There has been a lot of hubbub here and there on the net when it comes to nerds who also happen to be attractive females, and even models. As I’ve been told that I count as one of these, I felt like I needed to say my piece. True, I have written on similar topics in the past, but I think there’s a message that bears repeating: you don’t have to be what other people think you should be.

Many people are so quick to lump others into easy to manage categories. That person is a jock, that one’s a diva, over there is a goth. While it may make it easy to sort things in your mind, I believe everyone is more than a singular, stereotyped label. This is not to say that labels are a bad thing. I do consider myself a nerd, but that’s not all that I am, either. Labels sometimes help us to find and communicate with those that are like minded. As has been noted in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, once the base requirements for survival have been met, they are immediately followed by an instinct to seek out a group and gain a level of acceptance amongst your peers. This is how society survives and these are the connective tissues that keep us together and help us build meaningful relationships.

While this system of categorizing can be helpful, it also brings with it a set of problems. With labels comes stereotyping and often a narrow sense of what these titles translate to. I know a lot of people who fit into categories thought to be paradoxical, including the marriage of the categories “nerd” and “attractive female”. Nerds, by many, are still perceived as socially awkward, and often unattractive men that frequently take up residence in their mother’s basement. For a while, this may have been a pretty apt description, but as with all things, it has evolved. Nerds are no longer regulated to the outskirts of society. In fact, it seems that nowadays it’s hip to be square.

However, there is still a lack of parity between nerds when they happen to be men, versus when they happen to be women. There is this perception that women either can’t be nerds or, if they are, they are never going to be on the same level as men. Now, if you’re an attractive female and a nerd, well, that seems highly improbable to people. If they do decide you might be as nerdy as you claim, there is often a testing phase that comes next. I experienced this first hand at an event a week or so ago. I was with a group of nerdy women who also model, and we were treated to a barrage of questions intended to make us prove our “geek cred”. While a part of me found it amusing, another part found it insulting that we couldn’t be taken at our word. (Yes, I am aware some of this also occurs on the male side of things, but in my personal experience, it is far less severe.)

Sadly, this sort of trouble comes not only from the outside, but within. There is a strange tendency for people that identify with any sort of group to claim that many outsiders are “posers”. There’s a sense of exclusivity when you are part of what appears to be a minority. The issue is that until they start being more inclusive, nothing is going to change. The in-fighting only serves to schism things further. I’ve seen a lot of girl versus girl hating, and it needs to stop.

There is also the argument that you shouldn’t need to prove anything, or a self-proclamation of geekhood is a call for your legitimacy to be questioned. While, no, you don’t NEED to prove anything, there are benefits to doing so. For example, until the media realizes there are more women wanting shows like “Game of Thrones” or films like “Lord of the RIngs”, they’re going to continue to cater to male audiences first and foremost. Same goes for video games, comics, merchandising, etc. If we don’t have a voice, then these things will never change.

There is also the discussion of why can’t we all just be nerds/geeks without the male or female designation. That goes back to my last point. I’d love for everyone to live under one heading, but geeks and nerds are not a one size fits all group. I can think of many occasions where I would have gladly bought shirts for a film only to find that there was nothing being produced in a more breast conscious fashion. There have been games where I would have preferred some more gender-balanced options. There is a legitimate reason for all of the outcry from geek girls on the web.

Stereotypes are based on sweeping generalizations of one group or another, and there is usually some basis in truth. They are often deeply ingrained in the social consciousness, and they are not easy to change. However, I believe that if we work to change the perceptions and keep the conversations going, that we can be there to witness the shift.

To all of my fellow nerd/geek girls: keep talking and discussing and breaking out of the box to which you have been assigned. Only together will we see any real change.

*Please note that I use the words nerd and geek as synonyms. I know that not everyone agrees that they are the same, but to my mind they are so close as to be relatively interchangeable.

-

Hey there! I know it seems like I completely dropped off the map, and I sort of did. Been busy, been sick. Back on my feet now and I have some all new reviews at ThinkLeet.com and ComicAttack.net.

Go and check them out by clicking the links below!

Dragon Age II – Review

Aspen Reviews: Charismagic #0 and #1

Twister Humor: Lio: Happiness is a Warm Cephalopod

Taking A Look Back: Batman: The Long Halloween

-

Mmm...Wolverine.

Oh the madness that is casting a comic book based film! Recently, we had two uproars from fans. The first was the announcement that Anne Hathaway was cast as Selina Kyle (mind you, the press release said nothing about Catwoman) in the next Batman film. The second is Henry Cavill as Superman.

It seems we go through this every time. It’s so rare that a casting decision is embraced by the fans when it comes to their beloved comic heroes. My question is, is it that Hollywood really casts the wrong people so frequently? Or is it that comic book fans are too choosy.

I think it goes without saying that no one actor is going to satisfy everyone. There will always be a group that complains. However, I think there should be more of a willingness to let physical appearances slide a little in comparison to acting prowess. Sure, Hugh Jackman isn’t as short and burly as Wolverine appears in the comics. But, who is? Danny DeVito? What Jackman lacks in mirroring the physical appearance of Wolverine, he makes up for with his performance. I really can’t imagine anyone else in that role now.

When I heard Edward Norton was going to be cast in “The Hulk”, I thought there was no way it was going to work. I just didn’t see him as Bruce Banner. I was wrong, and he was amazing. A lot of people whined about Heath Ledger as the Joker, and we’ve all seen how that turned out.

The bottom line is that there should be allowances by the fans when it comes to casting. Should someone who’s three feet tall play Beast? No. However, have some small measure of flexibility. I know we all want our fantasy dream team to grace the screen and fill the shoes of the characters we love, but until we’re all Hollywood movie makers, it’s not going to happen. You can scream and complain until you’re blue in the face. It’s not going to change things.

Let’s also look at the reality of the movie business. It’s precisely that: a business. The studios are out to make a commercially viable film, and with luck, turn it into a franchise. You may know the ins and outs of the characters, but the movie going public at large may not be that familiar. Studios have to make films accessible to the widest group of moviegoers they can. Without that income, they won’t be able to make any films in the first place.

Also, let’s not forget that even in the comic book world, origin stories and characters evolve and change. It’s a fluid world where very few things are locked in forever. Characters die, come back, become younger or older, change to villains, etc. Even a film that is true to a comic to a fault is going to catch flack from those who wanted to see the alternate story told.

It’s okay to not like a movie. It’s fine if you think it’s drivel or screws everything up. The brilliant part is that it doesn’t change a damn thing about the story you adore. You can still go back and read what you fell in love with in the first place. Plus, chances are, there’ll be another reboot in a few years you can complain about, too.

-

Tennant and Smith

My husband was the person who got me started on “Doctor Who”. I was unsure about the show when he described what it was about, but I was hooked after just one episode. Since then, I have been witness to three different Doctors. Yet, it seems that the real debate happening on the Internet is about latter two: David Tennant’s Doctor versus Matt Smith’s Doctor.

Personally, it took me a long time to be ready to watch David Tennant assume the role of The Doctor. I was in love with Christopher Eccleston’s version of the character and had a hard time accepting someone new. I’m glad I did though, and I truly love Tennant’s characterization. Because of going through this transition once, it was easier for me to move into the era of Matt Smith’s Doctor. However, it seems the same can not be said of everyone.

Now, cards on the table here; I didn’t really like Matt Smith at first. I had to get well into the season before I came to accept him. A lot of people seem to have never really given him the benefit of the doubt, and I’ve heard a lot of people say they gave up after a couple of episodes. Yes, Matt Smith is quite different, but isn’t that the point?

The mythology of The Doctor is such that each incarnation is finite. During a regeneration, he doesn’t just swap one look for another the same way you change a mask. He becomes another person. There is some essence that transfers over, but that’s about it. We had Tennant for so long that I think people became comfortable, then were jarred by the change in a way we didn’t experience with Eccleston (who was only The Doctor for a season).

The other reason I think there is a lack of acceptance is that Tennant’s Doctor was someone you could fall in love with. Let’s face it, the ladies (and some men I’m sure) fell hard for him. He was cute, he was quirky and he was the sort of guy you’d let take you on a date to some distant planet in another galaxy. Matt Smith’s Doctor, on the other hand, is not anything like that. He’s awkward, his focus is always somewhere else and he just doesn’t seem interested in romance.

I also think the acceptance of Matt Smith suffers from having some really weak episodes early on in his first season. They really started fresh by way of cast and crew, and it can take a while to find the right footing. You may not realize you’re doing it, but often a bad reaction to an episode will cause you to also take it out on the actor. The good news is that the season did gain some steam, and the Christmas special from 2010 was especially pleasant and fun.

All in all, I’m alright with Matt Smith. He is a very different Doctor, and that’s okay. I’m looking forward to seeing where the next season takes us. If you’re one of those that gave up too soon on Smith, give him another try. If you really don’t like him, fine. I miss Tennant myself, and I’d have loved for him to stay longer. But such is the nature of The Doctor.

-

Yes, that’s right. I can be found on yet another social network. If you’ve got the inclination, add me to your Tumblr feed!

Strange Like That Tumblr

-