrant women in many parts of the country, who as Barbara Ehrenreich highlighted in her book "Nickel and Dimed," these domestic workers are not making living wages. It's a fact that women are more likely than men to live in poverty, because they are less likely to be given living wages. Blue collar jobs are held by both genders - while women may dominate the realm of domestic work, men occupy the realm of construction and factory work. However, men's work is still valued over women's work - it's only been little over half a century since most women cooked and cleaned and sewed for free, so some may wonder, why should that suddenly warrant a high wage? Besides, people still have this idea that men are the only workers with families to feed, while women don't need a living wage because they're depending on a man's wage and are only working for supplemental income or "pin money."

When people go out to eat, they are going somewhere where someone else will cook for them - something originally designated for women in the domestic sphere. When people go shopping, they are buying clothes, soaps, and other things that used to be made in the home. This ability to buy products rather than labor to make them may be liberating for women, giving them more time and fewer domestic responsibilities, it means there are now more cooks, chefs, waiters, and retail workers working in those roles. It may have expanded the job market, but the jobs provided are "low" jobs - jobs with little pay that require a lot of emotional labor and dealing with entitled customers who often oppress the workers as much as the corporations that employ those workers. Make no mistake, they may have better conditions and paychecks than those in sweatshops, but there is still a lot of room for improvement.

Keep in mind that the people who do serve others by doing feminine work typically go home and do the same things they did at work. They can't always afford to buy the clothes they make, or eat the food they prepare and/or serve. They can't afford to hire maids. So they go home after all that underpaid physical labor and do the same things for their own families. They do more domestic work so that some women can do less, or none at all - so that those women can, in turn, pursue their own passions and their own career goals.

Prostitutes also factor into this. Once again, they perform the work of a man's romantic or sexual partner - wife, girlfriend, fuckbuddy, whatever - but their work is commodified and they are oppressed as well. If a woman works for a pimp, she of often beaten and forced to have sex with clients she does not choose or get to negotiate with, and her earnings are taken from her in full or in part. If a woman works in a brothel, she is locked away from society, paraded in front of clients who choose who to sex up, and has to fork over more than half her earnings to the brothel owners. Freelance prostitutes constantly face the threat of rape (and you can't "rape" a prostitute, it's only considered theft of services, because her oversexualized status makes her body a full-time commodity with sub-human status in the eyes of many people), murder, pregnancy, and STDs - because when an industry is criminal, there are no universal, enforceable standards placed upon it. Many men who solicit prostitutes are married or have romantic partners, but they are not satisfied, and seek that satisfaction from women who, in their eyes, exist purely for that purpose.

Keep in mind that prostitutes are either forced into "the life," or they choose it out of desperation. No high school girl says "when I grow up, I wanna fuck people for money." Well maybe some do, but I'm guessing it's pretty rare.

Notice how men are still largely absent from these tasks, whether they're in the home or done as a service to others. Men still only control the means of production, for the most part. Even households that start off with the intent of being egalitarian in terms of housework usually see the tasks slowly shift to the woman of the house. These are the men who say "nah, I don't want to help you with the work, hire a maid instead," and these are the men who drive to male-owned brothels to get the sex they feel entitled to when their wives no longer satisfy them in bed.

Now, I'm not bashing feminism for these reasons, nor am I advocating that women return to the home and reclaim their domestic tasks of cooking, cleaning, childcare, and satisfying their husbands. I certainly can't condemn women who hire babysitters or go clothes shopping. Rather, the people who work in these fields need to be given the respect and dignity they deserve from their employers and their customers, not to mention reasonable working conditions and living wages, whether they're sales associates, immigrant seamstresses, or prostitutes.

Housewifery Is Alive And Well

http://www.brokelyn.com/how-to-survive-as-a-sahg-stay-at-home-girlfriend/

The above article is about how to be a stay-at-home girlfriend. The author is an unemployed woman who spends most of her day doing housework, keeping herself pretty, and making dinner for her man.

Now, I have nothing against taking care of your significant other, it is a nice thing to do, but a healthy relationship also includes doing things just for yourself and spending time alone and with friends. I also have nothing against doing some housework and cleaning. If you're between jobs and your partner does work, it does make sense to spend your free time doing your share of the housework. However, it has been said by many experts that a job search should be a full-time job. This woman, on the other hand, seems to spend a little time sending out resumes and the rest of the day making it so her boyfriend comes home to a clean house, dinner on the table, and guaranteed sex - because he worked hard, he deserves it. That is the dynamic that disturbs me: she doesn't frame it as being a responsible member of the household, she frames it as being a good girlfriend and doing pretty much all of those things for the sake of making her man happy.

I would prefer to see women between jobs spending more times working towards bettering their lives and desirability as potential employees - reading nonfiction, taking classes at a community college, learning another language, networking with professionals in her field. Or perhaps taking up a truly self-fulfilling hobby - NOT knitting for her boyfriend, or cleaning for her boyfriend, or baking for her boyfriend, but something that makes her happy and enriches her as a person. Perhaps she could volunteer in the community, or try to get an internship that would keep her working and be a valuable addition to a resume. THAT would be my advice for someone, man or woman, between jobs.

Now, some may argue that there's nothing wrong with what she's doing because it's her CHOICE. Shouldn't we support her CHOICE?? Feminism is about CHOICE, people! Well yes, I'm trying not to judge her for what she does, though I will criticize her for making it sound like all women should do what she is doing, and perhaps draw the conclusion that she could use a little empowerment. I do, however, think it's necessary to examine the social factors that do lead women to make certain decisions. Like this one. It seems to me she's doing these because she's been led to believe catering to a man and making him happy is what makes a woman a desirable partner, and that that is what women should be striving for: being the perfect girlfriend. I see a lot of social pressures at work that are most likely driving her to make these decisions. And just like manufactured consent isn't true consent to sex, manufactured choices aren't really choices at all, but a surrender to pressure.

The feminist movement does support women's choices to do whatever they want with their lives, but more important than that, feminism is about women living their lives as autonomous human beings, rather than simply live to serve the men in their lives.