[ SECRET POST #3329 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3329 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 055 secrets from Secret Submission Post #476.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

The man openly hates his own fan base, blocks anyone who disagrees with him, derides and mocks the concept that anyone would DARE correct him on anything, and defends people like Anita Sarkeesian. Wheaton *IS* tumblr bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. Wil Wheaton is a douchebag.

[cloudtrader]

Wait, what's wrong with Anita Sarkeesian, I just watched a bunch of her videos and they seemed interesting...?

[(Anonymous)]

Probably nothing or not much. She talks about feminism and video games and thus attracts a hatedom that makes Zamii's loonies look like playful kittens.

So it's very hard to weed out any legit criticism from she needs to get her dirty gross vagina away from the vidja games because ewwww.

[(Anonymous)]

She's a terrible person. She's a con artist who shames women, treats them as though they have no agency, discards women who have bad things happen to them because then there's nothing more than a "damsel in distress" with nothing else relevant about them, gets nearly everything wrong about her claims...and then tries to pass it off as feminist.

[(Anonymous)]

LOL. By "women" you mean video game characters? I don't like her either, but too many of you guys act like her criticism of the way female characters are written is the same as shaming real women, and confuse narrative agency ("she likes to dress that way!" "she chose to do that stupid thing because she had no better choices!") with the fact that characters have no real agency because they're written by people ("she likes to dress that way because her creator decided she would" "she chose to do that stupid thing because she was deliberately written into a situation where she had no better choices")

[(Anonymous)]

Actually she DOES shame real women by doing that. It encourages judging people, especially women, for what they wear.

And remember her claim about Bayonetta being a porn simulator and designed for male tittilation? Yeah, designed by a woman. But that doesn't matter to Sarkeesian because she'd rather spread the view that sexy women in fiction are all about pandering to men. Which means she denies that women have sexual power fantasies or could design something to appeal to their own desires.

[(Anonymous)]

Disclaimer: I haven't followed gamergate at all, so I don't really know what other issues people might have with her (or whether or not they're legitimate).

She irritated me years ago by covering a lot of games and claiming in the reviews that she had played them, but then getting a ton of major details wrong or seriously misrepresenting major characters or plot points to make games seem more outrageous or unfeminist than they actually were. This wasn't minor mistakes, either, or a difference of opinions. This was more on the level of NC's Sailor Moon review, where it's clear she didn't do more than watch the trailer and MAYBE read a plot synopsis and then start talking out of her ass.

Plus iirc it was around that point in time she was also caught using lots of LPer footage w/out their permission and w/out crediting them, which is really douchebaggy as a lot of those people rely on their LPs for income. (Plus it's pretty deceptive, as you'd assume a reviewer using uncredited game footage was just showing their own playthrough experience.)

I haven't looked up her stuff in a few years b/c I was so thoroughly unimpressed with her shitty "reviews", but I recall a whole lot of tearing down well-written and empowering women characters (b/c she knew fuckall about them and assumed they were 'bad').

[(Anonymous)]

She's a con artist, anti-woman, and doesn't play the games she claims to be reviewing. If you want a feminist discussion about video games, check out replies to her videos. I know there's some trolls but I've found that the majority of them are discussing the utter asshattery of her claims.

[(Anonymous)]

Did you watch the one where she said that women's individual choices don't matter?

[loracarol]

Personally, I found her True Grit video to be incredibly sexist, with her claim that there's only one good way (tm) for a female character to be good/feminist, and that Mattie, buy not acting in a stereotypical feminine fashion* was not a good feminist character.

Um.

What.

* Full quote, "In my feminist vision, part of what makes a character feminist is watching her struggle with prioritizing values such as cooperation, empathy, compassion, and non violent conflict resolution in a world largely hostile to those values."

It just comes off like she puts women in one box, and says that feminist characters are only good if they fit that box, and any women who acts outside of their box, is wrong, no matter the context of the movie.

Further, I found Anita's claims that "Feminist characters should, like feminists in real life, push beyond the societal norms, challenge gender roles and the institutions that actively work to maintain them." followed by her dismissing Mattie to be kind of silly? Like, sure, she doesn't super break a lot of our current cultural norms (I mean, I'd argue she does to an extent, but that's neither here nor there), but if you take her in the context of the film, being set in the 1800? That's literally exactly what she does.

Someone in the comments for that video put it better than me,

So, what I’m getting here (and I may be misinterpreting you on this one), is that being emotionally inexpressive, having the need for domination or competition, & using violence as a form of conflict resolution are traits that are primarily male. That it’s wrong, or acting too male for a woman to conceal her emotions, striving for or desiring competition, or even being violent (although I would say non-violence is certainly the way I lead my life). How exactly? Women are competitive. Women can hide how they’re feeling. And women have been violent. Why does that mean they are adopting so called “male values”? Why can’t women behave that way, and still be considered to be behaving as women? You made competition and emotional distance sound negative. Why? What is so wrong about those traits? In excess, sure, but if someone wishes to be more reserved or enjoys being competitive, what is so wrong with that?

(Also the idea that a young girl in the 1800s should be "questioning capital punishment ie. the death penalty or really considering any other potential forms of justice. " makes me go ???

She's a teenage girl in the 1800 going after her father's murderer? She's getting a story arc that a lot of guys get? And that's bad, somehow?