So, for those who haven’t been paying attention, in a very recent story, Anita Sarkeesian was supposed to be a speaker at a conference at the Utah State University (USU). However, she never got a chance to speak about her usual BS. Why? Well, it seems that there was a threat that she got. It was a threat from somebody online, threatening mass shooting of Sarkeesian and others there. In response, Sarkeesian demanded that they have metal detectors for the event. However, when the school did not deem the threats to be genuine, they denied this request. So, because Sarkeesian doesn’t have any backbone to defend her values, even in the face of adversity, she cancels her talk. The media exposure to this has been absolutely nuts and kind of embarrassing. Because she got almost every major news outlet to print her story. That’s sure convenient.
The first thing to note is how easily Sarkeesian was dissuaded from talking at this university. When Marilyn Manson was threatened before a concert that took place after the Columbine shooting, where he was a convenient target to blame, he didn’t care what these bullies thought. He did his set and didn’t show any sign of fear. When Bob Marley was doing a concert in support of a political battle he had gotten into, he got shot. Two days later, he still did his concert as planned. These two people believed in their music and weren’t about to let some nutjobs stop them from performing. If Sarkeesian is willing to tuck tail and run from something that nobody has confirmed was a real threat, what does that say about the strength of her beliefs?
What’s more, I have some serious doubts about the validity of this threat. See, Sarkeesian and her ilk were starting to look REALLY bad lately, following some ugly backlash from the #GamerGate fiasco that still continues. When they are attacked by another, older and more academically-inclined feminist named Christina Sommers, for their cherry-picking and twisting information to suit their narrative, these people were REALLY starting to look like a bunch of angry teenagers, who were wanting the entire world to change to make them happy.
The timing is very convenient that Sarkeesian gets this threat that shuts her down, just as she is reaching a point where her and every single person who stands with her is looking like a bunch of dicks. So they get this threat. One that, according to the campus itself, the police saw as “no risk to students.” They even determined that the threat she received was no worse than the ones that she usually gets. Yet she cancels, because they wouldn’t put up metal detectors? That’s weird. Wouldn’t they trust the actual law enforcement’s assessment. This just seems too convenient.
Especially when you see the media’s reaction. Sarkeesian got all the love in the world, from almost ALL the mainstream media outlets. NBC, BBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, they all had stories that painted her as the innocent victims of us EVIL, misogynist gamers who hate women. They accept her narrative at face value. Even Democracy Now did an article painting her as the victim. Democracy Now! The news site that prides itself on doing the research that other sites don’t. Even they do an article talking about how Sarkeesian is the victim of the awful gamer culture and how we are all bad and she is right.
Which one of them did any research on the terrible videos she has made, or the fact that even a sister-in-arms called her out on her garbage? Which of these sites decided to talk about how it is so obvious that she has crafted a narrative that fits her description of the events and makes her out to be the hero of a great battle between innocent her and us woman-hating gamers? None. They all decided to go with the easy narrative that is not hard to accept. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by this. After all, aside from BBC and Democracy Now, these are corporate news groups. Corporate news is, if anything, lazy.
It all just feels too convenient. It feels like this is part of a narrative. Sarkeesian was starting to look bad, so she needs something that can make her out to be the hero of the story again. Something that can put her critics to rest without her having to answer for the charges that people who aren’t just sending her death-threats are saying. She doesn’t have to address her irrational ignorance. She just has to answer the soft-ball questions that NBC and whatnot sends her way. That sure is convenient. What’s more, the fact that nobody appears to be taking her to task for this is also interesting. Who has done any research into the validity of this threat? Someone? Anyone?
I recently saw a video by a girl who had some rather on-point things to say about women like Sarkeesian -
This is getting WAY out of hand. I’m with her that feminism in 2014 America makes NO sense at all. Sarkeesian is being given credibility to her ridiculous notion that women in video games is somehow detrimental to women in real life from mainstream sources, all because of a threat that she got, just when the Internet had written her off. I’m with Thunderf00t on this one – I would LOVE to see them trace the email that this threat came from. Here’s me saying that I bet you real money it’s one of her supporters who sent that message, or maybe even the woman herself. Much like a friend of hers did. I bet you money.
Until next time, a quote,
“There are no facts anymore, kiddo. There’s only good or bad fiction.” -Denny Crane, Boston Legal