Mr. Tait - You Should Set a Better Example for Your Future Daughter

This is a response to an article on Starcitygames.com by Geordie Tait. To fully understand my post, check out his article.

Recently, Geordie Tait wrote an article about the negative stereotypes of women and how they are perpetuated in gaming/nerd culture. It was framed as a letter to his future daughter and published on Starcitygames.com. I was told to reserve my judgment until the end of the article, which was difficult for a variety of reasons. Before I talk about what I feel the intended message of the article was, I want to share some of the problems I had with it.

I found that despite the fact that he was referring to geeks, nerds, and gaming culture in general (Things I can identify with) - it was alienating. Throughout the article he made backhanded comments and generalizations about people like me and my other "nerd" buddies. All the while he was condemning us for perpetuating a culture of misogynistic generalizations and backhanded comments. He then proceeded to call us hypocrites (You seeing what I'm seeing?). I couldn't keep count of the times I rolled my eyes at the condescending statements in the article.

These problems were present throughout, and they made it difficult to take the message seriously. The delivery is important, and he missed a valuable opportunity.

By far, the biggest issue I had with the article, however, was that I did not feel appropriately represented at all despite the fact that I consider myself and most of my friends nerds and geeks. In fact, most of my friends and I don't resemble the "socially ostracized," "depressed," "bitter," "hairy," (What was even the point of that one?) characterization of a nerd mentioned in the article at all.

I was happy growing up and continue to be. I talked to people, had a solid group of friends that I counted on, I never hated women, and I really wasn't that hairy (-_-). I never thought that I deserved a medal just because I never physically abused a woman. I fell in and out of love, I was hurt by rejection (like most people are at some point in their lives), and I experienced both high and low points in my romantic relationships. You see, Mr. Tait -I was just a regular guy who enjoyed playing video games. I'm not an anomaly either - most of my friends resembled this description. We were just guys who liked video games - both competitively and for fun. Although we all loved video games, we were all unique.

I never thought of video games as an obsession - I was passionate about them because they were meaningful to me, but obsessed is a stretch - like many of the statements in Geordie's article. I loved video games more than any of my other hobbies which included tennis, soccer, rapping, basketball, among others (all of which I was proud of). I loved gaming the most because of the variety of games and the depth of knowledge required to compete at most games. The detailed characterization of himself as a nerd who hated women as an awkward adolescent doesn't fit with my definition of it, and before you start, Geordie - I'm not a twisted misogynist despite the fact that I disagree with you. The reason our definitions differ is because nerd culture is just different now. When I think of nerds, I think of the passionate, talented, intelligent, diverse people in the gaming communities I have been lucky enough to be a part of. Despite the fact that we all love video games, we are all unique and multidimensional. This concept of a nerd is from my personal experiences, and I understand that not everyone perceives nerds in this way.

What you fail to acknowledge, Geordie, is that not everyone sees nerds as you do either. The culture has changed, the perception of nerds has changed, and the people have diversified dramatically over the past

decade. Instead of acknowledging that not all nerds fit into his characterization (I would even argue that most don't), he hand picks quotes from the comments section of forums and blogs - and then generalizes the attitudes within the quotes to the gaming community as a whole. The worst thing about it is that after he makes false assum

ptions about the community, he implies that those who disagree are somehow disturbed sexists. This hardly opens the topic up to intelligent discussion, which defeats the point. Why is it so hard for some writers to understand that insulting a group of

people or making backhanded, sarcastic insults will not lead to honest, intelligent, CRUCIAL discussions about feminism or false stereotypes?

When he's not quoting comments on online blogs / foru

ms to support his argument, he even quotes popular St

arcraft commentator, Sean "Day[9]" Plott - claiming that "like most male gamers, he (Day9) doesn't understan

d that gendered insults are wrong and off-putting to women." I have watched many of the

day[9] dailies, which is a show where Sean Plott analyzes Starcraft replays and interacts with the community. First of all, Geordie does

not even know which daily this quote came from, and he

provides no context. That aside, the story he was referring to was one in which Mr. Plott shares a Starcraft tidbit with his girlfriend: that gg stands for good game and people say it at the end of games to show sportsmanship. She would always type it out as G.G. instead of gg to poke fun at him. Here's the quote:

"It's not 'gee-dot gee-dot' it's 'GG' you young bitch!"

Without proper context, the article misleads people to believe that Day9 is disrespectful to women.

In reality, even if you heard the actual story without any knowledge of S

ean Plott instead of one isolated quote with no context, you should be able to see

how the story certainly is not a concrete example of misogyny. 

What's wor

se is t

hat Geordie further insults Day[9] by suggesting that the message he cares for dearly, that of "nerd pride," was harmful and misogynistic. After dissecting and mo

cking each part of day[9]'s E-sports manifesto, Mr. Tait goes on to claim that it contributes to the "high perch of cultura

l satisfaction" and that it gives gamers a sense of entitlement to "Nerd-rage" at anyone who doesn't und

erstand their passion. Ho

w

he can twist day[9]'s message -which is to wear your

passion of gaming with pride and share it with other people while transcending mainstream stereotypes - is beyond my understanding and that manipulation is extremely dangerous.

Before I address the Destructoid article, I want to talk about the Todd Anderson article titled: "Constructed Criticism - Living the Dream of Pro Magic." The reason I want to address this article specifically is because it exemplifies Geordie's pattern of misleading people by not giving proper context. Although he did link the article, I highly doubt that he actually expected readers to click the link and read through it because there was a huge disconnect. I read Anderson's article, and I was shocked at the difference between it and what was written in Tait's. According to Geordie's "Cliffnotes" version of the story there were 4 bulletpoints :

1. Author paints self as irresponsible drunk

2. Wife breaks down in tears, thinks everything is her fault

3. ...

4. Profit

Let me give you an honest "Cliffnotes" version of the story:

1. Author moves out of town to support his wife's career aspirations

2. Author's wife does not support his passion because it does not provide stable income

3. Author drinks frequently - he is miserable and hates his job

4. Author quits his regular job to play Magic professionally

5. Him and his wife fight frequently because of a failure of communication on BOTH ends

6. Wife finally realizes that he isn't happy and that he just wants her to be proud of him - She breaks down

7. They make up and live happily ever after

Maybe I just saw more in the article than Geordie did. Maybe he just left out important aspects of the article to support his argument. It didn't seem to be important to Geordie that the author sacrificed a lot to move away and support his wife's career (So she would be happy). Then, when he quit his job that made him miserable - she was not able to make a big sacrifice and support him while he gave it a shot? Are we reading the same article here? Maybe Geordie linked the wrong article - or maybe I'm a misogynist. Who knows? Please do take a look at the article yourselves - if nothing else, it is certainly interesting and thought-provoking. Despite what Mr. Tait thinks, it was clear to me from the beginning of the article that the author did not blame his wife for him being miserable - he also clearly wanted to make her happy. I think getting over relationship problems and communication barriers while pursuing your dream and supporting your partner is pretty damn inspirational.

Now, for the infamous Destructoid Article by Alyssa Bareznak. Well, it doesn't start out on a positive note. In the revised version, she starts off by saying that the article sounds mean - then she says that "One person's Magic is another person's finger nail biting and no online profile is deep enough to account for that." I can understand what she is trying to say - online profiles don't account for every aspect of a human being and that can cause problems. The article could have been humorous - the article could have made a good point. However, her negative preconceptions about nerds or people who play Magic: The Gathering are clear when she opens up by comparing it to a bad habit like nail-biting. As a writer, whether you just blog, or are featured on a prominent website - you should always keep in mind that word choice can affect how people view the article, regardless of your intentions. As I said before, delivery is extremely important. The error of choosing the wrong words or tone of voice seems to be a theme in gaming "journalism" and coverage- One blogger makes a post about a completely relevant topic (In this case online dating - in the case of Mr. Tait's article, negative stereotypes of women in gaming culture) but throws in condescending remarks and low blows towards the gaming community. I don't know why- maybe for more views, maybe to be controversial, or maybe because of their own preconceptions about gaming culture. The community responds angrily (many comments irrational tirades against the author - but many also constructively criticizing the author). Then the author either writes a follow-up post (often highlighting ONLY the negative, immature comments posted, which is both misleading and manipulative) criticizing the community for their overreaction or declares nerds as whiny babies, sexists, racists, etc., who failed to understand the writer's intentions. (Or according to good ole Geordie, to punish girls for making fun of them...?)

After the condescending opening of the article, Alyssa goes on to tell an interesting story that shows that online dating websites don't always match you with people you are going to be compatible with. Throughout, Alyssa uses this condescending language and a dismissive tone towards geeks in general - it can be frustrating to try to see through it all and find the take-home message, but it is there. Again, maybe it's just the psychotic sexist in me, but it seems that she characterizes Mr. Finkel, a Magic champion, as a creepy individual who couldn't be romantic if his life depended on it.

Maybe it's wrong to call her shallow based on this one article - but how would you feel if someone implied that people who played a game you loved were creepy and unromantic? This guy certainly went beyond playing Magic for fun in his free time, but it was also his profession that supported him financially. He was serious about it. Would the response be any different if his profession was different? I don't think so. In fact, I think the response would be much worse if she criticized a profession that society held in higher regard. I think that's part of the problem -maybe she thought it was okay to insult all the nerds out there because everyone insults nerds... right? Then again maybe I shouldn't make assumptions about what she was thinking when she alienated the very demographic that destructoid attracts - however tempting it may be (especially as a psychology major). Then I would be heading down a dangerous road - one that Mr. Tait seems willing to travel quite often. I have to say, Geordie, you're not setting a great example for your "kiddo" in the article.

Obviously one isolated incident isn't enough to convince me that Alyssa is a shallow person, and it doesn't tell me much about her personality - I agree that the response to the article was heated and many of the comments were uncalled for. However, it is not rational to say that everyone who responded with criticism is on a "high perch of cultural self-satisfaction" and are just bitter nerds who rage because they can't take rejection as well as others. It's these assumptions about the motives behind the negative feedback that make me cringe as I read Mr. Tait's article. Every negative comment came with a sarcastic remark about how this nerd must have been rejected by girls his whole life and how that nerd must have been bitter and depressed.

When I read the comments, I saw some overreactions - but I didn't see the herd of angry nerds filled with rage and bitterness over their pathetic love lives. I didn't see the irrational, socially ostracized psycopaths you characterize in your article. I saw a group of people who love a variety of video games and are offended by the tone and word choice that several journalists have recently used to describe all of us. I see a group of people who are tired of being generalized - a group of people who are tired of journalists and writers like you who think you have us all figured out - when in reality, you are frankly wrong and unqualified to make those kinds of assumptions.

You see, Geordie, I don't want to be with a partner who thinks that gaming is a bad habit of mine. I don't want to date someone who thinks that gaming is silly or that it is a turn-off. Surely you can understand that I don't want to be involved with someone who I can't share my interests and passions with. Can't someone just criticize a writer for generalizing and alienating a group of people instead of promoting a healthy discussion about negative stereotypes? That is a valid criticism and it is applicable to her article, as well as yours.

Is Geordie not perpetuating false, negative stereotypes of male gamers while pretending to be some sort of civil rights pioneer for women? To me, it would not have mattered if Alyssa and Jon switched places. I would have a similar, negative response - as would most of the people I know in the gaming community. To be clear, I don't think I have any right to tell Alyssa what she can and can't do - especially when it comes to personal topics. Surely I can empathize with that situation - I have (and we all have) been in situations in which we are interacting with people who do not have the slightest interest in our hobbies, profession, or passion. I just think she could have gone about it in a less condescending way.

Finally, I want to address Geordie Tait's article and the message I got out of it. I will start by sharing a story about my girlfriend and I in high school. We had just gotten together, and I was sharing some of the things that were important to me with her. She decided to try out Halo 3, and I even gave her the microphone in case she wanted to talk some trash and really get into it (Terrible idea in retrospect). Because she had never really played many shooters, the controls were foreign to her. While she was learning she was asking me how to jump, reload, etc. After hearing her voice and realizing that she was a girl, her teammates started to make inappropriate, offensive comments. She was clearly upset, but I was desensitized. This moment gave her a negative first impression of gaming - and it took a long time for that to change.

You see, although I had not been guilty of making inappropriate comments about females while playing Halo - I was used to them - and that was not okay. Often, people get frustrated playing video games and they target your race, sex, or age even though they are unrelated to your gaming skill. Whatever someone can say to offend you, you will probably hear it. Hell, it was only a year ago that I used my first name as a username in World of Warcraft (Ahmed) - and I got many offensive comments about my ethnicity. I can totally understand the frustration that comes with losing - when you spend time trying to improve at anything competitive and you lose it can be tough to deal with. However, many people cross the line.

Part of the problem is the anonymity, and part of it is that Mr. Tait attempts to address - the perpetuation of negative stereotypes of women (as well as any minorities) in gaming culture. The issue I have with the take-home message, however, is that it implies that these negative stereotypes originate with or are exclusive to video gaming culture. Contrary to what some may believe, negative stereotypes of women in media have been prevalent in photography and cinematography since their invention. These unrealistic portrayals continue to be problems in today's entertainment culture - whether it is magazines, movies, books, etc. In every form of entertainment, both women and men are held to unrealistic standards. Singling out the video gaming culture is - again - misleading.

I completely agree that women are unrealistically and condescendingly portrayed in most video games - this is a huge problem that I am happy to discuss - but the conversation should not be prefaced with sarcastic jokes and assumptions about my past interaction with women. I did not become involved in gaming culture because of sexism - Hell, I just thought it was really cool to control a base and make an army. Although the tech industry is clearly male dominated - I believe a huge reason for that is the social stigmas associated with women in the tech industry. I don't think that video game culture is the culprit here. Technology related jobs do not align with the historically traditional roles of women - we have a much bigger problem than the unrealistically portrayed women in video games. This issue is pervasive in our culture. However, I believe that we can transcend these unrealistic, social guidelines and schemas - whether you are a man or a woman by valuing your individuality and realizing the importance of your words. But what do I know? I'm just a raging misogynist.

Various reflections and thoughts

Over the past few days, the students in our Education 400 class went on a trip to Washington D.C. with our professor, Drew Stelljes, to see public education in practice. We got the opportunity to meet with administrators, teachers, students, policy makers, and William and Mary alumni involved with public education.

Going into the trip, I didn't really know what to expect. I tried to come in with an open mind and just observe and learn as much as possible. I also kept in mind that what I was seeing was just a snap shot of the very dynamic public education system.

As I observed effective teachers in the classroom and talked to so many students who really had the desire to learn, a lightbulb lit up in my brain and I knew that teaching was the profession for me. Still, I saw teachers who were in my shoes not too long ago, and many seemed to be exhausted and unsure of their futures in education after only a couple of years. To say that this was discouraging and disheartening would be an understatement. How did this happen to some of the bright and motivated teachers in the profession? The only clear answer I got was that it was anything BUT the children. This was enough to reassure me that I will have a hopeful, bright future as a teacher, regardless of the obstacles along the way.

Aside from seeing effective teachers in action, the part of the trip that impacted me most was the visit to Curiosity Zone, which was a place where children could go as early as age 2 for hands on science learning. The purpose of the program was to encourage children to explore their love for science through hands-on learning. Although I did not have the opportunity to observe a class, the idea of the program seemed well thought out and promising. We had a question and answer session with the education director as well as the founder of Curiosity Zone. The education director seemed to really understand some of the limits of curriculum development in public schools, and she implemented innovative ideas for science curriculum without the restrictions that public school teachers face.

During the trip, I had some interesting conversations with all of the extremely bright, engaged, and determined students in our class. Specifically, the conversations about Curiosity Zone really made think about the issues that are being ignored in public education. The question was posed: Do programs like Curiosity Zone perpetuate the widening of the achievement gap? It seemed like a very simple answer to me. How could a program that instills an interest in science into children of all ages contribute to the achievement gap? Some suggested that since the program was only available to students in a very wealthy county (Loudoun) and because it cost money, it would only help those who are already destined to be high achievers.

This really made me wonder: Are we approaching the problem of the achievement gap in the wrong way? I believe the achievement gap is not only between high achievers and low achievers in the United States, but also between the students in the United States and those in other countries. The best of the best in the United States are still not competing with those in other developed countries. Even if programs like Curiosity Zone only serve high achieving students, which isn't necessarily the case, it would still have an impact on the achievement gap between the US and other countries. It would help high achieving students reach their full potential. I strongly believe that the effort to close the achievement gap will affect high achievers, low achievers, and those in the middle. I believe that the goal of a public education system should be to allow ALL students to reach their highest potential, which will inevitably vary depending on numerous factors. Programs like Curiosity Zone are not contributing to the root causes of the achievement gap. A public education system based on standardized testing does have a huge impact on all students, not just those on the lower end of the achievement spectrum, and this is largely being ignored. Our conversation about Curiosity Zone was one of many intellectually stimulating discussions we had during the trip.

By the end of the trip, I was filled with more mixed emotions than ever before. I was hopeful about the future of public education but humbled by the daunting task that lay ahead. I was angry about the issues that were being ignored in public education, yet inspired and impressed by what is already being done. For the first time, I was certain about what I wanted to do with my life but still so uncertain about the support system or lack thereof for teachers in many schools. I told myself that I could make a significant difference as a teacher in the future, but as I observed teachers at Anacostia high school and Maury Elementary school, I also asked myself, "If these amazing people were part of a failing public education system, what could I possibly do?" After having dinner with some outstanding W&M alumni, many of which had been in our shoes only a few years go, I realized that this balance between certainty and uncertainty was not only okay, but it was crucial to maintain throughout my life. To make a difference, we have to challenge our own views as well as those of others and stay open minded. The achievement gap will only close if we attack it from every angle. Teachers, administrators, policy makers, parents, and students must all work towards the goal. Everyone has a stake in public education and the future of this country.