female LoL tournament puts restrictions Gay and Trans competitors

[Surgebound Rainspren he/him]

So I want to start a discussion about this topic, because i want another viewpoint other than Tumblr and my friends. 

 

A all female League of legends Tournament has put a restriction on Transgender and Lesbian women. It states that only one Trans or lesbian can be on a team per day! The justification for these restrictions is that Trans or lesbian women have a "unfair" advantage.

 

I understand where their coming from on this as many other sports would pose restrictions on Trans women (male to female) because of biological advantages. But this is not the case for E sports as gender has no real advantage for playing video games.

 

so what are your guys opinions...do you agree or disagree, and why   

[Quiver he/him]

Oh yeah, I can absolutely see where they are coming from. After all, real girl's don't play video games. So obviously, "fake" girls- like lesbians and transwomen- would have an advantage, because, you know, they're more like men, and totally play video games a lot. It's not discriminatory, it's a handicap!

 

 

In case it's not obvious, this... annoys me. Greatly. As background, I have never played League of Legends, but that's really, really not the point. The point is that discriminating like that? Is wrong. 

Strangely enough, I don't think this is an LBGT thing. The justification they gave for it- trans and lesbian women having an "unfair advantage"- makes it sound as if this is another of those "women don't play video games" arguments that spread across the internet, popular variations of which include "women don't read comic books", and "women only watch Doctor Who because the Doctor is hot".

 

Of course, even if it is based on that... it falls back on my sarcastic explanation for it. That trans/lesbian women (by default) play games and aren't "real" women. So, while I suspect that ban may have been put into place because of sexism rather than queer-bashing... storms, that restriction is insulting.

 

On the plus side, the restriction seems to have been lifted. On the downside, the fact that it existed to begin with kind-of re-enforces some of the issues kind of prevalent in the gaming community.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Quiver

[traceria she/her]

The ONLY possible reasoning I can come up with for why they might have an advantage (not necessarily an unfair one) is that maybe something in their background or life growing up has given them more opportunity to play, and thus, excel at said video games.  I want to mention this because as a woman who studied mathematics in college, there is still a gap present in the number of women you see in scientific fields compared to the number of men.  A lot of it comes down to the support or lack thereof that is given to young girls when they're their most malleable.  I was very fortunate to have really awesome math and science teachers throughout school that not only reinforced my natural ability but really made me love it.  Plus, my dad was a science guy and was always engaging my brother and I at the dinner table in math/science talks.  Sadly, there are a lot of pressures that still exist that push girls away from these fields.  I think the same tends to happen with video and computer games, though this is definitely changing now.

 

All that said, if opportunity and extended exposure should be a criterion for making such a discrimination, then a large group of athletes would not be able to compete in other realms of physical sports either.  Think of all the Olympic athletes that start at extremely young ages.  Should they be told they can't compete because they have the unfair advantage of more training time?  Nope.  Rather, it is good for the sport to have people who are pushing the limits and setting new and exciting records, etc.

 

Also, go C9!  (Please try to win both your matches this weekend!)

 

(Edit to add thing about my dad.)

Edited February 6, 2015 by traceria

[Argent he/him]

I don't see what we have to discuss, this is utter bullchull. They are either being idiots for enforcing this rule, or there is some kind of weird - and even more idiotic - legal requirement for them to do that.

Edited February 6, 2015 by little wilson
refrain from cursing please

[Cartith he/him]

We must Riot!

[king of nowhere]

Seems very stupid, and also nonsensical. if you suggest that lesbian women have unfair advantage, then you should not limit them to one per day, you should ban them at all and have them play among the males. and also if you think having a maale or female brain matters, than you should allow gay males.

 

But as for whether it is justified or not, I wouldn't be so sure. To my best knowledge, science is still quite uncertain on whether the congitive differences between men and women are there because of biology or because of cultural pressure.  I was going to say that on something not requiring physical strenght it is pointless to even put gender restrictions, but then, in chess there are gender differetiations, and also, like, 99% of the world top players are men, with judit polgar as the only exception.

And while, as I said, science is uncertain on whether the difference is ccultural or not, my own experience suggests that it is likely at least partly biological. My chess club has been teaching chess in elementary school for years in an attempt to get more players. at that time, we still get many girls. most people quit after a few years, but generally there are a few that stays. And girls always quit. In 20 years, despite having almost as many girls as boys learning to play at school, we didn't got a single girl to stay with us past age 14. Notice that many of those girls had supportive families, some were even daughters of other chessplayers. Also notice that, while chess is considered nerdy, it is such for both genders.

Therefore, I would not rule out that a biological difference exist. And if men were naturally advantaged at a sport, maybe it would be fair to keep a distinction.

 

We live in a liberated, emancipated society that put emphasis over what you strive for rather than over innate advantages. "all men are created equals" is one of our most basic tenets. we recognize the idea that people are innately better than others as a remnant of racism and sexism and class separation, we associate it with those ideas, and we therefore want to reject it. Some people can be quite vocal about it.

However, it is foolish to ignore data just because it conflicts with the desired result (thanks Jasnah). It is certain that the brain is regulated by genetics; we evolved from proto-apes because the smarter hominids made smarter sons, or we would not be here.

So I think the belief "all men are equal" is inaccurate and should be instead replaced with "all men are different, but have equal dignity".

Basically, it means that people have innate attitudes at something, and this give them an advantage over others, but that's no good reason to discriminate. it also means that no one is good at everything. I am good at science, you are good at personal relationship, well, it's not like one is better than the other, we are just that, different, and we all can give our contribution to society. Being better at something doesn't make anyone a better person.

Also, "all men are individuals" should be in that. It means that while there may be genetic thrends so that one gender is on average better than the other at something, or there may even be differences between ethnicities, you should not judge a person for what the average of his group does, but for what he does. It means that, even if it was proved that men are better at science and women are better with people, you should never tell a girl to not study mathematics, or a boy not to study pshycology, because "that's not something for a woman/man". Individual people are not statistics, there are plenty of exceptions to the general thrend, there are plenty of women who are good at math and plenty of men who are good pshycologist, so you should tell people to follow their inclinations and what makes them happy. and if you happen to be a woman goood at math, well, that's uncommon. just like having blond hair is uncommon (in most  places). just like rolling a 6 three times in a row is uncommon. nothing good or bad about it.

 

So, under all that premise, I would say that making gender restrictions on a tournament over a videogame could make sense.

I have no idea if spatial skills are related to the Y cromosome or to gender identity, so applying those restrictions to gays is doubtful at best.

However, considering that brain differences are filled much more easily than body differences, I would not make gender restrictions for brain sports, including videogames or chess, except at the highest level. there's just not enough difference to justify it.

So, I still think what they did was stupid.

 

Also, can someone put a link to it? I would not surprise if all this turned out to be a urban legend, maybe originated by a misunderstanding. I would also be surprised if riot did such a blunder, because really, whether it is justified or not, in terms of public relations that's a huge loss.

Edited February 6, 2015 by king of nowhere

[SmurfAquamarineBodies he/him]

@ Cartith. I upvoted because you made me laugh.

 

@ Traceria. How dare you root for C9!! ( insert face thingy that magically turns this into a joke. Is it an emoticon? They confuse me. ) 

[traceria she/her]

 

@ Traceria. How dare you root for C9!! ( insert face thingy that magically turns this into a joke. Is it an emoticon? They confuse me. ) 

So, we live near Philly and are thus Philly sports fans.  To be a Philly fan, you have to eventually come to the terms with the fact that bad things will happen, yet you still must remain just as passionate about your teams as ever.  Look at the Flyers this year:  They have two of the NHL's top point leaders and, in the case of Voracek, the top goal scorer and yet the team is doing TERRIBLE.  So, once we'd committed to being C9 fans (by the end of last season), what happens?  Super rough start to this season.  You have to be fatalistic to be a Philly sports fan, and apparently either me or my husband or both our powers combined at least affected C9 for the first couple weeks, if not this past weekend. 

[maxal she/her]

I believe the question should be: "Why did LoL started having female only tournaments?". Is it because the tenets truly believe men have an unfair advantage when playing against women due to their biology or is it because female players feel more at ease playing amongst themselves? It is not rare to see "women only" clubs, gyms, tournaments for the reason many women get intimidated joining in all-men perceived activities.

 

Therefore, if the reason is because women prefers to play with other women, then the restriction does not apply. A lesbian is a woman and a trans-genre defines itself as a woman. If these individuals are more at ease being in an all-women environment, then they should be welcomed with open arms.

 

If the reason is men truly do get an unfair advantage due to their biology, then I will a sound scientific proof that is the case. Whereas there are differences between men and women, the fact remains both sex have the potential to equally excel in any discipline not involving physical strength. However, even in our egalitarian society, young girls still receive the message they need to please to advance in life. As teenagers, they are told they need to be pretty, thin, meek and behave in a particular way if they wish to please the boys. Every young girl gets this message, no matter who their parents are, as it often originates from their peers. I do believe it is why so little girls pursue careers in mathematics or continue to nurture their interest in chess. Popular opinion does not want girls to invest into science fairs and games perceived as geeky. Popular opinion wants girls to wear make-up and play at being pretty such as to seduce the opposite sex. This message is still very strong. It is also why girls from good well-grounded families drops their childhood interests upon being teenagers to favor the mass interests. They find their influence outside their family, in friends and more importantly, on television where all girls are still depicted in insanely pretty dumb things (look at any teenage oriented show).

 

So are men getting an advantage playing a video game because they are men? I doubt so. However, they do get the advantage it is better perceived for a teenage boy to love video games than it is for a teenage girl. At least, I believe it is the case in North America.

[Scar]

This is completely unacceptable. I agree with the argument that in e-sports there really is no gender advantage... I thought that e-sports would be the one competitive medium where gender/sexual orientation bias would not be an issue :C

[SmurfAquamarineBodies he/him]

So, we live near Philly and are thus Philly sports fans.  To be a Philly fan, you have to eventually come to the terms with the fact that bad things will happen, yet you still must remain just as passionate about your teams as ever.  Look at the Flyers this year:  They have two of the NHL's top point leaders and, in the case of Voracek, the top goal scorer and yet the team is doing TERRIBLE.  So, once we'd committed to being C9 fans (by the end of last season), what happens?  Super rough start to this season.  You have to be fatalistic to be a Philly sports fan, and apparently either me or my husband or both our powers combined at least affected C9 for the first couple weeks, if not this past weekend. 

 

So Philly is Philadelphia, yes? Which is a city?

 

As to the rest of it its obviously you, you are forever cursed to be a fan of the losing team( add random face thingy that magically turns this into a joke).  

[traceria she/her]

So Philly is Philadelphia, yes? Which is a city?

 

As to the rest of it its obviously you, you are forever cursed to be a fan of the losing team( add random face thingy that magically turns this into a joke).  

Correct.  Philly = Philadelphia and not Fillydelphia.  You definitely got the idea, and it is totally a joke, if a tragic one.    

[SmurfAquamarineBodies he/him]

Correct. Philly = Philadelphia and not Fillydelphia. You definitely got the idea, and it is totally a joke, if a tragic one.

I'm so smart.

[Quiver he/him]

I believe the question should be: "Why did LoL started having female only tournaments?". Is it because the tenets truly believe men have an unfair advantage when playing against women due to their biology or is it because female players feel more at ease playing amongst themselves? It is not rare to see "women only" clubs, gyms, tournaments for the reason many women get intimidated joining in all-men perceived activities.

 

Therefore, if the reason is because women prefers to play with other women, then the restriction does not apply. A lesbian is a woman and a trans-genre defines itself as a woman. If these individuals are more at ease being in an all-women environment, then they should be welcomed with open arms.

 

How did I miss this?

 

Anyway, according to the article I linked to, it was an attempt by the people responsible (who were not the creators of the game) to encourage diversity within the gaming community.

 

And honestly, that's a very laudable goal. Regardless of the realities, gaming is viewed as a male demographic; from what I understand, that's part of the arguments in the Gamergate scandal, and from the impromptu research I just did (on wikipedia, for whatever that's worth) more than a handful of women in the industry have been threatened with rape, death, and other such things.

 

Women becoming invovled in gaming is a good thing, both when they are developers and as players, but who would want to join an environment where the above happens? So, having a women-only game to raise attention that, yes, girls can play video games and give people a "safe" place to try it is pretty good.

 

Excluding lesbians and transwomen obviously isn't, but as I say, I see the issues involved here as being issues with regards gender in general, rather than sexual identity or orientation.

 

 

 

And, just in case it's not clear, I don't mean to imply that all gamers are mysoginists, or that gaming is a male-only environment. It's not. But saying that (at least in the public conciounce) that it's a male-dominated demographic seems like a fair comment... and if developers think that their audience is a largely male one, and doesn't cater for female gamers, or creates an environment that doesn't welcome female developers, that that's an attitude that will only hurt things in the long run.

 

For a comic book example... Marvel recently announced they will be doing a book set in the year 2099, which would feature a female Captain America. According to an interview with Peter David (the books writer), the original design was someone who was more lean and willowy, and they replaced it with one based closer on female body builders, because... well, the serum gave Steve Rogers super muscles, it should do the same for women. Apparently, male fans disliked the new design, whereas female ones love it; and I'm sure at least part of that is because women in comics have had a history of having... certain body types, with certain...er... proportions. 

Honestly, I like this new design, and it is a lot more memorable and visually interesting to me than other female Caps have been. I may have issues with Marvel, but the fact that it is expanding it's female characters and treating them with respect is great, and probably will result in more girls picking up comics, or becoming comic creators in the future, which will only strengthen the industry. 

[king of nowhere]

huh, I never heard of that gamergate before. I can hardly believe it. I've been an internet gamer for four years and have never seen anything like that. Most times people treat women like anyone else, or are more supportive than they would be with males because they feel that they must try to make the women comfortable in what is perceived as a male environment. A few people will try to hit on female gamers, but I don't remember ever seeing something outspokenly rude. Guess I just have a knack for keeping away of bad companies.

Well, that at least explains why someone organized a female-only tournamment, and yes, it explains even why they limited lesbians.

But I don't know how much it is a good idea. Maybe it will make some girls feel safer to play, but it certainly will reinforce the idea of differences. Plus, men may feel the whole idea of catering to women as sexist: "Oh, if I was born a girl I would have much better customer service, that's unfair". Personally, I always felt that giving preferential access to women in activities/professions where there are few of them, for the sole purpose of encouraging them to "join the club", is counterproductive, as it establishes a sexist discrimination in favor of women to try to counterbalance existing prejudices. It's like you ahve a lame leg, and instead of trying to fix it, the doctor breaks your other leg to see if with two lame legs you'll walk straighter.

And it also won't be liked by the lgbt community.

Good intentions, the idea made  sense, but it will probably do more harm than good.

[traceria she/her]

Um...except women aren't broken?

I think it's fine to encourage women to get into fields that have been male-dominated in the past; however, I will go on to agree with you that often times this gets taken too far to the point where men, in this example, start to feel the discrimination instead.

Edit to add: Sorry to get nit-picky about your broken-leg example. I'm terrible at coming up with them myself so don't have a lot of room to speak.

Edited February 18, 2015 by traceria

[king of nowhere]

Huh, I wasn't implying that women are like broken legs and there is something wrong with them. I was implying that discrimination is like broken leg, and my example was meant to convey the image of fixing an injustice by doing another injustice in the opposite sense in the hope they will cancel each other. It often makes an improvement in the short term, but makes it more difficult to address the real issue  because now there are two injustices going, not just one, and fixing any individually will make things worse.

[traceria she/her]

I definitely agree that it can lead to another injustice, but I think it is still worthwhile to encourage women, especially young women, to pursue interests in areas and fields that were and may still be male-dominated in the past.  I don't think they should be judged on a different scale or chosen over a superior male-counterpart just because they're of the female gender.  I guess I would personally draw the line with encouraging young women.  (Hopefully that encouragement would help them to make choices for themselves with ALL the options in front of them.)  There's no need to force or even strongly encourage employers or organizations to pick a female candidate just because she's female.  Having been a young woman interested in math and science (with an education bent), which is often one of the areas that gets attention at least in the academic world, I've seen first hand the mostly unintentional push for women to look into different areas of study than math and science.  It often comes into play when girls are at a young and impressionable age and by well-meaning teachers, parents and peers.  This kind of thing can happen with boys, too, but there's not as much history or at least not history with the same flavor.  I'd sum all that up by saying there is a definite difference in encouraging the less-represented party to pursue their interests (even if they're not what most find conventional) and putting measures in place to force/coerce organizations/employers to meet percentage quotas by bringing in those same less often seen parties.

[Frosted Flakes]

When trying to decide if something is bigoted or not, I do a simple mental exercise where I replace the demographic they're talking about with Jews.

So in this isntance, if these women saying, "We don't want more than one Jew a day playing with us!" sounds ignorant, then what they're actually saying should be viewed as ignorant as well. Does that make sense?

For example, when someone says they don't think gays should marry, I imagine them saying, "I don't think Jews should marry." I wish they could hear how absurd they sound!

So if you're ever wondering if an opinion of yours is better kept to yourself, imagine redirecting that sentiment towards Jews. If it seems bigoted directed towards them, it should sound equally bigoted directed towards anyone else.

Personally, I really don't think any one demographic really want a equality anymore - everyone is just fighting for the most entitlement.

[king of nowhere]

When trying to decide if something is bigoted or not, I do a simple mental exercise where I replace the demographic they're talking about with Jews.

So in this isntance, if these women saying, "We don't want more than one Jew a day playing with us!" sounds ignorant, then what they're actually saying should be viewed as ignorant as well. Does that make sense?

 

I do revert  men/women or gay/straight, but the principle is the same. I think your jew works better because it is appliable to more situations.

 

But anyway, I thought about it a bit more and found out that the problem of prejudices is not just about sex or religion or stuff, those are only iceberg tips and more easy to recognize. The core of the issue is the idea that there is a "right" way of living, and everything else is "wrong", even if it doesn't hurt anyone. I have seen very little sexist or racist prejudice in my life, but I've seen plenty of the more general kind.

I am a nerd, I have always been, and I spent my adolescence feeling ashamed for it because I was thaught it was wrong. I am a loner, I tend to make very few friends but very close, and I am now happy with that, but at the time my parents decided that it was wrong for me to have so few friends and forced me to go to some meetings of other young people, even if i had no interest in any of them. I remember spending an evening in a pizzeria staring at the wall because the others were talking about things I had no interest whatsoever in, and having the impression that there was something wrong with me. I was told that to be happy I needed to have a girlfriend, and I spent 6 years in self pity because I didn't have one.

Then I fell in love with a girl who didn't want me, and after six more months of huge melodrama I slowly came to know her better and realized that, yes, she's beautiful, she's super sweet, she's nice, but she has a personality that is clearly incompatible with mine and I would never be able to get along with her. I still find her extremely attractive, on more than just the physical level, and I am fond of her, but I realize I cannot take her more than a few hours at a time. Now, if I could have a "friendship with benefits" with her, that would be perfect. Yeah, dream on.  And then I realized that being fianced is not just the sweet stuff that they tell you about. And then I realized that hey, I was actually pretty happy with my life if I just stopped desiring to be something else because I was supposed to be. And thus huge character development was triggered and I came to realize a lot of things about myself and the world, among them the fact that I was told a big bunch of bullrust. It also improved my relations with other people, because when I was befriending someone it was because I wanted it, and not because I was supposed to.

 

After that I started to notice that prejudice everywhere. My mother, refusing to play videogames because "they are a waste of time, they are not real life" and then spending an afternoon watching replicas of soap operas because "she's got nothing better to do". The movies with the outcast guy who would love to go to the party but they won't let him and he has to become a mainstream guy to be accepted and have fun (I was that guy; then I was allowed into the parties and got horribly bored. I wish I had known it earier). My young cousin, asking for "music that cool people listen".

Only now I realize that it is the same prejudice as sexism and racism in just a slightly different form.

 

So, instead of trying to tackle this or that manifestation of the prejudice problem, I think it is better to attack it at the core and just spread the idea that everyone is different and everyone should find his way in life without trying to conform to some standard model(s). What you want to do, not what you are supposed to wanting to do.

 

Know yourself. Know what you want. Know how much you are willing to sacrifice to get it, and how much you are not willing. Know the consequences of your actions. Act accordingly.

Worked wonderfully for me

Edited February 20, 2015 by king of nowhere

[maxal she/her]

I definitely agree that it can lead to another injustice, but I think it is still worthwhile to encourage women, especially young women, to pursue interests in areas and fields that were and may still be male-dominated in the past.  I don't think they should be judged on a different scale or chosen over a superior male-counterpart just because they're of the female gender.  I guess I would personally draw the line with encouraging young women.  (Hopefully that encouragement would help them to make choices for themselves with ALL the options in front of them.)  There's no need to force or even strongly encourage employers or organizations to pick a female candidate just because she's female.  Having been a young woman interested in math and science (with an education bent), which is often one of the areas that gets attention at least in the academic world, I've seen first hand the mostly unintentional push for women to look into different areas of study than math and science.  It often comes into play when girls are at a young and impressionable age and by well-meaning teachers, parents and peers.  This kind of thing can happen with boys, too, but there's not as much history or at least not history with the same flavor.  I'd sum all that up by saying there is a definite difference in encouraging the less-represented party to pursue their interests (even if they're not what most find conventional) and putting measures in place to force/coerce organizations/employers to meet percentage quotas by bringing in those same less often seen parties.

 

I am not a gamer myself I will therefore not presume to speak for the gamer community. However, I am a woman. I have grown in a family that did not make the distinction between genders. In other words, I grew up unaware there were such things as female fields of studies and male field of studies. Anything a boy could do, I could do it: better. I never even though my gender was a limitation or a hindrance. Everything I could possibly want was available. This is how I grew up, these are the teachings my family left for me.

 

Despite all this, when I reached 19 years of age and I had to make a career choice, gender issues ended up weighting a lot into my decision making. I had decided I would pursue my career in the field of engineering. I remember browsing through the brochure of my chosen University, reading about all the existing fields of engineering and trying to figure out which one I would like to chose. I also recall seeing this tiny chart stating the percentage of women per field and you know what? I chose based on these ridiculous chart. I dimly remember how I thought I would be more at ease in a more women oriented field such as geological engineering... and thus I ended up choosing based on gender. Me. Despite my upbringing, despite my all supporting family who thought me gender was a no issue, I still, still, STILL ended choosing based on gender.....

 

Needless to say I never did a single day in geological engineering. I changed to computer engineering on the first day, then on electrical engineering after a year. I am now an antenna designer and I do not mind being the sole woman at the dining table. In fact, I think the guys suffer me more than the other way around

 

If this how I felt when came the time to chose my career, how must other girls having grown in a different environment feel??????

 

Horrible. Out of place. Not warranted to desire to pursue their studies into a male dominated field.

 

However, I agree with you. Whereas encouraging young women to chose a scientific career is great and often necessary, giving them an unfair advantage when it comes to employment is wrong. Whoever did the best interview and has the best qualification should get the job. This is how we do our hiring where I work.

 

 

...

 

Your story makes me think of my sister who was too, a loner. I recall how my mother angst about it and how she pushed her beyond her comfort zone so she could have a chance to socialize......

 

Being a parent is hard. No matter how hard you try, you will never end up being perfect: you will make mistakes. Nothing is ever certain in life, but the day you get your first child you step foot into a world where you are faced against your own incompetence. Children, even at the youngest age, will do their best to recall you how inadequate you are and will do a gruesome work to help you realized how it is you have failed them, despite your best intentions. Nothing is ever certain in life, but every single parent will tell you this: you will screw up at least once upon becoming a parent. This may be the only certainty in life. You will make mistakes. You will misunderstand at least once this human being you loved so much and yet have so much trouble figuring out because he ends up being such a weird mix of yourself, your partner and something else all at once.

 

Upon going to the hospital to give birth, women are often told: "Have a nice encounter". Encounter. Meeting. Gee. I thought I was just having a baby, but no. You are and you aren't. You are truly going to meet another human being who may come from you, but won't be you and will have its own personality, strength and weakness. Learning to figure out this tiny being is not all that easy.

 

That being said, I gather from your experience your parents cared and loved you. They did what they thought you needed, even thought they ended up messing it up. They misunderstood you but, based on your message, it seemed to have sprouted from a good intention. They perhaps truly thought you needed to spend time with these people to make more friends. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a nerd, but some people may have more difficulty understanding it because it goes strongly against their being.

 

We also all end up falling for someone completely inadequate at least once in our life. It must be part of growing up. However, being a romantic at heart, I truly believe everyone has the power to meet someone befitting them in every way. Everyone sure deserves it.

 

Expectations are not easy to deal with, no matter what they are. Society has a knack to tell us how we should behave, what we should like or dislike, how to conduct our life. Ignoring these messages is not always easy, but the more aware we are about those, then the better we can try to become who we truly are, no matter how inadequate this may be. I truly believe we cannot be anyone else then ourselves and in the advent of adversity, we must keep trying. Trying to make ourselves understood, which is not easy. We all struggle with something no matter how wise and confident we may sound.

[king of nowhere]

Thanks for the kind words, although I did not need encouragement. Yes, my parents were loving and supporting and pretty good ones overall, but they couldn't understand certain kinds of diversity. they had no significant gender prejudices, and I am sure that if I had wanted to be a fashion designer they would have been cool with it. If I had been gay, they would have accepted it, although they would have probably considered it a handicap and not just a feature. Because that's something they can understand. But they could not understand being a loner (they still can't, but they at least accepted that I'm happy that way). It didn't help that I myself did not understood it at the time.

Also, I suppose they were right in trying to make me have more experiences; not liking them helped me realize what I am. Their mistake was to make me feel bad about it.

As for the nerd prejudices, they came mostly from the other kids, as my parents didn't even knew what a nerd was. They tried to convince me that videogames were bad for your brain cause they were stupid, but that's the one thing they could never persuade me no matter how young I was; a strategic game requires far more brain than football or any kind of "socially acceptable" activity, there's no way one can "become stupid" for playing one.

 

In retrospect it should have been so easy. I made no friends at school. I made no friends at the football club. I made no friends in the groups my parents put me in. But I made plenty of friends playing chess. That was a big hint that I didn't have a real problem socializing, I simply needed the right kind of people for it. Too bad no one in our environment had the knowledge to recognize it.

 

P.S. congrats on being an electrical engineer. My best friend was the only girl at mechanical engineering and my second best friend is the only woman above age 12 in the chess club (and has been for at least 20 years), so you are in good company.

Edited February 22, 2015 by king of nowhere