An apology from a Man
Reply #105 - March 09, 2015, 02:10 AM
Anita Sarkeesian is a woman with a very sordid history indeed. First, she "worked" as a con artist, no literally, she got involved in an MLM scheme that wasn't even one of the ones that sells products, the one she was involved in was how to convince people in MLMs that sell products that they're in a great career and all they need is more energy and enthusiasm and networking. Then she went into a career of peddling lies about psychology, gender, sexual dimorphism, and other stuff. So she raised $158,922 on kickstarter to do a video series about women in video games, which was due to be released in 2012 and hasn't been yet, even tho she's kept on raising money for it.
Then she found the even more lucrative career of scheduling talks on the subject of feminism with non-refundable booking fees, and then lying about threats to her safety and cancelling them, pocketing the cash. And yes, they are lies about the threats, none of the threats have been real enough to have warranted a police or FBI investigation. And she "reports" the threats to twitter before the police anyway, which shows how seriously she herself takes them. I worked in a place that had a bomb threat protocol. The protocol was not "update your social network status, complain about people disliking you, pretend that people talking about their opinions of you is equivalent to the hatred of all people similar to you, set up a charity to help you deal with these threats, then call the police." That's not, under normal circumstances, what people who are legit afraid for their lives do.
It's not claims to equality that confuse me, it's claims to equality when that equality is physically impossible, especially when such claims are self-contradictory. It's not sexist that most men can pee while standing while most women can't without a contraption to make that possible. It's not sexist that most men cannot experience childbirth. Not all women can either, what's the point of that line of argument?
Another thing that makes me facepalm is the denial of data and facts that inconvenient to the narrative, especially when this helps no one; and when people forgo helping real people because they're too busy crying about the treatment of imaginary ones. Look how much money Anita Sarkeesian has gotten to fight against how women are portrayed in video games, even tho the link between video game violence and real world violence was debunked ages ago. Also look at how she is NOT using that money to help real women who are forced into slavery or are being abused or are forced into child marriages or are being subjected to mutilation, rape, torture, etc. How much permanent housing and clean water and food supplies do you think she could have gotten for refugees and orphanages and other REAL PEOPLE who legitimately need help? But instead she whines about how video games, even video games with strong female characters, are sexist.
Same thing with critics of portrayals of women on TV. If you want to complain about the writing in the movie not being significant when it's between female characters, ask yourself, "Is the dialogue between the rest of the characters any good, or at all substantial?" Chances are no, it's probably a movie that is focused on something other than talking. Like fighting. Explosions are quite popular. If you want to complain about women being the victims of violence on TV, ask yourself this: do you think things would be better for women if women were portrayed as rapists, serial killers, etc? Would that help real world women? And anyways, what does it matter? TV, like video games, has no predictive value for real-world violence.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for I have a sonic screwdriver, a tricorder, and a Type 2 phaser.
Topic: An apology from a Man