Anita Sarkeesian (@FemFreq on Twitter) is a jargon-spewing pseudo-intellectual who made herself obnoxious by using feminist “gender theory” to critique videogames. This proved to be enormously lucrative for Ms. Sarkeesian, who became a heroine in the eyes of every left-wing ax-grinder who, like her, hates the idea of heterosexual white males enjoying themselves without being constantly lectured about what awful racist, sexist homophobes they are. Sarkeesian’s crooked hustle — “Pay me money to tell you how to abolish misogyny in videogames” — is a shakedown, a corrupt scam with which no honest person would wish to be associated. Sarkeesian’s modus operandi spawned imitators, who congealed into a money-grubbing feminist clown show that was exposed to the light of day in August 2014, #GamerGate.
Sarkeesian and her dimwit followers are incapable of original thought, and as soon as they began getting blowback from their shabby scam, they all began to shriek in unison, “Harassment!” This became the Official Media Narrative of what #GamerGate was about. Supposedly, every supporter of #GamerGate is a vile woman-hater, just harassing womenqua women, because patriarchy or something. This claim is bullshit on stilts, but what else do the lazy hacks of the liberal media ever do except repeat whatever bullshit on stilts they are spoonfed by professional ideologues and Democrat Party propagandists?
The supposed “victims” of #GamerGate were a crew of no-talent mediocrities like Zoe Quinn (a tattoo-covered, mentally ill ex-stripper whose real name is Chelsea Van Valkenburg), perverted lunatics like Nicholas “Sarah” Nyberg (alleged to be a pedophile who likes little girls) and latter-day Mussolinis like Randi Harper. Regardless of whatever “harassment” has been directed at these people, it is difficult to ignore the fact that all of them are suffering from psychiatric disorders. Bad causes attract bad people, and are we surprised that this feminist “Girls in Games” racket attracted such a swarm of kooks and weirdos?
So, about two weeks ago, Twitter announced its Orwellian-sounding“Trust and Safety Council,” of which Anita Sarkeesian is a member. When my Twitter account was suspended Friday, some people (including Robby Soave of Reason magazine) put two and two together and concluded that perhaps Ms. Sarkeesian had something to do with this matter. Was this deduction valid? I don’t know. Twitter has cited nothing specific to justify its claim that I was “participating in targeted abuse,” and this opaque accusation was delivered as a verdict, so that I do not even have any way to know whom I was alleged to have “targeted.”
For dishonest women like Anita Sarkeesian, feminism is a sort of alchemy by which bullshit is transformed into cash, and she has collected hundreds of thousands of dollars for her “non-profit” activism. How do you suppose such a shrewd opportunist would react to the suggestion that she might have some role in the apparent crackdown on Twitter dissent? Ms. Sarkeesian (a) accused her critics of being paranoid conspiracy theorists, and (b) offered her own paranoid conspiracy theory:
Blog posts have been written, video rants have been filmed, and hundreds of tweets have been posted as this ludicrous conspiracy has spread. According to this conspiracy, any opinions I don’t agree with are being quietly silenced, while the people expressing them are being ominously “shadowbanned.” . . .
Of course there isn’t a shred of truth to this perception, but for the people spreading it, the truth is irrelevant. . . .
This conspiracy and others like it are themselves a manifestation of misogyny, borne out of a deep distrust and hatred of women. They’re designed to foster fear and serve as a warning to other women about what awaits them if they challenge the status quo. . . .
What Ms. Sarkeesian failed to do, of course, was to explain why she is so hated in particular (Answer: Because she lies) or whether the suspension of my account was prompted by a complaint from her or one of her allies.
You see that feminism’s hegemonic cultural authority is the real “status quo” in 2016, and what better “warning” — “designed to foster fear” — than to silence the social-media voices of those who “challenge” the lies told by Anita Sarkeesian. She has never dared to debate any of her critics, and why? Because liars are always cowards, and feminism is always a lecture, never a debate.
Feminist rhetoric is so obviously false, and its logic so circular, that it seems condescending even to point out its errors. What would Ms. Sarkeesian say, for example, if I merely inverted her own accusation, to assert that the ideology to which she owes her entire career is “borne out of a deep distrust and hatred of men”? What if I said that, to feminists like her, “the truth is irrelevant”? How could Ms. Sarkeesian disprove such accusations, if they were directed at her? In fact, this kind of finger-pointing Grand Inquisitor style of rhetoric — Accuse! Accuse! Accuse! — is the sum and essence of feminism. It is all about ginning up anti-male hatred by making tendentious claims about “objectification” or “slut-shaming” or “rape culture” or whatever, and no one is ever permitted to question the authority of the accusers. Why should anyone care what Anita Sarkeesian says about videogames? Where is the “social justice” here, and whither does Ms. Sarkeesian propose to lead us? What real harm is caused by the alleged “misogyny” in videogames of which she complains? What is she doing, other than hustling a dollar?
Anita Sarkeesian, “Zoe Quinn,” Randi Harper, “Sarah” Nyberg, “Brianna Wu” — a parade of selfish frauds, “shrewdly exploiting gender as a means of gaining lucrative advantages,” as I have said. No honest person could admire these shabby swindlers, nor would any wise person trust them.
Living in Anglo-America 