Stupid denial of Elliot Rodger's misogyny

I got e-mailed this painfully, god-awful article by Helen Razer from Crikey saying that only gun control laws and mental illness are to blame for Elliot Rodger's mass murder, and not misogyny AT ALL. http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/santa-barbara-killings-murder-by-the-book/ While, it's true that you can't kill as many people if you don't have a gun, you also need actual motivation to pull the trigger, which pure insanity doesn't account for, especially given that he was sane enough to methodically write an entire manifesto, plan the thing for months, took his youtube videos down because he knew what would happen if people saw them, and postponed his shooting by a month because he had a cold.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zXStYs6q8s
Razer's claims that online websites which stoked his misogyny http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/hamad-elliot-rodger-and-hate-crime-hypocrisy/5478820 don't share any of the blame are ridiculous and she uses lots of terrible analogies to say that her claims make sense.

(Note: I origionally saw this on the ABC's 'The Drum' where it stated as fact that Elliot Rodger had numerous visits to Men's Rights Activist websites. However, I have since not seen this anywhere, and even things which state explicitly to the contrary, so I think that the ABC got it wrong. PUAhate which Rodger was a part of are the same sort of people as the Men's Rights crowd however, namely the sort who want to blame women for all their problems. Rodger's attitudes could just as easily have come from the MRM.)http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/

Here are some of them.

(Helen Razer's comments are written in italics.)

According to commentators, this 22-year-old read some misogynistic pamphlets and websites. It is held by many commentators that his alleged actions were not, in fact, the result of the same ultra-individualised extremism that has driven white Americans to kill each other since one who signed the Mayflower compact took out a blunderbuss in the middle of an argument. This violence, it is said, is not part of the occasional American tradition of believing aberrant shit and shooting guns at people in its name. This violence is the work of misogynistic websites.

As much to blame as the individual is, he didn't totally come up with these ideas that women owed him sex on his own, did he? We all exist in a wider society.
The implication that you consider aberrant shit and Men's Rights groups to be distinctly different suggests that you may not be too familiar with the Men's Rights Movement, and anti-feminist rhetoric, so here's an introduction.

'If a man ignoring a woman's verbal 'no' is committing date rape, then a woman who says 'no' with her verbal language, but yes with her body language is committing date fraud, and a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says no is committing 'date lying.' We have forgotten that before we called this date rape' and 'date fraud' we called it 'exciting.' - from 'The Myth of Male Power' by Dr Warren Farrell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgaqG5Cxcl0

'Many MRAs don't fully understand what the concept of 'gender war' is all about and what it fully entails. And in this video I said that if I were to see a woman being raped I would continue on as if nothing ever happened. And I still stand by that statement unapologetically and I assert that I'm 100% justified in this line of thought.' - Barbarossaaa.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBhJMc1MAKY

'Look at the nature of the crime. It is a crime that is a legal act that millions of people have every day that is only designated as a crime because of two states of mind:... Her lack of consent, his awareness of her lack of consent... All the evidence of rape is evidence of a legal act. Other than her testimony, it is a very difficult thing to prove.' - Karen Straughan.

(Yeh, nice one Karen. And using a knife is legal act which is only illegal if you stab someone to death.)
http://caprizchka.wordpress.com/2014/03/02/karen-straughan-defines-rape/comment-page-1/

'I think we should give your rapist a medal. I hope you drown in rape semen, you ugly, mean-spirited cow.' - The Amazing Atheist.
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2012/02/08/theamazingatheists-misogynist-meltdown/

'I... I, a man, don't give a fuck about rape victims anymore. I cannot force myself to give a shit. I know intellectually that I should. I know that rape is a terrible crime, and being subject to it is probably a terrible thing, but I don't give a fuck! And the reason that I don't give a fuck is you! You youtube feminists. You victim cult members, you female supremacist assholes. I lay this blame on you. You youtube feminists and feminists in the real world, this is the effect that you had. ' - JohntheOther.

(John's logic: I'm a piece of shit and it's all someone else's fault.)
http://www.pajiba.com/think_pieces/ok-mens-rights-movement-your-friendly-neighborhood-frigid-btch-feminist-is-listening-what-the-hell-do-you-want.php

'Then you go through the transition between rape and just bad sex, and like it or not such a transition exists. I mean, for example, it was fully consensual to start with, but when we went at it, the sex was just awful and at the end I asked them to stop but they finished anyway.' - Thunderf00t.

(Actually that doesn't sound like going through the transition. That sounds like pretty clear cut rape.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbJbNyZU1dU

'I realised God made a vagina for a reason. So men will talk to you.' - Ramzpaul.

'Whenever I experience the mangina's propensity to bow to every whim of a woman, I can honestly say it reminds me of Dracula's assistant Igor as he desperately tries to obtain his master's affection.' - RockingMrE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v9gXTkf_tY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLz7bwQznmo- When someone (Elliot Rodger) takes the option of absolute insanely last resort, you have to wonder what kind of system is producing them! And I'll tell you what Laci, IT IS A FUCKING FEMINIST SYSTEM THAT'S DOING THIS!' - Sargon Of Akkad.

Of course it's not all like this, but truly horrible comments are commonplace among MRAs.

In short, and in the fast habit of the morally panicked, the internet and what remains of news media “know” why this crime was committed. On ABC1’s Q&A last night, author Tara Moss summed broad feeling up when she noted that the alleged assailant had told us that misogyny was his motive in his last video.
This view requires that we accept not only that the act of violence was the logical end to a normative hatred of women but that Rodger is a reliable narrator. This is bit like according Holden Caulfield the same status. If this were high school English, we’d all get an F.

Tara Moss was saying that tragedy like this is what happens when we normalise men being bitter that women have a choice about who they have sex with. On what grounds do you dismiss this? Here links to two videos documenting Elliot Rodger's supporters and sympathisers which support this outlook. I'm sure I could find more evidence if I looked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPFcspwbrq8&bpctr=1402760153
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebHUe089lx8

As for the part where you say that we can't trust that Rodgers is a reliable narrator, I would have thought the fact that he frequents misogyynist websites, makes videos about how much he hates women, writes an entire manifesto about how much he hates women, makes a video about how much he wants to kill women for not having sex with him, and then follows through with his actions and tries to slaughter women would have been enough evidence to conclude that he did it because hates women.
Even if he were 'crazy' there's no way he's not misogynist because in his final video he said this:

'On the day of retribution I am going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blonde slut I see inside there. All those girls who I've desired so much. They've all rejected me and looked down on me as an inferior man.'

I don't see how you can deny his misogyny if you listened to the words that came out of his mouth.

Are we up to speed, yet? In summary: The Bible kills. The Beatles kill. Columbine was the work of Marilyn Manson. Aurora was down to Batman. Sandy Hook was only made possible by video games.

How are any of those things comparable to hate groups?
Most Men's Rights Groups are not actual 'rights groups,' but hateful Male Supremacist Movements which are tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Centre. The Southern Poverty Law Centre is in charge of tracking hate groups like the KKK and Neo Nazis, but Men's Rights groups are also on their radar. Their website documents that George Sodini shot 12 women and killed three in 2009. He had many similar views to Men's Rights Activists and many MRAs viewed him as a hero or thought it was really women who were to blame for the shooting.  http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women
http://amptoons.com/blog/2009/08/06/mens-rights-activists-anti-feminists-and-other-misogynists-comment-on-george-sodini/
It's really weird that you would dismiss out of hand that a hate group could be responsible for bloodshed and I'm sorry you're too stupid to tell the difference between hate groups and video games. Here's a clue - VIDEO GAMES ARE FICTIONAL!

Whenever we hear about bloodshed in the cult-and-gun-happy United States, we are absolutely confused and absolutely sure in succession. First, there is the instant in which we know this horror is beyond the reach of our understanding. Then, we acquire instant expertise in forensic and social psychology and begin to explain exactly why it happened. And then, actual grown-ups start writing oblivious and frantic things like PolicyMic’s “What Elliot Rodger Said About Women Reveals Why We Need to Stamp Out Misogyny“.

What Elliot Rodger Said About Women reveals that the guy was a nutter-butter created by goodness-knows-what fusion of chemicals with numb hate, and that a person with a long history of psychiatric therapy was able to access a gun.

You claim that he's so completely loopy that the words coming from his mouth are totally meaningless, yet this is the only evidence you provide in the whole, stupid article that he had a mental illness! Elliot Rodger had been in therapy for... something.
Wow! You have proved that there's no point paying any attention to any of his misogynist rants! Nobody ever goes to therapy unless they are pure, jabbering batshit! Keep lit matches away from everyone who's been in therapy because they're all powder-kegs!

Rodger “knew exactly what he was doing”. Just like Charles Manson did, presumably, when he attempted to spark a race war by instructing his “family” to go to a house in a tony white suburb and “totally destroy everyone … as gruesome as you can“.

The only reason that more men died was that he couldn't get into the sorority house full of women to slaughter them because they didn't answer the door.
But also, under the logic that he killed men therefore he wasn't a misogynist, I guess I can argue that Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite because he gassed loads of people who weren't even Jewish! If you have a separate motivation for hating someone else, that is proof that you actually don't have prejudiced hate towards ANYONE.
 http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/05/25/why-elliot-rodgers-misogyny-matters/
Helen Razer, is an idiot in really painfully obvious denial.

12 bad reasons to not listen to Anita Sarkesian

 
For those unfamiliar with Anita Sarkeesian, here is an introduction:
Anita Sarkesian is a youtuber who goes by the username 'feministfrequency.' She talks about popular culture from a feminist perspective on her youtube channel. In 2012 she released the beginning of her 'Tropes vs Women' series about the representation of female characters in video games. It particularly focused on the damsel in distress trope being a reflection of the patriarchal message that men are strong and capable providers and women are weak and helpless caregivers. When women are perpetually disempowered (via kidnapping or other misfortune) in games this sends the message that they're less capable beings than men.
She also branched out into different variations of the damsel in distress trope such as when the trope fetishizes and objectifies disempowered women, and various plot devices which are used over and over and strongly send the message that the games are for men. Anita refers to the video game industry as a 'boy's club' and it is true that women who take part in gaming culture experience a large amount of sexual harassment. The repeated casting of the lead female character as being only the prize for the male hero to win is likely to perpetuate this problem, as it creates a fantasy for the male gamer where women only exist for their sex appeal. The fact that these plots are such an overwhelming percentage creates an entitled attitude in male gamers, that video games are only for men, and so women have to ignore the sexism if they're going to participate.
(Links to evidence of widespread sexual harassment in gaming culture directly below)

http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/01/nerds-and-male-privilege-part-2/all/1/
http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2012/02/nerds-male-privilege-3-cross-assault-sexual-harrassment/all/1/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-07-09-anita-sarkeesian

To sum up the point of Anita's Tropes vs Women series, it is basically to check whether the views being reflected about women are socially progressive or not, and video games fail miserably.
Many people online reacted to this message with uninformed boiling anger, and her comment section was flooded with hateful, misogynistic comments.
These commenters had various motivations. Many were male gamers that didn't want to lose the privilege of having games made only for them. Some were Men's Rights Activists or anti-feminists who hate everything any feminist does simply because they are feminist. Some were trolls that just wanted to write the most ridiculous, stupid bullshit that they could come up with.

She had to  turn the comments section off, because virtually every comment was completely idiotic and hateful. This happened before her first video had even been released, and the only reason people knew that the series existed was that Anita was raising money on the internet, where people were to give her money to create the series, through her 'Kickstarter' campaign. Anita managed to raise over $158,000 when she had only asked for $6,000 partly because people decided to donate out of sympathy that she was getting so much hate.

Some of the comments which may have elicited this sympathy included -

'She needs a good dicking, good luck finding it though.'
'Why do you put on make-up if everything is sexism? Why don't you shave your head bald, stop wearing makeup and stop wearing huge slut earrings? You are a fucking hypocrite slut.'
'Comment pending: THE ULTIMATE COWARDLY MOVE! What's the matter? Free speech hurt your feelings? Is it triggering your flashbacks? Pathetic.'
'Why are you so God damn sexist? No, the female sex is not any better than the male one. Get that through your thick skull. This is just as bad as racism, I consider you on the same level as a KKK advertiser. And I hate the KKK.'
'Would be better if she filmed this in the kitchen.'
'1940 we want to be equal! 2012 we are superior! Yep... Tits or gtfo.'
'She is a JEW.'
'I hope you get cancer:)'
'I'll donate $50 if you make me a sandwich.'
'Who the fuck needs 6k to make review videos? Why are you so special?'
'flagged for terrorism too.'
'ask money for making a fucking vlog? and you made it in a way that women should pledge not to be dominated by men. Smart and evil plan. you are the reason that womens are the inferior gender for the whole history of mankind.'
'So if someone doesn't agree with you they're trolling? Shut your sexist mouth!'
'So you're a Bolshevik feminist Jewess who hates white people and does websites design for Tim Wise extremeist platform and you expect to be taken seriously with your critiquing video games? Fucking ovendodger.'
'Go back to the kitchen. If you hate it make your own games.'
'Don't bother reading anything. Just call them sexist trolls and keep rambling on with your over-glorified victim complex.'
'Keep supporting the Feminazi.'
'Looking like you are I can understand where the hate for sexy female characters comes from, but please, scamming people won't solve anything you useless cunt.'
'I'LL RAPE YOU AND PUT YOUR HEAD ON A STICK IF YOU EVER TOUCH MY VIDEO GAMES!' (This one came from twitter)
'The only place for women is in chains in my kitchen... sluts.' (I THINK this one was from facebook.)

In addition to this her Wikipedia page was vandalised with pornographic images, a game was invented on the internet where the aim was to bash Anita up, people repeatedly e-mailed her photos of video game characters sexually assaulting her and every one of her social media accounts online was reported as fraud, spam and/or terrorism in an attempt to have the kickstarter campaign removed and donations revoked. Other consequences include that her email was hacked into, there was an attempt to knock her website off the internet and people attempted to collect and distribute her personal information including her home address and phone number. Anita describes it as being the target of an online hate campaign.
Needless to say, the response to her series was... an overreaction. A completely batshit-crazy overreaction.

When youtubers couldn't use her comment section anymore, they made video responses to Anita, most of which were generally no more intelligent and made up loads of terrible excuses to dismiss everything she had said.
I usually wouldn't watch these videos, because I could smell the bullshit wafting out of the titles and couldn't stomach diving headfirst into the stink. However, I made an exception on a video by Men's Rights Activist Karen Straughn, because it was short. Karen was peddling the similar hate that had come about during the 'kickstarter' campaign by stupidly summarizing Anita's views as 'now I get to make the rules because 'vagina' and also 'rape.'' The 'now I get to make the rules' part of the comment was clearly pandering to the male gamer's angry, paranoid thoughts that an all-powerful, Anita Sarkeesian is coming to take their video games away from them.
I left some comments and engaged with Karen's viewers for a while but all they do (mostly) is make the same terrible excuses to dismiss Anita, that are present all over youtube.
Here are just SOME paraphrased examples of those frequently used bad reasons or excuses to not listen to Anita, and my responses. All of these were comments below Karen's video except number 4 and all were directed towards me except 4, 7 and 8.
I am not saying that there are no legitimate criticisms of Anita's channel, but there is a widespread idea that everything she does is wrong because she did it, so whatever incoherent nonsense you make up to prove that point must be correct!


1. But there ARE strong female protagonists in games!

Which can otherwise be phrased as...

'My first thought is you're an asshole Nazi who thinks he has some right to shut people up.
So I'm going to make this real simple for you:
Games with women protagonists:
Tomb raider
Bayonetta
Soulcalibur
Borderlands
Hunted
Mirrors Edge
Portal
Mass Effect series
Fallout series
Dragons Dogma
The list goes on and on... Want to know why you don't know of women in protagonist roles? Because you're the fucking sexist... Not everyone else. In your face pussy.'

Making a list doesn't prove anything because it doesn't say anything about the industry as a whole. A 2010 study (as cited by Wikipedia) says that 85% of playable characters are male. Meanwhile a study by Entertainment Software in 2013 said that 45% of all gamers are female and 46% of the most frequent game purchasers are female. It's easy to see how the gaming industry can have those exceptions and still be sexist overall.
There is a certain implied acceptance in comments like this that if 100% of video game protagonists were male and women never got to be the heroes then that would say something about our society and gaming industry. Specifically it would say that there are clear gender roles within our society, of men being in charge and women just needing to look pretty. Furthermore operating outside these gender roles is unacceptable. By extension then, you should accept that a gaming industry where there are a significant majority of male centred games, games with male protagonists, and repeated tropes involving female disempowerment also sends this message. It just doesn't send it quite as strictly as it potentially could. Listing a handful of exceptions doesn't blow Anita's argument out of the water.
Apparently you really thought that Anita's argument was 'there isn't a single playable female character anywhere in any video game ever!' and that you could debunk this just by listing games.
You are so mind-blowingly stupid it's unbelievable.
As for calling me a pussy, it is a bad idea to insult people by calling them 'female' if you're trying to prove you're not sexist.

2. Feminism only focuses on women's issues. This is because it's really about man-hating and not equality. 

She does talk about women more than men, although she still mentions men on her channel when talking about toy commercials and beer commercials, as well as mentioning in her Tropes vs Women series that men are gender-boxed into always needing to respond with violent rage in response to death or tragedy. However, she doesn't necessarily mention men less because she hates men.
Based on her actual arguments rather than a presumption of misandry, her main focus is on women's representation because it's overwhelmingly the female characters getting disempowered and objectified.

3. Men are objectified in video games too, because men frequently have unrealistically muscular body types.

You don't know what objectification is. Objectification refers to lack of agency. It's the male heroes going on the adventure. An 'object' wouldn't be able to do that because an object wouldn't have it's own agency. If the female characters are good looking but also get an active role in the story where they control their own fate then objectification is solved. There is no equivalent of this agency being removed among male characters.

4. Anita should review games for free. She was scamming people with her Kickstarter campaign.

Here's what you're claiming to be a scam:
She told people what the project was, they gave her money to do the project and she delivered the project that she promised with no complaints from anyone who donated.
In other words, she did exactly what she said she was going to do. For it to be a scam she would have to mislead somebody. Uh-duuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!

5. Men have more upper body strength therefore these games featuring damsels in distress games don't reflect any false reality in relation to the strength of the genders.

Anita is talking about strength of character. When the female character sits around waiting to be rescued and the male is doing all the work despite any obstacle then it's sending a message about character, not body strength.
This is no reason why women could not star in their own adventures just as often. If body strength is integral to these games then that would also mean that smaller men would be unable to beat up bigger men. Yet protagonist adventurers are frequently smaller than the bosses they battle, whether it's Mario being smaller than Bowser, Link being smaller than Gannondorf etc.
On top of this a lot of games have guns which hurt just as much when women shoot them and games like the Mario series are too unrealistic to take something like body strength seriously into account. If we can believe that a short, fat plumber can swing a huge dragon around but its tail and throw it 100m up in the air, then we should be able to believe that a woman can be a heroic protagonist in the series.

6. Video games are made to reflect how much men love women. It's also done because of the free market. It's not a conspiracy against women.

What? Are you saying that you've been missing the annual 'White Male Conspiracy Meetings?' I guess we must have lost your email address!
Of course it's not a conspiracy against women, you blithering dunder-dead! That's not the argument!
Firstly, it's often NOT about the man loving the woman. Video game adventures are frequently male power fantasies, rather than love stories. They don't bother establishing much or any emotional connection between the male protagonist and the damsel. They skip right ahead to the gameplay where the male protagonist is beating the shit out of people to get his woman back. If you get a message from about the importance of a loving relationship, rather than an unstoppable juggernaut male getting his possession/woman back, then that's a generous inference made by you. That message is routinely not actually going to be in there if you pay attention to the actual dialogue.
If the game does convey love that is a significant improvement, but it could still be sexist. For one thing it's likely to still be normalising the idea that it's natural for men to have all the power in relationships.
Secondly, the fact that this sells games doesn't make it more fair. It's an explanation, not an excuse. An explanation of a problem isn't enough. You also need a SOLUTION dumbarse! If the police thought the way you do, all murders would be solved after the autopsy!

Imaginary Police officer: 'Elementary my dear Watson! The reason he's dead is because there's a knife in him! Job well done! I'm going home! Another murder mystery solved!'

Thirdly, even if selling to men is more profitable (even though 46% of the most frequent game purchasers are female so there's plenty of women to sell to) you don't need to make an entertainment medium sexist to sell it to men. 'Kill Bill' isn't sexist.
Fourth, the damsel in distress trope doesn't only appear in the games designed by greedy capitalists. It also appears in games designed by amateur, independent game designers. Game designers don't think about the messages this will send. People reflexively use stereotypes without thinking about it. (see the video 'TavernTalk_1 Trope vs women in video games directly below.) ,which is another reason why it's not a conspiracy.
Anita specifically qualifies in the second video of her series that the misrepresentation of women in games is not a deliberate conspiracy and that these gender stereotypes are perpetuated unintentionally. I find it frustrating that you failed to absorb this concept even after it was specifically qualified for you in the series that you're supposedly responding to. I don't think you even watched the series.


7. She says she's against damsels but she's damselling herself by turning off the comment section and talking about it at TedTalk. What a hypocrite!

No, her ATTACKERS damselled her. She didn't ask those people to attack her.
I also wonder what exactly you'd have her do. Being the target of an online hate campaign is a story worth telling, because it stands as an example that the widespread usage of these sexist portrayals of women does have consequences. How's she supposed to tell that story without  'damselling herself?'
When Anita criticizes video games, she provides useful direction towards more progressive plots. The people who call her a hypocrite for 'damselling herself' provide no direction as to how she's supposed to deal with it other than the inadequate resolution of 'suck it up and stop complaining.'
In other words, IT'S NOT AN EQUIVALENT! Video games ARN'T REAL! When women are damselled in video games you can just write a different plot! That isn't an option in real life. When a person is abused in real life you're supposed to give them help and support. Not tell them to shut up and stop complaining.
You can't make a serious argument that it's wrong for her to inform the public about her being the target of an online hate campaign because it might send the message that all women are weak. You're just pissed of because you don't like what she's saying, and you're jealous of how much money she raised, so you're making pathetic excuses to be a piece of shit!

8. You're white knighting! (You're just defending Anita to get her into bed. You don't really believe what you're saying.)

What? I might get laid for leaving a positive youtube comment? I didn't realise that Anita is reading every single comment about her on the internet, in the hopes of finding something positive so that she can have sex with the commenter! What a revelation this is!
But in all seriousness, how does this conclusion make ANY sense. This is a completely baseless accusation of an embarrassingly stupid, single-minded perspective.
I think you must be projecting your own thoughts onto the 'white knights.' The only reason you'd ever help a woman in any given situation would be to fuck her, so that must be what everyone else is doing.

9. I don't see why you're angry at Karen Straughn. Karen has a right to free speech in regards to Anita.

I'm angry with Karen because when I see someone say something stupid and obnoxious my first thought is not 'Hooray for free speech!' My first thought is that 'I wish you would have the self-awareness to realise how out of your depth you are and shut up!'
If I spent all my time marvelling at how great free speech is instead of figuring out what's wrong with the content of the free speech, it would probably result in me having poor critical thinking skills.

Karen Straughn.

10. Anita should focus on more important feminist issues (like the sexism of Muslim fundamentalists)

This is a fallacy. This is like saying that we should never focus on burglaries while there are still murders taking place. We have to take care of both the more important and less important issues.
Besides, if it were such a small issue there wouldn't be so many people pissed off.

11. Anita argues that women shouldn't be portrayed as weak but if they ever act with violence and strength they are acting male which is also unacceptable. This makes the problem impossible to rectify.

She doesn't argue that women can't use strength. That's ridiculous. People only believe this if they've taken (the youtuber) Thunderf00t's word as gospel true and not listened to Anita's series.
The evidence Thunderf00t showed you was a chart that divided the positive and negative traits of stereotypical male and female characters. Thunderf00t told you that this chart was Anita's guide to how things SHOULD be in popular culture, therefore Anita must be saying that female characters are not allowed to show male qualities like 'competence' or 'leadership.'
If you watch her series or have two brain cells to rub together you know this isn't true. The point of dividing the stereotypical male and female behaviours up like this is to make sure that the heroic protagonists have female traits. The positive male traits like rationality and decisiveness are important but she would also want the heroes and heroines to have positive female traits such as emotional expressiveness and cooperation. This is how she rates a character on how progressive and feminist it is. By examining lots of heroes and heroines she can also figure out whether male or female traits are valued more in our culture.
If you'd watched her whole series, you'd know that the end of Anita's series displays the type of game she would like to see. This involves a woman punching a hole in a prison wall so it' pretty clear that she has no moral objection to female characters using strength.
Thanks for wasting my time, you complete, thundering idiot. And fuck you.

12. Historically men had it worse because men had to do hard, dangerous, back-breaking work in coal mines. Women got to decide how this worked because it was women who raised the kids. Women tell men how important and superior their jobs are to get them to do dangerous labour so that they can stay liberated as housewives, brainwashing the children into continuing this male oppression throughout the generations.

Grandpa have you gone off your meds again? It's my understanding that women actually DON'T like to have husbands that are dirt poor, crippled or dead, therefore they probably don't want them to be coal miners. Especially if they don't have a job to support themselves.
That's hard to believe isn't it? Maybe you can have your nurse explain it to you.

Incredibly racist DrinkingwithBob - 'Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden'

Dinkingwithbob is a youtube commentator with 53,201 subscribers. He gives this opinions on various issues by angrily yelling for about a minute. He appears furious about everything, though not always well-informed or rational.
A month ago, he released a video called 'Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden' where he questions why the black civil rights leaders are not weighing in on the Chis Lane murder. Since I can deconstruct it's content so easily, I thought I would.

What's next? I'll tell you what's next! A white kid came over from Melbourne Australia to play baseball in Oklahoma on a scholarship. He decided to go out for a jog one day. Two African American kids got in a car.

Actually it was two African American kids and one white kid. Funny how you forget to mention that even though it mentions it in the link beneath your video.

One of the African American kids had a gun. They pulled up behind this kid from Melbourne Australia, shot him in the back of the head and killed him, and nobody thinks this is a racial incident!

Because they confessed. They said they did it because they were bored. That's an odd lie to tell to cover up an anti-white agenda, since it makes them look like even bigger scumbags than they are.

Nobody thinks that the civil rights of this kid from Melbourne Australia have been violated!

What are you talking about? He's dead! Everyone thinks his civil rights been violated! He had the civil right to life and they took it away. I don't think that concept is lost on anybody. It certainly wasn't lost on the police when they charged the kids with murder.

They're not even investigating this as a possible hate crime!

That's just a lie. The police tried to establish a motive here as they do with all murders. They considered that it was racial but felt it wasn't.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/chris-lane-murder-not-race-related-or-a-gang-initiation-police/story-e6frg6so-1226703344602

Even though before the crime was committed, one of the African American kids wrote on his twitter account that 90% OF WHITE PEOPLE ARE NASTY# HATE THEM in all caps. I mean George Zimmerman was considered a racist just because when the 911 operator asked him if Trayvon Martin was black or white he said 'I think he's black'.

That does sound worthy of consideration when questioning whether Zimmerman is racist... but the fact that you focus on whether Zimmerman and Chris Lane's killers are racist, instead of whether they're murderers indicates an odd set of priorities.
You are really hurt that they slagged off your whiteness, aren't you? It's because being white is probably the biggest thing you will ever accomplish.

But '90% OF WHITE PEOPLE ARE NASTY#HATE THEM' in all caps? That's not racist?

Who the fuck are you talking to? Who saying that's not racist? It's just that doesn't automatically mean it was a hate crime. They could be racist, but still have a different motivation for the murder.
You're just determined to believe it is an anti-white hate crime because you need your victim-complex nourished so you have an excuse to be an entitled, racist turd!

I mean, Barack Obama hasn't even weighed in on this incident.

That's not his job, fuck-face! He weighed in on the Trayvon Martin shooting because it attracted huge media attention due to the fact that a black kid was killed by a guy with a criminal record (Zimmerman) and the police weren't even investigating. Obama, who has experienced minority discrimination himself, thought it would be helpful to weigh in, but obviously the President doesn't have to weigh in on every murder that happens in America, you cock-head!

He's silent. Why? Because Barack Obama relates to the criminals!

Barack Obama relates to criminals who shoot people because they're bored? Bob has great evidence to back this claim up.
Bob likes pretending to be a victim so he has an excuse to be a hateful bigot. This explanation gives Bob an excuse to pretend be a victim so can be a hateful bigot, therefore it must be true! The only evidence Bob needs to claim something's true is Bob liking the idea that it's true.
That's Bob's logic.

I mean Barack Obama staying silent about this, he may as well be screaming from the rooftops that he approves of this killing!

Why the fuck would he approve of this killing you inbred, Klan-supporting, mouth-breathing, sister-banging, bottom-feeding turd-nugget? You probably think pro-wrestling is real!

We heard you loud and clear Barack! Loud and clear!

Oh no! You're hearing voices? Take your pills Bob!

And where's Al Sharpton? Where's the NAACP?

This case doesn't need Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the NAACP! The killers confessed and are going to trial! There's nothing for Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People to do about this.

I mean these people, these groups don't exist to help black people. They exist to hurt white people.

I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. And I don't think you do either.

The NAACP should be classified as a terrorist organisation!

Actually Bob, terrorist organisations have to actually engage in actual terrorism. I know that's a difficult concept.

Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden!

Now you're trivialising the damage Bin Laden did. You can't just compare Osama Bin Laden to everything you don't like! Oh my god! There dirt on Bob's shoe! This is just like Osama Bin Laden!

Why don't we have a white Al Sharpton?

But you JUST SAID that Al Sharpton is the black Osama Bin Laden! Therefore by saying you want a white Al Sharpton, you're saying you want a white Osama Bin Laden! If there was someone murdering innocent people for YOU and not for the OTHER PEOPLE it would be fantastic!
I don't THINK you mean what you're saying literally, but you do mean the essence of it, which is 'Bob wants the bad, selfish people to be bad and selfish on his behalf, not THEIR behalf! Bob just wants as much as he can possibly get for white people and leave as little as possible for black people! Bob just wants his team to win, and Bob's team is his race! Go team!'
Also we don't need a white Al Sharpton because black people GO TO JAIL when they commit crimes. Just like the people you refer to in this video. In fact, they're going to be tried as adults when they're not even 18 yet. It says so in the link beneath your video. Why the fuck would we need a white Al Sharpton here?
If I had to guess how many brain cells are in your head, I'd say... Minus one zillion.

Why don't we have Brad Sharpton, or Spencer Sharpton? We should!

You wouldn't recognise a white Al Sharpton if you saw one! A white Al Sharpton would be talking out of his arse to pretend that white people need extra support because they're so oppressed. The black Al Sharpton actually has some legitimate points.
Do you know what a false equivalency is Bob?

Why aren't there senators on top of Capital Hill today, wearing east-central Oklahoma baseball caps in support of this kid from Melbourne Australia?

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING NEED TO! IT'S BEING TAKEN CARE OF BY THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, YOU DICKHEAD!
When you visit the zoo, do zoo officials chase you around thinking you've escaped from one of the cages? I bet they do.

They should! Do you know that the media is trying to turn this into a gun issue?! We have get rid of guns! We have to get rid of guns!

I BET that NOBODY said ban all guns! I'm almost certain! And America does have a gun issue. It's got a lot of gun issues, like the 'stand your ground' laws that allow people to commit murder and get away with it. That's a serious issue related to guns, right there.

We don't have to get rid of guns! We have to get rid of thugs! I mean, there are a million guns in this country!

There are much more guns than that in America actually.

And 90% of the time, when one of those guns is used in a crime, when one of those guns is used to kill someone, they're being held by someone who acts like Jay-Z, or acts like little Wayne!

I'm not sure how literally I'm supposed to take this, but most sources I've seen say the percentage of murders by black people is significantly lower than that, though still disproportionately high.
The solutions to that issue begin by putting yourself in the black people's shoes, which is why you're video sucks, because you're not doing that.

That's the problem! That's the freakin problem! And it's not racist! It's reality! A sad reality! But reality nonetheless! Are you kidding me! I mean you're freakin kidding me! What's next? What's next? What's next?

No are you kidding me? You really think YOU'RE qualified to tell people the difference between racism and reality... You're not.
I know black people murder in disproportionate numbers Bob. The answer is to put yourself in their shoes and understand what drives them there, then take steps to make sure they're properly incentivised to live an honest life within society's laws. This can be done with better schools (with more black teachers), larger welfare benefits to help the poor, affirmative action, ending the war on drugs and training more social workers to deal with troubled kids, thus giving the black communities opportunities to become stronger.
You don't solve it by lying and pretending that black people are getting away with racism and murder, then you suggesting that white people go on protest marches pretending they're so persecuted, even though the teens who did the killing are being tried as adults. There are already groups that do things like that Bob. They're called the Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis.
Then you wrap it up by yelling 'BLACK PEOPLE COMMIT CRIMES! I'M NOT RACIST! I JUST HATE BLACK PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY'RE COMMITTING CRIMES!'
Thanks. That was real helpful Mr Retard.

Michael Savage - The human race will die out if we don't shun homosexuality!

On May 7, 2009 Michael Savage went on CNN to discuss why he thought it was wrong that he had been banned from the United Kingdom for use of dangerous hate speech, alongside Russian skinheads and Muslim extremists. As one of the groups that Savage hate-mongers against the hardest is homosexuals, the CNN anchor asked him if he could clear up the 'misconception' about his positions on gay rights.
(Bit of a late response here, I know.)

CNN anchor: Why don't you clear up some of the misconceptions. I wanna ask you about your views on some of the following things. What are your views on homosexuality for example?

Savage: My religious training teaches me that it's something to shun. And when a society begins to embrace homosexuality and other behaviours, where does the society end up?

CNN anchor: And what do you say to people who say, you know, I was born this way, I didn't ask to be attracted to one sex or the other, and I shouldn't be treated differently?

Savage: You could be born a lot of different ways. It doesn't mean that a person has to follow their urges. I mean, there are many urges that people have. And if a society starts to engage homosexuality on an equal footing with heterosexuality you end up with no society. Where is the reproduction supposed to come from? Have we lost all sense of father, mother and family?'

?????????? The reproduction comes from all the people who WANT to have heterosexual sex! Just because you legalise gay rights it doesn't mean EVERYONE will start having gay sex! Not everyone is as closeted as you!... Idiot.

Fox News' Worst Interview Ever!

Fox News has a recurring theme of being pig-headed, small-minded, self-centred and bigoted to the point of being comical.
For example, if they have a liberal guest on, they will ask them something like 'why do you hate white people, hate god, hate America, love terrorists and want to put violent criminals back on the street?' (That may an exaggeration, but only a slight one) The guest will try and fail to explain what their positions actually are to someone who is simply too stupid and narrow-minded to absorb it.
It's actually hard for me to understand how Fox News can be successful propaganda for the Republican party. All I see are a bunch of blithering idiots who get owned every single time they bring on a guest who doesn't agree with them, but who are too stupid to realise it. To me Fox New makes conservatives look stupid, not smart. But their viewers eat it up.
Recently though Fox News' Lauren Green in an interview with Muslim scholar Reza Aslan, took her wilful ignorance so far that even some of the Fox News audience were put off. I was actually surprised to hear that. I thought the viewers would eat this up too.

Reza has written an academic work called 'Zealot: The life and times of Jesus of Nazareth.'
Lauren's first question was 'Reza you're a Muslim so why'd you write a book about the founder of Christianity?'
Reza's reply: 'Well to be clear I am a scholar of religions with four degrees including one in the New Testament and fluency in Biblical Greek who has been studying the origins of Christianity for two decades who also just happens to be a Muslim.'
When Lauren asks 'Why would you be interested in the founder of Christianity?' Reza responds 'Because it's my job as an academic. I am a professor of religion including the New Testament. That's what I do for a living actually.'
He also stated - 'Just to be clear this is not some attack on Christianity. My mother is a Christian, my wife is a Christian, my brother-in-law is an Evangelical Pastor. Anyone who thinks this book is an attack on Christianity has not read it yet.'
This of course did not convince Lauren that Reza was not biased against Christianity and continued to accuse him of having an agenda against Christianity throughout the interview. Reza spoke as slowly and carefully as he could so that what he was saying would sink in, but it didn't.
Reza also points out that by Lauren's logic Fox News is unqualified to talk about Muslims because they're not Muslim. So apparently people should disregard everything Fox News says about Muslims.

I'd like to make a different point because this is something I've noticed on Fox News a few times. Lauren's line of questioning makes no sense whatsoever if we assume she wants an objective and impartial academic assessment of Jesus. Her questions imply that only Christians are qualified to talk about Jesus.
On what basis would she assume that Christians are objective and impartial in their assessment of Jesus? Christians WORSHIP Jesus as a God. That would create HUGE potential to not be impartial. Pro Christian bias is just as bad if you care about accuracy.
Is Lauren Green saying that if you think Jesus was a man like the rest of us and you have four Phds and 20 year of research to go on you are biased, but if you literally worship Jesus as a God and you're a dirt-ignorant Fox News host then you are objective and impartial? Of course she's not. That would be ridiculous. She knows that a Christian would be just as (or more) likely to be biased on the subject of Jesus than a Muslim and she DOESN'T GIVE A CRAP!
When I have something to say, my concern is getting it accurate.  Lauren Green's concern is 'how much pro-Christian bullshit can I get away with speaking without being detected? How can I shamelessly make myself look way better than I am, by giving my religion way more credit than it deserves?'
That message came blaring through the screen as it often does when Fox News talks about religion.

Christian fundie Paul Broun likes being a boy

Republican Politician Paul Broun is a member of the House Committee of Science, Space and Technology and a United States congressman from Georgia.
And for good reason. Paul Broun may be the smartest man in the entire universe. Just marvel at his remarkably intelligent comments about sex-change operations.

'I don't want to pay for a sex-change operation. I'm not interested. I like being a boy.'

Paul Broun apparently can't stand other people wanting to do something that he doesn't want to do. Not only do I understand where Paul Broun is coming from, but I those that would choose to operate in any other manner deserve execution. In fact, I routinely apply this line of reasoning myself in a wide variety of circumstances.
I hate the taste of tomatoes. The other day I was in a pub and a family was eating lunch. The 10-year-old son had ordered fish and chips with salad on the side and that salad had TOMATO in it! Well, I wasn't going to stand for that! That kid had a lot of nerve ordering food that I don't enjoy.
So I marched right up to that table where the mum dad and son sat and said 'HEY! WHY ARE YOU EATING TOMATO? TOMATO IS DISGUSTING!'
When his parents responded by telling me it was none of my business and to get lost I told them that if their son wanted to eat tomatoes in the privacy of his own home I could grudgingly tolerate that, but don't go parading your love of tomatoes around in public for everyone to see because I don't need to see that! I think it's appalling! I made sure to register my disgust with what dreadful parents they were and threatened to call the police and have them locked up in prison until their bones turned to dust!
They began to get rather agitated, but in my quick thinking I remembered my crucifix and was able to successfully ward them out of the bar with it while warning the other customers that this family may change form into bloodthirsty demons at any moment!
I will most likely be getting the key to the city for saving the entire city's residents any day now.
But that's not the end of my heroic escapades in which I cleanse the existence of anything even slightly different from me. My friend Tom likes horror movies but I don't so naturally I started a petition demanding that he be stoned to death. However, I decided that forgiveness was the more Christian way to go, so I broke into his house and burned it down, incinerating his entire horror movie collection. He can consider himself lucky that I decided to let him live and save him from hell. Sometimes I think I deserve a medal for being so unbelievably fantastic. Paul Broun and I are going to heaven when we die.
UNLIKE YOU WHO IS READING THIS! YOU'RE GOING TO BURN AND I'M GOING TO LAUGH! HA! HA! HA! SUFFER BITCHES!

Conservapedia - Michael Moore is a Greedy Rich Communist!

Conservapedia was created by Andrew Schafly and was aimed at creating a Conservative, American Christian point of view to fight back against the liberal bias that only existed in Schafly's delusion perception of Wikipedia.
For example, Schafly thought that Einstein's theory of relativity had a liberal bias. Sick of the liberally biased view that the theory of relativity ISN'T part of the pro-abortion agenda, Conservapedia felt the need to straighten the facts out by declaring that Obama is using the theory of relativity to create moral relativism (that will lead to abortion.)
Also when you type the word 'liberal' into the Conservapedia search engine it lists Margaret Sanger, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Kim Jong-Un, Mao Zedong and John Wayne Gacy under a list of 'notable liberal intellects.'
Apparently when Schafly says that Wikipedia has a liberal bias he's saying Wikipedia has a pro-murder bias. If there's an innocent person that hasn't been murdered yet, Wikipedia writers will get together in their smoke-filled rooms cackling gleefully and plotting how to snuff out another innocent, Christian life from the world. That's what liberals do because liberals are wicked demons with glowing red eyes, forked tongues and waxed black moustaches!
In summary, Conservapedia is Wikipedia for right-wing nutjobs. Here are some of the dumbest comments they made on their page about Michael Moore.

Michael Moore (born April 23, 1954) is a left-wing Communist ^[1] filmmaker and conspiracy theorist.

The link provided that supposedly proves that Moore is a Communist puts us through to an article which heavily implies Moore is a Communist again and again without showing any real proof.
But in all seriousness, OF COURSE Moore is a dirty Commie! In fact I think EVERYONE who isn't a far-right, Bible-thumping, cross-burning, sister-banging, queer-stomping, gun-toting, foreigner-shooting, flag-waving, alcoholic, football-watching, redneck who believes pro-wrestling is real, constantly spits on the ground of his barbed-wire-strewn trailer-park and bathes in Communist blood to keep clean, is a dirty Commie!

Moore's films and television programs represent some of the most egregious examples of deceitful liberal propaganda in contemporary American political discourse. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has become the most high profile international proponent of the theories of Michael Moore.

What the hell's your point? Ahmadinejad agrees with some theories of Michael Moore's for some reason. Plus it's not even sourced so I don't know it's even true.
Do I need to explain that this statement is completely useless without details? What does Ahmadinejad agree with and why?
Then there's the fact that you put these two sentences together as though they're related in some way. This comment attempts to say that Moore makes liberal propaganda which is why Mahmoud Ahmadinejad loves him. Because Ahmadinejad is a liberal.
Whoever posted this was obviously hoping that some knuckle-dragging moron will read it and think - 'Aha! Everyone knows that the left-wing love brown terrorists! They're against bombing loads of brown people so that must mean they want brown terrorists to kill me. That logically follows right?  Herp! Derp! Derp!'

He is a hero in liberal Hollywood and to booksellers who tend to agree with his politics. Moore's films and commentaries are often based on themes of alleged "capitalist" greed. Though a multi-millionaire, Moore frequently appears on television and in photos dressed like blue-collar workers with whom he attempts to identify.

Conservapedia is implying that Moore is just too rich to identify with the struggles of working-class people, but then call his movies which feature the closing down of General Motors and banks scamming people out of their homes ''alleged' capitalist greed?' But it's MOORE who's lacking the empathy to identify with the workers. Conservapedia that can't quite tell if laying off thousands of workers to increase the shareholder profits counts as capitalist greed or not isn't out of touch. No sir. MOORE is one out of touch and struggling to identify.

Moore produced a movie portraying President George W. Bush as part of a massive conspiracy, named Fahrenheit 9/11. The contents of the film were systematically shown to be untrue, maliciously edited, and bordering on treasonous by an independent study.

Damn I wish I could see that 'independent study!' Conservapedia gave a link but it's not sending me through.
For the record though, sometimes conspiracies are true, and they're particularly likely to be true when there's a really blatant conflict of interest involved. When some powerful people are becoming filthy rich because a war is being fought, it's not a far-fetched conspiracy to think 'wait a minute... maybe these people WANT war and are trying to prolong it.'
If an oil company sold Schafly a coffee mug that said 'I love fossil fuels' he'd probably call you a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that maybe the oil company's lying and fossil fuels are bad! Oh my god, what a crazy conspiracy that is!

Christopher Hitchens said of Fahrenheit 9/11 and Moore's work:

 'To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental…Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of 'dissenting' bravery'

I really don't see why Hitchens gets any credit on foreign policy issues at all. He emphatically stated in several pieces of writing that we would find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq tauntingly writing 'just you wait and see'. Once they weren't found he stated that WMDs were never a real concern and that he'd always said so, even while his earlier articles were still available on his website. http://www.salon.com/2011/12/17/christohper_hitchens_and_the_protocol_for_public_figure_deaths/
AND he did all this brazen lying while claiming to be an admirer of George Orwell. Gee... I didn't realize the message of nineteen eighty-four was that you're supposed to make up lies that justify your government's bloodshed.
Then there's his debate with Chomsky from 2001 where the entire article totally missed the point of why war with Iraq was a dumb idea and framed the entire thing as 'liberals are too weak to do what's necessary,' totally missing the important questions of 'is Saddam really linked to 9/11? What government will we replace Saddam with? Will it have public support and be sustainable?' He even goes so far as to claim that Chomsky cares about the perpetrator of 9/11, but not the victims. It's just hysterical, nonsense, hate-mongering drivel.
I don't see any other options other than he's a fraud or an idiot, so I guess that means he's a fraud.

Co creator of South Park, Matt Stone, was very critical of Moore's Bowling for Columbine because of animated segment which was played shortly after Moore's interview with Stone, which featured a similar animation style to South Park. Stone alleged that Moore was trying to make it seem as if he and fellow South Park creator Trey Parker had created the cartoon, which they did not. Matt Stone criticized the short as being "anti- American".

Conservapedia is of course too stupid to realize that Anti-American just another conservatard buzz word that tells me nothing!
All they understand is 'Michael Moore is an Anti-American, Communist, socialist, elitist, conspiracy theorist, liberal, terrorist, vampire from the future, when he should be a pro-America, pro-freedom, pro-Reagan, pro-capitalist, pro-Jesus, pro-gun, anti-terrorist anti-abortion, pro-war American like me! Now let's all yell these random slogans at a tea party rally while we show pictures of Obama wearing a Hitler moustache! Yeah! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!' UR-MERICA!

Moore has some tactics in his filmmaking that I consider immoral, but his politics are mostly right. Conservapedia authors are idiots.