Thoughts on Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

[Oniya]

What Shjade is saying is that even though there are a handful of (rather vocal) people who are either 'man-haters claiming to be feminists' or 'claiming that feminism is purely man-hating' doesn't mean that actual feminism actually is man-hating.

[Inkidu]

What Shjade is saying is that even though there are a handful of (rather vocal) people who are either 'man-haters claiming to be feminists' or 'claiming that feminism is purely man-hating' doesn't mean that actual feminism actually is man-hating.

Yes, sadly like many good things it has become a haven for the metaphorical scoundrel, in this case misandrists.

(On a side note, I find it incredibly offensive that Chrome's spellchecker recognizes misogyny and misogynist, but not not misandry and misandrist. :P)

[Sethala]

Sadly I don't have the time to debate individual points in the thread right now, but I did ask for discussion of this topic on Reddit, and got a pretty large influx of replies.  Rather than quote some of the more interesting articles, I think I'll just direct everyone to the post as a whole:

<snip>

Probably the article that I found the most insightful in how it examined things, at least out of what I've read so far (and it'll take a long time to read all of it): http://gamesided.com/2014/09/08/sarkeesian-truth-part-1-straw-feminist-trojan-horse-censorship/

~No outside contact information in public boards, please. (Staff)

[Shjade]

Probably the article that I found the most insightful in how it examined things, at least out of what I've read so far (and it'll take a long time to read all of it): http://gamesided.com/2014/09/08/sarkeesian-truth-part-1-straw-feminist-trojan-horse-censorship/

Curious about whether you also read Liebaron's response to that. (http://www.reddit.com/user/LieBaron/gilded/)

<snip> covers similar ground.

In fairness, having interacted with cainejw via Twitter and read their disagreements with others re: matters of ethics, I'm disinclined to put much stock in their writing, myself.

~No outside public contact info for members in public boards, please. (Staff)

[Sethala]

First off, apologies to staff for linking to Reddit.  I"m mostly unaware of how the site operates, so I didn't realize it was an issue.

Curious about whether you also read Liebaron's response to that. (http://www.reddit.com/user/LieBaron/gilded/)

<snip> covers similar ground.

In fairness, having interacted with cainejw via Twitter and read their disagreements with others re: matters of ethics, I'm disinclined to put much stock in their writing, myself.

~No outside public contact info for members in public boards, please. (Staff)

I leafed through what he said and it's on my to-read list now, but that seems to be addressing a different article than the one linked in what you quoted.  Am I not understanding how Reddit works again, or did you link to a discussion of the wrong topic?

[Shjade]

Not sure what you mean. They were both responses to Cainejw's FemFreq "Dishonesty" pieces, both linked in the very thread you first linked here (prior to its necessary removal). You can find them both in that thread if you scroll through it yourself.

[Sethala]

Not sure what you mean. They were both responses to Cainejw's FemFreq "Dishonesty" pieces, both linked in the very thread you first linked here (prior to its necessary removal). You can find them both in that thread if you scroll through it yourself.

Yes, but the link in my post that you quoted wasn't to Caninejw's "Dishonesty" pieces, but to Mytheos Holt's "Sarkeesian vs Truth" series.  I wasn't sure why you linked to a rebuttal to a topic I didn't directly link, and my initial assumption was that I didn't understand how Reddit worked (again) and couldn't find the post you were talking about.

[Shjade]

Looks like I got mixed up somehow. Harder to tell now that links were removed, but I probably just misunderstood.

[Sethala]

Makes sense, I can see where you might've made a mistake.  Still, I recommend reading the stuff I was actually linking to, as I think it does a good job of refuting most of Sarkeesian's arguments in a very even, balanced method.

As for the snipped links, I was told I could link to this post, which contains a link to the thread that non-members can't see.  Since direct links to it aren't allowed, I would appreciate not discussing the post itself in this thread, but sites being linked to in that post are perfectly fine, and I'm open to chat via PM about the post.

[Sethala]

That assessment of killing prostitutes is fairly simplistic and without much context in regard to the game.  Grand Theft Auto as a franchise has continually employed this “shock” technique in order to gain attention and promote their supposed realism.  Rockstar is very much aware of how this comes across and has been told much in regard to how this portrays women.  The company has decided to take a freedom of speech and art excuse for their continued use of this, now cliché, mechanic.  Their only adjustment, as was pointed out much earlier in this discussion, was they removed an active incentive to kill the women by getting the money back spent on them.  To say though there is no encouragement is not necessarily true as young men, the target audience, are going to be drawn toward scantily clad imagery.  That these images are then able to be killed in a violent method indulges the other part of this activity, as the game is after all played for its violence.  Nobody plays GTA for the diplomacy options if there are even any.

It seems your argument here is that there just shouldn't be killable hookers in the game; it should either have no prostitutes at all, or prostitutes should be unkillable even when every other NPC in the game can be attacked and killed.  Is that a correct assessment of your position, and are there any other mechanics or ideas that you think would allow them to include sex workers and make them killable without encouraging such behavior?

So Rockstar puts forward a scantily clad image with a seductive voice to lure a player’s attention and then allows that player to carry out violence on the image.  Now because these are prostitutes and in the real world are a vulnerable population, Rockstar does not give as much consequence as say driving up and killing a rich, white business man.  Certainly this could be done, but Rockstar is very clear about who the victims are to be here.  Much as Hitman setup, scantily clad woman in a bikini at a strip club is an easy kill while the rich, white man in a suit is the hard kill.  Let us be clear then in acknowledging that the path of victimization there is clearly set and encouraged.

I think the main adjective you're using here is "rich", as classism is a major thing that matters, and probably should matter in a game like this (for example, a poor person is less likely to hire an armed escort than a rich person).  Perhaps "powerful" would be a more apt description here, however; yes, a person who's more influential and more powerful should have much more consequence for killing than a person who doesn't have any influence or power.

Also, Anita does not call people that play these video games misogynistic.  Certainly she highlights there are misogynistic players in these groups and these players do make up a vocal group within the gamer communities.  Still she does go out of her way to avoid labeling all video game players misogynistic and even states in various points that she does not view video game manufacturers as desiring to promote misogyny.  Honestly she blames much of this on laziness of the writers and developers. 

I agree with your point that she claims she isn't doing that, but her tone throughout the series seems to say otherwise.  This is more of the feeling I get when I watch her videos though, and not anything I have any real basis on, so I'm not going to argue this point further.

As for story development, certainly there will be an increase in the quality and differences.  Men and women do have different perspectives and a story told from a different perspective is a different story.  So there may indeed be better story telling quality if the demand and expectation are there.  Anita does speak to that desire in her work.  Indeed the “7 second” intro of Double Dragons would not exist if people expected more context than woman hit by man, man rushes out from garage to save woman.

I will note that, especially when video games were new but still sometimes today, people don't always want an in-depth story arc with gripping cutscenes that delve into the inner workings of the human soul.... they just want to load up a game where they can start beating up bad guys and having a good time, and tossing in a "save the damsel" plot is a good way to introduce the characters, explain why these other guys deserve a good beating, and start with the actual gameplay in "only" 7 seconds.  Sure, they could toss in a male damsel at times or have the bad guys do something bad other than kidnap the girl, but there are times in games when an excuse plot of a story is warranted.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Again: missing the point.

It's not that they're there to be killed like everyone else. It's that they - they being strippers - are there for no reason other than for eye candy and, if you wish, to be abused/killed.

Let's look at that GTA V example you mentioned: how many male prostitutes are in it? Male strippers? Males being sexually exploited in general? How many male NPCs can you use to heal or otherwise benefit yourself at a cost which you then get back for killing them to make the service free?

You can kill everyone in these games, sure. What does that have to do with which targets are put in the game for you to kill?

Nothing.

Shade:Well, I think many are forgetting instances of severe male abuse. Look at Trevor, a sociopath and quite obviously bi male whom through the coarse of the game and my playthrough: Completely rules the lives of Wade Ron and Wades cousin. Ruins the life of Wades cousin by ruining his relationship and getting him fired. One time switching to Trevor he was force fully spooning the poor dude. Another time he was chasing a car yelling about wanting to kiss the driver, who was male when I ran the car off the road, pulled him out and *insert npc's obvious fate here.* Rape is a constant threat of his (among other threats.) Even as far as trying to skull fuck Wade to get him to shut up during a drive. Or how about this one time he offers to give a hand job to a male npc for 5 bucks, after switching to him? (Well looks like there is a male hooker after all.) Need I reference the infamous torture scene?

Im not complaining, the guys a crazy disturbing and perverted meth head but he is a hoot. So over the top it is simply funny. His character by far being one of the best, most well done characters that year. My point is, the deranged guy uses, manipulates, abuses and emotionally castrates all his male friends. (other then Mike and Franklin.) And the subject of concern is a players OPTION to pay a hooker and kill her? Well, nice to see thats just a CHOICE. Wheres the not skull fuck MR.strawberry jam button? Or the, not ruin mens lives button. At a certain point someones got to realize that no one truly cares about the digital whales in Assassins Creed, the digital hookers in gta, or the acted scenes carried out in film. It is not real! A source of entertainment. Not liking it is dandy, but dont call me a sexist pig living in his moms basement for liking a video game. (edit, not that you said as such. But others have. It's in fact a pretty popular insult that feminists on twitter and such use.) Gamers are dead, or so says Anitas buddies over at the corrupt gaming journalism sites. Truth is it couldn't be stronger.

In general topic: The sad truth is, not even the people she is 'fighting for' care for the narrow and ultimately pointless opinions of SJW's. Look at #NotYourShield. Men, women,of many colors, both gay straight or in between. Simply pleading for people like Anita, to stop thinking they represent them. The thing is, just because YOU find something offensive, does NOT mean everyone else should. It does NOT require intervention on entertainment. Further it does NOT mean YOU represent all women, gays, etc. If you think it does, look up narcissist. It only means YOU represent YOU. And only if someone agrees with you do you represent them. Wild terms and wild accusations match about just as well as gas and a lit match. She say's objective opinions as absolute fact. (Most feminist's in general do this, with over generalized ideals to match.) It's why I dont agree with her. Wheres the research? The little graph meant to show how games make males more prone to sexism? *crickets* ,,,,,, oh..... guess she's no more qualified then the guy who said games breed real world violence. Not a surprise. It is after all the opinions of a women who's own masters thesis has research data within it, which completely contradicts her own conclusion. Well, goes to show you can almost always get a good grade. By blindly voicing an agreeable opinion with your fellow feminist professors.

(note: Though I say games do not create sexists. It does not mean im denying that some gamers are. Though most are simply using bully tactics. But bullying is in any competitive game, be it sports or digital. A real adult let's it go over, and does not feed the troll. If it bothers said adult, simply mute them, or even block them if you can. It takes an adult to not let trivial bully tactics bother you. It takes a child to cry about how a person you dont know or care about said you got a man voice. Now, the other half being creepy and stalkerish, ya those guys you suck. Sorry such lonely fools exist, when one wants to enjoy a game they should never receive gross flirting or dick pics... light flirting between friends is fine in my opinion though.)

[Shjade]

Shade:Well, I think many are forgetting instances of severe male abuse.

Haven't forgotten it. I asked which males are present to be abused, not whether males were abused at all. As has been pointed out, most characters in games such as these can/will be "fair game" for any abuse the game allows. But what kinds of characters are put into the game to be abused?

Thus why I asked which kinds of men were in the game, not what can be done to them.

Shjade*

In general topic: The sad truth is, not even the people she is 'fighting for' care for the narrow and ultimately pointless opinions of SJW's. Look at #NotYourShield. Men, women,of many colors, both gay straight or in between. Simply pleading for people like Anita, to stop thinking they represent them.

And there are also plenty of men, women, PoCs, etc. who think NYS is, at best, a joke.

Acting like it's representative of all minorities, or even most of them, is disingenuous.

[Sethala]

Haven't forgotten it. I asked which males are present to be abused, not whether males were abused at all. As has been pointed out, most characters in games such as these can/will be "fair game" for any abuse the game allows. But what kinds of characters are put into the game to be abused?

Thus why I asked which kinds of men were in the game, not what can be done to them.

Admittedly, I don't understand the question.  Could you give me some examples of specifics you'd like to know about?

[Inkidu]

To answer Shjade's question: With Grand Theft Auto all of your walking around civilians, male and female, Black, White, Asian, etc., rich or poor are put in there literally to serve either the world (to the guy who accidentally mows down a few when getting form point A to B) or the player's own personal... eccentricities (the rampages, the burning, the rocket launchers, the driving the tanks down any given sidewalk). The worst thing, the one thing Rockstar solos prostitutes out for is what prostitutes do, payment for sex. There are no bright glowing signs that say, "All the points for killing hookers!" Though given Rockstar's general irreverence of anything I'm sure if people raise their voices against this you'll see fully murderable male sex workers in no time. They just don't seem to care about anything.

More to point, I think modern feminism, and this is kind of exemplified by Sarkeeian's videos is that they often lose sight of a sense of purpose, I often accuse both Democrats and Republicans of this as well. The old saying goes, "They can't see the forest through the trees," or if you prefer, "They can't see up over their own trench walls." I think that the lot of women is by in large much, much better than it ever has been and it is getting better, which is great, but not every instance of insensitivity to a cause is an affront to it. That is, maybe it's time hat Feminism needs to be carefully picking its battles. It's the nature of these things that with each victory there is a little more to gain with another, and a lot more to lose in defeat. 

[Garuss Vakarian]

Acting like it's representative of all minorities, or even most of them, is disingenuous.

And so is some one acting like they represent all women and minority issues. To say you represent an entire group of peoples problems when you dont even know every specific person is as you say, disingenuous. It's disingenuous when one is insinuating their own 'problems' are every one else's.  it is disingenuous when one is thinking, that just because something offends them, it should and does offend all others. You cant help some one who doesn't want help, you cant protect some one who doesn't think they need protected. You cant fix some one, that doesn't need fixed or wants to be fixed. And you cant blame everything on others. Feminist's in today's america, are disingenuous, on top of narcissistic. Thanks for the new word. ^^ I will remember it. Listen Shjade, I have been around the block. Ive been around to many toxic events, around to many shameful and toxic feminists to think anything other then: Todays Feminist's are on average toxic. All they do in today's culture is teach women to fear men fear everything and blame everything on other people, rather then actually be strong and fight for themselves. The world is to harsh, and life is to short, to blame everything on other people. Which is what they do, instead of making real changes.

Inkidu: Edit: Didnt read the first part right: Well, ya, they didnt care becouse they had a budget. They had to carefully chose what they can do in what time. Is it easy to use male strippers? Most assuredly yes. Did they think people wanted to see it? Most assuredly no, look at the sales for: The Ballad of Gay Tony. A Rockstar GTA game, much like the one about the Lost biker gang. Ballad of Gay tony featured the character gay tony, and had a lot of homosexuality in it.


Your right, thats in fact a saying my mom said to me in any argument or fight I ever had. "Jesse, pick your battles." She would also go on to tell me something else, a small prayer which is taught to those suffering addiction: God, give me the serenity to accept what I can NOT change. The courage to change the things I CAN, and the wisdom to tell the DIFFERENCE.

[Shjade]

Garuss, you realize you're trying to tell me about people I know, right?

I mean, it's funny and all, but not exactly helpful or productive. Particularly when you're just making these assertions as if a) I'm unfamiliar with feminism myself, b) what you're saying is true without any evidence of how toxic feminism is or what it teaches vs. fails to accomplish, and c) relying on anecdotal experience to define terms ("I have been around the block. Ive been around to many toxic events" [sic] != evidence that what you have seen is the norm).

Related: I find it interesting you end that paragraph stating life is too short to blame everything on other people when you appear to be spending a fair amount of your time here blaming "today's feminists" for quite a bit. Something to think about, perhaps.

Speaking to women's issues is not inherently claiming you represent all women. This makes the rest of your argument on that point irrelevant.

[Inkidu]

Inkidu: Edit: Didnt read the first part right: Well, ya, they didnt care becouse they had a budget. They had to carefully chose what they can do in what time. Is it easy to use male strippers? Most assuredly yes. Did they think people wanted to see it? Most assuredly no, look at the sales for: The Ballad of Gay Tony. A Rockstar GTA game, much like the one about the Lost biker gang. Ballad of Gay tony featured the character gay tony, and had a lot of homosexuality in it.

I didn't not Rockstar's budget because it was absolutely inconsequential to the fact that there are no male sex workers/stripper.

Their budget wasn't limitless, but GTA V was probably one of, if not the, highest budget games in recent history. They were not doing it on a shoestring or even with the average AAA budget.

That being said it's also the highest grossing entertainment product in history making its budget back by day two of sales. So believe me enough people start raising up the issue of only murderable female sex workers Rockstar probably won't overlook it next time.

[Lynnette]

I didn't not Rockstar's budget because it was absolutely inconsequential to the fact that there are no male sex workers/stripper.

Their budget wasn't limitless, but GTA V was probably one of, if not the, highest budget games in recent history. They were not doing it on a shoestring or even with the average AAA budget.

That being said it's also the highest grossing entertainment product in history making its budget back by day two of sales. So believe me enough people start raising up the issue of only murderable female sex workers Rockstar probably won't overlook it next time.

Fact train has arrived at the politics station!

Grand Theft Auto V (GTA5) was the most expensive video-game ever developed for a while. Yet, it made back all the production costs just from pre-orders.
After a while though, Destiny overtook the throne with almost twice the production-costs. It has yet to make back what it costed to produce, not exceptionally shocking when the game was just an empty grindfest.

I agree with Garuss though, I don't like having someone else be my self-acclaimed leader in a fight I haven't even picked. (I believe someone else brought it up before him, kudos to _______)

On another note, it has yet to cease impressing me that the majority of those who post here are lords. Of course, it's not a bad thing at all, I find it quite amazing.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Well, out of my perspective: The reason it's mostly lords, is because this is public take's of our opinions. A very scary concept few want to go through, A hefty risk in making partners you liked think less of you, but possibly more of you as well. Men are born with much more testosterone, which makes us more likely to take great risks without thinking of the consequences, such as the ones I described. It's why we are more likely to chose armed service job's, are more likely to take bold and quite risky career's (Risks of not being successful, like science and technology, or risks such as being an underwater welder.) . That's why it's real easy to be manipulated to. :P Anger and natural ignorance towards safety is so easy to exploit. So, looking at our natural disregard of safety, or even imagined safety, we would more then likely speak our mind on here. But thats merely a theory, nothing concrete or truly believed. Testosterone is real of coarse, but a lack of it doesn't act as a proper explanation. Simply a possible one.

I didn't not Rockstar's budget because it was absolutely inconsequential to the fact that there are no male sex workers/stripper.

Their budget wasn't limitless, but GTA V was probably one of, if not the, highest budget games in recent history. They were not doing it on a shoestring or even with the average AAA budget.

That being said it's also the highest grossing entertainment product in history making its budget back by day two of sales. So believe me enough people start raising up the issue of only murderable female sex workers Rockstar probably won't overlook it next time.

No! Budget has everything to do with it. Further, it's all about: Projected Sales: Just look at Resident Evil 5 and 6. Capcom wanted to get the money COD was dishing out, so they made it more action focused. Destiny suffers from a bad case of developers seeing money, and thinking same old tactics are more effective then actual originality. And with Destiny's budget, I wouldn't be surprised if it was completely Gutted for dlc, and to be made more generalized for a wider audience. It doesnt matter which AAA company it is, a developer (Theres a difference between the individual companies under the bigger name umbrellas. EA, or Activision are essentially producers, while it is the branches that do the work. IE: EA own's and gives Bioware their budget. while Bioware is the developer of their games.) still has to fight tooth and claw to get any original thought approved. It's easy if it has been successfully done before, but if it's something too new or too complicated, company's start to worry about projected sales. You know what that is right? It's when a business looks at what has sold before and how much, and by that calculation next year they decide how much money they should make when it becomes january 17th, or so on so forth. Burger king for example, would remember that on July 15th they made a low amount of sales, lets say a few hundred dollars, very very slow day. Because it was so little last year, the following july 15th they put fewer workers in that day. So that they dont lose money due to hourly wages. In games and movies, sales are projected by what was more popular the previous year. You cant project sales for something that is new, or too original. Thus Destiny as it was, or at least how we think it was, gutted.

They made Ballad of gay tony, a Homosexual'y HEAVY game. And because it sold SHIT, they dont think the CONSUMER (Who they only care about.) wants homoeroticaly heavy content. They want their Money. If they dont think it sells, it's not in the game. So yes, Sales has EVERYTHING, to do with the lack of men being strippers or prostitutes. (The maine characters are all male, thuss making what your asking for homosexual.). And so does budget, since spending the BUDGET on something they think will make the game sell LESS, is a bad business decision. Even if it ends up being good, projected sales is all a business trusts. Because they dont think people wan it. The same reason it took Gears 3, to have playable females. They projected their audiance would be strictly male, with few females. It took them realizing, while watching competitions and such that they had a strong female audience. Thus they pandered to them to make the game mor appealing. (Not to be mistaken as a bad comment. Pandering is not always bad, in this case it was a sound business decision to be more inclusive.)

Companies are not making games because they are sexist, racist, or hateful: They just want to sell you a product. Perhaps some are sexist, or racist, but they are not trying to bleed it into the product. Not without trying to make some point at least, which Bioware is often to do (Make political or philosophical opinions. Using the different perspectives of characters.) The sooner people realize they just want to make art, or the majority which just want to make money. The sooner people can realize they are not trying to be harmful to societies views on women. And, they are not: Back to my narcissism argument, it is narcissistic to be outraged on any imagined insult. Getting angry at games? Well they are not real. That is an IMAGINED, INSULT.

Shjade:

Related: I find it interesting you end that paragraph stating life is too short to blame everything on other people when you appear to be spending a fair amount of your time here blaming "today's feminists" for quite a bit. Something to think about, perhaps.

That is putting words in my mouth good sir, I never blamed them for anything. I merely accused them of being toxic, and or bad for general views of men. I never said they made men hated. I said, they make toxic opinions that can. You want evidence of their toxc nature? Then humor me, go to twitter. Make a fake account, and pretend to be Gamergate. Be nice, be passive and polite. And simply say one of Gamergates views. And watch as the piranhas surround you, with no care for insulting you in the ways they claim people treat them online.

I dont hate feminism, I made this CLEAR. I hate, most modern feminists. Namely, THE DAM TWITTER ONES WHO SPEW THE MOST ILLOGICAL HATEFUL TRASH. I qoate this a lot but, here let me show you one of my favorit tweets. "#gamergate is why we need, #KILLALLMEN" < That is not some joke I make. It's a real tweet. I wish I can find it again, but with the hundreds of hateful tweets and arguments every day, good luck to me. But thats a real tweet out of the hundreds which sicken me, and should. Because it's man hating trash. It doesnt take much looking to find the sexist grabage feminists have on the web, simply look it up without your eyes wide shut. Want evidence? Read the below post, and if you want more I swear I can find more. Because theres a lot out there to show you, just how many fucking idiots pollute a good cuase every fucking day. Feminism is not an acception, it is just as vulnerable as anything else to morons and racists and sexists. And im telling ya, they are running it rampant these days, and silencing any feminist or human being with any lick of common sense.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Since so many say "Hey, show me evidance that there are man hating feminists, or bigot feminists." Thought id collect said evidence. Enjoy! or dont... Either way, this is a bunch of things to show that there are bad feminists out there. Feminism is not the problem, people like this are.



Oh yes, Gamergate wants to see people gunned down. (BS meter just broke, thats how active it was.)

This is false, it has been brought to my attention to be a fake account disguised as Brianna Wu.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Briana Wu:




Thats a real passive reaction Wu... I guess that goes with your 'passive nature.'

Poor child.... Hated before he was even a DAY OLD.

https://potluckbloggers.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/prince-george.jpg

<image redacted - no embedded pictures of anyone under 18, no exceptions - changed to link - Staff>

Oh, since were talking about kids.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/F-Bombs-for-feminism.jpg

<image redacted - no embedded pictures of anyone under 18, no exceptions - changed to link - Staff>

Yes, nothing sais fight the good fight of equal rights and personal choice then exploiting young girls to say horrible things on you tube, further poisoning their minds in a age where they are susceptible to what they are told further keeping them from having their own personal beliefs. All for the sake of selling feminist shirts. ^^ Wow, Child Exploitation? Has to be a hoax, they couldn't possibly be feminists who exploited them now could they?


Comments by well respected feminists.


Robin Morgan supports man hating. Good to know.

Valerie Solanas, thanks for the revelation that I am not even worth being called a animal. I am a machine. A walking dildo. I guess my only worth is to please you, and impregnate you. Good to know.

Andrea Dworkin. Wow! I can see the passive message your sending. I can totally see why it's ok to feel a man should be beaten, and presented like a common roast pig.

Oh yes Susan, all men rape and use it to keep you in fear. Thats totally true. Women dont rape, instil fear on men, or abuse them in any way. Your only the victim. Shhh I understand.

Sharon Stone. Yes, I can see how more power does make you more CAPABLE TO HURT MEN.

Catherine Mackkinon. I tottaly get it, in spite of the insistence that women are strong and independent. They are to weak to truly give consent to males, thus heterosexual sex can only be rape. I guess lesbian sex is always consensual? After all. Women dont rape right?

Sally Miller Gearheart. Yep, way to show the patriarchy. Thats a good plan. Keep males at a gross 10 percent of the population. Thats totally not an ideal towards a MONARCHY.

Oh yes, it is a learning experience Catherine Commins. The men learn to carefully chose who to accept as a friend, and who they should trust. BECAUSE HE WAS UNJUSTLY ACCUSED OF RAPE.  Yes, it is a learning experience. Never mind, she will always be viewed as the victim, and no one will ever believe him. Because the lack of evidence for the crime. Rape is a crime easily fabricated by a female, especially when she does not use a rape kit. The problem with rape is you cant PROVE IT WITHOUT ONE. This is not rape apologizing, further from the truth. This is an acknowledgment by me, that we have to further our methods of investigating. So that real rapists do go to jail, and the women who lie can properly get called out for it.

All men are rapists, and thats all they are.... Marilyn, is a fucking idiot. Not even worth my sarcasm.

Germaine Reer. Well, prison is no real secure place, sense your surround by other killers and thieves. I assume the imminent threat of release implies it is dangerous for women that he is released. No, it is potentially dangerous for men and women. Though he would only be released as long as there was little doubt he would be a good member of society once more. Sure, corners may be cut, and the system aint perfect but we got one of the best prison systems there is, in america at least. Even then, prisons in general have gotten much better over the last hundred years. Better at keeping them in prison and more humane towards it's prisoners..

[consortium11]

Briana Wu:

Quick correction; this was actually a (rather clever and well done) fake. Someone registered a twitter account using a capital "i" for the "l" in spacekatgal, copied Brianna's screen name and photo and then made the comment. If I recall correctly it was traced back to a Goonsquad member who was part of the GNAA.

[Kythia]

Also, some of the royal baby ones seem pretty unobjectionable.  Whats your issue with the post by Bethrehel (? - little hard to tell with the resolution.  Top right.)  And I fail to see how the Damon Buttz tweet is relevant.

Finally, there's a pretty decent discussion of selective quoting, with specific reference to the Dworkin on, here

Those didn't really make your case.

[Garuss Vakarian]

Oh, thank you for that one, I will edit my post. however everything else in my post are real comments, and actions. None more detestable then the F bombing children. And if I must dig more things up to show there are detestable feminists I will, for I dont have to look hard to find them.

Kythia: Oh no, it's totes not  being mean to a newborn by hoping he ends up gay (A choice he shall make on his own) Hoping he becomes a transvestite and or becomes a 'queen.' They were shaming him for being a male, or his mother for birthing a male.

Oh, they made my case well. Those are Real comments, by real feminists. Made, towards men. Especially my last picture. Women, well respected in the community which said man hating trash. And idiotic statements. I was asked to provide anything on the matter of hateful feminists. And I did just that. Any ones reluctance to acknowledge that such idiots exist or existed in the Feminist community is their own choice. A blind one, since there are hateful people any where you go in any community. But a choice none the less. Here so you can rad it better:

[Kythia]

Kythia: Oh no, it's totes not  being mean to a newborn by hoping he ends up gay (A choice he shall make on his own) Hoping he becomes a transvestite and or becomes a 'queen.'

Oh, they mad my case well. Those are Real comments, by real feminists. Made, towards men. Especially my last picture. Women, well respected in the community which said man hating trash. And idiotic statements. I was asked to provide anything on the matter of hateful feminists. And I did just that. Any ones reluctance to acknowledge that such idiots exist or existed in the Feminist community is their own choice. A blind one, since there are hateful people any where you go in any community. But a choice none the less.

Well, lets be clear - you weren't actually asked.  You just decided to.  But that's neither here nor there.

What do those first two sentences mean?  There's...there's so much wrong.  Firstly, and I can't believe it needs pointing out, gay isnt a choice, and hoping he turns out gay isn't "mean".  What's wrong with hoping he is a transvestite?  And what relevance do you think that has to feminism or to the "enemy of feminism" caption?  What, because you seem to have missed the question, do you find objectionable about Behrehel's tweet and what is the relevance of the Damon Buttz tweet?

And just because I seem to have phrased it badly, noone is claiming they aren't real quotes.  Sorry if I somehow gave that impression.  That point doesn't need defending.  The point is you are quoting selectively, which is (sometimes) problematic.  Some of the names on there are pretty unpleasant people, sure.  And I personally actually disagree with Dworkin on, well, practically everything.  But that doesn't change the fact that taking one sentence or a couple of lines out of everything a fairly prolific person has written is dishonest.

EDIT:  Minor addition.

[Deamonbane]

Just a reminder to link pictures of minors.