Thunderf00t, “Why ‘feminism’ poisons EVERYTHING”
[0:00] Thunderf00t: So why does feminism poison everything? And I really mean EVERYTHING. I mean, let’s just take one of the most absolutely, uncontentious and difficult things to poison that you could get. Say for instance, ‘raising money to help blood cancer research’. And now let’s see how many seconds it takes for feminism to poison it:
[0:21] From Rebecca Watson clip, “Help Blood Cancer Research with Light the Night”: “Hello, YouTube. It’s been awhile. I’ve missed you. And, I’m guessing that you’ve missed me too. Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then tuck up inside of him, forming what some call a ‘mangina’.”
[0: 37] Thunderf00t: And that was it. That’s how the face of feminism—in atheism—thinks it’s the best way to start a charity fund-raiser—using this passive-aggressive victim routine to spit poison at the entire male atheist audience.
[0:52] Rebecca Watson clip: “Because I’ve heard that if a male atheist on YouTube goes too long without calling a woman a cunt, his balls will actually shrivel up, and then . . .”
[1:00] Thunderf00t: Huh. And they wonder why they get called ‘toxic’. And of course it goes without saying that if you call her—specifically her [out] on being a toxic parasite, she will say, ‘Aaaah! Look at all this hatred women get! It just shows how endemic misogyny is in the atheist community.’
Now where have I seen that victimhood routine before?
[1:20] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita Sarkeesian at TEDxWomen 2012”: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic. I am a feminist and I’m a woman . . . Turns out, that there are a bunch of male gamers out there who were, shall we say, not too excited about this project . . . I found myself the target of a massive online hate-campaign.”
[1:34] Thunderf00t: -because remember, calling Feminist Frequency a liar just shows how much you hate women! Right? It can’t possibly be because she actually lied to everyone’s face for her Kickstarter.
[1:48] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “This is a photo of me, at age ten playing Super Mario World on the Super Nintendo. So I’ve been playing games for quite a while.”
[1:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Anita And The White Knights” (her lecture at Santa Monica College, CA 2010): “-one song, except I’m doing videogames. So, it’s not exactly a fandom. I’m not a fan of videogames. I actually have to learn a lot about videogames in the process of making this. And also videogames—like, I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. And it’s just, gross. So-”
[2:12] Thunderf00t: There you have it. Anita Sarkeesian in one sentence: “I’m not a gamer, because shooting people and ripping off their heads is gross”. But the fact this princess needed to be rescued is an outrage—because rescuing a princess will make society more sexist.
[2:31] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.”
[2:42] Thunderf00t: Yes, that’s right. Games clearly have an influence on society. I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that rescuing girls will make society more sexist. While games where you <Anita Sarkeesian> “go around shooting people and ripping off their heads” will clearly make it more likely that you will uh, kill people and rip off their heads. Huh. Is it just me, or does anyone else think that the very core of Anita’s proposition here is bullshit:
[3:10] “And as with all pop culture media, the gaming industry is playing a role in helping to shape our society. Either by challenging, or more often, reinforcing existing values, beliefs, and behaviors.”
[3:20] “to go around shooting people and ripping off their heads”
[3:23] Thunderf00t: -that the whole crusade that she’s got here against games she doesn’t even play is built on one, single, fundamentally wrong premise?
But let’s be generous and say that even though she’s provided no evidence whatsoever that these games do make people more sexist. Aaand let’s just ignore the rather important point that everything else is built on this single, completely unsubstantiated point—now, let’s just ignore that for a moment and assume that she’s right. Doesn’t that means that she’s just got really, really messed up priorities?
You know, ‘look at this princess who needed to be rescued. Because that’s gonna make society more misogynistic. And that’s a very serious problem’. Whereas her expert pop culture critic skills seem to have completely missed the fact that there are thousands of games out there that are gonna make society more likely to kill people and to rip off their heads.
Now I think given that there are billions of people killed annually in these video games, and that that has no significant effect whatsoever on the murder statistics, suggest that playing video games really isn’t’ a significant factor. So that really does put the owners on Feminist Frequency to demonstrate why killing people in computer games doesn’t have any significant effect on society, while for some completely unexplained reason, ‘rescuing this princess is gonna make you more sexist’.
[4:47] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The trope quickly became the go-to motivational hook for developers, as it provided an easy way to tap into adolescent male-power fantasies.”
[4:57] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I would love to play videogames. But, I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-”
[5:04] Thunderf00t: Yeah, I can see how that really would be a problem for pre-Kickstarter. Anita, thinking that ‘it’s gonna be difficult for me to play the victim, if all I have to work with is, I don’t like these first-person shooter type games’.
[5:18] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I don’t want to go around shooting people, and ripping off their heads. It’s just, gross. So-”
[5:23] Thunderf00t: ‘Oh, I know what I need to say. I need to say that the gaming industry that supplies people who want first-person shooter type games with first-person shooter type games, which I’ve got no interest in playing, of course, is actually a patriarchal, misogynistic, man-o-centric, man-ocracy trying to oppress meeeeee.’
[5:39] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “It’s very male-dominated. And I think with that male-domination comes, a sense of entitlement; that these games are for men, and by men. And that women, if they’re going to participate, they need to shut up.”
[5:49] Thunderf00t: Hey, Anita, I can play that game too. I’ve got almost no interest in puzzle games. Really don’t. But I can tell you with absolute certainty, that the fact that there isn’t more first-person shooter type action randomly in the middle of puzzle games, just shows how this gaming section is very woman dominated. And this female domination comes through in the sense of entitlement; that these games were made by women, for women. And that if men want to participate, they just have to shut up.
I suppose I should congratulate her, ‘cause she’s managed to sell this bullshit all over the place. And managed to get people to give her a hundred and sixty thousand dollars for something that can be debunked in under a minute.
[6:33] Anita Sarkeesian clip: “I’m not a fan of videogames.”
[6:35] Clip from “16×9 – Dangerous Game: Tropes vs Women bullying”: “By the pop culture critic and life-long gamer-“
[6:37] Thunderf00t: No, no, no, no, no. You gotta use feminist reasoning here. Calling her a liar because she lied to everyone’s face about being a gamer, just proooves how much misogyny there is in the gaming community.
This is why people like Madonna dissociate themselves from feminism. Instead preferring to call themselves ‘humanists’. For the simple reason that those who vocally associate themselves with being feminists, tend to be so toxic, that they poison absolutely everything they come in contact with. Including, the very term ‘feminism’.
[7:12] Clip from “Gloria Allred: If You’re Not a Feminist, Then You’re a Bigot”: “I often say that if you’re not a feminist then you’re a bigot. I mean there is nothing in between.”
[7:16] Clip from “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event”: “-the assumption—I’m reading fuckface! I’m trying to fuckin’—I’m letting everybody else hear it, okay!? It’s not just for you Mr. entitled. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of the patriarchy. . .
Can you, shut the fuck up for a second too”
[7:37] Clip from?: “In particular, artists such as Miriam Shapiro and Judy Chicago championed what is today known as ‘vulvic’ or ‘cunt art’ to art historians. Which can be defined as a type of essentialist aesthetic that focuses on the universal, physical characteristics that all women share—their sexual organs or genitalia.”
[7:56] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “#6 The Straw Feminist (Tropes vs. Women): “Women are being institutionally oppressed all the time in nearly every facet of our lives.”
[8:02] Rebecca Watson clip from “Rebecca Watson – European Atheist Convention 2012”: “And when I point out that ‘bitch’ is a gendered insult that demeans all women—again, most people get it.”
[8:09] Clip from Aliens: “Get away from her, you bitch!”
[8:11] Anita Sarkeesian clip from ?: “because it’s basically a choose-your-own-patriarchal-adventure porno fantasy.”
[8:15] Thunderf00t: But recently, feminists have decided that Wikipedia is biased against them. Why? What’s the evidence for this? Because they say so, of course. The accusation IS the evidence. And now, because of their asserted bias, they want to inject feminism into Wikipedia in an exercise they call ‘Wikistorming’. Yeah. Feminists are looking to poison Wikipedia as well.
The irony is though, on articles I’ve come across on Wiki, like, ‘Sexual dimorphism’, it’s already got the grubby fingerprints of feminist ideology-based edits all over it. But this is the thing. I don’t have to claim bias. Because claims are cheap, unsubstantiated. No, unlike feminists, I don’t claim bias. I demonstrate it.
[9:06] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”: “You see, we are part of a sexually dimorphic species, that is, males and females tend to have different physical characteristics. Look, the reason that we divide the Olympics up by sex, is not because we are inherently sexist. It’s because men and women tend to have different traits. On average, in the upper body strength, it’s almost fifty-percent difference. Ugh, come on. Tell me again how this is really a myth.
[9:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth. Which of course is completely false.”
[9:41] Thunderf00t clip from “Feminism vs Facts (part 1)”: I’ve not seen this study yet. But I’m gonna go out there on a limb and predict that there will be no correlation whatsoever between the number of damsel-in-distress video games and the ensemble differences in the upper body strength between men and women.
However, many who take a few seconds to read the Wiki page on ‘sexual dimorphism’ in humans might come across this, where someone seems to be suggesting exactly that: “The smaller differences in the lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing. Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism)
But this is the cute thing—when you actually take a closer look at those references, and you find this: “The Gender and Science Reader brings together the key writings by leading scholars to provide a comprehensive feminist analysis of the nature and practice of science.”
And just, take that to heart for a second. A ‘feminist analysis’. Not an objective analysis. Not a scientific analysis. A feminist analysis.
Now let’s compare that to some of the other studies like: “One study of muscle strength at the elbows and knees—in 45 and older males and females—found the strength of females to range from 42 to 63% of male strength. Another study found men to have significantly higher hand-grip strength than women, even when comparing untrained men with female athletes” (Wikipedia, “Sexual Dimorphism”)
Hm. And both of those from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I think I’m almost to the point where I can track down the difference between objective scientific research, and feminist research.
[11:32] Anita Sarkeesian clip from “Support My Kickstarter Project – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research.”
[11:35] Thunderf00t: That is, if anything, Wikipedia already has a feminist bias to it. But come now, feminists. It’s time for you to shine. Show me the examples of where Wikipedia is biased against women to the point where you need feminists to storm Wikipedia and inject feminist thinking into its heart.
Many thanks to Linda for creating this transcript