<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Magazines and TV Agree: Geeks are Lovable</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:01:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable/comment-page-1#comment-587</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable#comment-587</guid>
		<description>I actually used to work at Tango. Great magazine, fun people. :o)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I actually used to work at Tango. Great magazine, fun people. :o)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Tocci</title>
		<link>http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable/comment-page-1#comment-574</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Tocci</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 16:28:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable#comment-574</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t seen that &lt;i&gt;Bitch&lt;/i&gt; article, but I&#039;d be interested in it. Any idea which issue it was in? 

I saw some other articles related to this discussion that I&#039;ve been compiling for a link post on geeks and gender (including one fellow arguing that women don&#039;t know how to hide their geekiness like a &lt;i&gt;proper&lt;/i&gt; geek, which was certainly a new argument to me)...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t seen that <i>Bitch</i> article, but I&#8217;d be interested in it. Any idea which issue it was in? </p>
<p>I saw some other articles related to this discussion that I&#8217;ve been compiling for a link post on geeks and gender (including one fellow arguing that women don&#8217;t know how to hide their geekiness like a <i>proper</i> geek, which was certainly a new argument to me)&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Church</title>
		<link>http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable/comment-page-1#comment-572</link>
		<dc:creator>Church</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 05:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable#comment-572</guid>
		<description>Huh. I&#039;ve been noting the uptick in interest in geek guys lately, and the accompanying (small) disgruntled noises coming from the geek girls. 

Two observations:

One, There just aren&#039;t as many Ggirls as Gguys. Yeah, you can argue that. Proceed to Item Two.

Two, Ggirls tend to be better at subliminating the fact that they are geeks. (Often, they find a not-considered-extremely-geeky outlet for their geeky proclivities. Anything from politics to knitting topologies.) 

Three, (THREE observations!) the overall culture expects less in the way of social initiation for girls (at least initially, the subsequent stuff is whitewater at its finest.) Thus Ggirl wallflowers will eventually get some interaction, while Gguy wallflowers will get very little.

Did I miss anything?

(Oh, and somewhere I have the original BITCH Hypercard stack. I&#039;ve got to properly archive that at some point.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Huh. I&#8217;ve been noting the uptick in interest in geek guys lately, and the accompanying (small) disgruntled noises coming from the geek girls. </p>
<p>Two observations:</p>
<p>One, There just aren&#8217;t as many Ggirls as Gguys. Yeah, you can argue that. Proceed to Item Two.</p>
<p>Two, Ggirls tend to be better at subliminating the fact that they are geeks. (Often, they find a not-considered-extremely-geeky outlet for their geeky proclivities. Anything from politics to knitting topologies.) </p>
<p>Three, (THREE observations!) the overall culture expects less in the way of social initiation for girls (at least initially, the subsequent stuff is whitewater at its finest.) Thus Ggirl wallflowers will eventually get some interaction, while Gguy wallflowers will get very little.</p>
<p>Did I miss anything?</p>
<p>(Oh, and somewhere I have the original BITCH Hypercard stack. I&#8217;ve got to properly archive that at some point.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mudd</title>
		<link>http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable/comment-page-1#comment-571</link>
		<dc:creator>Mudd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Dec 2007 03:27:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable#comment-571</guid>
		<description>Did you see the article in Bitch Magazine (&quot;A feminist response to pop culture&quot;) about how girl geeks are getting left out of the media love fest over awkward, nerdy boys?  Interesting...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you see the article in Bitch Magazine (&#8220;A feminist response to pop culture&#8221;) about how girl geeks are getting left out of the media love fest over awkward, nerdy boys?  Interesting&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason Tocci</title>
		<link>http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable/comment-page-1#comment-569</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason Tocci</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Dec 2007 16:06:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.geekstudies.org/2007/12/magazines-and-tv-agree-geeks-are-lovable#comment-569</guid>
		<description>Also courtesy &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tangomag.com/20071132/nerds-like-to-date-online-too.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;/i&gt;Tango&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, see this &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boston.com/yourlife/relationships/articles/2007/07/11/geeks_take_back_online_dating/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;I&gt;Boston Globe&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt; article titled &quot;Geeks Take Back Online Dating.&quot; It refers to geek dating services like Sweet on Geeks:
&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;It&#039;s for people who know that society wants to shun them. But we&#039;re really proud of the fact that we&#039;re geeks so it just takes itself very lightly,&quot; [site user] Riviere said. &quot;Anything I put on Sweet on Geeks is going to be true and honest; on, like, a normal dating website I&#039;d give it a little more consideration.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
I forgot to mention, too, that the TODAY/Tango article described above mentions that Chicago actually has a geek dating service, but I&#039;ve already updated this post something like six times as I find new tidbits and add-ons—new stuff in the comments, then. Enjoy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Also courtesy <i><a href="http://www.tangomag.com/20071132/nerds-like-to-date-online-too.html" rel="nofollow"></a></i>Tango, see this <a href="http://www.boston.com/yourlife/relationships/articles/2007/07/11/geeks_take_back_online_dating/" rel="nofollow"><i>Boston Globe</i></a> article titled &#8220;Geeks Take Back Online Dating.&#8221; It refers to geek dating services like Sweet on Geeks:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;It&#8217;s for people who know that society wants to shun them. But we&#8217;re really proud of the fact that we&#8217;re geeks so it just takes itself very lightly,&#8221; [site user] Riviere said. &#8220;Anything I put on Sweet on Geeks is going to be true and honest; on, like, a normal dating website I&#8217;d give it a little more consideration.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>I forgot to mention, too, that the TODAY/Tango article described above mentions that Chicago actually has a geek dating service, but I&#8217;ve already updated this post something like six times as I find new tidbits and add-ons—new stuff in the comments, then. Enjoy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

