Smilomaniac said:
For several reasons. One, she's hypocritical
Elaborate? I'm perfectly willing to consider the notion, but I have yet to see conclusive proof of this.
she's biased and her attitude and the way she works stirs up peoples emotions. I will admit that her first tropes video after the kickstarter was better than what she's done previously, but overall there's a feminist tone, which she admits to being, but this is not a neutral series, it's done from a feminists viewpoint and therefore it can't be anything but skewed, no matter the intention. The same would go for any other "ist" with an agenda or even without one, because they'd be inherently biased.
So you acknowledge that anyone making this kind of list would be inherently biased. How does this single out Sarkeesian?
Another reason is that men are starting to see that feminists as a whole are not moving towards gender equality, but female superiority. That might or might not be their agenda, but we're rapidly seeing laws rewritten for the sake of women, there has been laws set for a long time for the benefit of women and all in good spirit.
However, it leaves a lot of men impoverished or with destroyed lives(custody, alímony, fake criminal charges etc).
First of all, it's certainly true that men encounter obstacles and issues in their lives just like any other living being. Some of these aren't given due attention or respect, such as male rape, youth suicide, etc. These issues should be addressed, and be addressed fairly.
At the same time...the suggestion that these issues are at all equivalent to the systemic hardships of women is bizarre.
Secondly, what's even more bizarre is the idea of feminism as a movement seeking to oppress men, consciously or otherwise. Feminism seeks to empower the agency of women and men alike through dissolving the entrenched socio-cultural tenets which encourage and produce particular gendered behaviours (i.e internalised misogyny, machismo expectations of men et al.) and demands that people adhere by these behaviours.
The
closest you'll come to the kind of feminism you describe would be the Radicals, and they are a fringe movement even within feminism itself. They are also considered disreputable because of their incendiary rhetoric and institutionalised transphobia. I think you'll find feminists hate the radicals even more than the most indignantly self-righteous MRA does.
- Ever heard of the term "radscum"? Yeah, they aren't popular.
Now, any man with a lick of knowledge who can see past the social norms where woman are the more important gender, is starting to see the signs of an unfair society where men are treated like scum and can't have a say without, not only women, but men as well, breathing down their necks and accusing them of misogyny and hatecrime.
Men are treated like scum? Where? How? In what capacity? I find it far more common to see people tell feminists to "stop taking things so seriously", "get a sense of humour" and/or "see problems where there are none."
This post itself will be viewed negatively, because how dare I percieve things that way and how dare I make out feminists to be the bad guys and so on and so forth. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I'm seeing some signs that we're moving towards a skewed society that will leave men's rights in the gutter.
You're not a victim. I am not a victim. Trust me, we'll be fine. You'll probably be more than fine, because the internet, and these predominantly male-oriented subcultures in particular, are
really not fond of feminism. There has definitely been a markedly greater amount of time and attention granted matters pertaining gender in games the last couple of years, but I would say that can be chalked up to finally acknowledging these issues even exist more than it bespeaks some kind of insidious agenda.
SO, the reason people can't ignore her is because some have had enough and need to point her out for whatever reason, of which there are many to choose. Gaming has been a male safe-haven and now someone is attacking it with the sort of righteous fervor that we've seen in workplaces, politics, homes and other places and of course it feels threatening.
If the objections to Sarkeesian stems from a desire to keep games a "male safe-haven", there's an even greater need for this kind of work. They should feel threatened, because they propagate an irrational idea of what games and gaming culture should be.
I personally think that this is not an issue, but it's an interesting debate to take and see what we can get out of it, maybe evolve gaming as a whole or maybe find out that there's not really an issue and just leave it be. Whatever the case, if it's done with a calm and open mind, I'm all for it. But Anita Sarkeesian is not the person to lead it; Not because she's a woman, but because she's clearly not capable of doing a good enough job.
Sarkeesian seems perfectly calm to me. And I wouldn't put the onus of open-mindedness so much on her as the people who attempted to stifle the idea of her making these videos at all in the first place.
That said, I'll agree that Sarkeesian wouldn't be my pick for the Face, if you will. I don't find her method entirely satisfactory, nor is it all that interestingly presented. And thus far I haven't really seen her deal with more intersectional issues pertaining feminism. It's all very cozy and predictable. I'll grant her the benefit of the doubt, though. I've only seen this one video, and I'm interested in hearing her take on positive representation.
I've been digging a lot these past few months, seeing arguments on all sides(feminist, MRA and neutral) and I've concluded that while some women in the west are still subjected to an unfair life because of backwater attitudes, the law and public opinion is on their side and people are doing something about it.
How can the law possibly be considered on the side of women if they are increasingly likely to be prevented basic rights over their own bodies?
Obviously there has been some progress with regard to women's issues since, say, the 50's, but that doesn't mean there hasn't also been some regressive developments.
In the mean time, I've seen men get cast aside and the role of "men through the ages" be discredited and discarded completely as evil overlords of power(the so called "patriarchy") and so the present men be viewed as nothing but tools and sperm providers, at least from the feminist perspective.
Trust me, that is not the feminist perspective. Not even most radicals would argue that. This seems like supposition. I also think it's worth pointing out that the Patriarchy as described in feminist theory does not comprise men themselves - it's rather considered a cultural force which informs the train of thought men are brought up to adopt. The notion of rape culture applies to this, for example. It isn't perceived a failing of men per se, but a headspace men are socially engineered to assume, and women to accept.
From a social perspective, women are still worth more than men, arguable apart from the very few, very rich men, and so feminism is lauded and praised while men's rights activists and organizations are deemed as despicable and ridiculous, clearly showing a public bias.
I cannot remember the last time I saw feminism lauded or praised in any public capacity. In my experience, calling yourself feminist is a surefire way to attract disapproving looks and rolling eyeballs. Feminists are commonly perceived as humourless killjoys who seek only to strike guilt and self-loathing into the hearts of anyone they encounter at best, and outright militant misandrists at worst. The public bias, as far as I can comprehend it, would rather ignore issues regarding gender inequalities than have to address them.
In short, I went from being somewhat offended by her videos, gave her opinions a shot and researched the possibilities to concluding that she's really pissing people off for no good reason other than attention to a subject that likely is not the issue it's made out to be. I do not discount the fact that there are tropes, I just don't think it's important to the degree that she and her followers/protectors do.
As is your prerogative. I disagree, and I would hope you might reconsider some of these points, but I can't hope to do more than provide my own thoughts and hope they resonate.
I don't hate, I quietly judge and shake my head.
