Is The Anita Sarkeesian Type of Feminism Destructive to Subcultures?

Edit: I feel I need to say this: I definitely disagree with what was done to Anita Sarkeesian (any actual threats, the game and messing up her site). Insults and such I don't mind as anyone with an opinion goes through that but, anything going beyond that is bullshit! People need to have some boundaries. 

I'd say the answer is a resounding YES! If Sarkeesian is the gamer she says she is she knew the community in which she was going against and knew the venom she would receive. While some things were vicious, cruel and unwarranted at the same time they played into her hands. But the gaming community knew what was going to happen and that's why they reacted the way they did.

See, if things go her way, it won't be an end to male privilege, but an end to fun. Men will be shamed and villainized for liking certain games and women in the culture will be hit with a join or die mentality only seen during the time of The Crusades, where women active in the culture are dismissed if they show no interest in the religion of female self worship known as feminism while trying to beat Halo.

Here's the 8 step process of how to destroy a subculture via feminism:

1. An activity is created, usually one based around some form of entertainment. The entertainment is action packed and attracts boys and men. Women aren't locked out or told not to do it, but it's something women themselves seem to simply not be interested in save for maybe a small few. 

2. As boys and men gravitate to it women tell the boys and men they're not interested in said thing and even goes to point of ridiculing the thing and men who're into it. So a subculture is formed to get away from ridicule and shaming (usually by women ironically). 

3. As time goes on women get involved in this activity and then as more time goes on more girls and women get involved. The men are shocked, and indeed suspicious as women are not common in the activity. Eventually women are welcomed with open arms as men see the women mean them no harm and are only there to enjoy the activity as they are.

4. Eventually people get together and have some form of convention or gathering. Promoters find out it's male dominated event and hire female models. Other women find out it's a male dominated  event, buy space and bring items to sale. To get attention they dress in genre related costumes that appeal to the male audience, the audience most likely to buy.

5. Later other women come in and get involved in the activity as well as men bringing their wives girlfriends, sisters etc as the activity is becoming cool and mainstream. 

6. Finally an agressive radical feminist enters the building. She has no real interest in the activity and if she does she can not move past her feminist ideologies to enjoy it as the others are, no she must condemn the men and free the women. She writes an article, creates a series or piece that "exposes" the activity. 

7. First she must make a claim of sexism and oppression and tells the women they don't have the privilege men have at said event, while not be able to showcase said privilege. The women who dare rebel against them will be cast off as blind and not having an opinion that matters in their crusade. 

8. This woman/group will attempt to cause confusion and animosity between the sexes. They won't create anything for the community, but will only criticize it, as they were never really into it to be begin with and with that will try to reshape the whole community to be a safe space for a the people who are least likely to be involved. They won't rest until they restructure the community so a very few can be happy, while villainizing the core group who created the community and the culture itself.  

This describes Anita Sarkeesian. A woman who, in my opinion is a scammer, but was paid over $100,000 for a series of videos researching sexism in gaming. Sarkeesian made the video series Tropes versus Women examining various "tropes" in video games and pop culture. Most time Sarkeesian is greated by love and affection by those who buy into her threat narrave of men oppressing women and locking them. She disables comments so no one is able to argue against what she has to know is often misleading and inaccurate information. Sarkeesian constantly misrepresents or straight out lies to make her points. (Please see her content for yourself).

She is only one person in a new wave of feminist for pay who seek out problems and try to change sub-cultures to suit their desires (and line their pockets) based on the idea men are hiding some kind of privilege, even while it's clear women have same privileges (and these privileges are mainly based on the time you put in and the money you have to spend). 

In 2011 feminist Natalie Wilson went to Comicon (admittedly her first). Was she interested in it? Of course not. She simply wanted to see what us MEN were up to and how we were abusing the poor women there and of course she claimed sexism. While she starts off pretending she was somewhat understanding of the culture, the same claim is made, women are harassed and leered at when dressed in skimp clothes that no one forced them to dress in. But she ends with:

"Yet, despite the general male domination of Comic-Con, despite the woman-as-object meme apparent in the exhibit hall, and despite the off-putting commentary of some panelists with obviously unexamined white/male/heterosexual privilege, I nevertheless left Comic-Con with the feeling that fandoms are indeed becoming more diverse (though I was unhappy to see “No Women Allowed” T-shirts at several of the large clothing booths). 

While her only good point was about Adult Anime be open for all to see (although she gives no example so I don't know what she saw or if it was even pornographic), in the article she implies that the diversity of fandom is somehow based on what men are doing and fail to breakdown that it has more to do with women simply not caring as much. She also still works under the threat narrative women will be mistreated at comic conventions and that male unexamined unchecked white/male/heterosexual privilege run rampant. Also she pushes the same form of thought policing feminist seem to be keen on, the idea that you must be politically correct to go out amongst others.

Realistically, isn't this just a bunch of people buying comics and cartoon crap, taking pictures and talking about it? That's mostly what I see when I go to Comic Cons. And then she acts shocked no one takes her seriously when talking about sexism at a Comic Convention. No one is interested. They came to the con to get away from reality for awhile, then here you come. 

And finally Rebecca Watson, who is another one known for doing this, but instead of trolling geeks she did it to the Atheist community. She wondered why women weren't coming to atheist and skeptic conventions. She worked to alert other women about them and spoke on women's issues. But what Watson became known for was a man saying to her, “Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?” 

She went on Youtube and said And explained she felt sexualized and hit them with, "Guys don't do that." Watson's not unattractive, but she's no Beyoncé either. But according to her men are slinging it to her 24/7 and she's swatting it away all day everyday. The idea that a man my be interested in a woman who has the same interest even just to speak with her or even be in a relationship is mind boggling to her. The atheist community lashed out at her just like gamers did Sarkeesian. And of course she cried victim. 

What was the problem with all three of these scenarios? People (men and women both) were enjoying something and a random feminist came in and felt gaming shouldn't about games, comics shouldn't be about comics and Atheist conventions should be about Atheism, but should be about women's issues or have a place for it even when the event has nothing to do with women as a group. But through the eyes of feminism everything has to be about women and more often than not, about the women who're forcing themselves on everyone involved including other women in the culture who're just there enjoying themselves. 

I'll leave you with the immortal words of Rebecca Watson, ladies, "Don't do that."

CNN Thinks It's Okay to Manufacture News?"

Say what you will about Alex Jones, but he's on point here. In this video he shows CNN anchors manufacturing news. Some people won't even take time to view it because it goes against their belief that the new media tells the truth. CNN, particularly Anderson Cooper was all over the Sandy Hook story when it first broke, but now there may be proof that CNN is still manufacturing news. 

Law Enforcement Prepared to Shoot Pregnant Moms and the Elderly

According to InfoWars.com, Law Enforcement Training Inc, a company out of Minnesota that makes and markets training equipment for law enforcement, has started marketing "No Hesitation" paper targets that are made to train officers not to hesitate when accosted by pregnant women, children and elderly people.  

Retired officer T.F. Stern states, “Why are top training target suppliers for the government supplying the likes of the DHS with “non-traditional threat” targets of children, pregnant women, mothers in playgrounds, and elderly American gun owners unless there is a demand for such items?” and  "There’s something wrong, seriously wrong here. If we start to desensitize law enforcement officers, have them disregard humanity, to feel nothing’s wrong in shooting a pregnant lady or an old man with a shotgun inside his own home…then what kind of society have we become? How will police officers react after they no longer believe they are part of the society which they have been charged with policing, when they have become used to shooting pregnant ladies and old men?

Stern also states, "At the risk of being politically incorrect, America isn’t a third world hell hole, at least not yet, like the Middle East where female suicide bombers hide explosives under a burqa, walk into a crowded shopping area and detonate themselves in the name of Alla.  Heaven forbid anyone point this out for fear CAIR might lodge a complaint for having been singled out; never mind that it’s true."

But the fact is I truly believe the government are indeed trying to turn us into a third world hellhole. They want cops to be on edge. Did you see what went down with the Dorner incident? Cops shooting at random people who didn't even match the description? The cops are becoming as much of a threat as the criminals. Why is this okay?

Does Chick-Fil-A Have to be Politically Correct?

Photo by Mike Stewart / Associated Press

Chick-Fil-A is an openly Christian chain of restaurants. With that being said, they believe gay marriage is a sin. Because of this stance Boston's Mayor Thomas M. Menino said “Chick-fil-A doesn’t belong in Boston. You can’t have a business in the city of Boston that discriminates against a population. We’re an open city, we’re a city that’s at the forefront of inclusion,” Menino stated to the Boston Herald.

I'm not going to get into a religious debate, only point out that the problem here is, this is illegal. See, a business like Chick-Fil-A has a right to a belief. Menino stating that Chick-Fil-A is discriminating is an insinuation and not a fact. Unless there is evidence Chick-Fil-A is either not hiring gays or not serving them or giving them poor service (as a company policy or practice) there is no grounds for stating or insinuating that they discriminate. That could be grounds for a slander lawsuit.

There is nothing in the law that says business owners must believe any specific thing. You have Christian business owner, Atheist business owners,  gay business owners and the like. But there is nothing that says one has to believe or disbelieve a religious idea. So today's lesson will be about the way the free market works.

Chick-Fil-A,  is a chain of restaurants that openly espouse Christian values and ideologies. They don't hide it and it's been part of the company's identity for years. The way the free market works is that if a Chick-Fil-A comes to your town and you don't agree with their beliefs, then you don't shop there. If enough people don't shop there then the restaurant closes. Simple. So gays and gays supporters have to convince people they are right and that people shouldn't patronize their chains. The problem is, many people do agree with their stance and will still shop there as is their right.

BUT, the Mayor opens the city up for a lawsuit, because they are encroaching on Chick-Fil-A's religious freedom by openly discriminating against them. If the Mayor doesn't know this maybe he should take a class in business law. (I used to work for a Corporate Counsel law firm). It is unconstitutional and illegal for the Mayor to block Chick-Fil-A on the basis that they're religious beliefs don't fit into what he feels is the proper political mold.  It is Chick-Fil-A, that is being discriminated against.

-Nate

Racist Hunger Games Reactions Shouldn't be a Suprise...

First I have to ask racist HG fans who do I have the permission to play? As an actor who also writes sci-fi I have to ask: If I can't play a black character who can I play without you getting pissed off? For years white people have played everything from Native Americans, Asians and even African Americans. So here we are in 2012 and people are shocked they allow such atrocities as allowing black actors to play dark skinned people.

I have to point out the connection of racism and illiteracy by the way. Either you can't read, or was it that you figured characters who are specifically described as having dark skin can't exist in Sci-Fi so the writer had to mean tan white person versus possible actual dark skinned people. Either way it's still racist or at least prejudice. I will take this moment to chuckle as there seems to be some controvesy about a person on Twitter named @LovelyPlease who some have accused of changing her photo from that of two white girls (I'm assuming her and a friend) to a random black girl after posting “Naturally Thresh would be a black man” and getting heat about it.

First let me point something out, Sci-Fi/Fantasy audiences have some deep rooted racism and I don't know why it runs so deep in those particular genres. Maybe because in fantasy land some people felt they could get away from blacks and people of other color. Even in the writing of great Sci-Fi works such as "Y The Last Man" comic book series (now a collection of graphic novels), where the writers went through everything possible to make sure the "Last Man" would be white and would be the only one to repopulate the earth with a white woman. The possibilities of even a mixed child is carefully eradicated. It's no accident. Either this is the writer's commentary or the editors knew their audience.

And let's remember the controversy over the Captain Kirk and Uhura kiss. Ironically white dudes had been lusting after black women since slavery, so a white man kisses a black woman on television and suddenly it's shocking! Really? Seriously? Some white people acted like it was impossible for something like that to even occur. The reality was some truth was shown and truth rubs people the wrong way.

Another issue was the Martha Jones (played by Freema Agyeman), who was the first black Dr. Who companion and one of the hotter ones I might add. The fact the production company pointed out she was black was the first mistake as everyone could see she was. But they set the stage for her being the affirmative action Dr. Who companion.

We can all talk about perception. When reading fiction we bring a lot of ourselves to it. In my first book Blackrayne, I had a female character who was Christian and also an artist. She had painted a photo with people burning in a lake of fire. To this a reviewer protested saying the painting was about gays burning in Hell. I actually thought I was crazy, but just to be sure, I reread the passage. It was about a painting about Christian hypocrisy and gays nor homosexuality were mentioned. How she got anything about gays from it was almost impossible. But that is how perception works. But what we bring to it also says something about us.

The idea one would totally ignore the physically description of a character and simply make that character look how they'd want them to look isn't impossible, but it does become both funny and sad, particularly in this case where people were so adamant to the point of hate or emotional hurt. Then again the reviewer was adamant about what she read in my book too. To this day she's never edited her initial review even though I publicly proved her wrong by posting the actual text. Those on her side even voted my comments down so people wouldn't read them.

But are you a racist when you perceive black characters to be white because you can't stand the thought of them being black? Yes. That's what racism is. It's ingrained. Not just the fact you overlooked the physical description, but had such a strong reaction to it because suddenly your perception was changed, but YOU were the one who was wrong. I'm willing to bet these same people still, in some way, believe they're right and people are just picking on them. Or maybe even that the author should never have written about black characters.

And when white Sci-Fi authors are asked why they don't include black characters, the go to answer is "I don't know any black people." These authors don't know any vampires either, but that never stopped one author from putting pen to pad (or fingers to keys). The real answer is "I'm white and don't really think/care about black folks," or simply, "I know some in my audience don't like black folks".

And the Sci-Fi audience is unabashed and very vocal about their racism a times. The reason it was so shocking this time is because the actual characters in question where indeed described as dark skinned, if not for that, these people would believe they have a point in their belief all Sci-Fi characters should be white. I do understand the perception is internal, white folks all over America saw themselves in these characters and suddenly found out, nope it's not you. It's LaTonya down the street.

I wish Edward from Twighlight were black. The series probably would've never made it to theaters and we would've been spared twinkling emo vampires, but I digress.

Trayvon Martin Didn't Even Look Like a Thug...

Trayvon Martin wanted to be a cop and had no criminal record.

I mean seriously, look at this kid. Does this look like the face of thuggery in America. Really? So he had on a hoodie. They're quick to throw on and comfortable on day that's too hot for a jacket and too cold for a basic T-shirt. This is the reason most people, black and white wear hoodies. I wear a hoodie on many outtings. Like Martin I tend to enjoy my Arizona Iced Tea and while I haven't torn into a bag of Skittles regularly in quite a long time it's not out of the realm of possibility. So let's say I go on a run for basic snack food, a common enough occurrence, for me that would be an Arizona Iced Tea and probably a bag of Flamin' Hot Limon Cheetos (because I live in a mixed neighborhood, but with a large Mexican population so the Limon version is very popular). This crime against humanity, if George Zimmerman has anything to say about it, is punishable by death. The slow death caused by the chemicals in most snack foods simply isn't quick enough for Zimmerman. If you're a black male and you like to be comfortable while you grab some snacks and a cold sweet drink (we're not even talking about alcohol), watch out, you're a moving a target for our failed police wannabe George Zimmerman. And by the way, I think we can see why he didn't make the force. While other cops are arresting drug dealers and murderers, Zimmerman would be patrolling the junk food isle at the local AM/PM in search of evil black men in hoods, looking for a sugar rush. (You know how us black guys love that sugar rush).

See, to George Zimmerman any black guy is suspicious. Zimmerman's dad says, “George is a Spanish-speaking minority with many black family members and friends. He would be the last to discriminate for any reason whatsoever.” Ah parents always think their kids are the best things in the world. So are we to believe Zimmerman simply acted on his hatred for Iced Tea and Skittles? Really? Zimmerman called the police several times and it appears all of the people he reported were random black males, their major crime seemed to be walking or standing in place for too long. Zimmerman is a racist, his actions go far beyond "prejudice" in my book. 

The grand irony is that Martin and Zimmerman both wanted to be police officers, but Zimmerman had a criminal record, one for fighting with police and another for domestic violence, while Martin had no criminal record. Zimmerman may have wanted to keep the neighborhood safe, but he himself seemed to be the threat. A crazy man with a gun. New rule: Stop giving guns to crazy people!

During the phone conversation with 911 Zimmerman says he was indeed following Martin and continued to do so even after being told not to by authorities. In Zimmerman's claim to self defense Martin was following him and attacked from behind. Wait? What? According to Martin's girlfriend, Trayvon called her and told her he was being followed. If Martin did do anything it was within his right! He was being followed by some random crazy dude!

In my opinion Zimmerman just wanted to shoot someone, preferably a black male. The only other option is that Zimmerman was crazy, but by lying to the cops it effectively kills that possibility because it means he knew he'd done something wrong, so he made up a lie. An insane person would see no need for such a thing. This is a case of a man who wanted to shoot a black guy. It's pretty clear cut. And it's pretty shocking, I mean even the KKK hid under sheets and did their acts under the cover of darkness.

And what is it with Florida? Have you noticed they operate above and beyond the law while at the same time creating crazy and unreasonable laws. The "Stand your Ground Law" may make sense in a self defense situation, as some of you know I definitely believe in self defense and the right to bear arms, (particularly to protect one's self from people like George Zimmerman), but are you going to tell me that the cops simply drop the matter even when the evidence shows self defense wasn't the issue. This was murder. Martin wasn't stealing, he wasn't breaking and entering he wasn't gang banging or pushing drugs, so what what happened here? The only option is Zimmerman wanted to kill a black man. He created a reason in his mind to do it and then did it. This case shouldn't even be taking this long to investigate. Prosecute Zimmerman for murder.

KONY2012 - Nathyn Brendan Masters Breaking Down Kony Scam: Please share!