I know that this is going to get me some flak if it's even seen, but if people want to talk about 'privilege' then people really need to stop trying to play victims every time they're told no. Privileges are not necessarily a bad thing; scary, I know.
There are very long and interesting discussions to be had about the dangers of safe spaces, starting with (to save time) Apartheid and ending with Echochambers/intellectual inbreeding - all good things to have out there and discussed, really - but let's look at the examples given.
A gay bar. A place (presumably) set up by gay men for the enjoyment of gay men in the company of other like-minded individuals. Some, who enjoys the place, knowingly decides to bring in people who do not fall into that demographic. Not for reasons of exposure or introduction...
One place I might call out something called Gay Male Privilege, though I wind up calling it 'I've met a lot of self-righteous pricks who think I can't
not be attracted to them, but this is not a male-only thing.
...accepting and warning that there may be a stigma on them or warning that your presence in a place may reasonably be taken as a declaration of your preferences; but rather because he enjoyed the experience when he was there alone. He, and they, ignored the rules of the community and place (which he does not own or have say in its management, btw) and they were horribly treated by...
Getting watered down drinks and having to wait extra-long for those drinks. In short, having it made clear that they weren't welcome in a place not made for them. Oh, and overtly denying entry so they didn't waste their time at all was said to be worse.
In short: You are not welcome here, please leave.
Somehow, of course, 'We do not want people who are not gay men to be here' became 'Women exist to serve men.'
Um... no.
But let's roll with it. This is now a form of Male Privilege, fine.
Now, three guys knowingly walk into a lesbian bar and are told to leave or made to feel unwelcome.
Of course, now, this is proof that those women believe that men exist solely to serve women, yes?
Or is it Male Privilege for them to feel they had the right to walk in in the first place? Especially if the bar's intentions were made clear with a sign like 'Testosterone-free zone,' which I've seen.
In my experience, anyone who uses the word 'privilege' in that sense will give you the same answer. Usually based on 'well, they only went in there to...' and so on.
A call to remove this kind of 'privilege' is a call for an end to every demographic-based community. This includes all religion, all race/ethnicity-based group and all sex-based entry criteria. The oft-cited Curves coming to mind first.
Now, I like Curves. I think it's a great thing. It's a place catering to people/women who are uncomfortable or disheartened in gyms due to the extremely fit regulars (something I feel as well when I'm there) or feeling judged or compared to them by others, notably men. It's a place for women to feel comfortable in the company of like-minded individuals. Let them have that space, it's a good thing.
I know of very few people who say anything but good things about Curves and I've never heard any real public issues concerning it.
But a gay bar...
Not because of any moral issues with homosexuality, but because they didn't fully cater to someone outside their demographic; but defending similar the right of similar places to solely serve their preferred demographic is progressive and good.
Now, on the subject of 'women exist to serve men,' there are real things to point to. I may not always agree, but they're there as a discussion. Any place that exclusively hires women as servers and entertainers, but only allows male clientele is a fair place to point. There was a time when a lot of casinos would hire black entertainers and staff, but not allow black patrons. Before that, there was slavery and everything between the two. On sexism, there's places like strip clubs, topless steakhouses (still surprised that's a thing), hey, even why most of the cash-people at MacDonalds are young girls. On the last, people respond better to non-threatening, frankly cute, people; especially during a soft-sell (would you like fries with that?).
Yes, that's sexism, but it's also sexism that the guys are stuck in back on the grill. Not that I cared, I'm not a fan of the public. I like people, mind you, just not the public.
But let's move on. Urkel.
Let's see
whose central character arc over nine television seasons was aggressively pursuing the romantic attentions of an uninterested target in a manner that would red-flag him as stalker
Um... no? It's worth mentioning that this is a TV show and that joke was played for laughs in a time before the current geekdom had any real sway over the mainstream. Moreover, Steve put down that particular torch about halfway through the series, even if it was picked up again years later.
Even better, it was done after they wrote in a story where he got a taste of what he'd been doing to her and he backed off, turning it into a Aesop about precisely what was said to be bad thing and the character changed as a result. these are good things.
All that said, in the show, Steve's actions were the same for everyone. He was always just as forward, claimed the same moral highground and had the same personal space issues with everyone he spent time with. Most of that time, especially later, was spent with Carl. Why they put up with it was a question always answered by them going to him first whenever the family had issues, and he'd come through for them.
Laura cast as a villain for 'withholding sex' is also flatout wrong. When this was done, it was done because she would often take advantage of his affections to get him to do things for her. If she was a villain or a bully, it was because she was using sex to get him to do what she wanted, then pull back the carrot when she was done with him. Granted, this too came to a head and was changed after she browbeat him into driving her across the country due to something that was her mistake and, after his car broke down and he paid for a motel room, she ordered him to sleep in the bathtub.
The other, of course, was the forced moment whenever Steve would put himself out there or on the line to serve (and often enough protect) her and he hoped for a kiss or somesuch for what he'd done, the other Winslow-wide catchphrase came in: "Go home, Steve." And he would, though only in these moments would the counter not get used. "I don't have to take this, I'm going home."
Going past the whole issue of internet anonymity, which is related but separate, my experiences in Geekdom and conventions have always been inclusive, unless the community sees itself as under attack. Yes, there are always jerks, always elitists, but of both genders. Cosplayers of both genders will have their costumes judged harshly.
The argument of 'men aren't expected to be sexy like women are' is something I'll laugh in someone's face if they say. To any man who holds to that, I offer the following: If you have a less-than-ideal physique, dress up like the current big Bishie. Honestly, just mention in conversation with any female cosplayers that you plan to and watch what happens. Characters that are marketed on being sexy will have their costumes judged on whether they are or not, this is genderless. There are more famous female characters judged that way, no question. If that's the concern, I'd suggest that the Players look more to Shoujo animes than Shonen ones for their characters.
The Fake Gamer Girl thing still makes my eyes roll in the same way. Fake gamer guys exist, btw. We call them 'Uh huh... well, you're an idiot. Go away, I'm playing here." Similarly, with what little I know of Alan Moore, wearing an anything-Watchmen related costume near him is just asking for scorn.
At its worst, Geek Culture, if you want to use that term, is like any other. What was given here is mostly - not all but mostly - about a group of people who have put in a lot of time, blood, sweat and tears to build an identity and community, and just not being all that keen on changing or bestowing the good parts of being part of that community (or their gatherings) on people who are not otherwise a part of it, have not been through the bad parts, or are simply walking in and expecting those changes to be made for them and place be made for them within it.
In this case, in all my experience, places will be made for those who want to be a part of it and are willing to do the 'work' required to be part of the group. Often, as simple as actually being able to read a character sheet for things like D&D, or even asking to try and agreeing to follow the lead of someone who knows what they're doing.
I'm reminded of Firefly and the scene with Kaylee at the Shindig. I swear that was written by someone who's been a part of it. Call it sexism, but girls you can actually have a meaningful conversation with about something you love are rare and often precious as pearls.
Call it benevolent sexism if you want.
What's being presented, though, is the story of the Little Red Hen, except that the hen is being cast as the villain in this case and everyone else who was told to leave because they were only showing up for the free bread are victims. It's baker's privilege, don't you see that?
What 'privileges' the individual geek gets are based on them being harmless (if annoying) most of the time, but extremely useful, easily manipulated or coerced when you need them, and largely disposable when you're done.
