The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

What @FemFreq Didn’t Say

Posted on | February 23, 2016 | 49 Comments

 

In last night’s post about Anita Sarkeesian ( @FemFreq on Twitter), I neglected to point out this: Nowhere in her Monday blog post about “shadowbanning,” etc., does she say whether she is for or against the suppression of anti-feminist dissent on Twitter.

If you are a student of rhetoric, consider the method of cunning sophistry she employs. She mocks as paranoid conspiracy theory the suggestion that she has any influence over Twitter’s policies, citing a number of individuals who attribute to her this influence she insists she does not have. She asserts that any such suggestion can only be explained as “a manifestation of misogyny . . . a deep distrust and hatred of women.” This unsubstantiated accusation — do you hate and distrust women, deeply or otherwise? — is a defensive counterattack, an attempt to discredit her critics. Like other feminists and sociopaths, Ms. Sarkeesian uses DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) tactics to deflect scrutiny of her own actions and motives by implying that anyone who criticizes her is guilty of some moral failing. Because she has so many critics, it is impossible for her to engage in character assassination against each of them individually. Instead she offers the blanket accusation of “misogyny” as her one-size-fits-all defense. Everyone who disagrees with Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynist. Quod erat demonstradum.

Let us stipulate that (a) “misogyny” describes a real social phenomenon, (b) this anti-woman attitude can be found among many men who play videogames and/or work in the videogame industry, and (c) many negative comments about Anita Sarkeesian are therefore proof of the existence of the problem to which she has dedicated her career. Even with these stipulations, however, it still does not follow that (d) every critic of Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynist, nor that (e) anti-woman attitudes are so pervasive in the videogame industry as to constitute a societal crisis requiring Ms. Sarkeesian’s intervention, and of course not that (f) all criticism of Ms. Sarkeesian is invalid. The most obvious criticism of Ms. Sarkeesian is that she is an opportunistic parasite enriching herself by deploying her feminist “critical theory” as a shakedown racket, the same way Jesse Jackson and other such dishonest “civil rights” hustlers used accusations of racism to get major corporations to pay them off.

Anyone has read Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers knows how this kind of scam got its start back in the 1960s. Scarcely had the ink dried on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than various “community organizer” types started looking for ways to cash in. The Black Panthers were the most flamboyant (and most obviously criminal) example of this kind of racial racketeering, but during the ensuing decades, variations of the same Mau-Mau operation flourished.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the best-known of these grifters, but back in the day every major city in America had its own Local Civil Rights Reverend whose “ministry” seemed to consist entirely of leading protest marches and being interviewed on the nightly TV news. Most people probably never understood the raw cynicism of the Local Civil Rights Reverend pay-for-play racket. “Give us money, and we will stop accusing you of racism,” was the basic transaction offered, which was soon improved and enhanced. “Give us enough money on a regular basis,” said the Local Civil Rights Reverend, “and we’ll help defend you against discrimination claims, because it would be a shame if your business had to pay out millions of dollars to settle a federal class-action suit filed by our friend, the Local Civil Rights Lawyer.”

It has to be understood that Corporate America didn’t just spontaneously decide to start blabbering “diversity” rhetoric in the 1990s. No, that was all about protecting themselves against discrimination lawsuits, and feminists were eager to take advantage of this situation. Quite ironically, the primary beneficiaries of “affirmative action” were white women from privileged backgrounds. The original rationale of affirmative action, as articulated by President Lyndon Johnson, was to remediate the harms black Americans had suffered from unjust racial discrimination. By the late 1970s, however, after feminists claimed women had suffered from similar forms of discrimination, the specific original purpose and meaning of affirmative action was forgotten. Now college-educated white women — in many cases, the daughters of quite wealthy families — could use the threat of lawsuits to force employers to dance to their tune. The rhetoric of “diversity” became a way to make it seem that hiring women (or Asians or homosexuals) sufficed to prove a company’s bona fides, in terms of defending against claims of discrimination, no matter what the number and status of their black employees.

All that background is necessary to understanding Anita Sarkeesian’s racket. Here was the multi-billion-dollar videogame industry, a lucrative business sector that scarcely existed 25 years ago, where reportedly almost 80 percent of the employees are male. Never mind the reasons why this industry is male-dominated; from the standpoint of Mau-Mau racketeering, videogame companies were sitting ducks for accusations of sexist discrimination and — lo and behold! — here was Anita Sarkeesian producing YouTube videos about sexist “Tropes vs. Women.” Give her money, or hire her as a consultant, and becoming an Official Friend of Anita can thereby help inoculate yourself against any future accusation that your company discriminates against women.

This has nothing to do with actually helping women in general, and everything to do with helping Anita Sarkeesian in particular. And if you are hopelessly naïve, let me clue you in on the secret of this hustle: Just because an organization is “non-profit” doesn’t mean nobody’s making money. “Feminist Frequency is a 501(c)3 non profit,” Anita’s page says in soliciting tax-deductible contributions for her alleged humanitarian philanthropic enterprise, but how much of this non-profit organization’s annual revenue is paid to Anita Sarkeesian in one form or another? Furthermore, doesn’t Feminist Frequency function as a publicity platform that helps Ms. Sarkeesian get income in other ways that don’t show up on her organization’s Form 990? How much free travel and how many free meals does she get every year? What sort of opportunities can a shrewd opportunist leverage from a 501(c)3 racket like that?

Oh, I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night, and you’re never going to convince me that Anita Sarkeesian is an extraordinarily benevolent and charitable person who collects only a modest stipend for her “work.” If her 501(c)3 paid her less than $150,000 last year, it’s not for a lack of greed or ambition on her part, but simply because Anita Sarkeesian has not yet maximized the value of her personal Feminist™ brand. A hustler’s gotta hustle, and there are plenty of other Feminist™ hustlers competing in the same basic racket, so perhaps Ms. Sarkeesian made less money last year exploiting videogame “misogyny” than Jaclyn Friedman made exploiting “rape culture.”

We return, then, to the original question: Is Anita Sarkeesian for or against the suppression of anti-feminist dissent? Do you think that Ms. Sarkeesian would support me having access to Twitter so that I could tell the truth about her Feminist™ racket? Could she be bothered to answer questions about the personal financial gain she has made by accusing the videogame industry of “misogyny”? Well, good luck trying to get Anita Sarkeesian to answer any questions you might have about what she does, or what she gets paid to do it. She does not allow comments on any of her blog posts or YouTube videos and she routinely blocks anyone on Twitter who dares to criticize her. In fact, if you have a Twitter account, you may discover that Ms. Sarkeesian has pre-blocked you, even though you have never had any previous interaction with her.

Everybody’s quitting Twitter, it seems — Ace of Spades packed it in Monday, as did Adam Baldwin and Larry Correia — but this is not my fault, nor do I feel any personal animosity toward Twitter.

What has happened in the past year is that feminist claims of “harassment” on Twitter have been taken as seriously as feminist claims of “misogyny” in videogames. #GamerGate, which began as an effort to expose how dishonest liberal journalism was being used to promote feminism and other “social justice” agendas in the industry, was turned around (by dishonest journalists) to mean something else: Misogynist gamers were harassing women, and therefore Anita Sarkeesian’s claims about misogyny were right!

“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
— Redstockings, 1969

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)

“As one student explained to a New York Times reporter, she needed a ‘safe space’ after briefly hearing a conservative speak on campus because ‘I was feeling bombarded by a lot of viewpoints that really go against my dearly and closely held beliefs.’ Safe spaces are not about freedom from harassment or physical threats. They’re about freedom from intellectual opposition.”
— Robert Tracinski, Feb. 22, 2016

Feminism begins with the belief that all women are oppressed, and that all men are complicit in this oppression, and confirmation bias will always lead them to find “proof” of this belief. Having built their worldview around a belief in their own oppression, feminists are incapable of coping with facts and logic that contradict their worldview. No matter how privileged Anita Sarkeesian actually is (as attested by the fact she could afford to travel to England to get her master’s degree), she nonetheless always presents herself as a victim because, according to the feminist worldview, all women are victims. However, feminists also insist that they are courageously fighting patriarchy. And how do they “fight”? By constantly lecturing us about how victimized they are!

Thus, like other prominent feminists before her, Ms. Sarkeesian strikes an absurd pose: The Heroic Fighting Victim-Martyr, whose endless tales of suffering function as proof of pervasive male evil. These tales require scapegoats and so I find myself accused of “violating the Twitter Rules” for allegedly “participating in targeted abuse,” and banned from Twitter. Was it Ms. Sarkeesian who made this accusation? Or was it some other would-be Heroic Fighting Victim-Martyr like “Zoe Quinn,” Randi Harper, “Sarah” Nyberg or “Brianna Wu”?

 

When Twitter announced on Feb. 9 that Anita Sarkeesian had been appointed to its “Trust and Safety Council,” I called her a “totalitarian ideologue,” and within two weeks — surprise, surprise! — my Twitter account was suspended. Do you believe this was a coincidence? Do you want to ask Anita Sarkeesian if she believes it was a coincidence? Do you trust a totalitarian ideologue to answer you truthfully? Do you expect her to defend critics who tell the truth about her selfishness and dishonesty?

Feminism is always a lecture, and never a debate. Do not expect a feminist to provide an honest answer to a direct question. Be prepared for accusations of “harassment,” and threats of reprisal intended to silence you, if you persist in criticizing feminism and its adherents.




 

Category: Sex Trouble

Comments

49 Responses to “What @FemFreq Didn’t Say”

  1. CaptDMO
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 7:11 pm

    I’m confused here.
    What IS the distinction between Feminist victimologisation from misogynist mansplainationary peer review, critical deconstruction, micro-aggressive verbal assault, the new “official ” Bitch Face at Rest (alleged “listening”?) and…say… Munchausen syndrome?

  2. Steve Skubinna
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 7:12 pm

    So my question is:

    Is she, or is she not a member of Twitter’s Purity and Truth Commissariat?

    And if she is, then how is it that she has no influence or power or authority and is nothing but a hapless victim of The Patriarchy?

    Tell ya what, I am this close to retargeting one of the Patriarchal Orbiting Death Laser Platforms on her sad sorry excuse making self. Soon as I finish this beer and take care of some oppressing of my extensive seraglio of nubiles.

  3. Steve Skubinna
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 7:12 pm

    Shut up, xe explained.

  4. RS
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 7:37 pm

    Why establish a “Trust and Safety Council” if it has no influence on Twitter’s business operations? Why appoint Sarkeesian–or any other person for that matter–to such a committee if it has no power? Is that what she’s saying? Twitter has created a Potemkin village to fool the rubes into thinking Twitter is now “safe?” One would think that given Sarkeesian’s previous efforts, she’d be screaming bloody murder if the Trust and Safety Council had nothing to do.

  5. RS
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 7:38 pm

    Should read all the comments before I typed mine, below.

  6. concern00
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 7:50 pm

    It should be called the Ministry of Truth.

  7. RosalindJ
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 8:21 pm

    Did you catch this, Stacy? Obliquely on-topic; same script more or less, different book.
    http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/02/22/comedygate-progressive-comedians-mike-david/

  8. Steve Skubinna
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 8:48 pm

    Hey, if you’re right, you’re right, whoever else is saying it too.

  9. mole
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 9:15 pm

    From twitters own policy page.

    “…We want everyone to feel welcome on Twitter. Accordingly, we don’t tolerate violent threats or Tweets that promote violence. We also prohibit content that threatens or promotes violence or terrorism against a person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, age or disability. Read the full policy regarding abusive behavior here.”….

    So is this open to any sort of defamation suit? It seems our host is either “threatens or promotes violence or terrorism against a person or group”… a fairly serious allegation to make. And i might note not just ““participating in targeted abuse,” whatever that means.

    Heres its list of USA based “offensive speech” trusted partners.

    UNITED STATES

    Anti-Defamation League

    Circle of Six

    Crash Override Network

    Cyber Civil Rights Initiative

    Hollaback!

    Muslim Advocates

    NDVH: National Domestic Violence Hotline

    NNEDV

    Take Back the Tech

    Safe Horizon

    Without My Consent

    Some of these are quite openly leftist political groups/mad feminists.

    The actual, specific policy Stacey has :”violated”.

    “..Harassment: You may not incite or engage in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. Some of the factors that we may consider when evaluating abusive behavior include:

    ..if a primary purpose of the reported account is to harass or send abusive messages to others;

    ..if the reported behavior is one-sided or includes threats;

    ..if the reported account is inciting others to harass another account; and

    ..if the reported account is sending harassing messages to an account from multiple accounts.”…

    Unless Im wrong in some way exposing people for mockery based on lunacy they willingly post on public forums seems an extremely wide definition to trip him up on.

    Twitter can flog off and die, another monument to the Ozymandias’ of the SJW movement, burning down villages in order to save them.
    Then the parasite will scout for a new host.

  10. mole
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 9:17 pm

    Lewis Carol explains it for you.

  11. Bostoniensis
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 10:33 pm

    I cancelled my twitter account on account of your expulsion.

  12. Steve in Greensboro
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 10:44 pm

    I write subject to correction, but isn’t maintaining a Twitter account these days prima facile evidence of support for their exclusionary speech policies?

    And why don’t those account holders who don’t agree just go dark for a week and wait for the response? Or is Twittering one of those things one cannot do without?

  13. Joe Joe
    February 23rd, 2016 @ 11:41 pm

    ““Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.””

    If you have to learn to see yourself as a victim, then maybe you weren’t one to begin with….

  14. The #FreeStacy Protest Continues : The Other McCain
    February 24th, 2016 @ 12:52 am

    […] Anyway, even though he’s shut out of Twitter, Stacy certainly hasn’t been silenced. Heck, he’s just getting going. Be sure to follow the links and read the posts. I’m sure there are a few people who think “So […]

  15. Finrod Felagund
    February 24th, 2016 @ 2:34 am

    Pardon for the offtopic comment, but I have to quote this url– Donald Trump is going on trial this summer for fraud over the defunct Trump University:

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/with-gop-nomination-looming-trump-slated-to-take-191550876.html

  16. DeadMessenger
    February 24th, 2016 @ 3:01 am

    But yet it is as he himself said, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”

    And he’s right.

    So while we correctly chastise leftists for their mindlessness, we can see that there is plenty of foolishness on the right that needs correcting.

  17. DeadMessenger
    February 24th, 2016 @ 3:05 am

    From what I can tell, the answer to your question is “Derp”, which is the answer to all rational questions posed to or about phlegminists.

    And also: seraglio? Really?

  18. DeadMessenger
    February 24th, 2016 @ 3:06 am

    Everywhere you mention “Twitter” should be changed to “Twitter and its plummeting stock price”.

  19. DeadMessenger
    February 24th, 2016 @ 3:09 am

    “Then the parasite will scout for a new host.

    For some reason, the image of the Dune worm keeps coming to mind.

  20. DeadMessenger
    February 24th, 2016 @ 3:12 am

    I’ve never understood the fascination myself. My wisecracks, mocking characterizations and remarks typically need more than the few allocated characters.

  21. DeadMessenger
    February 24th, 2016 @ 3:13 am

    True enough. Plus, what sort of pathetic individual wants to be viewed as a victim, anyway?

  22. epobirs
    February 24th, 2016 @ 4:04 am

    Anita, you do not represent all women. You only represent yourself. We don’t distrust and hate women. We just distrust and hate YOU, with ample reason. It’s the same distrust and hate I reserve for all scam artists elevated far beyond their natural station.

  23. Wombat_socho
    February 24th, 2016 @ 4:31 am

    Ooo! Ooo! I know this one!

  24. Wombat_socho
    February 24th, 2016 @ 4:32 am

    And a bunch of them showed up at my precinct caucus tonight.

  25. Lyle Lash
    February 24th, 2016 @ 5:52 am

    Hi, I just noticed a small error in your article. Anita didn’t go to England for her masters – she went to York University in Toronto.

    By the way – apparently Anita’s speaking fee is $20,000 (if you hadn’t seen that already) – https://archive.is/zHpkL

  26. Zhytamyr
    February 24th, 2016 @ 8:30 am

    I used it as a news aggregator, it was great for that.

  27. Fail Burton
    February 24th, 2016 @ 9:20 am

    Meanwhile theTrudz is on her 7th year of over 400,000 Tweets which relentlessly attack white people every single day.

  28. Fail Burton
    February 24th, 2016 @ 9:28 am

    It’s the usual clever bullshit: opposing this one woman’s ideology is misogyny against women.

  29. Daniel O'Brien
    February 24th, 2016 @ 9:31 am

    Tweeted this to @FemFreq and my huge number of followers…. 😉

  30. Quartermaster
    February 24th, 2016 @ 10:06 am

    You misspelled “facie.”

  31. Steve in Greensboro
    February 24th, 2016 @ 10:11 am

    Hence the “subject to correction”. 🙂

  32. JohnnyL53
    February 24th, 2016 @ 10:42 am

    I thought this was bizarre as well. Why appoint these progressive groups to the Trust and Safety Council if they were not supposed to have any influence on Twitter? She pooh poohs any conspiracy to shut down people that disagree with her and then accuses all who may disagree as part of a women hating conspiracy. I guess that answers the question as to why Stacy was banned. If he disagrees with Sarkessian, then he is part of the misogynist conspiracy and therefore is participating in targeted abuse…abuse being defined as disagreeing with Anita.

  33. Steve Skubinna
    February 24th, 2016 @ 11:23 am

    It’s a very high toned place. You oughta see it.

    I mean, yeah, of course I got a velvet Elvis in there, but also a dogs playing poker. First rate quality all the way.

    Why, it’s almost Trumpian!

  34. Steve Skubinna
    February 24th, 2016 @ 11:26 am

    To ask the question is to answer it.

  35. DeadMessenger
    February 24th, 2016 @ 3:48 pm

    And Stacy posted about him/her today!

  36. Dana
    February 24th, 2016 @ 8:31 pm

    This unsubstantiated accusation — do you hate and distrust women, deeply or otherwise? — is a defensive counterattack, an attempt to discredit her critics.

    Given that almost all of the men who are opposed to the current brand of feminism are heterosexual, ‘twould seem that they don’t hate women, but very much like them. The antithesis is that a disproportionate number of the males who do approve of the current brand of feminism are homosexual, it also follows that a greater percentage of them hate or distrust women.

    The (apparently successful) effort is to conflate the ideas that liking women and approving of the current brand of feminism as being one thing, when they clearly are not.

  37. Iso
    February 25th, 2016 @ 1:10 am

    It’s scary how much power this woman seems to be getting, from having the ability to speak in front of the UN and trying to get them to limit any disagreements with her as “Bullying” to now being put in power at Twitter and it seems Randi “hamburger Harper” has had some reach with jack and the Twitter board in getting Milo unverified….Just where can a right wing, game loving person like myself go nowadays?

  38. Wombat_socho
    February 25th, 2016 @ 1:52 am

    Please don’t malign Shai-Hulud. Sandworms perform a vital function on Arrakis, which is certainly something nobody ever claimed for any SJWs anywhere.

  39. Wombat_socho
    February 25th, 2016 @ 1:54 am

    Vox Day and others are working on alternatives. The day it (or they) goes online, I expect Twitter’s user base to implode, and their stock price to follow.

  40. DeadMessenger
    February 25th, 2016 @ 2:08 am

    Well that’s true. Perhaps I should’ve said tapeworm.

  41. Brittany Rafferty
    February 25th, 2016 @ 5:47 am

    ?my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….two days ago new McLaren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Here!!b1113????? http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsCEO/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:?2:::::!!b1113…

  42. Quartermaster
    February 25th, 2016 @ 10:58 am

    No problem. We all do such things.

  43. Quartermaster
    February 25th, 2016 @ 10:59 am

    Or pin worms.

  44. Feminist Hates White Heterosexual Men : The Other McCain
    February 27th, 2016 @ 12:41 am

    […] Feb. 23: What @FemFreq Didn’t Say […]

  45. #FreeStacy Won’t Shut Up : The Other McCain
    February 28th, 2016 @ 8:44 pm

    […] Feb. 23: What @FemFreq Didn’t Say […]

  46. News of the Week (February 28th, 2016) | The Political Hat
    February 28th, 2016 @ 9:20 pm

    […] What @FemFreq Didn’t Say In last night’s post about Anita Sarkeesian ( @FemFreq on Twitter), I neglected to point out this: Nowhere in her Monday blog post about “shadowbanning,” etc., does she say whether she is for or against the suppression of anti-feminist dissent on Twitter. […]

  47. Did @Nian_Hu ‘Friend-Zone’ You? #FreeStacy: Feminism Is a Death Cult : The Other McCain
    February 29th, 2016 @ 7:38 pm

    […] Feb. 23: What @FemFreq Didn’t Say […]

  48. Who’s Afraid of #FreeStacy?
    March 2nd, 2016 @ 5:44 am

    […] none of her feminist admirers doubt that Sarkeesian has endured a traumatic emotional ordeal. As I explained on my blog, Sarkeesian “strikes an absurd pose: The Heroic Fighting Victim-Martyr, whose endless tales of […]

  49. #FreeStacy #CPAC2016: I’ve Got Friends in Low Places (and Everywhere Else) : The Other McCain
    March 5th, 2016 @ 11:17 am

    […] Feb. 23: What @FemFreq Didn’t Say […]