Each new video that Anita Sarkeesian posts is a sign that the bullies are losing

I am taking a break from my romantic Highland holiday to say Shut Up Ed.

Back to the holiday.

Have a lovely holiday, saphy!

Matthew Cline, didn’t you used to post here as “kymchanur” or something like it? I recognize your avatar.

Yeah, I decided to change my ‘nym to my real name.

Reblogged this on sindhuspace.

Do note that Thunderf00t is an outspoken atheist criticizing religion (or, sometimes, threatening and being an asshole to religious people, because he’s a sanctimonious dipshit). Atheists get a lot of flak merely by existing, and he’s attracting the ire of people known for angry responses to any criticism. The attacks he receives are NOT the statistical normal.

Also, compare the abuse received by Thunderf00t to that received by Rebecca Watson. I bet you’ll find a difference.

Ed said: “I really want to understand these issues and the best way (for me) to understand them is to talk about them, here opposing points of view, and reform my opinions and knowledge.” – Ed

OK, logic troll. You want a gender studies lesson? Prepare to get schooled.

You write that you didn’t bring up your family to prove you’re not a misogynist troll, and go on to say there are plenty of parents who are misogynists.

That’s exactly my fuckin’ point, Ed: every man (and woman) on Earth has at least one female relative. Even with fertility medicine as it is, you still need female gametes and a surrogate to have a child. There is nothing special about having two daughters; you could have just as easily had two sons.

Then, you write that you bring up your wife and daughters because “I’m hoping you will realize these issues are important to me.”

Why? If you were gay and adopted two sons would you have no reason to oppose sexism? Why does having daughters (something you didn’t choose to do) make you want to “understand” gender issues? Is it because only women can profit from ending sexism, and men cannot?

You write that it matters to you the sexist messaging your daughters will encounter (and have encountered) in video games; the games you yourself play & enjoy.

What about the boys playing these games? You know, the ones in your eight-year-old’s class; the ones she might date in another eight years? Don’t those games expose those boys to harmful messages about women and girls; messages which you yourself have a hard time identifying as sexist and harmful until your daughter picks up the controller?

Aren’t boys your daughter’s age more susceptible to sexist tropes in the games they play than you, a grown man playing the same game? Aren’t they more likely to uncritically absorb what they’re playing? And once these boys grow up, do you expect them to be able to table those sexist notions in a way you yourself cannot?

I say this because you seem to be holding up your daughters as a reason to care about these issues; charitably, you feel a need to protect them from this big, bad, sexist world. But rather than teaching your girls to be damsels, why not criticize these games, which teach children of both genders incredibly regressive ideas about gender?

Here’s the last thing. You wrote “There is no master plan here. I’m not trying to “expose” anyone and I don’t have any ulterior motives.” – Ed

You know what? Neither did the god-damn game designers. They don’t add whores to video games out of malice, or damsel women to repress the next generation of them. The designers aren’t patriarchal villains, scheming to keep women helpless via the social and cultural subtext of their game. They do it because it’s a lazy, common technique: a recognizable pattern designed to convey information to an audience.

If that last part sounded familiar, it’s because Anita Sarkeesian said it about it about six times in her videos. If you didn’t get that the first time, go watch them again and quit asking us ladies to connect the dots for you.

-Caroline.

Also, compare the abuse received by Thunderf00t to that received by Rebecca Watson. I bet you’ll find a difference.

…and Melody Hensley.
Keep in mind that he’s condoned and even encouraged alot of the harassment aimed at women in atheism.

Ed: If you do indeed have two daughters, I would hope you can find it in your heart to be much, much more concerned about the amount of vile behavior Sarkeesian has faced over these documentaries. Because you know what’s even more important than video games not resorting to lazy, anti-woman tropes as a matter of course? Women being able to say things on the internet (even grim, boring things) without getting chased out of their own houses for it.

Is it important that your daughters are able to speak their minds — even if it’s in a grim, boring way — without getting a deluge of graphic, violent threats? If somehow, heavens forbid, one of them somehow incurs the wrath of hateful vermin on the internet, is it important to you that they have some sort of recourse? Protection? A strong, clear voice from society that is willing to step in and say “This is not okay”?

If that matters to you, then it is in everyone’s interest to wholeheartedly condemn the crusade against Sarkeesian. You don’t have to like her videos or agree with a single point she makes in order to do that. You don’t have to forego understanding the cause of the outrage. Heck, you can even feel bad for the miserable dudes whose lives are so empty that they become vicious if someone looks at their hobby crossways.

But to refuse to come out and say, “This campaign of hate and harassment is inexcusable, and needs to stop. End of story”, preferring instead to understaaaaand why the dudes are so angry, all the while nitpicking every less-than-riveting aspect of the Tropes series, is to tell those dudes that they kinda have a point.

They do not have a point. They are entitled to have a negative opinion on the series, they are even entitled to hate Sarkeesian with the fire of a thousand suns, but they do not have any grounds whatsoever to doxx her, hack her, or send her death threats. That is not remotely justified. Why is it so hard to say that much, clearly, and let it stand on its own?

There are plenty of other times and/or places on the internet to critique Sarkeesian’s presentation style. A discussion examining the abuse being hurled at her is not one of those places.

And that first “one” should be “up”.

OK, this is a random response to Falconer a couple days ago in the thread:

Fire Emblem and Valkyria Chronicles both feature women in every role, and in fact some of my most valuable Fire Emblem soldiers have been women (e.g., Titania and Nefenee). Note no boob plate on either of them (although the point at the front of Nephenee’s breastplate looks uncomfortable).

While true of the older games, if anybody considers the new 3ds Fire Emblem, be warned it’s very… uh questionable… Example: Half naked 1000 year old dragon that “happens” to lookact like a 13 year old girl.

This + the marriage mechanic = more questionable.

Warning over.

Can we get a troll removal from this aisle please:

judging threats isn’t very interesting but finding out why threats are made is very interesting

Yes, let’s do an academic analysis on a blog, on the internet.

Right, I’ve contacted David and the other mods about this. “Judging threats isn’t very interesting” in the context of Anita Sarkeesian and David receving actual death threats is way over the line as far as I’m concerned.

Ed: piss off and don’t come back.

@Edward Gemmer:

Not sure what to make of this. Are you saying I have a valid point, but have to paint your agreement in insults and smug condescension so you can still be popular for your friends? Whatever. Like I said, judging threats isn’t very interesting but finding out why threats are made is very interesting, at least to me.

Oh, shut up. This isn’t about you. I’m not looking for your validation, and I’m not insulting you because I want to “be popular with my friends”, you piece of shit. I’m insulting you because you’re a fucking smug, condescending asshole who thinks he should have the right to a calm and civil discussion about what the bullies driving Sarkeesian out of her home might have to say.

You seem to think that the mind of a bully is a fascinating and complex place. It’s not, it’s very predictable. A bully is someone who believes that might makes right. They don’t care about engaging an opponent with reason and discourse when they can rely on the threat of violence to shut their victims up. The misogynistic, racist, homophobic bully can fall back on a culturally strengthened sense of entitlement and superiority and the expectation that “lesser people” (women, POC, trans people, etc.) who fight against oppression and injustice should suck it up, because our society sure as hell won’t be helping the oppressed people.

The bullies are defending cultural oppression because they feel they benefit from the oppression in some way, not because they have valid criticism that they have trouble expressing, or because their victim provoked them and they were unable to not make rape and death threats as a response because they are socially awkward or have Asbergers or just need more hugs or whatever crappy reason you can think of to shift some of the blame of their behavior on their victims. Why do you think the same people who deny the existence of rape culture are the first to express their wish that the person discussing it be raped? The self-awareness is not strong in bullies. In a nutshell: The misogynistic bullies attacking Sarkeesian are not motivated by anything else besides a sense of entitlement aggravated by a societal narrative that supports their sense of superiority in relation to other groups.

Sometimes, even privileged people who object to the cultural inequalities might become targets of their wrath (like David, who has received death threats for writing about the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian). This is because privileged people who make an effort to fight injustices that they benefit from are seen as traitors to their gender, race, sexual orientation or other quality. Still, oppressed groups receive much more hate, because on top of calling out said cultural fucked-upness, they are also part of the “lesser people” who don’t “know their place”. As weirwoodtreehugger wrote, the hate Sarkeesian is receiving is so over-the-top because she’s a woman criticising misogyny in our culture. If she was just criticising a particular, non-gendered narrative trope, she would probably still be harassed and abused because she’s a woman talking in a public space, but likely not quite as terribly as she is now.

You compared Cheney’s reaction to criticism towards United States’ foreign politics to people objecting to threats made against Sarkeesian. This is a false dichotomy because USA, like any other powerful western country, is built on imperialistic policies that oppress other countries, particularly in the third world. Although one could argue that terrorists protesting against these policies may have a point, they’re usually attacking innocent people and likewise attempting to make people obey them by using force. It’s a bullies vs. bullies situation. Feminists and other decent people condemning the death and rape threats are not comparable, as Sarkeesian is not a bully whose actions could in any shape or form call for the abuse and harassment she’s receiving. Sarkeesian is examining and criticising narrative tropes that paint women as props to the story of the male protagonist, and this does not sit well with people who see nothing wrong with dismissive, objectifying treatment of women. Also, it’s not feminists who are doxing and threatening the bullies, so there’s nothing similar about this situation.

As such, it seems you’re only interested in trying to examine what Sarkeesian did to provoke the bullies, instead of accepting that sometimes, the issue isn’t a complex one. As pallygirl said upthread, if the online harassers actually wanted to make a point, they’d criticise the problems they have with the claims in Sarkeesian’s videos. What they’re doing is trying to frighten an “uppity” woman into silence. They’re bullies, pure and simple, and a bully is not a complicated beast.

You might not be a bully yourself, Edward Gemmer, but you’re certainly feeding into the cultural narrative that bullies are just misunderstood people who should be listened to more, and their victims should stop provoking them to not bring their wrath upon themselves. You should seriously start addressing the actual points made by people in this thread instead of desperately trying to make this whole thing about you.

Well, that was a disjointed mess. I blame this on my hangover and the fact that this topic makes me pretty goddamn furious.

TL;DR: Shut up, Ed.