Your “Feminism” is Against Women (A response to Anita Sarkeesian)

Wow, I seem to be writing about this person a lot lately, aren’t I?  Well, this time it isn’t so much about her, but what she says.  See, in a recent video, she talked about what she believes is “How to Be a Feminist.”  True to form, this video is utterly repugnant and finally puts the nail in the coffin of her integrity, because listening to this, it becomes so utterly clear that not only is Anita Sarkeesian against female empowerment, but she is also against lesbian and bisexual women empowerment too.  This woman is full of shit, and for the first time, I am wondering how far her act as a con artist goes.

So, I wrote some things.  Can I just share this?

You mean Johnny McIntosh wrote them.  If you had original thoughts then that would be frightening.

So, how to be a feminist.

This is from you?  Hm, I think I know how this works.  First, you get in a relationship with a guy who does tele-seminars and teaches you the modern equivalent of Amway.  Then you start with a really shitty web series that nobody watched.  You find people who give you negative criticism and turn their statements into an endless victimhood complex that you can use to sell to people who otherwise wouldn’t care about what you have to say.  After that, you can make tons of money with a Kickstarter campaign, which you never finished or kept any of your promises for.  Once all that is done, then you can ask for even more money from people, and they’ll give it to you, because you’ve “earned” it.  How’s that sound?

I had to learn how to be a feminist.

And just like that, all of your credibility just dried up.  That sure was quick.  I mean, how can you come back from that?

So, throughout high school and college, I was involved with clubs, organizing against wars in the Middle East, raising awareness about climate change, and demanding gay and lesbian rights.

Not gonna lie, this is weird.  See, my early years in college were much the same.  The thing that changed with me was that I was always critical of things, so when I saw the dogmatic structure that was taking over the progressive-left, I shied away from it.  I left one religion because of stupid dogma.  Why would I get involved with another?

So, I was heavily involved in social justice causes, but I still didn’t call myself a feminist.  At the time, I may have even uttered the terrible phrase, ‘I believe in equality, but I’m not a feminist.’  Yeah, not a high point in m life.

Because only feminism can help people, right?  It’s not like there are other terms for people who are for equality, right?  Oh, snap, I found one – gender egalitarian.  Well, that’s awkward.

So, like most people who grew up in the neo-liberal ideology of the West,

Will you stop beginning all your talking points with “So”?!  It’s so annoying!

I saw the world largely as a series of individuals making their own individual choices.

Uh-oh!  Can’t have that!  This is third-wave feminism we’re talking about!  If there’s anything that the don’t like, it’s women thinking for themselves.

And here I was, a young woman making my own personal choices about what to wear, what to buy, what to study and what I wanted to do everyday.

Um…what’s the problem there?  I’m not seeing the point that I’m sure you’re dragging your ass to get to.

Within that narrow individualistic framework, feminism seemed like a relic of the distant past.

Oh my god!  What happened to this woman?!  She seemed to understand!  Can we go back and get this person here?  I bet she’s much more amiable.

Back then, I thought that sexism boiled down to a few bad apples with misguided personal beliefs, born out of ignorance or overt hatred.

I don’t believe it.  At one point, this woman got it.  For real, she got it!  She got that women should be allowed to believe as they want, and that modern sexism was just about increasingly-smaller groups of assholes in places like the Bible Belt and such.  What happened to this woman?!  I bet that she was loads of fun to be around!  I actually want to meet her and maybe go out for a drink and get to know her.  Maybe a burger or something.

So, it wasn’t until my early to mid-twenties that I began to realize that my impression about feminism had been completely wrong!

I want a time machine, to keep this from happening.  No joke, she went from getting how the world is, to becoming part of a group of people so totally nuts that it is almost laughable.

With the help of some amazing mentors and by reading a lot of feminist writing, especially works of women of color and queer women from around the world.

Because the opinions of white people are just garbage, am I right?!  Also, we’ll get to her talking about taking cues from “queer women,” later, when she totally buries herself in her own bullshit.

Once you have a systemic and institutional framework, you see how oppression manifests in man subtle ways under the system of what Belle Hooks calls ‘white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.’

A completely bullshit term.  For real, that’s garbage.  It sounds really smart, so I’m sure that her Tumblr and Twitter legion of white knights and Anita fanboys who are eager to please senpai are just aching to run to social media and put that out.  But yeah, it’s garbage.  She thinks that she was given the sunglasses from They Live, when instead she is one of the people who listens to Chancellor Sutler’s broadcasts in V for Vendetta and buys them at face value.

So, (again?!) not only did I have to learn how to be a feminist, but I had to learn how to be a feminist who understands systems.


I think that about sums it up.

I had to learn how systems of oppression are maintained by our participation in them.  But they’re also self-perpetuating by the paths of least resistance.  And, as such are larger than any one person’s choices.

Yeah, I’m sure that Johnny McIntosh wrote this for you.  Only he can have such a long amount of space that says absolutely nothing.  I think that end bit is working towards something, though.  We’ll see.

Okay, so this is the part where I say things that may ruffle some feathers.

Ooo, good!  We finally get to peek behind the mirror and see what Sarkeesian really believes!  I’ve been wanting this for a while.

But I think it’s a critical discussion to be had.

We’ll see about that.

Over the past few years, I’ve become increasingly worried about the direction that mainstream Internet feminism appears to be headed.  At least in the West.

First, Anita, you and your ilk ARE mainstream Internet feminism.  There are people like Christian Hoff Sommers who disagree with how things are going, but the incredibly vocal majority online are you and yours.  That’s a fact.  Second, the Internet is global, you ignorant buffoon.

Unfortunately, many contemporary discourses, in and around feminism, tend to emphasize a form of hyper-individualism.

Because thinking for yourself is so awful!

Which is informed by that neo-liberal worldview.

What’s wrong with women thinking for themselves?  All ears, Anita.

More and more, I hear variations on this idea that anything that any woman personally chooses to do is a feminist act.  This attitude is often referred to as ‘choice feminism.’

By definition, feminism is about empowering women.  If women choose to exercise that empowerment, then yes, it is a “feminist act.”  But I’m sure that that doesn’t jive with your hive-mind approach to feminism, does it?

‘Choice feminism’ posets that each individual woman choose what is empowering for herself, which might sound good on the surface, but this concept risks obscuring the bigger picture and larger fundamental goals of the movement.

You hear that, ladies?  Your choices are wrong!  This woman is going to tell you why they’re wrong!  It seems that your choices aren’t helping her movement enough!  Well that’s just awful!  Your freedom to choose should come secondary to Anita’s ideals!  Bow to the hive mentality!

By focusing on individual women, with a very narrow individual notion of empowerment.  It erases that reality that some choices that women make have enormous negative impact on other women’s lives.

Serious moment – Anita, who the HELL are you to be able to determine what is the best way for women to be?  Straight from the horse’s mouth, Anita Sarkeesian has just said that she knows how women should act, and any women who don’t act a certain way are wrong and need fixing.  Am I the only one who sees how unbelievably sexist that is?!  I can’t be.  I cannot be the only person who gets this!  Wow.  I just, don’t even know what to say to that.  It’s like, how do you respond to a person who has made an argument that they can tell other women what the right way to live and be is?  What an ego on this one!

So it’s not enough to feel personally empowered or be personally successful within the oppressive framework of the current system.  Even if an individual woman can make patriarchy work for her, it’s still a losing game for the rest of the women on the planet.

The arrogance of this woman is astounding.  She just said that if you don’t act in a certain way that she and her ilk approve of, you are wrong and need to change your behavior for their group.  They are basically toting the line – if you don’t obey the group-think, then you must be changed.  Orwellian doesn’t even come close to how insane that is.  Hey White Knights of Sarkeesian-senpai, please tell me how this sits right with you.

The fact of the matter is that some choices have ramifications beyond ourselves, and reinforce harmful patriarch-like of women as a group, and about women’s bodies in our wider shared culture.  And because of how systems of oppression intersect and compound one-another, it’s women of color, indigenous women, women living in the global south, women with disabilities, queer women and trans women who bear the brunt of these ramifications.

Here we go!  The point where she buried herself beneath her own bullshit.  Anita, you have used lesbian and bisexual women as a shield for yourself for years.  All the while, you make argument about video games and how they only appeal to straight men.  In effect, you cut lesbian and bisexual women out of the conversation about their sexual desires, and you don’t find it at ALL hypocritical that you are now saying that the choices of other women are hurting “queer women”?!  The cognitive dissonance is astronomical!  You take a shit on the sexual attractions of women, and now claim that OTHER women are working against LB women community.  You are scum!  You are total and complete scum!  It’s not enough for you to exploit them.  You are exploiting them and saying that is for their own good. Fuck EVERYTHING about that thought process!  And fuck you too!  It blows my mind that a bisexual man is the one arguing for the opinions of lesbian and bisexual women, while the straight feminist is pushing them down.

Choice feminism also obscures the fact that women don’t have a real choice!

Bull-shit!  That is bullshit!  Let me know a choice that men have that women don’t, other than to use the urinal.

We have a very narrow set of predetermined choices within the set of patriarchy.

Let me get this straight – women are both making wrong choices, but have no choice at all.  It’s almost like this is total bullshit and you are pulling this straight out of your ass!

Women can choose from a pre-approved palate, but we cannot meaningfully choose liberation.

You know, I’m getting really sick of this kind of rhetoric.  It basically says that women in the Western World are some oppressed victim of some vague “patriarchy” that controls everything they do.  Do you realize how insulting that it is to the women who have fought for the rights you do have?  I guarantee that if the suffragettes of the early-1900s saw the rights that you have now, and the choices that you have now, they would bitch-slap you for this kind of stupidity.  Name me a right, any right, that a man has in the Western World, and a woman does not.  For real, name me one.  Don’t bring up that wage gap.  When you correct for things like education and specialty job fields within careers, it all but vanishes.  Name one right that man in this country has that a woman does not.  If I were to say, “alright, fellow men!  I’ve removed social justice feminism from their palate of pre-approved things!” would that suddenly make it go away?  No?  Then maybe this “patriarchy” that you so cavalierly talk about isn’t a real thing!  Maybe it’s just a term that you decided to put up so that you can make excuses for why you suck as a person or are doing poorly in the world.  There’s a thought.  Here’s another – grow the fuck up!

We cannot choose a way out of our constraints.  At least, without eliminating these oppressive systems that limit our options.

The only system that I see here that is limiting women’s options is what you’re talking about, Anita.  After all, you are telling women that if they don’t act the way your approve of, they are wrong.  But hey, you want a way out?  I, as a member of your mythical patriarchy, approve you to leave the Land of Men, to go and establish the feminist utopia.  Good luck, skipper.

So when we talk about free choice in today’s world, we’re really talking about a very narrow set of choice that are amenable to patriarchy.

That you can dictate which is right and wrong.  Your ego is over 9000!

So, when we talk about how to be a feminist, for me, that means being committed to something much larger than ourselves.

The Hive Mind, with it’s collective un-intelligence.

It’s understanding what role you play in our collective movements for liberation.

What did I tell you?

It’s re-examining our desires and interests and understanding how those are shared by capitali – I’m sorry – often cheated, I don’t know about shared.

With the amount of money you make, I can see why you’d see cheating.

By capitalism, patriarch and white supremacy,

The last two of which don’t exist, here in the real world.

It’s understanding our own intersections of privilege and oppression and how that will fundamentally change our behaviors, attitudes and values.  It’s realizing that being a feminist is a life-long learning endeavor and that we will make some mistakes on the way.

I got one right here – people gave you tons of money on Kickstarter, only for you to not only never finish the video series, but to also not fulfill any of your Kickstarter promises.  But hey, the defenders of “Anita-senpai” are the ultimate apologists.  No amount of evidence will ever persuade them that she is wrong.

Here’s the thing about what Anita had to say – she is so sexist.  She is one of the most sexist women I have ever seen.  Sexist against women.  She can tell women that they are wrong and that not agreeing with her is part of the “patriarchy.”  She can use lesbian and bisexual women as a shield, then ignore them in a conversation about their own sexuality, yet claim to fight for them.  She will tell women that they have no real choice, but that the choices they do have – they are making the wrong ones.  And people ate it up.  People buy this.  Without a single bit of dissent or argument, people just agree with her.  That baffles me.  There are women out there who genuinely think that she is right on the money.

Who is it again who is trying to quash women’s expression?

Until next time, a quote,

“For a long time, I had regarded Rachel as representing one end of the continuum of human nature.  What all humans would become if the war went on long enough.  That perception has guided many of my decisions.  An entire race of Rachels – angry, merciless, aggressive, equipped with Yeerk and Andalite technology.  It was a terrifying specter.
But perhaps…perhaps I had been wrong.  Perhaps the real menace lay at the other end of the continuum, represented by Cassie.  Humans who were kinder, softer, well-meaning.  And ironically, infinitely more dangerous.”  -Ax, Animorphs

Peace out,



16 thoughts on “Your “Feminism” is Against Women (A response to Anita Sarkeesian)

  1. I want to point out that much of what Sarkeesian is talking about is in a much larger context than just ‘rights’ in the Western societies. I say this because she’s talking about her choices as a female being narrowly defined, but you’re responding with rights. I would say that you’re doing one of two things: 1) committing a logical fallacy, akin to the way that scientists use the term “theory” (based on many thousands of observations), and a Christian attempting to discredit evolution based on the fact that it’s a theory (meaning colloquially as simply being a guess). In a very similar fashion, you’re critique of her use of “choice” is in changing not just the context, but even the words that she’s using by referring to “rights.” Feminism, as a movement (which is what she’s largely referring to in her discussion) isn’t just a Western movement, which I presume you are fully aware of.

    More to the point, I would have much liked to see less ad hominem attacks towards Sarkeesian, and more intellectual creativity by responding to her ideas in a more analytical approach. To give another example, you criticize her point on “choice feminism”, which Sarkeesian essentially says that some individual choices are disastrous for women. Sarkeesian’s point isn’t necessarily that women shouldn’t do those things, lest they wish to destroy the movement. A point you make, that she doesn’t (logical fallacy). She’s actually making a valid point against choice feminism. I am unsure as to why you would critique her critique of choice feminism? Regardless, to put what she’s saying into an example: society expects women to be thin, tall, to wear makeup, etc. There’s a very narrow definition and example of what female beauty is to look like (regardless of whether you agree with said standard is beyond the point). So, if a lady decides to “fit the stereotype” to empower herself, is she really empowering herself by following the expectations? Sarkeesian’s critique is essentially this question: is that *really* liberation? Is it really a choice?More to the point that Sarkeesian is trying to make is that women should make it clear that they’re doing it to empower themselves – a sentiment that many feminists hold. Some feminists argue that ‘choice feminism’ is an illusion, which, based on what Sarkeesian said (and quoted by you verbatim), she would more than likely agree that the ability to “choose” outside of what’s socially acceptable, and expected, is an illusion.

    One last point. You criticize Sarkeesian’s points as essentially saying that women need to make choices that would benefit the movement. Would you also, fairly, criticize political figures that do the same – which actively happens, all the time? Successful movements, political or social, will fail when people act contrary to the tenets and goals that said movements attempt to achieve. I say this to make the point that even if that is what Sarkeesian’s point was, why is necessarily a bad one? I would also ask how that is objectively anti-feminist? Does that make the Democratic leaders anti-democratic? Republican leaders anti-republican? Bolsheviks, anti-bolshevik (Russian Revolution)? As they make the same exact points to members of each party and group that act in ways that don’t benefit their respective movements, and goals.

    I make no assumptions as to your level of knowledge and understanding of political and moral philosophy and psychology, as well as the various flavors of feminist thought and theories. I say this so that I may respectfully suggest to you to read up on some theories, as they greatly mimic various other concepts in philosophy that have greatly shaped our political system, and even understanding of psychology.

    • I realize that the beginning of my huge comment says “one of two things: 1)” and I subsequently forgot to place a “2)”, which would have said that you are relying to much on personal attacks as opposed to theoretical rejections.

      • Give me an example of an ad hominem attack, good sir. I see none here. I have said nothing that is untrue about her actions and what she has said. Examples go a long way to proving your point. And notice that neither you nor her give a single example of one of these “disastrous” choices that women can potentially make. It isn’t valid if there is nothing that you can have to back it up. Your point about a woman not being empowered by going with the flow – it’s her choice to make! It’s empowering because she has the right to make it, and she did. So your backing up statement falls flat. Also, I don’t criticize politicians who don’t make choices that are for the “movement.” I would much rather have a politician with some convictions, who votes as he believes is appropriate, rather than just doing what the rest do. Female empowerment is about giving women the right to choose to do whatever they want. What they do after that is their business. Don’t like that? Well, too fucking bad. That’s freedom of speech and freedom to act in a way that does no harm. Freedom. You all talk about people marching in lock-step, when you say that women should “rightly” be criticized for not acting in accordance with the rest of the group.

      • The logical form of ad hominem follows as such:

        Person 1 claims something, say Y,
        Person 1 is a moron,
        Therefore, Y is not true.

        An example for you:

        Sarkeesian: “I had to learn how systems of oppression are maintained by our participation in them. But they’re also self-perpetuating by the paths of least resistance. And, as such are larger than any one person’s choices.”

        You: “I’m sure that Johnny McIntosh wrote this for you.”

        Your conclusion, therefore, is that her argument is wrong because she’s borrowing someone else’s idea. Or, following from another statement that you said, “You mean Johnny McIntosh wrote them (in context of the things Sarkeesian wrote). If you had original thoughts then that would be frightening.”

        You are, essentially, asserting that what she’s saying that she’s incapable of coming up with her own thoughts, and or that she’s stealing from someone else’s own words. Ad hominem logical fallacies are also know as damning the source, refutation by character, or personal attacks. You’re attempting to discredit her through character assassination (ex., she can’t think for herself), as opposed to attacking the theory and argument that she made.

        And to be clear, her argument, from the example above, is that “systems of oppression are maintained by our participation in them…” this is an academic, indeed a theoretical approach dealing with notions of internalized oppression, and how, at the individual level, people may come to believe in the messages that the dominant group holds. That’s what Sarkeesian is saying, that’s her theoretical framework, and that’s the thought processes that drive her work. At least in small part. As I said before, I would have liked to see more analysis and critique of the theory, as opposed to your saying that someone else wrote it for her, or that she can’t think for herself.

        An example of what Sarkeesian is saying: Say Johnny McIntosh makes a rape joke. If Sarkeesian responds by either expanding the joke, or laughs, she has thereby participated in the dominant cultural theme and acceptance of those jokes. However, many theories and approaches to understanding oppression – at any level (individual, social, institutional) – understand jokes to be a subtle, and accepted “form of oppression.” So, in this example, when Sarkeesian laughs at the joke, she has participated in the system of oppression. But that’s not what Sarkeesian would do, hypothetically, instead she would critique the joke, the person, or point out that it’s a subtle method of maintaining oppression, through oppressive notions, in which case she would be called “too sensitive,” “too politically correct,” or in various ways “punished” by society (i.e., other people). Indeed, that’s exactly what has happened with her analysis of video games.

        Rather than individuals critique the notions that jokes (or tropes in games) are a subtle, more palatable, form and representation of oppression – people say that she’s a liar, a joke, not critical, lazy, and deserves to be punished in other ways (most of which are things that you haven’t said, to your credit).

        Moving on, I want to say that I believe it to be a waste of time to attempt to give examples, as those examples won’t do much justice here. I say this in context of the notion that Sarkeesian is critical of ‘Choice Feminism’, much to the agreement of many other feminists who view “choice” as sometimes being an illusion. To put this more into view, take John Stuart Mill for example. He suggest that women should have more choices within society. In effect, this is a kind of “choice feminism.” Although Mill cannot be credited with the theory, it very much suits the critical analysis of choice feminism. As quoted from Michaele L. Ferguson (2005), “This is choice feminism in another form: as long as we can say that women have the choice to pursue careers, they are liberated; we cannot call them oppressed if they subsequently decide to devote their lives to only being wives and mothers.” This is the foundational critique to choice feminism. You, in your reply, state: “It’s empowering because she has the right to make it, and she did.” But that view, much to the agreement of Third Wave Feminists who agree with Choice Feminism, is, from a theoretical approach, reductive to the many other factors that influence a decision. Sarkeesian’s overall point may be as simple as saying that “not all choices are made equally” which is true, even outside of Feminism.

        Following this, you said: “I would much rather have a politician with some convictions, who votes as he believes is appropriate, rather than just doing what the rest do.” I would say that Sarkeesian agrees with this very sentiment in context of feminism. I’m sure most voters want a politician with some convictions, who votes as he believes is appropriate. The thing is, most politicians get elected for that reason, but at the end of the day, they’re “choice politicians.” They have the illusion, in Congress, that they can “vote in the interest of their constituents” but really, they don’t. John Boehner, the Speaker of the House, let the government shut down, not because he had strongly held convictions – he let the government shut down because the majority of his party was breathing down his neck, and he knew he would suffer politically if he did opposite. Where’s the choice in that? They vote along party lines. When they don’t vote as they are required to, they are punished come next election season. Sarkeesian is making the same point about women’s choices, in context of social rules, expectations, mores, etc.

        Sarkeesian would agree that “Female empowerment is about giving women the right to choose to do whatever they want.” But Sarkeesian takes this further by, essentially, critiquing third wave feminists operational definitions of “choice” and “right”. This actually falls in line with second wave feminism.

        As for the rest of your comment: Okay.

      • She doesn’t take it further, dude. You can write out in academic rhetoric all you like, but my points stand. She argues that women are making the wrong choices, but then argues that they have no real choice at all. That’s false. You talk about theoretical this and that, not understanding the basic facts of life – your theory doesn’t hold up in the real world. Much like most third-wave feminists, you live in academia. You’ve been in the classroom so long that you see everything through that filter. It’s telling that you talk about the “theoretical” parts of my comment, but for the rest, the stuff that you can’t make into some long diatribe about systems and hypothetical arguments, your response is, “Okay.” Almost like a tacit admission that you have no real-world basis for anything that you said.

        Also, it’s good that you avoided the whole thing about her claiming to defend “queer women,” yet then cutting them out of the conversation about themselves. It’s telling. That is where all her credibility died, with me. But I’m sure your apologist-mentality is working on a defense for that right now. Let’s see what you’ve got.

      • But she does take it further, and if you would read the literature concerning Choice Feminism, you would understand this.

        In any case, as for the rest of your comment, I would say two things: 1) I would really caution on making assumptions about the people you talk to based on three comments. The information I have been arguing doesn’t stem from a classroom. 2) I relegated the rest of your previous comment to “okay” not as some “tacit admission” of ignorance, indeed I did that out of respect to the fact that my comment had reached 1,000 words, and was becoming, in my opinion, far too lengthy for a response.

        My point was this: she’s making an argument based on at least a decade of feminist theory, which has roots in psychology, sociology, and, interestingly enough, communism. But, rather than discuss her words in an intellectually honest manner, most individuals respond by saying that what she’s saying is “bullshit” without really explaining, or giving examples, to back up their statement that her approach is “bullshit.”

        Furthermore, my comments had less to do with tackling queer issues, freedom of speech, or even the accuracy of what she’s saying, and more to do with her foundation, her thought process, indeed where she gets what you call “bullshit”. I’m more than happy to tackle the correctness of her worldview, and theories – but that wasn’t the intent of any of my comments.

        I’ll write a more in depth response via a blog post, so that I can have the room and freedom to respond with as lengthy a “diatribe” as I would like.

      • Her foundation is faulty, good “sir.” That is my point. None of your long diatribe was able to prove otherwise. You just talked about the literature that you found that supports her statements, and take that as gospel. I don’t. It’s easy to read some long rambling piece of sociological science literature and say that that is how it is. But I live in the real world, where I can make real observations. Talking about “internalized oppression” and “systems of inequality” is all well and good, but when push comes to shove, and you have to give a real-world example of what you are talking about, it fails scrutiny. Hence why people like Anita don’t like Christina Hoff Sommers, aka, The Factual Feminist. She takes their arguments and turns them on their head, looking at stats and real-world data. It’s amazing what you can learn by looking outside your echo chamber.

      • “Her foundation is faulty…”, “None of your long diatribe was able to prove otherwise.”

        To be perfectly clear: I wasn’t trying to change your opinion, or “prove” her stance. In fact, I never said that I agreed with her stance. The entire point of my comments was to elaborate the difference between her approach: expression of theory, and the approach of her critics: ad hominem, therefore no real rebuttal or substance.

        I said before that I had no intention of tackling the rightness of her theory.

        As for “giving real-world” examples, I have given none. Not out of lack of evidence, or fear that they’ll fail scrutiny, but because I have no desire (as it was not my intention), to defend the theory – only to explain her worldview.

      • By the way – the entire purpose of equality is the freedom to self-determinate. It is about everyone having the freedom to live life as they see fit. Don’t like what they are choosing to do – too fucking bad! That’s equality, baby. You can argue with various writings all day, but in the REAL world, this is how it works. If you want people to make choices that you like, then you can argue that, and my rebuttal is – you don’t believe in equality. You know, the real kind.

      • I am fully aware of what equality is, and the various reasons that various groups have attempted to achieve and or acquire it. I am also aware of the various arguments that aim to explain what “equality” looks like – a conversation for another day and place.

      • And you’ve explained her worldview. And I’ve refuted it. Quite handily, if I do say so myself.

      • Hey, for that blog post that you do defending Anita’s worldview, remember the person who you are defending. From the mouth of one of the women she means to marginalize because they aren’t acting the way she wants.

  2. Pingback: In Defense of Anita Sarkeesian, Pt. 1: A Response to Lucien Maverick, and a Lesson on Feminism | The Watchtower

    • If it interesting how you accuse me of making strawmen, when you label people who disagree with you, like Christina Hoff Sommers, as a conservative, even though, if you look on the AEI’s site, it’s a non-partisan think-tank. Though I’m not surprised. the Authoritarian Left has been doing this tactic for years.

      • Not to mention, Sommers is a registered Democrat. Has been for the last 20 years.

  3. “much of what Sarkeesian is talking about is in a much larger context”

    …and you would know this because… you can read minds? Oh, no, no you’re just overly desperate to try and “explain” the horrifically disturbing craziness coming out of her mouth. Yer all, “Oh wait, no wait, she didn’t just say that, did she?!” I can understand your NEED though, I mean, humans don’t enjoy looking foolish and stupid and, once you’ve signed up and “drunken the Kool-Aid” so to speak… yeeeaaah… looking foolish would just be adding insult to self-inflicted injury, now wouldn’t it? ^__^

    By the by, resorting to “fallacy flinging” is a sure sign of pseudo-intellectualism… basically you don’t actually ~have~ a point so you’re just going to throw in a bunch of random fallacy accusations in order to try and draw attention away from that fact… all the while completely ignoring the fact that you’ve committed at ~least~ 6 or 8 fallacies of your OWN just within your first post! 😀

    “In a very similar fashion, you’re critique of her use of “choice” is in changing not just the context, but even the words that she’s using by referring to “rights.”

    “You are critique”… huh… really? I mean… you’re seriously whining about context and the interpretation of words when you haven’t even apparently mastered elementary level punctuation… funny that, innt?

    And, actually… no. YOU are the one attempting to “change the context” or rather attempting to argue for a change of venue for the context effectively, largely by ADDING IN random assertions and presumptions about what you ~think~ Anita meant or was referring to… you know… rather than what she ACTUALLY SAID IN CONTEXT.

    The only way in fact that your “arguments” work (if you even want to attempt to call them that) is if you take what she said OUT of context… completely. ಠ_ಠ

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s