Why does this idiot keep making these videos that are so blatantly stupid?! It’s so frustrating! I don’t want to respond to this idiot. But then I remembered that she is making more of these “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games” posts, and I knew that I would find something so stupid that I would have to find a way to stop myself from hanging myself over the railing at my apartment building because if this is the peak of what third-wave feminism has to offer, then I want it to just die already. More than I already had. In her latest video, Anita decided to take on the idea of the male gaze. This is something that Christina Hoff Sommers and others have said that she uses to justify so many of her stupid ideas, and now she decided to prove them all right. I almost admire this moistened bint. I’ll share her video, so you all can see that I’m taking nothing out of context, and then we’ll talk about it.
Another instance where I just feel like this video while watching Anita.
First off, I want us to get something out of the way right off the bat – Anita Sarkeesian is pandering an idea about “exaggerated hip sway” that basically decides to ignore science. See, while the SJW crowd will deny this up and down, it’s been proven scientifically that there are real differences between men and women. We are a sexually dimorphic species. There are real, biological differences between men and women.
With men, we have more broad chest and shoulders, more square jaws and developed musculature. This is because the males of our species developed to be the defenders and providers. Meanwhile, women have softer features, softer skin, a more pronounced chest, and a more pronounced ass. Their hips widen at puberty and then the typical woman walks with a hip sway. In not one of the clips that Anita stole from some other person who actually played the games did I see an “exaggerated hip sway.” Almost all my friends growing up have been women. I am bisexual. I’ve had enough women who I’ve gone out with in many capacities to observe how women are. These women weren’t swaying like they are on the catwalk. They were walking like normal people. With Catwoman, Sarkeesian blatantly ignores that the goal of having her walk the way she does is keeping in character. She’s supposed to be like a cat! You fucking idiot! But all this talk about how exaggerated and sexualized so many aspects of the female characters are completely ignores the real biological differences that exist between men and women. If it weren’t for the fact that she’s a con artist, I would think that this is a sign that she doesn’t know shit about women and biology. It wouldn’t be surprising. Modern feminism is fighting tooth and nail to pretend that biology and gender don’t exist.
But the real thing that I take umbrage with is her big talking point about the male gaze. This woman’s statement about how people interpret sexuality just amazes me. I want to break down all the things that bugged me. First, she literally points out that the only time that gazing and finding something attractive is bad is when men do it. Like so many thing associated with modern feminism, it’s only sexist when men do it. Because women are oppressed! In the First World! In a way that NO feminist has been able to show. Why do I make that distinction? Because complaining about female portrayal in video games is a First World problem. Women in the Middle East being forced to wear certain clothing don’t give a shit about this. These people never cease to amaze.
But this comes directly into conflict with the second issue. Sarkeesian makes a blantant double-standard about people looking and finding things attractive. It’s okay when women do it, but not when men. She literally makes the argument that when it’s a guy showing his muscles and being all buff, that isn’t sexual. That’s power! How the fuck can you say that?! Are you saying that no woman finds that hot?! Is that the argument? No woman anywhere finds beefcake men hot? Well, that’s complete bullshit. A former girly-mate of mine is only attractive to beefcake men. Slim men are a turn-off for her. As are these men who don’t exhibit the “toxic masculinity” that you all bitch about so much. Beta males, in other words. She wants alpha, rugged men. She’s married to one. Your entire argument hinges on the idea that nothing a man can do is sexual, because there is the implicit statement that women aren’t going to find it that way.
Not to mention – you once-again leave out the idea that women might find another chick in a game hot! For all your talk about “exaggerated hip sway,” what about if a woman finds that sexually appealing? Hell, I have two that I could call up right now and ask if they find chicks who are hot sexually attractive, and they would be very affirmative. Why? Because they’re GAY! They are sexually attracted to other women! Oh, but that’s right, it’s only bad when it’s men. That’s your standard. That’s the idea you want to perpetuate. You are effectively able to cut out lesbian and bisexual women yet-again because you have literally said that they don’t matter in this conversation. It’s all about the men.
You are a con artist. You have to be. Because if you aren’t, then the fact is that you are the biggest, stupid, promoting of ignorance misogynist that I have EVER SEEN! But you’re a con artist. Anyone with perspective can see that. Since you’ll never face any of your detractors, your narrative never has to be damaged. This is why I have such a problem with you. You perpetuate stupidity, all under the guise of a narrative which you adopted to make yourself money. You are such a piece of shit, and while I don’t condone the threats against you, I hope that people wise up and stop feeding your lying coffers.
Until next time, a quote,
“He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do a second or third time, till at length it becomes habitual.” -Thomas Jefferson