ABoyNamedArt

July 28, 2011 12:14 pm @Walter  It's possible her schedule conflicted with the event.

July 27, 2011 5:29 pm @WonderAli  what I think the other panalists were trying to convey was that regardless of how the media defines sexy, you need to believe in yourself and love yourself for who you are.

I think one of the reasons the waters were muddied there was the use of the term "media," a term commonly associated with the press, to describe business interests - the modeling industry, the gaming industry, the comics industry, etc. iFanboy didn't create that new Starfire costume - DC Comics did. And while the panelists' sentiments are admirable, the fact remains that the businesses many of them are involved with and benefit from aren't taking their lead. Adrienne Curry might say, "love yourself regardless of body type," but she's part of an industry that promotes her particular body type as an ideal. That isn't her fault, specifically, but there's a dissonance at work there that the panel could not or would not address, and that might be one reason for that particular criticism.

Old Guard Geeks don't think "geek girls" have paid their dues.

This is revisionist history. There was an article in Newsweek awhile back - more like a photo essay, really - that dealt with the early Star Trek conventions. As the photos showed, and one of the show's costume designers said, the majority of fans at those gatherings were, in fact, women. So this isn't about Old Guard vs New; women have always been involved in fandom and genre fiction, as participants, creators - O HAI ANNE MCCAFFREY, OCTAVIA BUTLER AND MARIE SHELLEY - and performers. The idea of these hobbies as a man's domain, I would suggest, has been in large part created by the same people who tell consumers they should aspire to look like the Adrienne Currys of the world - or to want to date them above anybody else.

July 27, 2011 1:32 am @reg5000 
There's a 'girls in the clubhouse' mentality that pervades some areas of geek culture and panels (and panelists) like this are the driving force behind breaking that mentality.

The thing is, it's not just about who's new in the clubhouse - it's the exotification and prioritization of certain members of it based on business interests that creates the disconnect.

July 26, 2011 7:08 pm @ohcaroline  No worries, things get lost in the sdcc shuffle enough when you're there - I imagine it's just as bad reading about it afterwards.

To address your second point, though, I think the Green example stands out for me vividly: his point wasn't that dissimilar to Stuller's, but - because of who he is and what he does - he got a wider platform. There was another moment where Stuller made the point that media criticism is not the same as "hatred," but it might be more fair to say that that particular argument wasn't engaged by the other panelists. A couple of them made remarks to the effect that diminished that sentiment to jealousy or the projection of issues.

July 26, 2011 5:27 pm @mikegraham6  Beg your pardon, but Green wasn't just "an audience member." When he announces to the crowd what he does for a living, from a reserved seat, he's indulging in celebrity privilege. Not to mention the fact that there had been actual audience members in line to ask questions prior to him being called upon to speak. Speaking as someone who was there to support Katrina, Jill and Jennifer, I thought he would have been better served making a short statement or two and then turning the focus back to the panelists.

July 26, 2011 5:07 pm We live in a time where the Kardashians are wearing Transformers underroos, and while it’s tough seeing people who haven’t (or aren’t) as invested as we fellow geeks are, it’s no reason to be so dismissive of them - regardless of gender.

The problem is, the industries that people like the Kardashians traffic in are just as dismissive of people who aren't in that target demographic. So for several of the panelists to dismiss speaking up about that disconnect as "jealousy" is also a derailment.

If Gore didn’t have enough respect for the panelists to show up on time, then I believe he shouldn’t get any attention for his actions at that panel. Move along, people, nothing to see here.

Gotta respectfully disagree here. If this is how G4 wants to be represented at an event like SDCC, both Gore and his employer should be called out on it, on as many forums as possible. Otherwise they'll continue to feel safe hiding behind "satire" as a shield for those kinds of comments.


Back to Seth Green. I really can’t say enough how impressed I was with his comments.

Green's heart and sentiment were undoubtedly in the right place, but in a way, he was almost as disrespectful toward the panel as Gore was. It's problematic when, as Caroline mentioned above, one of the few panels geared specifically toward womanhood and geekdom - let's not forget Girls Gone Genre - gets taken over by two cis-hetero males. It's also problematic when Stuller's attempt to steer the discussion toward media literacy was seemingly dismissed by her fellow panelists while Green got the run of the floor for, what, almost 10 minutes? I don't blame Katrina Hill or the panelists for what happened, but Green and Gore did not help the proceedings much at all.

June 24, 2011 1:24 am @TA  Thanks for the kind words. I would, however, suggest this re, Olivia Munn: she's not listed as a writer for AOTS on imdb, and only two out of the 12 credited writers for the show are women. So it's quite possible her "pandering" material was in fact scripted according to a preconception of what the target audience - white males - finds acceptable re: female geeks.

June 23, 2011 4:17 pm But just because we took crap because of our passions does not make us any better than anyone else.

I think that's a simplification of one of the issues you're talking about here. And make no mistake, there's lots of issues surrounding this conversation (and I recognize my male privilege in taking part in it, but I can speak to the culture of exclusion.)

To begin with, all bullying is harmful. All harassment is harmful. It can't just be summed up as "taking crap." Knocking someone for liking Star Wars or D&D can be a gateway to more verbal or physical violence. And it doesn't stop at high-school graduation. Death or suicide can't be the only litmus tests to determine an "acceptable" level of intolerance.

Campanella's expression of her geeky interests is cool, yes. But she also got to tell her story because of her participation in an industry that emphasizes an exclusionary standard of "beauty." Chances are we wouldn't even know who she is right now if she were a plus-size woman, a transgendered person identifying as female, or a lesbian/bisexual woman who did not fit the body standard events like Miss USA endorse. That is privilege.

Furthermore, when celebrities - male and female alike* - declare their geek cred, it's presented as a way to make them exotic to certain advertising demographics. That's the nature of their industries, even if their fandom is sincere.** I'm not saying they can't be active members of the community. But saying "I like [x show]" is only the beginning of the process.

It's also important to differentiate between celebrity declarations of geekyness and the street-level harassment non-famous women of any body type have been subjected to at conventions, or as part of MMOs. Celebrities have all sorts of doors open to them. The rest of us, not so much. Privilege is part of the discussion, even if you're the beneficiary of it.

<I>What does it matter how long someone has or has not been a geek?</I>
This matters tremendously in any community. To borrow an example from earlier in the thread, if I walked into a punk show and instantly declared myself part of the community simply because I like a few Sex Pistols songs, I'd get the side-eye, and rightfully so. There's experiences longtime members of the community have shared that I have not, and to just declare those null and void because "I want to be included" amounts to well-meaning cultural appropriation. If I supported local artists and events, and made an effort to learn about the history of my town's scene and be an ally to the people who were there before me, then I could begin to make the case for inclusion. And there's nothing wrong with being an ally, either; fandom isn't a zero-sum game. Campanella is an example of somebody who could be a good ally to our fandom, if she chooses to be.

* It is definitely sexist to put the burden of proof on female celebrities. There's no reason to suggest that male celebs aren't scripted to make themselves appear "relatable" to the geek marketplace.

** The comics and gaming industries are not immune to creating this kind of culture, for a variety of reasons, like specifically targeting the male demographic; or furthering a narrative where only "booth babes" (pardon the term) are featured in their con presentations. Business interests haven't just been saying that "hot girls" can't be geeky; they've been telling them that geeky girls have to be "hot" to even be seen or heard.

June 16, 2011 2:30 pm Nice to see GJ repping the DudeBro Corps. I love their oath:

With Tapout shirts
And Natty Lite
Put on Spike TV
Let's watch a fight!

December 23, 2010 2:13 pm No love for KISS? THAT DOES NOT ROCK! http://tinyurl.com/22vwaxa