James Caruthers wrote:
<snip>
Anita is describing how the lens of feminism often creates these situations where new feminists are abuzz with this secret knowledge of noticing how shit is sexist and having to tell everyone. Particularly, I would imagine, in the academic setting from which she comes. But that's just my opinion going off my own experiences with obnoxious feminists.
Anita is actually saying that constantly pointing out sexist shit is annoying as hell. Be more tactful. Don't flip out and sperge. Which is good advice for both feminists and MRAs, and any group who has a lens through which they view the world.
Yeah, SD, maybe she does believe everything is to some extent sexist or whatever, but she also says
there's nothing wrong with enjoying something that's sexist for what it is. She's not actually advocating what people using the quote like to claim she's advocating.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... censorship
“It’s both possible, and even necessary, to simultaneously enjoy media while also being critical of its more problematic or pernicious aspects.”
^First source I could find that had the "it's ok to enjoy sexist shit" quote.
Her approach to pointing out sexist tropes is consistent with her view that feminists should take a more systemic approach and de-emphasize individuals. IE the developer of that game isn't an evil sexist; the game has sexist tropes in it. A gamer isn't a sexist for playing a game with sexist shit in it; the game just has sexist shit in it as a result of various systems of oppression or whatever nonsense (and the sexism may not be even intentional) and Anita wants less sexist shit in her games in the future.
I think the most angry Anita critics are more angry for what they perceive as her role in a grand SJW conspiracy to Destroy Everything than for what she
actually says in her videos. I don't agree with her videos btw and think her points are pretty dumb, but so are a lot of her critics.
Probably the worst (stupidest) thing she ever said was about mass shootings.
By all means, rip into her for this stupid shit. ^ People are understandably emotionally invested in discussions of mass shootings and it smacks of absolute idiocy to post a blase statement like this on fucking Twitter of all places. There's enough material to unpack in what she said to fill an article, and she probably should have done that instead so maybe she wouldn't look so dumb.
I agree that Sarkeesian isn't as dumb and obnoxious as many Tumblrinas, and so she doesn't want to claim that all gamers and video game developers are sexist shitbags like many idiots on Twitter. After all that's not a good policy if you want to promote yourself in the field. She wants to be able to talk with people like Joss Whedon or Stephen Colbert, so she can't just attack them like the rabid trans activists or Suey Park (respectively) did. She has to keep a sane(r) profile if she wants to be taken seriously.
I also agree that the SJWs (at least the smarter ones) do not support a Great Conspiracy to Censor Everything (although they can be "useful idiots" to some politicians who want to have more control on the Internet). Their aims are subtler and more long-term. They don't want to "ban that sick filth", they want to influence popular culture and society at large into accepting their ideas and changing to accommodate for their aims.
Of course this can't be done yelling, cursing and whining, Big Red or Peezus style. Sarkeesian is smart enough to realize that being an obnoxious cunt is counterproductive in the long run. And we've seen what happens to the most obnoxious cunts: they go the FTB way. Not a very good business plan.
However while she's not an idiotic screaming harpy, or an agent of the
Illuminati censors, she still promotes the same extreme feminist ideas about society:
http://www.viralglobalnews.com/wp-conte ... olence.png
The image above shows that she has some pretty dumb ideas about fictional violence. Even some SJWs have frowned at her for saying this.
http://i.imgur.com/VphhiBg.png
This is an authoritarian idea, and a pretty sexist and dumb one, to boot.
http://www.viralglobalnews.com/wp-conte ... helter.jpg
She leaves no space for satire. That's pretty dumb, too.
https://feelsandreals.files.wordpress.c ... 1024&h=611
"Prejudice+power". That's the same old SJW meme.
https://angelwitchpaganheart.files.word ... =281&h=300
This is some A-grade dumbass neo-Marxist nonsense. Many feminists disagree with that. Many feminists want more freedom of choice, not an abstract "collective liberation" which doesn't treat them as individuals with rights but only as cogs in the machine of the Glorious Revolution.
To say nothing of Sarkeesian's contempt for sex workers and porn stars. She's a patronizing sex negative ideologue, and many sex workers activists and pron stars have repeatedly told her to go to Hell.
I really don't see a lot of difference between Sarkeesian and the Atheism Plus forum folks like Alex Seanchai. They, just like Sarkeesian, said that you should be able to enjoy things while seeing how "problematic" they are. They, just like Sarkeesian, also said that using sexist tropes in a work of art or enjoying a sexist work of art doesn't make you sexist.
I appreciate what you're doing and I agree that taking her "everything is problematic" quote out of context is intellectually dishonest. She's not as dumb as some of her critics think, and she's certainly not promoting explicit censorship, if only because that would alienate her friends in the entertainment business. She's no Sarah Butts or Suey Park.
I don't think she's "just a shitty critic" as you say, and I think she's far more authoritarian than she lets on. She's a disciple of the same school of insane radical feminism that praises loons like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon. She's just subtler and smarter about the way she presents her ideas. That's why she, and not Sarah Butts or Suey Park, is the one who's invited to take selfies with Joss Whedon and to be interviewed by Stephen Colbert. I dare to say that she's probably the one who sponsored Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper to Google, since she's far more famous and a far better speaker and ideologue than those two.
I agree that many her critics are morons who have little to no nuance and critical thinking and just whine about a problem (direct censorship) which very likely doesn't exist. However I still think that Sarkeesian is, in the long run, a promoter of dangerous, stupid, authoritarian ideas, and that her efforts could be used as an excuse by some politicians to enact some (subtly) authoritarian laws.
She's probably aware of that. It wouldn't surprise me if she's been in contact with people like Elizabeth Warren or Jerry Brown.