This seems to be recent:
http://www.prairiedogmag.com/news/?c=eq ... rt&id=1563
(RW tweeted a link)
It's an interview at the site of Prairie Dog Magazine (Regina SK Canada), with RW, titled "Revenge Of The Nerd Girls", about her favorite topic.
Author introduces topic by including a line he intended in jest:
Here’s what I think we should do: Call them fakers, tell them to get back into the kitchen, talk about their boobs a lot and if that doesn’t drive them off, we can threaten to rape them.
Oops, there goes his chance to be best buddies with PZ, Ophelia, or anyone at A+!
He writes about Sarkeesian, sounding like he finds her project inspirational.
He moves on from Sarkeesian-praise to give RW's version of elevator-proposal and "Guys don't do that" and the things people posted about her or emailed her. He doesn't seem to have done much background reading, main source seems to be RW.
In "journalism" that sounds like it came straight from her, he writes (emphasis added by me):
But in typical internet fashion, that nugget of wisdom provoked a backlash of epic proportions. She was quickly branded anti-man, anti-sex and anti-fun; on blogs she was referred to as “Rebeccunt Twatsonâ€; a site was set up to lobby the SGU to kick her off the show.
And, while that went on publicly on the Internet, her e-mail inbox overflowed with rape and death threats.
And all of that — the insults, the threats — was coming from skeptics, atheists and promoters of science, the very people that Watson had until then considered her confederates in a global nerd posse. In response, Watson started writing about what she’s experienced and posting samples of the harassment she’s faced. It’s a harrowing read.
He goes on to ask whether anonymity makes "this kind of bullying possible" then quotes RW:
There are a lot of ways that I think that this whole argument is a product of the Internet, but that said, I don’t think they’re going to win. Even with the anonymity and the distance that the Internet provides, I think that ultimately people are starting to recognize this is a serious problem and there are going to start being real social consequences for people who bully and harass women.
Er, anonymity & distance...yet (a) you know they are all atheists/skeptics/etc, and (b) you foresee real social consequences? Pray tell, how does that work?
He comments that women have "backed away from the Internet" due to harassment then quotes RW as saying (in part):
So I certainly don’t blame those women who step out of the spotlight because of it. But for every woman that does that, I think that the rest of us get louder. And I think that there are more women who get angrier and start speaking up more. And I also think that every time that happens there are men who get angry as well, and who want to help and who do that by speaking out against other men who are being misogynists and who help by bolstering the women who are continuing to speak out. So I don’t think that we’re experiencing a net loss of voices. The fact that we’re experiencing any loss at all is a testament to how bad the bullying is. But that said, I think that overall our voices are growing louder and that’s a very good thing.
Her response to his next comment seems to describe women as all being in agreement with her: "It’s just very visible because it’s happening online and because
all of us women are speaking out against it at once and we’re joining together." (Though it's possible she said, or meant something that would sound similar, like "all these women" not "all of us women")
When asked how long she can keep this up, she replies:
I have no plans of giving up any time soon. I’m a very competitive person and so if I know somebody wants me to quit that just makes me want to be that much louder. They’re using the wrong tactics. If they want me to go away what they should do is stop harassing women. Then I’ll give up because there’s no more fight.
