Creator of "Tropes vs. Women" Driven From Home By Trolls

[dlevere]

Posted By timothy

Sonny Yatsen writes:

Anita Sarkeesian, the creator of Tropes vs. Women — a video series exploring negative tropes and misogynistic depictions of women in video games — reports that she has been driven from her home after a series of extremely violent sexual threats made against her. Her videos have previously drawn criticism from many male gamers, often coupled with violent imagery or threats of violence.

The Verge story linked has this to say:

The threats against Sarkeesian have become a nasty backdrop to her entire project — and her life. If the trolls making them hoped for attention, they've gotten it. They've also inexorably linked criticism of her work, valid or not, with semi-delusional vigilantism, and arguably propelled Tropes vs. Women to its current level of visibility.

If a major plank of your platform is that misogyny is a lie propagated by Sarkeesian and other "social justice warriors," it might help to not constantly prove it wrong.

[Ultimarok]

I have to say, while I don't condone violence and threats like this (It's very elementary on the most childish of levels), it's not surprising that she garnered such a reaction.

Feminism is starting to become a really unpopular thing these days and I understand why and agree with opinions against it. (I don't agree with the reaction people have had against her, though and I don't think she deserves it. No White Knight, though. What they've done is going a bit too far. A simple debate of proving her points wrong would've been far better than primitive threats and unnecessary violence. Example: Men get attacked, brutalized and killed far more than women in video games. Especially in games likesay, Dynasty Warriors.)

It's ironic that misogyny is apparently such a big and terrible issue (It used to be, but these days it is considerably less), but misandry is perfectly fine, commonplace and acceptable by most standards, which is a shame and an unfair strike against the male gender.

One could argue than women have it far easier and better these days than men do, and especially more than they did in the past prior to the Women's Rights march, since the times and the tide has changed in this day and age. I'm not saying men have it horrible, but we are catching some pretty damn unfair flack and it's disheartening... Then's there the example of the matter that courts are more often sympathetic to women than men.

Also, the Zoe Quinn controversy, anyone? (Look it up if you haven't already.)

You know what they say about rotten apples spoiling the bunch and it exists for both genders.

I find it ironic and contradictory that feminism claims to be about equality and equal rights, yet you can plain as day see "fem" in the ism as well as the fact that it has no qualms with and even supports misandry on some levels. Be it silently or in loud protest. Nevermind that they are willing to go after higher, more unbalanced (Meaning more in their favor, less in men's) privileges and rights than men's. It really is all about them.

If one were really for 'equality, they'd call themselves an egalitarian or an 'equalist'.

The big joke of life? We can't be equal. There are some things that each gender is naturally better at than the other and is far more suited for. For instance: You wouldn't want a 120 pound firewoman trying to save you from a burning building when she can barely lift you, let alone move you and if she could, it would obviously be at too slow a pace unless you're a child or smaller than her. I had another example for situations a male wouldn't be good in, but I lost it in my head and can't remember it. (Don't you hate it when that happens and you just lose that train of thought?) But I think you've got the point, right? (You'll have to excuse me as I'm heavily sedated right now and my medication messes with my memory a bit. Also a tad delirious.)

I had some other well-thought out stuff to say, but I can't recall it at the moment and that disappoints me...

I will say that I despise both feminism and chauvinism (If that's the male version of feminism?) and especially the extremities of both. No one likes extremities. I also dislike and have a disdain for "social justice" warriors and the like.

Anyhow, that's my rant...

In the end, everything I've said here is completely subjective and I suppose you could argue anecdotal as well. Take what I've said as you will, preferably with a grain of salt.

[Pyriel]

My problem is with the frequency of almost outright dismissal on both sides. That's why why we don't have a renaissance of the human spirit.

Seriously, the way it often goes is this:

1. Group, person, or institution does something that can be interpreted as troubling to women somehow.
2. Woman or feminist group calls attention to it.
3. Sane people point out that there are problems going in both directions to some extent, but acknowledge that a point may have been made. Meanwhile loud-mouthed idiots and opposition activists completely dismiss the point because problems go in both directions, and we clearly don't have to do anything or even think about these issues as long as we can find a way to conclude that the issue-mass is equivalent on both sides.
4. Eventually a small number of trolls and loons turn up to threaten rape, assault, murder, and whatever else they can think of.
5. The woman or feminist group dismisses the possibility that problems can run both ways, or minimizes it due to their belief that the women's issues are more pressing.
6. (Optional) the woman or group points out that they've received a small number of threats.
7. The feminist dismissal enrages the loons and enraptures the trolls who redouble their efforts. The volume of threats increases. Possible doxxing occurs.
8. The woman or group points out that they've received a distressing number of vile threats.
9. Loons and trolls allege fabrication and attention whoring. Probable doxxing occurs, and strong insinuations are made about specific moral failings or aspects of the woman's sexual history.
10. The world becomes aware and falls into sides based on their biases or in some cases thoughtfully, but based on conflicting and wildly different accounts.

Basically, I think feminism and men's rights activism is fine up to a point. It seems completely natural to me that an activist would focus on the issues that are important to them, and not be concerned enough by other issues to directly address them. The problems arise when they pretend they don't exist or minimize them to the point of being meaningless, or at least unimportant in comparison to the problems they're concerned with.

The exchange in this instance should have gone:

1. Sarkeesian contends that women are often little more than props or titillating set-dressing in games and related media.
2. MRAs point out that men suffer more on-screen violence are generally portrayed thinly as heroes or villains. All while not pretending that her point is nothing but a stupid, bitchy whinge.
3. Sarkeesian acknowledges the argument; states that she's mostly concerned with feminist issues, and these problems are outside the scope of her current work. Then she points out that both problems can be remedied by games ceasing to treat women as be-titted MacGuffins. Female characters take more active roles, while wearing more appropriate clothing, consequently becoming the recipients of more on-screen violence, and the scales begin to balance.
4. MRAs move on, and everyone has ice cream.

[dlevere]

Yet another female game developer targeted with credible threats

[bungholio]

I tried looking at Ms. Wu's situation a little. It looks like somebody was making a few joking memes towards GamerGate, she liked them, and things somehow became very serious death threats towards her and her family. What is wrong with those people making the threats? A bunch of psychos.