Anita Sarkeesian

Anita Sarkeesian and the feminist war on facts

Feminists lie.

Yes, yes, I know, we’re all well aware of it here. The bogus statistics on domestic violence, rape, and the wage gap are proof enough of that. All too recently, we saw a blatant attempt by feminists to censor discussions of the truth about today’s gendered state of affairs. All of this is pretty old hand to any MRA who’s been in the game long enough.

Today, however, I learned of a far more widespread, far more insidious undertaking that American feminists have been brewing for some time now. On March 15, they will be organizing a massive re-edit of Wikipedia[1], for the express purpose of “counteract[ing] the very white straight cis able-bodied western dude nature of the site.” No, really, that’s exactly what they said. [2]

Not everybody is thrilled by this. As one commenter put it, “How does Wikipedia have a ‘white straight cis able bodied western dude nature?’ Like, even a little bit? You know there isn’t this all powerful white dude running Wikipedia and getting all his views on white power carefully wedged into each article. You can’t complain of a bias when it’s edited by EVERYONE. Seriously, anyone else even ONCE read a Wikipedia article and was like, ‘wow, that was sexist/racist! It’s those damn white folk!’ That’s happened to me a total of exactly zero times.” [2] He of course was slammed by a White Knight who pointed out that only 15% of Wikipedia’s editors are female, with the implication that this automatically made the writing sexist.

Apparently all men are sexist, and women are incapable of sexism. His claim, of course, does not hold up under logic. I could postulate, for example, that since a vast majority of the world’s prostitutes were women, all women are prostitutes. Not only would my doing so be misogynistic, it would be downright idiotic. So why is it so much more acceptable for him to look at the men in Oval Offices and corporate boardrooms and decide as such that all men have some sort of mystical patriarchal power with which they oppress all women? This attitude, I feel I should point out, is demeaning to both men and women.

If past behavior of feminists is any indicator, it’s pretty easy to predict where this will go. The achievements of women are greatly exaggerated to serve political agendas. A case in rather recent memory is that of PFC Jessica Lynch, an American POW stationed in Iraq. Lynch, of course, was not Infantry, but a desk clerk. One detail of the “official” version of her story stated that as Iraqi insurgents were attempting to kidnap her, she was captured while shooting them as they attempted to grab her. The truth of the matter was that she was unable to fire a single shot, since her M16 was jammed with sand [3]. This isn’t at all isolated; quite a few commentators have likened Mia Hamm to Brazilian soccer legend Pele, which is on the level of conflating the female inventor of a lubrication unit for locomotives with the male inventor of the steam engine.

There’s another more obvious, and even darker effect this will have. Any and all articles on misandry or men’s rights, or critical of feminism (no matter how objectively worded and/or researched) will be heavily edited with pejorative arguments or removed entirely. A prime example of this is the article on Anita Sarkeesian, a feminist vlogger who spends the bulk of her time focusing on video games on her YouTube channel FeministFrequency [4]. Like most feminists, Sarkeesian isn’t too keen on letting dissenting voices through in any way, shape, or form, and instead of owning up to her mistakes, just deletes videos with them, such as her hilariously misinformed review of Bayonetta, or her dissection of five different Christmas songs, in which she claims that a man asking a woman more than once for sex, or a woman wanting to be with her boyfriend or husband, (or in other possible interpretations, son, daughter, family, or lesbian lover) is somehow oppressive to women.

Sarkeesian is in the habit of disabling ratings and viewing statistics on her videos, and comments, when not heavily moderated, are disabled. She may seem like an idiot, but she’s actually quite shrewd; when she announced her Kickstarter project, Tropes vs. Women, after spending several dozen videos lecturing to half the population what they should or should not be sexually aroused by, she left comments on it unmoderated, and took screenshots of the more abusive ones, which she posted on her blog to elicit sympathy, netting her a whopping $150,000~ in donations. She went on to give TED talks about how horribly mean people were to her for her Stalinistic behavior, and ironically enough, the first Tropes vs. Women video she posted was one discussing the concept of the Damsel in Distress. Her Wikipedia page, strangely, mentions none of the solid, noteworthy criticism she has received, not even the fact that her videos’ comment sections are reminiscent of a gulag.

It is for fear of a loss of resources that I am writing this. I strongly encourage MRAs, particularly those with computer skills, to archive those Wikipedia pages that they have found useful for discussing gender issues. Once this torrent of censorship and revisionism has passed, we will need to restore the arguments that feminists try to keep people from ever considering to their proper pages. As the toned-down protests at Janice Fiamengo’s speech demonstrated, feminists are aware that they no longer control the debate. Let’s not let them forget it.




About Phil in Utah

Phil in Utah is a part-time student of Religious Studies at Utah State, and a full-time student at FTSU. An unapologetic hippie redneck, he is equally proud of his affinity for Shakespeare and his ability to spit fifteen feet. He has a blog at

View All Posts
  • Bewildered

    Have these people gone totally mad ? : crazy :

    • Phil in Utah

      Crazy, say you. Crazy like a fox, say I!

    • TheSandreGuy

      …Or have the mad gone feminist?

      Philosophy is fun :)

  • napocapo69

    Well actually it is free speech. If they want to re-edit, I hope they will give precious contributions in the science areas… 😉

    But probably they will stick to gender studies.

    Or maybe they will focus on the rape definition as a sexual act where a woman did not express enthusiastic consent; or maybe the definition of misogyny as any belief that does not comply with the feminist doctrine.

    Aside from sarcasm, what concerns me is that Feminist organizations have already special administrative rights in wikipedia, that allow them to overcome the editing constraint existing for any other individual. This is the reason I stopped giving money to Wikimedia foundantion.

    There are individuals and special individuals

  • Mr. J

    It’s a good thing that men are finally standing up for something instead of being head-in-the-sand like most of them have been for 50 years.

  • Lucian Vâlsan

    Well, this will eventually lead to a loss of credibility for Wikipedia. Which I do not think it is a bad thing at all – quite the contrary.

    • Phil in Utah

      Wikipedia should not be used for citations. It’s a great place to start, but that’s it.

  • JJ

    Hey, this is a unique opportunity for the movement to get almost free and unanimous support through reverse advertising!

    If we can push this info out through reddit’s political forums and not just our own, and other similar websites; and maybe see if we can’t get a few reporters on media websites sympathetic to us as this is a huge story; we could wipe these idiots momentum out like a candle in a single broadcast.

    These people have been sheltered for so long they think they are untouchable. We need to use that before they start to figure it out.

    Many of their “foot soldiers” are young and clueless. If we can get the message out there; we can maybe turn a few and use their conversion in public; most people around the world enjoy freedom. Any attempt to silence it is a red flag that they will catch; even if they are not familiar with us!

  • paddybrown

    I’ve edited Wikipedia semi-regularly for several years, and I’d confirm the feminist complaints that it’s full of assholes. However, the worst of them, in my experience, are drive-by editors with a political agenda or a single-issue obsession. This initiative seems likely only to add to the problem.

    Wikipedia has its faults, it can’t be denied, but complaining of bias because the majority of editors are men is idiotic. Contributing to Wikipedia is open to anybody and entirely voluntary. You can do it anonymously. Even if you sign up for an account (which allows you to monitor changes to pages you’ve worked on) you don’t have to use your name. If more men than women have so far made the effort, that’s not bias, and claiming it is a particularly pathetic example of playing damsel in distress rather than getting off your arse and doing something.

    • Dean Esmay

      I’ve been a Wikipedia editor since about 2002 I think. I have seen on subject after subject if there is a significant vested interest with an axe to grind and resources to throw at it, they can absolutely dominate the discourse and squash dissenting opinion like a bug. All it really takes is enough people with energy up against a smaller group with less energy and time. It’s gotten so bad I no longer trust anything I read on it, I’ve caught massive errors time and time again only to be quashed trying to correct them because it didn’t match a larger group’s ideological agenda.

      Feminists are only one example, but I already see feminist fingerprints on multiple articles that shouldn’t even be relevant. Multiple entities have targeted various Wikipedia articles this way, and Wikipedia really does not have sufficient tools to fight it off. This is why, even though I’ve got literally thousands of edits I’ve done on that thing over the last decade, I rarely bother anymore. I’m disillusioned: I no longer believe in the project, and I will not give them money in their fundraisers or do more than minor edits now and then on relatively uncontroversial subjects.

      What they need to do is something they probably never will do: deny anyone the right to edit anonymously, unless they go through a process certifying as to why they should be anonymous. They will never do this, for various reasons, but it makes it too easy for any concerted group to hijack and dominate a topic.

      If a group of ten of us made it our mission to counter these gender ideologues on Wikipedia, we would likely do noting else with our spare time anymore, and in the end would likely still lose.

      Oddly enough, by being too free, Wikipedia is more vulnerable than most sources to ideological contamination, and its open nature is -not- a cure for this.

      I wish anyone who thinks they can fix this luck, but for me, I’ve totally lost faith and interest in the Wikipedia experiment. I view the entire thing now as an epic fail at the thing it was most important for it to accomplish: achieving a predictable level of credibility. As it is now, unless you’re already enmeshed in a subject, you have no way of knowing at all if you’re reading contaminated material. I even spotted some gross spin on a Wikipedia page on a popular actress recently which I happen to know is provably false (because I have the documentation) yet all I did was look at it in disgust and move on.

      Kinda disappointing, 5-10 years ago I was a big believer in the approach. No more. I think the only reliable wikis are private ones that are pretty much invitation-only and specialized and in which those in charge are accountable for the content.

      • ShakmeteMalik

        There may be another option. Find subjects not related to gender studies in any way, and edit those pages with as much hyperbolic radfem crap you can conjure. As real scientists, students, and others see these comments, they will be further alienated from the cause of radfemdom and perhaps some sort of progress will be made.

        For example, on mosquitos:

        “The female mosquito is a victim of blatant misogyny as she is forced to use her phallic proboscis to rape unwilling victims of their precious lifeblood. The male mosquito, meanwhile, is a privileged patriarch in that he doesn’t drink blood like the poor female and instead just rapes plants by consuming nectar. Once again, nature herself demonstrates why men are evil.”

        • flailer

          Those are *Dishonorable Feminist tactics.
          Nope, we won’t use them.

          Feminist have dishonored themselves, & lost all credibility.
          We should not do the same.

  • Syme

    The German Wikipedia is already deep within the clutches of feminism. Any article on gender, Feminism or men’s rights is heavily biased and the MRM is routinely characterized as misogynous and often associated with right wing extremism.
    Hopefully this Feminist attack won’t do any lasting damage to the English Wikipedia.

  • shmiggen

    She got 150k in donations? Why even work for a living?

    • Dean Esmay

      Yes. Watch these two videos, they’ll catch you up on everything that went down here:



      Note that other stuff’s come out since that makes Sarkeesian look even worse.

      She’s making very good money now by playing victim, including doing talks and raising money by other means. How ironic her new series is on the Damsel in Distress trope: she’s a professional Damsel in Distress.

    • Poester99

      There are a significant number of women that live off of manipulated white knights. there are even web sites specifically to bring these two types of damaged people together.

  • Dean Esmay

    The first article I published here on AVfM was about the Sarkeesian incident and at the time I was still annoyed at some of her more trollish and boorish commenters, but the more that’s come out since I wrote it, the more I’ve realized just how blatantly dishonest and sleazy her work there really was; she went out of her way to antagonize and to give critics no ability to respond at all, then finally when she wanted money she blew comments wide open, knowing that out of thousands of people, a few would react poorly. She created the exact situation she needed to make herself a damsel in distress, and if it was not on purpose I’ll eat my head.

    I still think some of the trolls themselves got trolled; screaming “fuck you cunt you should be raped” is not a way to respond to this shit, it just makes you look like everything her ilk say we are. But say irksome things for weeks on end to thousands of people and allow no response, then suddenly blow comments wide open while you’re looking for money and what do you think is going to happen?

    Even more damning, there’s substantial evidence that she or one of her minions, simultaneous to releasing the Kickstarter video, posted about it on 4Chan. If you’re not internet-savvy, explaining what 4Chan is to you is difficult, but let’s just say, 4Chan’s wildly popular and specializes–specializes!–in being obnoxious. The more obnoxious and nasty you are, the more cred you get with that crowd. They’re mostly doing it for fun, but it’s a subject of serious high-fiving and celebration of a 4Chan member can get themselves banned from a sit. If 4Chan gets you in their sites you are guaranteed to get troll-bombed with stupidity by people who don’t even give a shit about you, it’s just a crowd of obnoxious people with a teenaged “let’s spray paint that guy’s house because it’ll be funny” mentality. If AVfM ever came to their wide attention, we’d get the same treatment, and likely the team would be spending a day or two sorting through all the bullshit about small dicks and losers who can’t get laid and child molesters and everything else you can think of through here, although the storm of trolls would likely disappear as quick as it showed up. Because they rarely believe a word they’re saying, they’re just competing to see which of them can push your buttons most effectively.

    Sarkeesian trolled and damseled her way to riches. What do you want to bet she tries this again, and keeps comments and ratings disabled for a few weeks and then after releasing the videos does the same shit again: suddenly opens them wide open and waits to make screen shots to share with everybody to help her with another round of fundraising? Got five bucks says she does it before the year’s out, any takers?

    • Phil in Utah

      Yes, because we all know that /b/tards are a perfectly representative sample of society at large.

    • Disorderly Conduct

      I wouldn’t describe them as trolls, more like an angry mob.

    • August Løvenskiolds

      Dean and Phil – I dashed off my own article, I confess, without proper research and reflection on Dean’s groundwork, and also in ignorance of Phil’s insight into the assault on Wikipedia.

      Still, I am honored, and humbled, to stand with you both.

    • SCPantera

      I couldn’t comment on the extent to which 4chan is “aware” of AVfM, but there are a lot of conservative elements amongst its userbase who are very open to the idea of a men’s rights movement. Especially the video games board, where the majority are sick of the feminist intrusion into the hobby via (and especially thanks to) Anita Sarkeesian and the popularization of many other feminist or feminist-leaning video games journalists/journalism websites.

      I don’t know about /b/, since most self-respecting 4chan users generally avoid it, but on /v/ the popular opinion is pretty strongly anti-feminist.

      It should also be mentioned that the Kickstarter for Anita’s video first promised a new video August 2012, so releasing it now is something like 6 months late by her own stated deadlines. In this time she’s also publicly talked about having taken multiple vacations to Europe, as well as travel for presentations such as the TEDxWomen one the article referred to (I feel it’s important that it be distinguished that TEDxWomen is not actually affiliated with the actual TED talks), presentations for which she’s often heavily compensated monetarily.

      • MrStodern

        “presentations such as the TEDxWomen one the article referred to (I feel it’s important that it be distinguished that TEDxWomen is not actually affiliated with the actual TED talks)”

        Oh gee, I wonder if there’s a reason she targeted such a distinct, gender-specific audience?

        What’s funny, and infuriating, about all this is that Anita really can’t thank her own cleverness too much, she can’t credit her intelligence as the primary reason for her success, because if she was a man, she would’ve needed to actually put some real work into her plan to generate money. Her tactics, as they’ve been from the beginning, would’ve netted her NOTHING were she to have a penis and testicles. Getting trolled by 4chan would’ve been met with “man up”. Disabling comments would’ve been met with “you can dish it out, but you can’t take it”. Calling attention to the past trolling would’ve been met with “you’re still whining about that?”. And this would go for practically everyone aware of her, not just people who don’t buy what feminism’s selling. Her supporters, if she would even have any, would mostly be just as critical of her as we are, were she to be a he. Hardly anyone would come to her defense, and NO ONE would ever accuse her detractors of being sexist, no matter what kind of gender-based insults some of them made, were Anita to have been born a man.

        She knows what she’s doing, but she has to thank the situation entirely for her success. Every penny of it.

    • MrStodern

      I don’t know how I managed to miss this comment, but I did. Weird.

      I wouldn’t put it past her at all to have posted on 4chan herself. The fact that they were alerted to it by anyone already obliterates her legitimacy as a victim as it is. Not that she had much to begin with, really, but the 99% probability that 4chan was responsible for 99% of the trolling certainly doesn’t look good for her. Not the way the idea of it being genuinely misogynistic male gamers does. But if she personally, deliberately provoked the attention of those notorious maniacs, I doubt most of her supporters would stick around long if they knew it. The jig would be fucking up, and not just in the eyes of people like us.

      Oh, to be able to prove what really happened…

      Anyway, I’m not sure if Anita even needs to poke anymore beehives, honestly, because it’s not as if, for example, false rape accusers have to continuously file more false rape reports in order to maintain the general public view that they’re a victim. Once they get to don that cape, the indoctrinated public pretty much always sees it from a mile away. At least until something happens to sufficiently pull it off of them for good. With any luck, Anita will screw up somewhere, or one of her detractors will discover something that makes even feminists want to distance themselves from her, and there’ll be one less successful scheming, manipulative cunt in the world who just won’t find something more constructive to do.

    • ShakmeteMalik

      I suppose it didn’t take a prophet to have the foresight to predict Sarkeesian would be troll-baiting before the year was out. Upon watching Microsoft’s Conference at E3, she complained via twitter that “none of the showcased games featured female protagonists.” Now, she knows very well that twitter has plenty of assholes, and that she has quite a few of those assholes following her, ready to jump at the slightest provocation. So guess what? When the comments came in, she collated the 50 worst comments (at least up to a certain time-frame) and posted them on tumblr. Well, I assume it was her, although it easily could have been one of her henchmen or white knights. Anyway, this list of 50 is then circulated widely, with the refrain of “straight white male privilege strikes again, and these posts prove it!” Naturally, she could not include any of the hundreds of reasonable criticisms, from both male twitter users, and a few females who recognize her for the troll she is.

      She is a crafty devil, that one.

      Check it out yourself if you like, @femfreq

      She also criticized what she perceived as a rape threat made by a game producer during that same conference. Here is the gist of what went down:

      The Xbox One reboot of Killer Instinct, in conjunction with SmartGlass (an Xbox Live accessory) was being demonstrated. A female community manager played one character, while a male producer played the other (it’s a fighting game, noted for the ability to execute extremely-long combinations). The male was equipped with a downloadable combat staff. The female was not. The conversation (trash talk) went something to this effect:

      Scene: Female getting ass kicked.
      Male: C’mon, Ashton, bring it!
      Female: Whoever thought it was a good idea that I play against a producer is gonna get it.
      Male: C’mon, you gotta practice before you get on stage in front of millions of people.
      Female: I can’t even block correctly, and you’re too fast.
      Male: (after bringing a combination up to 14 consecutive hits): There we go… just let it happen, it’ll be over soon.
      Audience: (laughter)
      Female: You have a fight stick!
      Male (after successfully executing three fireball attacks): Oh, you like those!
      Female; No, I don’t like this!
      Male; Oh, there we go, here we go. Wait for it…One more.
      Scene: Round 1 concludes.

      Intermission: Demonstrating cloud-sharing abilities.
      Male: And now it’s shared out, from the cloud, with all of my friends.
      Host: Nice! So, what are you gonna do about that, Ashton?
      Female: I mean, c’mon, how many friends does this guy /really/ have? Let me show you how I like to share with my friends and followers. (Speaking to Xbox) Xbox, resume game.
      Demonstrates live-game streaming of Round 2:

      Round 2:
      Female: Hey Torin, do you know what a shark is? (to xbox): Xbox, broadcast.
      Female then proceeds to kick male’s ass.
      Female: Well! I think maybe I should be the producer!

      If you look at the entire exchange of banter, you can see it was purely trash-talk. But to Anita and her hordes, he was threatening to rape her. They raised such a stink about it that Microsoft actually issued an apology for his “off-the-cuff” remarks. Strangely, nobody seemed to care that she basically accused him of not having having any friends, or of being so inept at his job that a community manager should have his position instead.

      For full context:

      Time: 48:15 to 53:30.

      • donzaloog

        It amazes me that people haven’t figured out her game at this point. This is what she does. She’s a coward, a quote miner and a troll.It’s not even worth responding to a woman like that. Let’s see if she can spin this one into another $160, 000.

        Somebody should tweet to her that if she wants more female protagonists in video games, she should become a video game designer and make all of her protagonists female. Stop trying to dictate other people’s creativity.

  • Poester99

    Justine Cassell, a professor and the director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, has criticized Wikipedia for lacking not only women contributors but also extensive and in-depth encyclopedic attention to many topics regarding gender.[113] An article in The New York Times cites a Wikimedia Foundation study which found that fewer than 13% of contributors to Wikipedia are women. Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, said increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia “as good as it could be.” Factors the article cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the “obsessive fact-loving realm,” associations with the “hard-driving hacker crowd,” and the necessity to be “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists.”[114]

    Right. To prove they they are the equal of men, in every way, they require special provisions and help to get them to participate in this volunteer endeavor.

    Maybe more would post if they were paid. Yeah, more men probably would too, but who really gives a rat’s ass about them.

    I’ve heard this referred to as ekwalitee (or somthing simliar), just so it is not confused with real thing.

  • Aimee McGee

    As an infrequent editor of wiki around pages for a couple of rather colourful ancestors, I am one of the 15% female. My biggest problem is I won’t edit without a secure verification of my source material. It’s called not letting fiction get in the way of a good fact 😉
    Wiki would do us all a favour if it was far tighter on its rules of citation – and that reminds me, time to check convict records again and see if they’ve uploaded the records on my g. g. grandfather….

  • AntZ

    “”I strongly encourage MRAs, particularly those with computer skills, to archive those Wikipedia pages that they have found useful for discussing gender issues.”

    Wikipedia automatically archinves.

  • 86

    When I look at the list of articles they intend to work on,

    I think so what? And this is fine.

    While most feminism is these days pretty obnoxious, MHRA is not just anti all there crapola.

    On that list, I bet they screw around with the criticisms of rape culture, but apart from that, is there a real problem in this editing venture?

    One thing that might be fun to do leading up to it, is to add a few paragraphs of very well sourced criticism to the rape culture article and add it in a very neutral manner.

    Ya know to improve the article, and see how the article morphs that day. Certainly not to troll these bimbos.

  • Nightwing1029

    I already posted this in another article, couple days back.
    However, it is Sarkesian. Don’t really care for her.

    I have tons of issues with Sarkesian.

    Try these, just to start:

    1) She had already had all the money needed for this project, when she came out and started talking about the “trolls” that had been “harassing” her. Also note that the amount jumped up considerably when she started talking about that game that was made of her.

    2) She only turned off moderation of her comments, to INCREASE the amount of support. And if you look, a LOT of the comments are actual constructive critiques of what she’s doing. (Normally, if you don’t agree with her, she just delete’s your comment, prior to this)

    3) If you really look into it, you will notice a LOT of information left out about this, that shows her to be an intelligent woman, that used this to garner almost $160,000. She’s smart, but used her intellect only for her benefit. That makes her corrupt, as far as I am concerned. Hell, if she used that intellect in her videos, she might actually make a good one. (However, that would take away her ability to con people, because then they would know how smart she is)

  • Kimski

    Wikipedia has been a standing joke for years now, much like mz Sarkeesian is rapidly becoming.

    • Steve_85

      Wiki is useful. You look there for a broad understanding of a topic and to get ideas… then you go find sources for EVERYTHING, because it could all be completely false.

      • Kimski

        I concur.
        It’s useful because it’s quick. You don’t hold a lecture based on what you find there, however. That would be like basing your knowledge of the world on what you see in the news.

        • JinnBottle

          Yeah, but it sounds like it’s going to have the credibility of the girl who cried wolf from here on in – i.e. it looks like it will become completely useless. How many drops of feminist piss does it take to spoil the soup?

          Such potential in the idea, too. A damn shame.

  • MrStodern

    Feminists seem like they can’t make up their minds on whether women are equal to men, and/or need our protection. But if you look closely, they actually can, it’s just that their claims stand in great contrast with reality, which is not an accident. I don’t think it is, at least.

    Feminists appear to feel that women can survive on their own just as well as any man can, and would be doing so, if it weren’t for men insisting on acting as if women are pretty much helpless without them, for the purposes of lording that over women’s heads for all eternity. That’s what I glean from looking at the whole of the feminist collective.

    The reality is that Mother Nature gave women the short end of the stick, in terms of independence, and at some point in time, they got tired of it. Can’t say I blame them. I honestly wouldn’t want to be a woman. Despite the shit that can happen to me, as a man, most of it’s because of the country, and times, that I live in. Nature smiles upon me for the most part, even if society doesn’t.

    But it’s kind of hard to pick a bone with Mother Nature, because she’s not an entity you can stare in the face and speak with, like a man is. And they can’t really fight reality, so they use what persuasive powers they do have to convince everyone to play pretend, essentially, to live in a fantasy world that doesn’t exist. Although, the lack of respect for reality only goes so far, as, of course, feminists are hardly conducting a mass exodus of the so-called patriarchy and forming their own country where women rule, and need men only for reproductive purposes, because they know, deep down, that it won’t work. They feel content milking the system for more preferential treatment, for more protection, because their awareness of how unpleasant the alternative would be is sufficient enough to dissuade them from working towards true liberation.

    As for Anita herself, it doesn’t really matter much what she identifies herself as. Her sex automatically grants her the privilege of being showered with compassion when she’s under duress, or even merely perceived to be. She need not call herself a feminist or even espouse feminist views for people to feel sorry for her when she catches the attention of trolls (and quite purposefully, in her case, I think). And she can’t admit to the reality of the situation, because it severely undermines her argument that if not for the “damsel in distress” trope, women would be doing better. At least I’m assuming that that’s where she’s going with this. She labels it “harmful”, so it stands to reason that Anita thinks that the so-called myth is helping hold women back, is discouraging them from achieving their true potential.

    She’ll get no argument from me that society discourages the growth of women as a whole, but it isn’t some trope that’s responsible, and if she acknowledged what actually is, she’d be helping to dismantle the misandric sub-system that feminists have built in western civilization, something she’s not about to do. I think Anita and I are on the same level in terms of awareness of truth, but where we diverge is in how we respond to that awareness. I acknowledge it openly and encourage others to do the same, and not for my personal benefit, as I care a lot more about other men out there who are exposed, than I do myself. Anita works to suppress the truth, and entirely for her own gain. And for that, she disgusts me. Her sex and the fact she criticizes the game industry aren’t even on my radar. Her conduct is, and it stinks of self-entitlement and selfishness.

    • Mark Trueblood

      They want both options to be available at all times: strong and independent & coddling safety net.

      Their fellow travelers among conservatives and traditionalists want the same thing for women, with a few quibbles on a few issues.

      • MrStodern

        Yeah, basically. Reality gets in the way of them being consistent. They’re strong when it suits them, and weak when it suits them. They can’t pretend to be strong, in every way, all the time, because then the protection goes away, then the preferential treatment disappears, and they’re too dependent upon it and they know it. They can’t pretend to be weak all the time, because then, although the protection will continue, it’s more limiting and less fun for them.

        The most important step, in moving forward from this point, is in teaching women to stand on their own two feet, as much as possible, to be as independent, individually, and as a whole, as they can possibly be, and to recognize that in all likelihood, the plateau they reach won’t be at the same level as men’s, because Mother Nature says so, not men themselves.

    • JinnBottle

      “And they can’t really fight reality, so they use what persuasive powers they do have to convince everyone to play pretend, essentially, to live in a fantasy world that doesn’t exist.”

      That is probably one of the paradigms I detest most about feminism. It was one thing to see women dressing up and playing soldier in old WWII movies: but for 45 years now, first the US, then the First World, now everyone in the Whole Fuckin World has been forced to sit still and eat this shit, all coming one way, and pretend to take it for reality.

      The ex-officio Ministry of Propaganda, aka the Media of any given country, does *not* represent the people of that country.

      The playpens-for-adolescents, aka universities, do *not* represent the people living around and outside those playpens.

      …And god knows, the political representatives of any given country do not represent the people of that country.

      “…and the way of the female, my friend, is platitudes and piffle and let’s-pretend.” – Prof John Gordon’s friend “Neil” in conversation with him. (From “The Myth of the Monstrous Male and Other Feminist Fables”)

  • Winstone

    Pinar Selek is a feminist sentenced to life for terrorism. But other feminists on wikipedia continuously censor this truthınar_Selek

  • donzaloog

    I applaud Sarkeesian for her ability to play the internet perfectly and get rich while doing it. She may be an idiot, but she’s not stupid, if you know what I mean.

    I’ve seen a few of her videos, and they are very nitpicky, incendiary and calculated. She’s clearly a woman who knows how to push men’s buttons and know how to get the desired reaction from them. I just wish more people would realize this and stop commenting on or viewing her videos. She’s a professional troll.

    • MrStodern

      “She’s a professional troll.”

      Aren’t all feminists who put themselves out there like that, really?

      I would’ve liked it if the trolls hadn’t given her what she wanted, but asking internet trolls to do anything but troll people is like asking the ocean to sit still. And really, the trolls aren’t the problem. Society’s reaction to women getting trolled is the problem. I’ll never defend trolls, ever, but it says a lot more about people who supposedly value equality, than the trolls themselves, when they can’t seem to appreciate that no one who spends any real amount of time online is safe from those monsters. No one. Take it from me, I’m a white male who practically grew up on the internet, and I’ve been trolled just as bad as anyone like Anita Sarkeesian. The only thing that separates people like me from people like her is how society reacts to our getting trolled. I don’t whine about it all the time, and even if I did, that’s exactly what it’d be called. Whining. The more she whines, the more she stands to gain from it. Anyone who calls her out on it is labeled a misogynist.

      And people think I’m sexist…

      • donzaloog

        Well said. That’s what gets me about her. She puts her content out there and expects no one to question her or call her out on her bullshit. Doesn’t her audience understand irony?

        • MrStodern

          So long as she’s a female who was once harassed for having something say about sexism in gaming, that’s it, the discussion ends there, as far as her core audience is concerned. In their eyes, it proves her right, and that feminism is right, and no one can do anything to change it. They live a sad existence.

          • donzaloog

            Like the article pointed out, Sarkeesian knew exactly what she was doing and all of her moves were executed perfectly. I wonder how the poor jackasses who donated to her to fund her Tropes vs. women series feel about her disabling comments and ratings on the video?

            “Thanks for the money. Now shut the fuck up!”

          • MrStodern

            There do appear to be some supporters who find her less than brave for disallowing public discourse to commence on her channel, but near as I can tell, they don’t represent the majority of her fans. It’s fairly irrelevant though, as there’s plenty of feminists out there more than happy to prop her up as some kind of hero, and so if her other kinds of supporters were to turn their backs on her, I doubt she would suffer any setbacks from that. Unless most of those feminists have no intention of donating money to her, ever, as they see her the same way she sees them: as a tool.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    If anybody can find a pre-1986 source for the myth holding that — before feminism came along 1960s-onwards — domestic violence against women was socially tolerated and likewise was ignored by the courts, please leave a comment on the following post, which includes yet another dramatic piece of evidence contradicting that odious myth. I have included a brief text of the earliest expression of the myth/hoax I have found so far, one which is worth knowing and quoting.

    Domestic Violence was Not “Tolerated by Society” in the Bad Old Pre-Feminism Days – Judge Richard T. Tuthill, Chicago, 1907

    • John A

      Robert, my understanding is that domestic violence was never ignored by the courts. The police were a different matter, often they did not want to get involved or if they did, they just gave the man “a taste of his own medicine.”

      The 1971 Australian Play “The Removalists” (David Williamson)is about the handling of a domestic violence incident. In the end the police beat the guy up and he dies of a brain haemorrhage. I ‘did’ this play at high school in 1979 and that was the first time I heard the phrase “dead cunt.” It does shed some light on the attitudes to domestic violence at the time, Williamson is a very good playwright.

      Oh, the irony of a wikipedia link! (good for general information only)

  • cvar

    Just another reason to not use Wikipedia or even bother with the project.

    Also, at the end of the links in your article there is a ” which breaks the links (at least in Firefox)

    • dhanu

      Yep, in fact, all the links are broken in all browsers, though the links at the end (sources) seem to have been corrected.

  • HieronymusBraintree

    I think what the feminists want to do is great.

    Why? Because it’s bound to backfire.

    When women are asked if they consider themselves to be feminists less than 30% are willing to say yes. Why? Because they know what feminists are like and don’t want to be associated with them. Familiarity really does breed contempt.

    The more feminists act out the harder it is for people to not see that there’s something seriously wrong with them.

    In the last election billionaires spent hundreds of millions of dollars to slime Obama and promote Romney. It didn’t help because the Republican message just isn’t popular these days. The more they promoted their message the more they reminded people why they didn’t like them.

    Once it gets around what feminists are doing it will be just another nail in their coffin. This kind of bullying only works in an atmosphere where they control the message and can punish heretics like they do on college campuses. All they’ll wind up doing is advertising once again that they’re intellectually running on empty and proving MHRAs right.

    And I don’t think the folks who run Wikipedia are going to sit still for this shit.

  • VAWAVictim

    VAWA and all of this feminist exploitation has turned me into an “angry white male” and I’m not even white. I went on wikipedia and added “Men Don’t Tell” to the list of movies about domestic violence. If you don’t know, “Men Don’t Tell” is a movie about living with a physically abusive woman and how it gets turned around on the man. It’s funny that the movie was listed on wikipedia all of 24 hours before someone took it off, as if a woman beating a man doesn’t fit the standard of ‘domestic violence’.

  • Robert Sides

    > “an intelligent woman, that used this to garner almost $160,000.”

    Why can’t AVFM do something similar?

    Surely there’s a project we can devise that will garner more funds than simply asking for donations. Maybe one of our female advocates can host the video/promo/webpage, too.

  • jjsonb1

    The women of the world are taking a terrible “unhedged” gamble with all their feminist rant.

    Should the world ever slip back into a state where raw male physical power is needed for basic survival (think mad max).

    Women will be treated as f**k bags. Strictly for pleasure and babies only.

    Subconsciously the men will be so mad at women, for all their abuse, after we worked so hard for centuries to make a better world for our families….that women will be made to pay and pay and pay some more….

    In fact the feminists better be careful, because the men might just get fed up with being abused and crash the world just to get a bit of their power back…..

    It can happen…..

    • JinnBottle

      JJ – You should read “Revolt of the Primitive” by Howard S. Schwartz, and “The Gender Agenda” – the latter especially for what went down at the Beijing Womens Conference, and at the UN in re to NGOs generally. I believe the latter is the one in which the authoress expresses concern in her Conclusion that “men might just decide to take their power back”.

  • paddybrown

    Thought I’d report back on the “Feminists Engage Wikipedia” event on 15 March. 57 users (and three “maybes”) signed up for the big push, which resulted, as far as I can tell, in the creation of a grand total of 12 new articles, eight of them on contemporary American feminist academics, one on the subject of “Feminist digital humanities”, and only three unrelated to academic feminism: American biologist Gertrude Van Wagenen; Caroline Gardner Bartlett, an American singer who was a relief worker during the First World War; and German children’s author Clementine Helm.

  • http://none universe

    Thanks to Phil in Utah and Tyciol:

    New RSU policy challenges new men’s issues group

    By Diana Hall
    “An effort to guard the empowerment of women’s voices on campus took form Monday when the Ryerson Students’ Union (RSU) swiftly adopted a bold new policy rejecting the concept of misandry – the hatred or fear of men.
    Neda Hamzavi, a faculty of community services representative on the RSU Board of Directors (BOD), watched her amendment to the RSU’s policy on women’s issues pass without any debate, discussion or dispute.” This could cause conflict at a time when controversial men’s issues movements are on the rise at university campuses”.

    – Policies “on women’s issues pass without any debate, discussion or dispute” have been in effect for decades among alleged adults in legislatures the world over. It’s no surprise that these green school kids in post secondary would act in a similar manner.
    Massive disconnect upon the fundamentals – “democracy” and “equality” from both ‘legislators’.

    ‘Democracy’ from the horse’s Wikipedia:
    “Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives”

    “Someday I (we) gotta have a lo-o-nngg talk with that boy” (those disconnectors above).

  • Muggins

    One thing I ran into in Wikipedia was the article on Rosalind Franklin. One of the scientists who worked on DNA in the 50s. Watson and Crick correctly guessed a structure for the molecule, and saw bits of work

    In recent years there has been a massive spin campaign in the media and online to suggest that either they couldn’t have got the structure without Franklin’s work, or that they saw what she had done unfairly, or hadn’t fairly cited her work. I’ve seen it craftily implied that she wold have got the structure herself had it not been for male chauvinism etc.

    All these claims appear to be false when subjected to serious examination, and luckily someone on wiki was on the case last time I looked. But it requires constant vigilance, and a good deal of questionable stuff is still on there, which makes me doubt the whole wiki enterprise.

    A particular supposedly incriminating quote I remember got repeated so often by feminists that typing it into a Google search gets 1000s of hits, all quoted in the same way, out of context. But I found it very difficult to find the source and therefore the context when I looked. I’ve seen articles in magazines oh-so carefully worded to give the wrong impression, whilst not quite lying. It’s a strange world we live in. You realise how dubious the whole of historical discussion is.

    These people don’t *think* they are liars, they just find it easy to persuade themselves of any old rubbish, because they love a political cause, or this one anyway.

  • Lucien Rodriguez

    This article is completely irrational.

    “Next week, groups of artists and tech-savvy folks around the country are
    taking aim at gender imbalance in representation of female artists on
    Wikipedia. The “Art + Feminism Edit-a-Thon” being held in New York on February 1st has inspired simultaneous editing marathons in 17 other cities,
    all focused on adding more female artists to the public encyclopedia
    and fleshing out the meager entries of existing women artists. ”

    Why would you object to this? Female artists who are good deserve recognition just as much as artists of any other gender and sex. I can not understand why this is a cause for panic.

  • Alex Werges

    What I think the world needs, particularly on the internet, is an international organization that promotes professional journalism on the web, particularly in search engines. Peer reviewed work could be flagged as of higher importance to related key words and topics than unprofessional blog posts. This would put the products of Universities, professional journalists, and professional researchers on the front page and help suppress the blatant anti-intellectualism endorsed by pseudo-intellectuals like Sarkeesian. Even if Sarkeesian were given a degree in journalism, her work would be subject to the peer review of other journalists, university professors, and researchers world wide.