Callate said:
It isn't just by individual statements that a cause goes down, but by an unwillingness for anyone within that camp to challenge or criticize statements; a "circling of the wagons" to defend statements and individuals who shouldn't be defended, simply because they're allowed to remain part of the group identity; and a prevailing attitude that anyone who would dare challenge someone within that identity from without or within is the enemy.
You know, I find this particular critique of feminism patently hilarious. Feminism is nothing if not a collection of closely aligned ideologies and philosophical approaches that tends to clash fiercely with each other. Remember the Sex Wars of the 80's? Feminism, quite literally, tore itself in two over issues related to sex, pornography and depictions of female nudity. It was a schism so great that its' repercussions are felt even today and spawned two polar opposite form of feminism, Sex Negative and Sex Positive.
Contemporary to the Sex Wars we have something that tanks this critique of feminism. Can you guess what it is? Third Wave Feminism. The "wave" of feminism that got started when minorities within feminism felt that the second wave was too obsessed with the situation of white, middle class women in the US. Third Wave Feminism arose from the harsh criticism of feminism as reserved only for the white middle class and as a distinct wave it is all about expanding the umbrella term of feminism to include all possible experiences of being a woman and/or suffering from patriarchy.
Feminism is definitely not a "circle the wagons"-type of movement. Contemporary feminism is diverse and the sub-factions are extremely critical of one another. Just look at sex negative versus sex positive or sex essentialists versus gender constructionists, to get an idea of how rabid and cutthroat feminists can become when engaging with one another.
Let's get this straight: As far as feminism goes, Sarkeesian is very, very cautious and bland. I'd argue that De Beauvoir is much more controversial then Sarkeesian is and her books are considered basic reading for feminism. When you get to writers like Dworkin, Rubin or Butler (who is quite separate from the other two, mind you) you'd be forgiven for thinking that Sarkeesian is utterly harmless in the wider circles of feminism.
And that's really my misgiving about this entire thing; that Sarkeesian is decidedly small fry in terms of feminist thought or impact, nothing she says is very controversial or hateful. Yet she has a hatedom in gaming that's far out of proportion, composed of people who think's she's the personification of raging, hateful feminism. Whoever is making that claim has absolutely no idea about the wider field of feminism, because if they did they'd see just how harmless Sarkeesian is. They'd also see that the reason so few feminists are vocally opposed to Sarkeesian is because she's not saying anything interesting, she's merely introducing basic gender studies concepts to a larger audience within the framework of critiquing video games.