Home
Creators
Search Recent Missing Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Feminism Vs FACTS (Anita Sarkeesian DESTROYED!) (Patreon)

Published:
2014-07-04 12:26:07
Imported:
2026-06
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Content

So in feminist circles, this subject/object crap is their bread and butter. They call themselves academics, and want this stuff taught in universities, however, none of that alters the fact that they are talking crap! That and many other dumb things Anita Sarkeesian has said addressed in this 37 min video :-) Many thanks to those who supported this through Patreon.

Files

Previews only

Feminism Vs FACTS (Anita Sarkeesian DESTROYED!)

The basic word game feminist play to tell you everything is sexist, is they say everything is objects or subjects. They then ignore, that by this method, you can class everyone in society as objects, and just claim that they have shown that women are objects.

Comments

conferencereport

You mention a number of times in this video that Sarkeesian received $30,000 for her video. Given that you received just over $2000 for this response it might be useful to ask whether hers is really 15 times better than this one. Frankly, I would say that without any doubt it is. You ridicule the references and resources she provides but you make no real attempt to engage with them academically or provide academic sources of your own, a habit I have noticed you repeat in most of your videos. At one point you show us an image of the opening page of one article that Sarkeesian cites, focusing on the fact that the epigraph to that article is from Andrea Dworkin. Rather than discuss the content of that article you instead choose to refer to a completely unrelated quotation from Dworkin in order to discredit the article. I believe the term for that kind of practice is 'poisoning the well'. As a professional scientist you are, I'm sure, aware of the necessity of following proper citation practices and accurately representing sources, yet you choose to do neither. You know that saying the word 'bullshit' repeatedly is not valid criticism, so I cannot understand why anyone who aspires to be a science communicator, as you clearly do, would adopt that strategy. Why don't you spend less time using these (frankly pretty lame) 'pwnage' tactics to attack the same targets over and over again and perhaps give more time to developing a positive critique of your own? For example, the 'subject/object dichotomy' you sneer at here has been usefully deployed in the service of a critique of masculinity from a male perspective <a href="http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/the-subject-and-the-object-of-gender-men-women-and-becoming-the-subject-of-ones-own-story/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/the-subject-and-the-object-of-gender-men-women-and-becoming-the-subject-of-ones-own-story/</a> I'm sure you could do something with that. One last point; I don't think it serves your case to talk about scholars working in disciplines that you know nothing about using phrases like 'they call themselves academics'. That's pretty much exactly the kinds of things that creationists say about scholars working in evolutionary biology. Thanks

Anonymous

I doubt it is worth to give videos like that much academically treatment. I see it more as entertainment and from that point TF´s video was a million times better. Still, for patreon I would prefer more science videos than entertainment stuff. Thank you!

conferencereport
>>96078

Personally I disagree with regard to the entertainment value of TF vs. Sarkeesian's video but am happy to accept that a subjective judgement. However, I wouldn't agree that academic treatment is not being offered here. Martha Nussbaum for example, who Sarkeesian references, is a very credible scholar with a serious reputation as a philosopher, and the paper that is cited contains significant insights. To dismiss that out of hand is really sloppy imho.

Anonymous

As a feminist, this is something close to my heart, and will be liking and following more projects like this in the future. I love anything and everything feminism. And for people that will be saying that feminism shouldn't be taught in universities, it should, at least to women.

Anonymous

"In short, the more you think that you are unlikely to be affected, the more you are likely to be". Now, if this were psychologically true you might expect manifestations of it in contexts other than video games. For example, I believe that I am unaffected by Christian evangelists. Does this mean that I'm actually quite susceptible to religious thought? What a topsy-turvy world it would be if everything we thought we were not susceptible to, actually we are. And what a convenient platform for debate - you think you're not? Well actually that proves you are. This is bogus science from AS were the references and data are no such thing and if you needed proof of it insist that AS submits the results of her study to the Journal of Applied Psychology for peer review and publication. Genuine searchers for truth in the context of gender studies are being conned by this flimsy "research" where she knows what the conclusion is and then looks for the data however sparse it might be. If you think that you're not susceptible to her academic con-tricks the more you are likely to be(!)

Anonymous
>>96259

Academic subjects based on tangible research and debate and subject to rigorous analysis should be taught in universities. And if feminism should be taught how about gay-studies? Would this be a degree in itself or just an elective? Who would teach it? Just women? Just feminists and believers? Would counter-argument feature equally in this study of feminism? ("at least to women"? That's bordering on sexist, isn't it?)

Anonymous
>>95801

15 times better? In what sense? In terms of her conclusions and scientific rigour or the polished appearance of her video? Her data, such as it is, and her references hardly justify her conclusion that if you think you're not susceptible it means you are. None of the PhD scholars I have known ever received $160,000 to pursue their doctorate thesis but none have been afraid to publish their findings for academic scrutiny. If AS is convinced of her work she should submit it to The Journal of Applied Psychology for appraisal, review and publishing. Go on, there's a challenge. If you believe she's onto something which underpins gender so fundamentally urge her to do so. One last thing, TF, in an academic sense, is entitled to be sceptical of her methodology, data and conclusions without submitting an alternative view. I can ridicule Creationism, for example, without presenting an alternative and without being a theologian. I don't know how life started, I'm "not working in that discipline" but that doesn't mean the idea of a man in the sky shouldn't be questioned. In fact that idea is bullcrap.

Anonymous

Again with the belief that Anita Saarkesian has anything to do with feminism. Sure, she uses the word a lot, I agree, she claims to be a feminist. But since feminism is defined as an advocacy of equal rights based on equality of the sexes, what has Anita Saarkesian got to do with feminism? Nothing at all as far as I can see. She has no interest in equality of any kind. She does not examine equal data to create an equal appraisal. I think if you're going to keep using the word feminism in reference to Anita and her ilk, then you will always run into problems when you go on the offensive against feminism. I'd be an MRA if I wasn't so lazy, in practice I'm little more than a "clicktivist". I'm also a feminist to a similar degree, because like you I'm absolutely in favour of equality of opportunity, equality of rights, responsibilities and expectations. I don't want to feel uncomfortable supporting feminist equality ideals just because Anita cannot label herself correctly. She will lose money if she stops tapping into the Misandry and/or self loathing markets, so that is her motive for lies and obfuscation. But you don't have that excuse. You know full well the difference between somebody who struggles against injustice and somebody who sells lies to the weak and stupid. Nor do your Patreon subscribers rely on you misrepresenting Ms Saarkesian as a feminist idol, I'd be amazed if there were people subscribing to this purely on the strength of you sticking it to one overhyped, but essentially powerless liar. I'd also be surprised to find many actual genuine core feminists being impressed with Anita Saarkesian should they take the time to actually familiarise themselves with her. (as opposed to simply believing she's right because even the BBC have been misguided enough to employ Anita to appear in their programming) I'm pleased to see you making such efforts and highlighting such vile liars and scam artists and individuals as Solar Scamways and Anita, but inadvertantly tainting decades of genuine progress and success for equality is poor form. I can tell from your videos that you feel correctly about this, I just just think you might want to take a moment to spell it out in clear terms. Even within my own circle of internet reprobates there are people who still think feminism must be bad because Anita Saarkesian is clearly bad. I'm confident that thanks to "hilarious" memes on 4chan etc there are a great number of people who think similarly. While those people do need their pop idol tearing down, they are going to need it replacing. If you provide no nurture, they will simply rebuild Anita after you've gone away. Even people that aren't very good at thinking need to be given something to think about it.

Alamandorious

You know, by feminist logic I should be a mass-mudering, drug abusing, woman beating misogynist by now given how many years I've been playing video games and being influenced by them despite the fact I can distinguish reality from fantasy, morally correct behaviour from immoral behaviour. If the sort of mind cancer that Anita and the rest of her crowd try to spread does get more than a marginal foothold in society, the human race is doomed. Money well spent again TF, as always.

Hubro

What does the "pop" in "pop critic" mean anyway? Is it just a half-sarcastic word for "new/modern and cool"?