Posts Tagged ‘win’

Feminism versus FACTS (RE Damsel in distress) : Transcript

July 12, 2014

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the following transcript 😉

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So Feminist Frequency has put a lot of work, and research, into her latest video of “Tropes vs Women”:

 

[0:07] Clip: “Each video in this new series will be between ten and twenty minutes long, with well-researched, in-depth analysis”

 

[0:13] Thunderf00t: Indeed, Anita told us just how seriously she would take the research on this video:

 

[0:18] clip: “As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research”

 

[0:21] Thunderf00t: -using her skills as a “pop culture critic”

 

[0:24] clip: “As a pop culture critic”

[0:25] clip: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic. I am a feminist, and I’m a woman”

 

[0:29] Thunderf00t: To make sure that this was very well-researched:

 

[0:32] clip: “This is an incredibly ambitious project because of the scope and scale of the research and production involved”

 

[0:37] Thunderf00t: Well let’s just see how well-researched this video actually was, shall we?

 

[0:41] clip: “So, without further ado, let’s jump right into the damsel-in-distress”

 

[0:45] Thunderf00t: For instance, she describes Double Dragon Neon, like this:

 

[0:48] clip: “Most recently, Double Dragon Neon in 2012 reintroduced new gamers to this regressive crap, yet again. This time in full HD”

 

[0:56] Thunderf00t: -without mentioning that the game Double Dragon Neon ends like this:

 

[1:09] some guy: Awww! Right in the baaalls!

 

[1:13] Thunderf00t: Which I kid you not, she then goes on to describe like this:

 

[1:16] clip: “-pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak, ineffective, or ultimately incapable, has larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves. And-“

 

[1:24] Thunderf00t: Yeah. That’s right. The game that ends with Marian, breaking a twenty-foot tall, super-space lich man in half like a toothpick, by punching him in the balls, is apparently:

 

[1:36] clip: “the pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak”

“ineffective”

“or ultimately incapable”

“has larger ramifications beyond-”

 

[1:47] Thunderf00t: I think we’re gonna have a fundamental disagreement about what constitutes “well-researched” here, Anita. Now, this really wasn’t the best damsel-in-distress you could’ve used in your first “Tropes vs. Women” video.

 

I mean, really, did you have to start with a straw man in the title? Do you really think that tropes as specifically adversarial to women? Maybe I should title this video in a reciprocatively fair fashion. Maybe something like: ‘Feminism versus Facts’. You know, not just scoring on the parody, but on the alliteration as well.

 

[2:21] But like I say, Feminist Frequency’s ability to find patterns that don’t exist, is rivaled only by her ability to miss the most important, and bloody obvious pattern of all: these games are not made to keep feminists happy. These games were not designed to subjugate women. These games were designed to be fun to play, and thereby make a profit for the designer. And this is the point [that] seems to have completely eluded Feminist Frequency during her twenty minute analysis. And yeah, this does mean that in the case of the original Double Dragon, that if you’ve only got about seven seconds to explain the plot—trust me, seven seconds. I timed her—then the characters are obviously gonna tend to be fairly one-dimensional, and the storylines, simple.

 

The damsel-in-distress of course, is just one of the simple story lines you can set up very easily. Why? Because most people in healthy relationships care for each other and therefore, immediately willing to make significant sacrifices for their loved ones.

 

Indeed, the very fact that they’re willing to make such sacrifices does not show that you are thinking as your partner as the “ball” in the “game of patriarchy”-

 

[3:34] clip: “I’ve heard it said that in the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team. They are the ball.”

 

[3:39] Thunderf00t: -but it’s in fact a token of how much you care about them. I mean, let me just give you a couple of scenarios here, Anita. Billy’s girlfriend gets punched in the stomach, and abducted by a gang of thugs. Which of the following options defines the healthier relationship? That, he immediately sets out, risking his own safety to try and protect his loved ones. Or that he decides, ‘she’s a grown adult and can look after herself’. And then goes home to polish his car.

 

[4:09] clip from American Beauty: “1970 Pontiac Firebird. The car I’ve always wanted, and now I have it. I RULE!”

 

[4:14] Thunderf00t: Personally, Anita, I think that most women would regard the latter, as a relationship-ending lack of commitment. But Anita’s take on an abducted loved one, is a little different.

 

[4:26] clip: “One way to think about a damseled character is via what’s call the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, ‘subjects’ act, and ‘objects’ are acted upon. The subject is the protagonist, the one who the story is centered on, and the one doing most of the action.

So the damseled trope typically makes men the subject of narratives, while relegating women to the role of object. This is a form of objectification, because as objects, damseled women are being acted upon. Most often becoming or reduced to a prize to be won, a treasure to be found, or a goal to be achieved.”

 

[4:58] Thunderf00t: Or a loved one to be helped. I mean, Jesus girl, you are one sick puppy. So in your mind, if my girlfriend gets abducted, I can’t want to protect her. Or to keep her safe, without turning her into an object.

 

[5:12] clip: “-while relegating women to the role of object. This is a form of objectification, because as objects, damseled women are being acted upon.”

 

[5:19] Thunderf00t: I mean, damn. I thought I was cold. But that—that’s inhuman. Even the raptors in Jurassic Park showed more empathy than that. I mean really, by your feminist reasoning here, hospitals—you know, the places where patients come to be “acted on”—are actually ‘objectification centers’, where people are turned into merely objects to be acted on. And doctors—they’re not medical help providers. They’re the biggest objectifiers of all. Or the police. When someone gets abducted, are the police now to sit idly by because they can’t help without turning the abductee into an object? Yeah, it’s something they learned in Anita Sarkeesian’s “feminism class”. And this is the “well-researched” feminism that you weren’t taught in schools.

 

[6:04] clip: “-including seven new bonus videos, and a classroom curriculum”

 

[6:07] Thunderf00t: Yes, it really is this simple. It’s a sign that someone cares, that they are willing to make these sacrifices.

 

[6:13] clip from Star Trek (2009)

 

[7:21] Thunderf00t: This is a concept powerfully understood by almost anyone, with a sense of human empathy. Now sure, you can overanalyze this till you come out with your desired conclusions. Like, how selfish George was to rob his pregnant wife of a sense of agency by acting on her, and turning her into an object in the game of patriarchy. But your game, not only displays an inhuman lack of empathy—it’s facile.

 

Look, I’m gonna use this exact scene that you take from Dragon’s Lair in your Damsel in Distress video. And use my “well-researched” “pop culture critic skills” to come up with a similarly bogus conclusion to yours:

 

‘Have you ever noticed how men in games, almost always fall into one of the few stereotypes or clichés? We have to remember, that this regressive sexism is turning men into one-dimensional, clueless objects incapable of solving even the simplest of problems. Like, cages are locked with keys.

 

[8:23] clip from Dragon’s Lair

 

[8:26] Thunderf00t: ‘-without the cerebral intervention and puppeteering from an intellectually manipulative woman. It’s simply turning men into barely house-trained Neanderthal objects, for the purpose of doing the dangerous work for a woman.’

 

[8:41] some guy: “I’m starting to feel bad. Like, I love my girlfriend Marian. But like, these guys didn’t actually do anything”

 

[8:52] Thunderf00t: ‘We have to understand that such derogatory stereotypes are detrimental to our society and our cultural ecosystem. But to see really how much this regressive crap degrades men, you only have to compare how many ways there are for the princess to die in this game versus the knight. That’s right, the whole game is one purpose-built, giant death-trap for the man. And whereof by some miracle he survives, he wins the honor of being puppeteered for some object by the princess.

 

Or, for that matter, let’s compare how many coherent sentences either can offer. The knight’s only dialogue in this entire game is screams, and of muffled screams, as he’s killed over, and over, and over again. Why couldn’t he be a thinking hero, who talks to the dragon and thoughtfully negotiates a mutually agreeable settlement? Why does this game have to dehumanize the man, by making his only course of action killing things?

 

[9:52] I mean you say as much in your own video. ‘Yes, it’s the “beat-‘em-up” trope being used here to propagate the socially harmful myth that men are unthinking psychopaths who can only solve problems by beating them up, or killing them. You watch this media, and yet you fail to see the blatantly misandric elements in this game. Like this woman, punching a man, as spitefully as she can in his sexually reproductive organs. It’s a deeply symbolic gesture of how much these games despise men, by causing them as much pain as possible, while simultaneously stopping them from reproducing.’

 

[10:32] some guy: “Awww! Right in the baaalls!”

 

[10:36] Thunderf00t: ‘How simple do you need this hatred of men in these games to be? Now I’m not saying that all games that employ such tropes are automatically tying to reinforce and amplify the socially harmful stereotypes that men are easily controlled, brainless, fighting, troglodytes. But this does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing, and demeaning attitudes about men.’

 

[11:04] But like I say, you can overanalyze this to you leisure until you can parlay it into whatever desired conclusions you want. But it won’t change the real fact of why these games are like they are. Because they serve a market. It’s basically the same reason there are all these beauty magazines; because they serve a market.

 

[11:27] And it’s the same reason that you in your videos wear lipstick, eyeliner, nail varnish, and those big girly earrings. It’s not because you’ve made this conscious decision that women are naturally too ugly and unappealing, and therefore need to use these appearance-enhancing cosmetics. Although, I’m pretty certain that if a certain pop culture critic feminist were to be researching and analyzing your very video, she would happily bundle you into one of a few stereotypical women in the media, concluding that you’ve simply become a chill girl and sister-punisher by donning the Barbie-pink bondage-shackles-of-patriarchal-expectation by adorning yourself with attention-grabbing trinkets and by painting your face to resemble mild arousal.

 

[12:15] Trust me, it would be just as trivial to pin you into the role of the willing servant of this non-existent, scheming patriarchy as it was for you to parlay the damsel-in-distress into a systematic attempt to subjugate women.

 

No. You, like they, serve a market. The market you serve is telling feminists that they are oppressed. If you really thought there was a market for these feminist games, why not do the empowered-woman thing and lead by example, and design and market these games successfully yourself? I suspect that you know full-well that the reason these feminist games don’t exist, is not because the patriarchy is conspiring against you. It’s simply because there’s not a market for them.

 

[13:03] Look. Let’s be honest. We both know the free market doesn’t care what your ideology is. It only cares if it will turn a profit. Yeah. What you’re proposing is not viable. And this is why you’ve shown this masterly reluctance to cash in on this goldmine of feminist gaming that you think is out there. And this is the fundamental reason why you are a critic and not a creator. I mean, why take the risk of making a game that will almost certainly be an expensive failure, when you have this guaranteed market of selling the idea that ‘you are being systematically being oppressed by the patriarchy’, to feminists?

 

But the sad thing is, even if they did make this game exactly as you wanted—you know, like that game you were lamenting at the beginning of your video:

 

[13:52] clip: “The game was to star a sixteen year old hero named Krystal, as one of two playable protagonists. She was tasked with travelling through time, fighting prehistoric monsters with her magical staff, and saving the world. She was strong. She was capable. And she was heroic . . . Pretty cool, right? Well, it would’ve been. Except the game never got released.”

 

[14:18] Thunderf00t: And it’s a good thing it was never released, too. Because if it had been, it would’ve simply helped to ‘reinforce sexist, and downright misogynist ideas about women.’

 

You see, if your comprehensive research had included the master’s thesis of the feminist, Anita Sarkeesian . . . Oh. Well, if your research had actually included your own master’s thesis, titled, “I’ll Make a Man Out of You: Strong Women in Science Fiction and Fantasy Television”, you would’ve realized that—I’ll let this guy explain:

 

[14:49] clip from Instig8iveJournalism, “Anita Sarkeesian Part 1: The College Graduate: “She argues that strong, empowered, female characters still aren’t feminist because they’re only pretending to be men . . . According to her, any women in a TV show who shows strong leadership, is only doing so in a charade of strictly masculine trait . . . the second diagram illustrates what she wants TV to give her. Once again—at odds with herself. Notably, she proposes significantly fewer positive feminine traits than positive male traits, with women hilariously unable to show confidence, or self-control.”

 

[15:17] Thunderf00t: Not only that, but in your feminist world, ‘strong’ is only a favorable attribute for the masculine.

 

[15:25] clip: “She was strong-”

 

[15:27] Thunderf00t: This is just what it’s like to play this game of constantly moving goal posts, with this sort of feminism. It doesn’t matter what the game that’s made is. The conclusion will always be:

 

[15:40] clip: “games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist, and downright misogynist ideas about women.”

 

[15:46] Thunderf00t: However, the part in your video where you go from finding patterns that don’t exist, to La-La Land, is here:

 

[15:52] clip: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained, socially constructed myth. Which of course, is completely false. But the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures.”

 

[16:09] Thunderf00t: Uuhh.BULLSHIT. 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.

 

[16:38] clip: “The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender, is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth. Which of course is completely false.”

 

[16:46] Thunderf00t:  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.

 

[17:01] 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)

 

[17:31] 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.

 

[17:59] 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”)

 

Hmm. 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.

 

[18:37] clip: “As you might imagine, this project requires an enormous amount of research.”

 

[18:40] Thunderf00t: I’m now also firmly of the opinion that one of these has a place to be taught in schools. And the other, doesn’t. I also note in passing, Anita, that you have disabled comments and ratings on your video. Which, has become the standard line of people on YouTube who peddle bullshit that cannot stand up to public scrutiny. I also note the reason you say you’re doing this, is a claim of victimhood. But let me offer you an alternative suggestion. The pushback you get, might mention that you’re a woman.

 

[19:12] clip: “I’m a woman.”

 

[19:13] Thunderf00t: But it’s not because you’re a woman. The pushback that you get might mention that you’re a feminist.

 

[19:20] clip: “I am a feminist

 

[19:21] Thunderf00t: But it’s not because you’re a feminist. Now the reason you get this pushback, as, I hope this video has amply explained, is because what you say is bollocks

 

[19:34] clip: “Now, I’m a pop culture critic”

Advertisements

Feminist tries to get Veterans Fired over TWITTER! 

July 12, 2014

(MANY thanks to Linda for creating the transcript)

[0:00] Thunderf00t: So turning up at the funerals of dead soldiers with signs like this is just one of the most disgusting things you can actually do. Callously taking the grief of the relatives of dead soldiers and using that as a springboard to talk about your crazy religion—that’s just messed up. But surely modern feminists of the professional-victim sort would NEVER stoop that low. Right?

 

[0:26] Well, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is frequently found in soldiers who have experienced combat. War is ugly, and it leaves its scars on everyone it touches.

 

[0:38] clip from [?]: “-called in with some artillery and some napalm and things like that. Some innocent women and children got hit. We met them on the road and they had little girls with noses blown off, and uh, and like, husbands carrying their dead wives and things like that. That was extremely difficult to deal with ‘cause you’re like, you know, shoot. What the hell do we do now?”

 

[0:59] Well, Melody Hensley, that’s the DC Executive Director for the Center for Inquiry AND a staunch feminist, claims that SHE has got Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder . . . from Twitter. Now many would just regard that as incredibly stupid. I mean it’s like saying I’ve got Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because my cookie won’t dunk into my milk; or that I’ve got PTSD because the shampoo and the conditioner never run out at the same time; or that I’ve got PTSD from playing Call of Duty. It simply trivializes and undermines the serious nature of the condition.

 

[1:34] She even goes on to say how just asking her questions like: ‘how does your Twitter PTSD compare to the PTSD someone would get from being raped?’, is actually the very harassment that gave her PTSD in the first place.

 

[1:49] But this is where it goes into full “God-hates-fags” mode:

 

“If you’re in the military and you are harassing me about my PTSD” (that’s her Twitter PTSD) “expect that I will be speaking to your commanding officer.”

 

[2:04] Even for a feminist, that is REALLY, really messed up. You tell her, that the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder that people get from watching people they know, love, and care about being blown up in front of their eyes is REALLY, really not the same thing as someone calling you “Smellody” on Twitter—YOU TELL HER THAT and she’ll try and mess up your career. And she just goes on and on about it:

 

[2:30] “Military/ex-military combat folks: there are groups that have higher statistics of PTSD than you. You need to educate yourself.”

 

[2:38] Oh, that’s wonderfully compassionate and sympathetic to combat veterans with PTSD. And:

“This week has been tough. There’s been a campaign against me. I’m blocking dozens of accounts of people telling me I don’t have PTSD and threats.”

 

[2:56] Oh, well aren’t you a bloody hero Melody. And then she replies to:

 

“You wouldn’t talk about it if you had PTSD” by saying “According to my psychologist, anything that makes ME feel in control is good for my health.”

 

[3:12] -even if it involves trying to mess up the careers of combat veterans with PTSD, simply so you can “feel in control”. And this is NO hypothetical about she will try and mess up your career. This is what she says:

 

“I get it every day. I’ve decided I’m contacting commanding officers, as I just did.”

“They have their info on Twitter. I just contacted someone’s commanding officer.”

 

[3:39] Really, Melody. You tried to mess up someone’s MILITARY CAREER because they didn’t think that you had Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder from Twitter? And personally, I think it’s optimistic BEYOND HOPE that after you contacted their employer, simply because it was on Twitter, that you’re not going to get an awful lot of VERY angry Veterans contacting the Center for Inquiry; which you have chosen to so very prominently display on YOUR Twitter account. You are SELF-CENTERED and DESPICABLE beyond words.

 

[4:13] Dear feminists: I wanna make this LOUD and CLEAR. You DO NOT get criticism because you are outspoken women, as people like Anita Sarkeesian, Rebecca Watson, and Melody Hensley would claim. No, no more than Westboro Baptist Church gets criticized for being vocally religious. You get the criticism you do because of the STUPID—or, actually more accurately in this case—the UTTERLY CONTEMPTIBLE things that you SAY.

 

[4:44] Pissing all over the self-same people who have put their lives on the line, in an effort to maintain the very blanket of freedom that you sleep under. You poison EVERYTHING.

IF men acted like Feminists (Part 2): Transcript

July 12, 2014

[0:00] Thunderf00t: Now, many would think that Anita Sarkeesian has said some pretty dumb stuff over the years, and that therefore no one would take her seriously. Well actually, this year, 2014 she got an Annual Game Developers Choice Award. Specifically,

“The Ambassador Award, honoring someone who is helping video games “advance to a better place” through advocacy or action, is going to media critic Anita Sarkeesian, creator of Feminist Frequency, a video series that deconstructs representations of women in game and pop culture narratives”.

[0:38] Woow, that’s impressive! I mean there really aren’t many towering intellectuals who could lay claim to the title of a “media critic”.

[0:47] But what would it look like if men acted like feminists in “deconstructing the representations of men in pop culture narratives? Well I think it would look a little something like this:

[0:59] “So I got a lot of feedback from privileged women on my last video about why men shouldn’t be used as sword practice by females. This was mostly from women in denial about the serious, social-ableist-oriented, neo-gendered boundary-integrity issues that this problem causes.”

[1:20] “Firstly, they need to educate themselves on that it’s possible to both enjoy a media while simultaneously being critical of its more pernicious aspects. That’s why I always ensure that ratings and comments are disabled—for your comfort and convenience. After all, I AM telling you the truth. And only man-haters would want to allow those telling man-hating lies to confuse the clarity of what I am telling you.”

[1:48] “This is why we need BrotherlyBroadcast videos to be taught without opposition in schools, classrooms, and even universities. It’s only fair.”

[1:59] “In this sense, it’s good for us to remember that we are ALL influenced by the media we watch in a way that closely resembles homeopathy.”

[2:08] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games” : “While it may be comforting to think that we all have a personal force-field protecting us from outside influences, this is simply not the case. Scholars sometimes refer to this type of denial as a “third-person effect”, which is the tendency for people to believe that they are personally immune to media’s effects, even if others may be influenced or manipulated.”
“Paradoxically, and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment, are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”
“In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[2:44] Thunderf00t: “That is, the less you think you are affected, the more likely you are TO be affected. I mean, check out the extensive citations below, and you’ll see that I’m telling you the complete, academic, honest truth. But maybe that’s not enough for some people. Maybe there are some out there who say, ‘I’ve watched Star Wars a hundred times. I’ve never even once thought about turning into a Dark Lord of the Sith’; or, ‘I’ve watched The Matrix a thousand times. And no matter how much I think that it’s a fantasy, I still can’t dodge the bullets!’”

[3:20] “Well, facts really aren’t relevant here, because I’m citing feminist research. Specifically, over $30,000 of feminist research.”

[3:30] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[3:36] Thunderf00t: “The first thing that you have to realize, is just how much these games OBJECTIFY men. Again and again, the men in these games are just portrayed as objects to be acted on.”

[3:50] clip from TEDxYouth, “The Sexy Lie: Caroline Heldman . . .”: “We’re thinking about the object-subject dichotomy. Subjects act. Objects are acted upon.”

[3:57] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Damsel in Distress: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “is via what’s called the subject-object dichotomy. In the simplest terms, subjects act, and objects are acted upon.”

[4:03] clip from lacigreen, “SEX OBJECT BS”: “-the subject. Subjects act, while objects are acted upon. Now I know you’re thinking, ‘crazy Laci, what’s this got to do with sexuality?’ And the answer is: everything.”

[4:15] Thunderf00t: “Because, once something has been turned into an object, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permissible. Now I know there will be many out there who will say, ‘that’s absurd. I mean everyone knows that the streets are full of cars, which are objects. But if you try to smash those objects up, you’ll get arrested for vandalism; because, just because something is an object, that doesn’t mean that violence against it is acceptable’.”

[4:42] “Well, once again—facts are really not relevant here; because I’m citing feminist research. Specifically, over $30,000 of feminist research.”

[4:54] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “Once a person is reduced to the status of objecthood, violence against that object becomes intrinsically permitted.”

[5:01] Thunderf00t: “The pattern of having men turned into objects by women such that they can be dehumanized and objectified such that the protagonist women in question can shoot them, hack them, or simply throw them to their deaths, is widespread in popular culture. It even encourages females to throw both old men and young male children off towers.”

[5:27] “Now, the more observant among you might say, ‘but the video you just showed, showed a man throwing a young boy off a tower’. Yes, that’s right—a man being puppeteered by feminist theory. Indeed it’s SO widespread now that almost ALL games are [oriented] to fulfill this deeply seated female need. Women are meant to derive this perverse sense of pleasure from having males desecrate the bodies of unsuspecting male victims. It’s a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal connected to having the subservient gender trait of males controlling and punishing representations of other males.”

[6:11] “In my previous analysis, I came to the CLEAR, academic conclusion that MEN killed by women is actually due to the influences of feminist theory in the mainstream media such as movies and interactive media such as games. And now we find that feminist theory is actually ALSO responsible for all men being killed by MEN.”

[6:34] “That is, feminist theory is DIRECTLY responsible for ALL the violent killings of men in the world. This is clearly a very serious issue, and requires IMMEDIATE action—not just sitting around and talking about it, but to take action. I mean, we could all sit around here whining all day and it won’t achieve anything.”

[6:57] “This requires something serious, not just talk—something radical, something totally different from complaining; something dramatic. I don’t know, maybe as severe as a hashtag. Or better still, we can get this subject unpacked and deconstructed by a pop culture critic such as myself; because we all know that pop culture critics are the intellectual gods of our time. And we all know that if you want something done properly THAT’S where you should go.”

[7:28] “I just want men to be whole, complete, non-disposable characters in movies and not to be shot, stabbed, or disposed of by women; or by men who have been subverted by the detrimental normalizations of feminist theory. Is that really such a big thing to ask from the movie and gaming industry?”

[7:52] “I mean, I don’t care that people say this would make a really dull game, and that no one would want to play it. And I don’t care that people say that it would be an economical failure; because we all know that “economic viability” is just another one of those buzz-words that is used by feminists so that they can continue making these computer games with their erotic fantasies about getting men to kill other men. You just don’t know what it’s like to be a MAN, knowing that any woman out there might use you for sword practice. And yet women still pretend this is not a big social problem.”

[8:29] “Well, I think we should end this. Don’t tell ME not to dress like an interchangeable target. Teach women not to kill. Or better still, don’t tell me to sleep with one eye open. Teach women not to stab people to death in their sleep; like in the film, Basic Instinct.”

[8:47] “Now, I know there will be many women out there who will try and distance themselves from this saying, ‘that’s absurd. I would never stab you to death in your sleep because I saw it in a film’. Well that’s exactly the sort of denial you would expect BECAUSE”:

[9:00] clip from Feminist Frequency, “Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 – Tropes vs Women in Video Games”: “Paradoxically, and somewhat ironically, those who most strongly believe that media is just harmless entertainment, are also the ones most likely to uncritically internalize harmful media messages.”
“In short, the more you think you cannot be affected, the more likely you are to be affected.”

[9:18] Thunderf00t: “That’s right. The ones who say that they are least affected are the ones who are most likely to stab you to death in your sleep. Remember, this is what $30,000 of feminist research looks like. So it must be true.”

[9:32] “Women simply can’t understand what it’s like to be used for sword practice because of their privilege. Women have the privilege of being able to express their sexuality while feminist theory has prevented men from expressing theirs; sometimes, physically.”

[9:49] “Now many women who have been brainwashed by this feminist theory will say that women don’t have privilege. Well yes, of course you can’t see your privilege. That’s like being raised your whole life in a red room, and then being taken out of that red room and being asked to describe what the color red looks like.”

[10:08] “But just because you can’t SEE your privilege, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, and you doubling down and denying your privilege—or even worse, asking me for evidence for it—is simply making the issue worse.”

[10:23] “And this is the reason why I make these videos on manlyism. And BrotherlyBroadcast Videos have been used in classrooms, high schools, universities, and even presidential speeches. Many a times, I received thank-you notes from parents who’ve used this material to educate their daughters, how stabbing a vulnerable man to death in his sleep with an ice pick, is BAAD. Remember, don’t teach ME to take precautions with MY safety. Teach YOUR daughter not to stab people.”

[10:56] “And with all this female privilege, is it any wonder that they’re incapable of understanding how hard it is, to be a man? In short, if you’re a woman, you are unqualified to tell a man what his oppression feels like. And no matter how much you feel the need to ‘femisplain’ why using men as target practice is just ‘harmless fun’, you just need to shut up and listen. You need to educate yourself on what it’s like to be a man. I mean, this is manlyism 101 here. We need for you to become manlyists, the radical belief that men shouldn’t be used for female sword practice; because if you’re not a manlyist, then you’re a bigot. A sexist bigot. I mean, there is nothing in between.”

[11:43] 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.”

Many thanks to Linda for providing the transcript!

Epic Feminist Fails of our time: ‘Ban Bossy

July 3, 2014

[0:00] Thunderf00t: The reason that the “Ban Bossy” Campaign was one of the most EPIC face plants of our time, is that it was so incredibly poorly thought out on the most simplistic and rudimentary levels.

[0:17] There’s an irony in telling people to, ‘ban the word bossy!’ It is, well, kind of BOSSY.

[0:22] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[0:25] Thunderf00t: I mean, seriously, did no one in this campaign think of the internal inconsistencies here? It portrays women as less suitable for leadership, in that if your dreams of leadership can be undermined simply by being called ‘bossy’, it’s highly questionable if you were ever suitable for making those tough decisions of leadership in the first place.

[0:44]: Then there’s the 1984 police-state solution of BANNING WORDS.

[0:49] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[0:53] Thunderf00t: It makes the incredible leap that girls lose interest in leadership when they become teenagers, and then attribute this to the word ‘bossy’.

[1:01] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[1:14] Thunderf00t: Even if it WASN’T a pure distortion of the actual original study, it would be one HELL of a leap of faith to NOT attribute the change in boys and girls with adolescence, and instead say, naah, it has nothing to do with adolescence. It’s all down to a SINGLE WORD.

[1:33]: Put simply the, uuh, factual basis of this ENTIRE campaign was BULLSHIT. They claim that being called ‘bossy’ keeps women from leadership. Yet EVERY single example they give of women in leadership says they were called ‘BOSSY’!

[1:52] clip from YouTube, “Ban Bossy—I’m Not Bossy. I’m the Boss.”

[1:56] Thunderf00t: And they STILL ended up in leadership of one sort or another. I don’t think you really thought that one through, did you?

[2:03]: And finally, even if EEVERY single thing they said was true, they’ve just advertised the way to destroy EVERY woman in a leadership role in America.

[2:14] clip from YouTube, “The Doctor Vs The Prime Minister – Doctor Who . . .” and clip from “Ban Bossy”

[2:43] Thunderf00t: I mean you can see ‘em now, all sat around, pumped up and brainstorming in their Donald Trump’s Tower boardroom:

‘We need something short, punchy, catchy—something people will remember. Oh! Alliteration’s good. I know—how about banning a word? But we need a word that starts with ‘b’. Not bitch. That’s a naughty word; we don’t want to ban naughty words, just ones that hurt women’s feelings. Ones we can portray as sexist. Okay—look, sure, I know that ‘bitch’ hurts women’s feelings too. And it can be portrayed as sexist. But look, we just don’t want a feminist campaign with the word ‘bitch’ in the title. Okaay? We need something short, something punchy. Wow! BAN BOSSY! Yeah, ban bossy! Now all we need is a load of women in leadership to say that they got called ‘bossy’ and how it destroyed their chances of leadership. Don’t worry about the inconsistencieees. No one’s that observant. And then we’ll just use their billionaire’s brown-nosed network to get the U.S. Secretary of Education involved with BANNING WORDS. And then all we need is a pretty object to put on the front of it. Yeah, a woman of some sort. Don’t worry, this is a feminist campaign. We only call it sexism and objectification when OTHER people use beautiful women to sell things. Ah! Perfection. What could possibly go wrong?’

[4:04]: This was all actually backed by an impressive array of successful women, most notably was Sheryl Sandberg’s baby. Sandberg is listed as being worth about a billion dollars. A billion dollars is actually quite a lot of money. Just to put that into perspective, let say this video gets 25,000 views. From her wealth, she could pay each one of those 25,000 people an average U.S. salary of about $40,000. So, she can’t be a complete idiot. Right? Eeeh, that’s until you realize that Donald Trump is worth three to four Sandbergs. Crazy thing is, if you watch Sandberg’s TED Talk, you’ll realize that she already understands why there aren’t so many women in leadership. She describes it EXACTLY: ‘women typically want to have children’:

[4:54] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “And from the moment she starts thinking about having a child, she starts thinking about making room for that child: how am I going to fit this into everything else I’m doing? And literally from that moment, she doesn’t raise her hand anymore. She doesn’t look for a promotion, she doesn’t take on the new projects, she doesn’t say ‘me, I wanna do that’. She starts leaning back.”

[5:14] Thunderf00t: And childbearing age comes right bang in the middle of career development. And then, a sophisticated and dynamic job [?] is typical of leadership, of those privileged enough to have those jobs.

[5:27] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “In the high income part of our workforce in the people who end up at the top Fortune 500 CEO jobs or the equivalent in other industries, the problem that I am convinced is that women are dropping out.”

[5:40] Thunderf00t: Being out of the loop for six months or a year-

[5:42] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Nine months of pregnancy, three months of maternity leave, six months to catch your breath-”

[5:47] Thunderf00t: -makes it much harder to come back and compete at the top of the pile. So she basically describes how they play it safe—they lean back in more supporting roles rather than leadership ones. They lose interest in being at the top of the greasy pole.

[6:03]: After all, is it really worth pissing your life away, fighting to be at the top of the greasy pole, simply so you can say you have three billion dollars rather than one? Really, when you’re on your death bed, do you really believe that you will look back and think, ‘yeah, I’m really glad that I decided to spend so much of my life dedicated to staying at the top of the greasy pole, simply so I can die with a four and a lot of zeroes after my name, rather than a one and a lot of zeroes’?

[6:32]: In fact, to be honest, in your boardroom, Sandberg, if you were privileged with that choice-

[6:37] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Everyone who’s been through this, and I’m here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it’s hard to leave that kid at home.”

[6:46] Thunderf00t: I would say, that leaning back and living life is by far the best choice. Exchanging life for money that you could never possibly spend, is just a fool’s errand.

[6:58] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “When I was in college, my senior year, I took a course called “European Intellectual History”. Don’t you love that kind of thing from college? Wish I could do that now.”

[7:06] Thunderf00t: Seriously, she’s, say, 44 now. Let’s say she lives another 50 years. If she doesn’t earn a single penny for the rest of her life, she would have to spend TWENTY MILLION dollars a year. That’s five hundred times the average salary of an American, just to consume her wealth.

[7:25] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “Don’t you love that kind of thing from college? Wish I could do that now.”
“The numbers tell the story quite clearly. 190 Heads of State; 9 are women . . . And out of 193 world leaders, just 17 are women . . . 80% of political offices being occupied by men . . . less than ¼ MP’s is a woman . . . of all the people in parliament in the world, 13% are women . . . Men occupying the highest ranks in virtually EVERY industry in the world . . . in the corporate sector, women at the top, C level jobs, board seats, tops out at 15-16%. The numbers have not moved since 2002, and are going in the wrong direction.”

[8:08] Thunderf00t: Sandberg describes this women-losing-interest-in-leadership, in detail in her TED Talk. She UNDERSTANDS the reasons. But what I’m missing out on here, is where is the sexism in this picture? WHO is discriminating against the women here? The different representations of men and women she basically describes as being down to lifestyle choices.

[8:33] clip from YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg: Why we have too few women leaders”: “-and I’m here to tell you, once you have a child at home, your job better be really good to go back, because it’s hard to leave that kid at home.”

[8:41] Thunderf00t: WHERE is the sexism in that? Where is the sexism in not finding women at the top of the greasy pole?

[8:50] clip from DNews?: “-men occupying the highest ranks in virtually EVERY industry in the world.”

Many thanks to Linda for supplying the transcript!

RE: Youtube starts banning ‘religiously offensive’ videos

February 27, 2012

   To be honest when I first got the take down notices, about 6 of them in an hour or so (4 content inappropriate with no chance of appeal, and two privacy complaints) I thought,

‘another harassing and minor annoyance in running the channel.  A quick email to YT should sort it out.’

   I was then simply stunned when youtube claimed these videos had been reviewed by professional and impartial moderators and were removed for either hate speech or privacy violation.  The more so as some of these videos constituted some of the milder things I’ve said about religion.  The bottom line was, if this really was the new bar for hate speech, not only would it in an instant render the Thunderf00t channel unviable, it would render virtually every rationalist channel unviable.  Youtubes actions were simply unintelligible.  Indeed if someone had told me these were youtube actions, I simply wouldn’t have believed them.  But there were the words on the screen in black and white.

   I had no option but to make the video “Youtube starts banning ‘religiously offensive’ videos“.  There were simply no other alternatives.  A fairly high stakes game given that youtube could easily have said my action violated the terms of service and just killed the account.  But then again, if the words I had in black and white on the screen were correct, then channel was already dead, and the only thing left to do was give a good accounting of itself before the inevitable banhammer.

    By coincidence this happened about one week after the Hamza Kashgari incident.

Kashgari made about 3 vanilla tweets mildly critical of Islam only to find himself in fear for his life.  He fled Saudi, only to be arrested in Malaysia.  There he was deported back to Saudi with no due process to face a potential death sentence over three tweets.  That’s fucked up beyond ALL recognition.  But it really underscores the problem that religions find arbitrary things offensive.  Given this simple observation, having a clause in the Terms of Service about not offending religions is simply incoherent.

   If youtube really is willing to give religion this latitude of freedom, and to further scale what they consider ‘hate speech’ by how offended people are, then youtube would inevitably find itself in thrall to the Imams.  Many of them find anything that is not Islam offensive beyond comprehension, as was demonstrated by the Imam crying over the three tweets of Kashgari calling them ‘the worst thing he’d ever read’.

   So it was that I wrote potentially my last email to youtube asking them to apply whatever policy they had uniformly, which, taking ‘The Best emotional PORN‘ as the benchmark, would mean either about 7/10 of my videos would be hate speech, and they should delete them and ban my account, or reinstate the videos (which are vanilla compared to some of the videos on my channel).

The BEST emotional PORN, the new bar for ‘hate speech’,  Really?

   Thankfully, some 48 hrs later, with over 17000 thumbs up, well over a thousand mirrors and ~160k hits Youtube had a change of heart over what constituted hate speech.

   Now I have mixed feelings about this.  The Churchill quote about ‘The United States will always do the right thing…. once all other options have been exhausted’ kept coming to mind.

   Sure Youtube had done the right thing, and had the humility and plasticity to correct their previous mistake (a fairly honorable and humble act), but only once all other options had been exhausted.  You then look at what other options youtube had on the table (banhammer, ignore or stick to original judgment), and this is BY FAR the most dignified thing they could have done.

   So all things considered, I think this is as happy an outcome as could have been hoped for.  For the strong response of the community (and yes, it was the communal action that made this possible, for I as an individual had tried to take this to a sensible resolution and failed (I have the gut feeling it was not my email that swung the balance here)) ensured that free speech is maintained on this forum.

Many Thanks to all who made this outcome possible!