Anita Sarkeesian is a bitch! There, I´ve said it. Did it make me feel better? No, not really. But she is a bitch. Not only a bitch, but a real c*nt too. I am sorry, but the worst descriptive words you can find on women would probably fit her perfectly. Perhaps with the exception of degrading words describing women of promiscuous nature. Anita Sarkeesian seems to be such a cold fish that I doubt that she enjoys any physical relation what so ever. Least of all with a man.
But lets take a brake from my hatred of this woman and let me instead say WHY I have such dark feelings towards her. There are three main reasons my I feel nauseated every time I see and hear her: 1) Her personality, 2) Her BS-PC feminist analysis of everything that perverts and distorts great works of art/ entertainment and 3) her fake victimhood.
But first let me answer the most important question…
Who is Anita Sarkeesian?
If you are not a gamer, or someone interested in the war between the sexes, you may not have heard of Anita Sarkeesian. In short: She is a feminist who believes she is entitled to force her perspective on any artform and demand it to become more gynocentric, pro-female and anti-male.
This is of course not stated explicitly, but implied in her constant bashing of different kind of popular texts (i.e music, books film, TV or games) in entertainment. For a while she was just another unsatisfied women who thought she was smart since she was opinionated. She made lots and lots of “feminist deconstruction” of popular entertainment on her videoblog feminist frequency on youtube, but no one cared until she announced she wanted to deconstruct video-games to.
Why this was the last straw, I dont know, but her whining suddenly was met with hostility. This probably surprised her as she so clearly though she as a woman was entitled to bitch to anyone about her problems with the world.
I would suspect that the reason is that the gaming community is filled with passionate people who burn for their hobby and they didnt want this noob woman coming in from the left and change everything cuz “she felt like it“.
So she was met with opposition and hostility. Some people came with intellectual counter arguments. Others, like me, gave more ironic and sarcastic comments on her annoying personality and attitude of entitlement. Sadly some also gave hateful and over the top comments about rape and other insane extremes. Let´s see what she has to say about this:
Do I feel sad for her? Hell no. I hate feminism with every inch of my body and this woman is the very personification of everything I hate about that -ism. If she didn’t like the heat she should´ve stayed away from the kitchen, and she being a feminist I would suspect she didn’t want to be in the kitchen in the first place.
But enough silly puns… The point is; I dont like sailor language and I dont like people demeaning people to the extreme, but I, being provocative myself, can say that you do get hateful comments but that is what to expect. That is what one should expect if one is being or trying to be provocative. If I went into a feminist rave and said “Go make me a sandwich you fat ugly skanks” I would not be surprised by retaliation any less than being bit by putting my hand down a snakehol. And besides, she has the personality that could aggravate a weed-plant.
1) Her personality
If I for some reason where invited to a hipster New York party with liberal know-it-alls and met Anita Sarkeesian I think I would have left within the hour. That woman shows every sign in her videos of a person I would not go well together with. She is opinionated in the way where its clear she has read a lot of books, and made a lot of notes, but not really understood it.
She probably know a lot of words, terms and phrases and know of great and not so great thinkers of the academia but have no meta-cognition and deeper understanding of anything. Watching her movies she makes a lot of gestures, making smug and smirky facial expression. She is the kind of intellectual that is paradoxically NOT intellectual, just a scholar. She has a lot of jigsaws pieces in her head, nuggets of facts and studies, but no ability to see the picture. This becomes clear when she starts to analyses the “tropes” as she calls it.
2) Her BS-PC feminist analysis of everything that perverts and distorts great works of art/ entertainment
“Tropes” is a text-analytical term that could be easily replaced with terms like “stereotype”, “clisje”, or “common narrative tools”. Basically, tropes is every pattern you can find in symptomatic (see: Film Art for more) interpretation/ analysis of a text. Meaning: Finding the broad meaning of what every love song has in comment over what this or that one love song means. You with? Or, as Anita Sarkeesian does, to claim to find bigotry, hate, rape and phallus symbols in everything.
I have seen a lot of Anita Sarkeesian videos on youtube as I have this perverse need to study things I do not like. To try to understand it. I find myself drawn to things that repulses me. Watching her videos, I also started to see “tropes” with her videos. There definitely are small patterns in her “analysis” of pop-culture that could be nice to “deconstruct”.
With few exceptions she shows no real pleasure in the arts but see only faults. In 2009, she started her show “Tropes vs women” with 6 videos where she rants about why Dollhouse is being produced for another season but The Sarah Connor Chronicles does not (which obviously is another example of the WAR AGAINST WOMEN), how Dollhouse (2009) is a metaphor for rape (or something like that), that there is a RIGHT way (her way) and a WRONG why “Guys Should Hate Twilight“, and that gays should be introduced in a show “just in passing“.
In every video she speaks with a strange authorial attitude that says art and entertainment should be just like she wants it, and that there is a right and a wrong way to make art and to watch art. When she analyses different texts she always forces her convictions on it, even when its clear that her -isms where not meant for it. The results are sour comments on the art that at best is bitching and at it´s worst is complete misinterpretations of the text that at time can be perverse.
The best example I have heard of her forcing feminist insanity and perverting something nice with her -isms is when she “analyses” the “Top 5 Creepy and/or Sexist Christmas Songs“. In that video she kills any christmas cheer and replaced it with tales of suppression, dependence and rape. Her #1 choice for sexist christmas songs are the song “Baby, its cold outside” where she thinks the song is about coercing and rape, not a man trying to court a woman who is “playing hard to get” which is the normal way to listen to the song.
But of course one can not argue with her, cuz she has closed of all comments and one is not allowed to rate her either. This because she has fallen victim to the evil “trolls” of the Internet, or more truthfully, she doesn’t want to hear anyone but herself and her likeminded.
3) Her fake victimhood
Anita Sarkeesian is a true victim, but not for she wants you to believe, but she is the slave of the mind shrinking collective thinking of progressivism. Progressivism is an umbrella-term for many other -isms like feminism and other leftwing ideologies and world views.
Progressivism wants change (Yes, WE can!) and that change is based on an understanding of the world that there are victims and perpetrators. These perpetrators are not what healthy people view as perpetrators (like criminals) but instead a broad group of people. This broad group can be called “rich white heterosexual christian males (that smokes)“. These are the enemies that needs to be “deconstructed”.
There are many progressive “thinkers” and they work from different angels trying to destroy the evils of the world. Some progressives focus on the rich , others on the white , , some one Christians  and some one the males .
Their understanding is that “rich white heterosexual christian males (that smokes)” are evil and causes the world to crumble with their powers of “hate” a.k.a greed, racism, homophobia religious intolerance or misogyny. Everyone who is not a “rich white heterosexual christian males (that smokes)” is the victim of the “rich white heterosexual christian males´s (that smokes)” hate and Anita Sarkeesian is one of these victims.
A victim who is also getting rich on her claims of oppression. Being politically correct is big business, but to state that Anita Sarkeesian is getting rich on her whining is of course misogynistic and hateful. If I may draw some numbers out of my ass I would stipulate she has gotten a grand a slur from each “troll” all up into the interweb who has made her into the “victim“ she is.
Well, I think I am done stating my opinion on this woman. I also gave you a deconstructional view on her, to give you my opinions on her opinions and the tropes she represents. TAKE THAT Sarkeesian! I used your own dark powers against you.