5 ms·

I have read more article's in the last month that feature Anita Sarkeesian in them than I previously thought I would have in my entire life.

sr-ix 12y ago
She is but one point in the broad corpus of data this article brings up. That's part of the point: the problems are rampant.
potatolicious 12y ago
There are 5700 words in this article. Exactly 72 of those words refer - directly or indirectly - to Sarkeesian. Before even mentioning Sarkeesian the article reports on the threats and abuse suffered by 4 other women. Directly after mentioning Sarkeesian it details stories of 5 more women who have been harassed, violently attacked, or threatened. So... Sarkeesian is the part that you latch onto here?
- icpmacdo 12y ago
  I know its a monster of an article I was commenting that when I got to that spot it registered as another data point in a the number of times I have read that name over a huge assortment of publications. I kinda of understand the downvoting I am getting for pointing it out as it seems to be a charged topic.
oldmanjay 12y ago
I find her easy enough to ignore since half of her schtick seems to be "people denigrate me, therefore I am correct."
brazzy 12y ago
The thing is: even If you accept all criticism of Sarkeesian as valid and correct, her storry is still aalso a valid example of the vitrolic misogyny the article describes. In other words: even an attention-seeking hack who misuses feminist talking points for personal gain should not have to suffer rape threats.
- zyx321 12y ago
  At the same time, it's very hard to feel sorry for her if she built her career on it. And it's very hard to take the very real problem serious if you got people like Sarkeesian (and Zoe Quinn, and Leigh Alexander, and so forth) poisoning the discussion. They are not harassed because of who they are. They are harassed because of what they say, and what they do. Now I'm not saying that that's okay to threaten someone over their opinion, but there's a world of a difference between hating the political agenda a woman (or predominantly female group) is pushing and misogyny. At some point, word like "misogynist" lose all meaning and become just insults that you either ignore or worse, take as a signal to discard the opinion of anyone who uses them wholesale.
  - brazzy 12y ago
    When the action is harassment of the form described in the article, then that is misogyny, no matter what the victim did. I'd say that the people who issue these threats are poisoning the discussion a whole lot more than someone who argues in bad faith. And in the same vein, while it's annoying and hurts the cause of equality that some feminists will call anyone a misogynist who disagrees with their particular radical form of feminism, if you consider that a worse problem and spend more attention on it than on people who tweet "I’ll go to your flat and cut your fucking head off you inbred whore.", then you really are part of the problem and giving those feminists too much cause.
    - zyx321 12y ago
      Then I am part of the problem, I guess? Because yes, I would argue that we shouldn't be paying attention to the trolls. They aren't poisoning the discussion because they aren't part of the discussion. They are trying to disrupt it from the outside, but any sort of moderated community they will be kicked out whenever they show up. I would also argue that it might be worth differentiating between using misogynist behavior/rhetoric to attack a woman who you disagree with ideologically vs the sort of misogynist ideology that is the focus of the article. Misogyny as a means vs misogyny as an end, if you will.
venomsnake 12y ago
Give credit where credit is due - the woman turned "being harassed online" into nice revenue stream. She even wiggled herself into #GamerGate

sr-ix 12y ago

She is but one point in the broad corpus of data this article brings up. That's part of the point: the problems are rampant.

potatolicious 12y ago

There are 5700 words in this article. Exactly 72 of those words refer - directly or indirectly - to Sarkeesian. Before even mentioning Sarkeesian the article reports on the threats and abuse suffered by 4 other women. Directly after mentioning Sarkeesian it details stories of 5 more women who have been harassed, violently attacked, or threatened. So... Sarkeesian is the part that you latch onto here?

icpmacdo 12y ago
I know its a monster of an article I was commenting that when I got to that spot it registered as another data point in a the number of times I have read that name over a huge assortment of publications. I kinda of understand the downvoting I am getting for pointing it out as it seems to be a charged topic.

oldmanjay 12y ago

I find her easy enough to ignore since half of her schtick seems to be "people denigrate me, therefore I am correct."

brazzy 12y ago

The thing is: even If you accept all criticism of Sarkeesian as valid and correct, her storry is still aalso a valid example of the vitrolic misogyny the article describes. In other words: even an attention-seeking hack who misuses feminist talking points for personal gain should not have to suffer rape threats.

zyx321 12y ago
At the same time, it's very hard to feel sorry for her if she built her career on it. And it's very hard to take the very real problem serious if you got people like Sarkeesian (and Zoe Quinn, and Leigh Alexander, and so forth) poisoning the discussion. They are not harassed because of who they are. They are harassed because of what they say, and what they do. Now I'm not saying that that's okay to threaten someone over their opinion, but there's a world of a difference between hating the political agenda a woman (or predominantly female group) is pushing and misogyny. At some point, word like "misogynist" lose all meaning and become just insults that you either ignore or worse, take as a signal to discard the opinion of anyone who uses them wholesale.
- brazzy 12y ago
  When the action is harassment of the form described in the article, then that is misogyny, no matter what the victim did. I'd say that the people who issue these threats are poisoning the discussion a whole lot more than someone who argues in bad faith. And in the same vein, while it's annoying and hurts the cause of equality that some feminists will call anyone a misogynist who disagrees with their particular radical form of feminism, if you consider that a worse problem and spend more attention on it than on people who tweet "I’ll go to your flat and cut your fucking head off you inbred whore.", then you really are part of the problem and giving those feminists too much cause.
  - zyx321 12y ago
    Then I am part of the problem, I guess? Because yes, I would argue that we shouldn't be paying attention to the trolls. They aren't poisoning the discussion because they aren't part of the discussion. They are trying to disrupt it from the outside, but any sort of moderated community they will be kicked out whenever they show up. I would also argue that it might be worth differentiating between using misogynist behavior/rhetoric to attack a woman who you disagree with ideologically vs the sort of misogynist ideology that is the focus of the article. Misogyny as a means vs misogyny as an end, if you will.

venomsnake 12y ago

Give credit where credit is due - the woman turned "being harassed online" into nice revenue stream. She even wiggled herself into #GamerGate