RE: Gaming's "Greatest Adversary"

The following is a repost of my comments on the article from Bloomsberg Businessweek. As I have serious doubts that the post will remain due to it exposing the highly inaccurate nature of the article, I am reposting it here as a refutation of that article. The original article is linked below:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-11-26/anita-sarkeesian-battles-sexism-in-games-gamergate-harassment?hootPostID=e61f286d3f9fe1869809de3bda829add

And now the response:

Wow, I stopped reading at "each episode takes hundreds of hours of gameplay which she does herself or with McIntosh."

It's already been proven that she lifted the bulk of her footage off other people's YouTube channels. She didn't play any of those games, and outright misrepresents many.

http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html

And she says she played first person shooters and could find women's butts to stare at? Really? Do I need to break out my CoD discs and show you how stupid that is? I stared at several hours of men's fronts and back sides. Don't remember even seeing a female butt. What games did she play in those hours of research? Likely not many, if she played at all. Because, by her own admission, she hates violent games. Here, in her own words!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW-69xXD734

This article is terribly researched. Both of those took me exactly 30 seconds each to google. In 60 seconds of research I've torn a hole in your narrative.

And that person who comes back with each new video? We in #GamerGate found him. He's also the likely source of Anita's USU death threat.

http://kotaku.com/the-anita-sarkeesian-hater-that-everyone-hates-1658494441

And that's from a site that is ANTI-GAMERGATE! We know who her harasser is. We wanted her to press charges. She didn't and hasn't. Ask yourself why. Why is it that we, in #GamerGate, are trying to bring this man to justice, and she is not involving herself.

Tack on 30 more seconds of research there. 90 seconds of Google searches.

And where is the fact that #GamerGate has an active anti-harassment group going after those same threats you talk about. You see, instead of laying back and lamenting attacks, we're trying to do something about them. Instead of writing an article online to get ad revenue, we're out there finding, reporting, and removing these elements. Your subject won't even press charges against a known harasser!

Also, do you realize how sexist your article is? Let me grab a couple quotes quickly:

"Petite and fair, with long, shiny hair the color of merlot, chunky boots, and nails painted gold,"

Why are you objectifying her based on her appearance? It shouldn't matter if she showed up with her hair in a pony tail wearing decades old sneakers, no makeup or nail polish. And who cares about her weight? You've reduced her to a label in saying:

"Sarkeesian, 31, telegraphs an earnest grad student."

So are you saying all grad students are petite and fair? With long hair and chunky boots? That's sexist as hell.

And then you say this near your conclusion:

"A blond woman sitting at the next table before an array of New York City street"

What does her hair colour matter? Why is this essential to your story? Is it so you can say blonds like her too? It's an irrelevant detail, again summarizing the appearance of a woman based on one trait.



And finally, by way of bias, how long have you and Anita been in communication? I went by both of your Twitter accounts. Now, what you may not realize is that they are sorted by most recent follower to least recent. You appear fairly far down the list. So how long have you two known each other? Could this be why your article is so biased? Could that be why you never mention any of items I put herein?


Remember, #GamerGate is about ethics. Maybe that subject makes people in journalism far too uncomfortable these days.

Can I be a non-profit too?

I never like mentioning this woman's name. It is what she wants, it is what she craves, and it's the driving force behind her so-called activism. But silence of a single person means little. However, adding to the voices of dissent might do much more.

Feminist Frequency founder Anita Sarkeesian has, through some horrid little loophole, turned her video-making enterprise into a non-profit organization. Rather hilariously, it falls in into class 501(c)3, where you will also find religious and anti-animal cruelty groups. Yup, her little webisode series soapbox for the evils of chauvinism in the media now groups in with PETA and the Roman Catholic Church.

This turns my stomach. Not because of the existence of her ridiculous, pointless drivel that passes as some form of revolutionary, thought-provoking series of insightful videos, but because now she has a legitimate way to pay herself a salary while at the same time hiding in a tax shelter that doubles as a criticism shield.

"Oh, you can't say that I am doing this for money. I am a non-profit, so I am not seeking money for me! It's for the project!"

The reality is that Sarkeesian exists in an echo chamber of her own creation. She repeats what she finds to be popular feminazi dogma (and before you say I am exaggerating, remember, she is in the same camp as those who see disagreement as being worse than rape threats, where men are incapable of any form of understanding of women's rights issues, and where women can get PTSD from Twitter), then makes a passively decent video to try to prove how the media pushes those ideals.

This helps no one. It's the ultimate first world problem. Women in the developed world are forced to see how sex still sells, and how some genres still have lazy tropes tossed in for the sake of justifying a character's motivations. Oh dear god, nothing worse exists in the world for women, right?

I mean, it's not like there isn't a country where there is widespread rape and murder of women, right? I mean, it's not like there is someplace where women are so marginalized by the legal system that their rape and murder isn't even really a huge crime, right? Um, have you looked at this story from India? Or, what about the Sharia, laws still enforced in some countries. I mean, that's not really important, even though it allows for honour killing of women without punishment, right?

You see, it's hard to take any of these feminazis seriously when real feminists like Margaret Atwood exist. In fact, these feminazis have poisoned the well badly enough that even she has backed off on calling herself a feminist. See, that's the problem, this over-privileged, myopic and ultimately pointless people are becoming the face people think of when the word feminist pops up. They are seen as these crazy, irrational women who want to stomp men into the turf and take control, when the reality of feminism is simply the desire that women should be seen as equals as far as human rights, pay and opportunity for advancement.

I will definitely not say that even the US is there yet. We still have a baffling pay inequity. women are still routinely seen as a second-best choice, and there are fields that could use more balance of the sexes, mainly because having another viewpoint, regardless of sex, is better than an old boy's club of people who all agree.

Validating Sarkeesian's pointless video diatribes with the self-righteous stamp of non-profit is a step in the wrong direction. It gives her a pseudo-credibility with anyone who does not think hard enough on the fact that the company, not herself, is non-profit, and that non-profits are fully able to pay staff so long as the net gain for the business is 0. The only advantage I can see is that as a non-profit, she will be required to file her income, and that will be information we, the public, have a legal right to.