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.