Not technically she isn't. Her bachelors is in Communications, Masters in social and political thought... NOT gender studies. Now she has an interest in it, of course, which leads to her videos, but she is NOT the "Gender studies major" that some people claim she is.
*snort*
Why re-invent the wheel?
Because if you don't it's copyright fraud. Seriously, look it up. People were pissed.
IMy sister has a double major Bachelors degree in Social work and English (writing)....she runs Ubuntu LTS.
Is your sister Anita Sarkeesian? This idiot doesn't even know what game she's playing half the time, never mind the finer points of distros, and I mean that literally. It's a common complaint among gamers regarding her "reviews".
>Just as an aside, on my bookshelf with my various Linux books, there are copies of "The Beauty Myth" and "Fire with Fire" by Naomi Wolf, Gender Outlaw by Kate Bornstein, and Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.
How embarrassing for you. I seriously have no idea how people can publicly call themselves feminists in this day and age, talk about a faux pas. Ugh. Let's not invite that one to the next party.
but at this time I'm holding judgement on either possibility until we find out more information.
Likewise, the main reason this is being highlighted is because she's got a pretty patchy track record with the truth already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The only thing you're doing here is throwing up random objections that aren't really objections, or indeed relevant, aka critical theory. You say could have, might have, maybe, I can't really say much else. It's not direct evidence, but in light of her track record it certainly is enough to start probing a bit deeper. And that track record is the reason for suspicion, no other.
I have the feeling that we shall find out the truth soon enough.
That doesn't in fact answer the questions raised in the image. In any case, I believe a healthy dose of suspicion is justified given this sort of carry on - don't worry, it's only a few seconds long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
But it's okay to advise people to commit suicide? Not the sharpest tool in the box are you.
I fview Sarkeesian as a professional victim hustling for funds, and hence the darling of the SJWs who aspire to her level of solvency, but in this particular instance I'd like an explanation for this: http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
Oh gosh, look the screenshots of her evidence tweets came twelve seconds after the tweets themselves, from someone who was not logged in and hadn't done a search.
Almost as if she'd created the account, threatened herself, logged out, hit the back button on her browser, and taken the screenshots just in time for the release of her new video. Never you say? What motivation could she possibly have to pull such a damselling fraudulent stunt you ask? Maybe the over €150,000 of donations she got last time perhaps?
Still pretty awful. This is "teach a man to fish" stuff. The scientific method and critical thinking are basic intellectual tools that everyone should learn at a very young age, not simply to progress their careers but to learn to question the ever increasing torrent of bullshit being disgorged from spheres political and academic, to say nothing of the fourth estate. The only thing that shouldn't be questioned (without plenty of evidence) is the maxim that everything should be questioned.
It was kind of going that way anyhow though, either to a tropical earth or back towards a new ice age. And really given the choice the tropical option is less destrcutive. As I understand it we were in an interglacial until people started digging up sequestered carbon and injecting it into the atmosphere. Either way I don't believe it will be possible to stabilise the climate over the mid to long term, at least not with our current technology, so maybe its best just to prepare to adapt to these changes.
To be honest the best way for us to colonise the universe will be through space stations. We can control the gravity, the atmosphere, the environment completely, and the raw materials are just floating around in insane abundance. Socially it's not even that much different to the way most people live today anyway, with most of their lives spent in urban environments commuting from home to work or class and back again, peppered with occasional vacations to other habitats or planetside.
No need to plot centuries-long pilgrimages strapped to the top of an antimatter skyscraper for a while yet. The first step is to build great city states in the sky.
Yes. Same goes for the things that USSR had first.
I disagree. One of the major failings of marxist-derived ideological systems is that they ignore the incentivisation that capitalism brings to the table. Marxists do the whole "one for all and to the gulags with anyone who disagrees" thing while capitalism harnesses the desire to better one's own station in life, which is why the US and other western countries enjoyed a steady increase in the quality of life, while the USSR suffered a lengthy decline. Of course I wouldn't advocate for pure capitalism but I do recognise its strengths.
You forget the soldiers that return dead. This is the missing workforce women were set to replace.
Really. The US lost half a million in total during world war two, out of a 1939 population of over 131 million people. That's about a third of a percent of the total population, and about 1% of the labour force. Your narrative is missing a few facts.
Who cares about one specific woman? It is only an anecdote, not data.
All things considered I find it entertainingly ironic, and in all likelihood representative.
But if you really want to know about things that happened immediately following 1917 revolution: USSR was the first country to legalise abortions. USSR had equal rights and women's suffrage starting with the first constitution of soviet Russia - in 1918..
Yes, that was my point. That does not resemble events in the US or much of Western Europe however.
It's unbelievable in this day and age that people can actually sit there with a straight face and argue in favour of neomarxist ideologies. You go ahead and talk to anyone from Eastern Europe who remembers those days and they won't be long setting you straight. But oh right that wasn't real marxism. Your version will be the one that gets it right, and if a few hundred million people have to die to prove you wrong again, que sera sera.
US had the atomic bomb first because USSR was busy fighting the Germans so nuclear physics had a very low priority
And all the other stuff the US had first, that was just coincidence was it?
Women entering the workforce had also nothing to do with the additional free time.
Hoo my sides. Really though what the left like to call the traditional or nuclear family is nothing of the sort. It's an artifical creation put in place to give returning soldiers a place to go. The result of this farcical social engineering was housewives self medicating on a variety of narcotics through boredom and men working themselves into an early grave. You should go study the actual historical or natural structure of the family, or even go examine one in the developing country of your choice. Hint: it's not a patriarchal prison.
It was just that many men were on the front and this had to be compensated for.
You know your Rosie the Riveter quit her job after two weeks, right?
This is, by the way, the reason why the gender equality was much more pronounced in the USSR.
Read up on the events immediately following the 1917 revolution. They don't agree with your narrative.
And social safety nets were caused by the socialists - albeit indirectly. Von Bismarck introduced them because he was afraid of socialists and wanted to lessen the socialist parties appeal.
As I said, social safety nets are good ideas. When you start viewing them through a left wing lens however they become a stepping stone rather than a simple component of a developed country's society, and therein lies the problem. "Always more to do", eh.
Why do you people always imagine that nobody else has read and completely understood what marx was gabbling about. Marx was the author of the communist manifesto along with Engels wherein he declaimed mandatory adherence to rules such as "confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels" and "centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state". In reality Stalin was the purest Marxist that ever lived, and the degenerate state he spawned was the embodiment of Marxs' ideals. And keep in mind that Marx was a perenially drunken adulterous reprobate who refused to repay loans and acknowledge his own illegitimate children.
What's that you say, they were just doing it wrong? Everyone seems to do it wrong, how many more millions need to be murdered before you people get it through your thick skulls that it's a nonfunctional religion?
A myth- Western civilization embraced and was built on literally dozens of different economic systems, capitalism didn't take over until the industrial revolution.
And have you noticed any particular changes in western civilisation since then?
Capitalism had nothing to do with the growth of Western civilization, which in any event, is no more civilized or advanced than Eastern civilization or Balcan civilization.
Eh "civilised" is a moving target, some people think that the only civilised societies are hunter gatherers living in grass huts, but by any rational measure western civilisation is the most advanced set of countries on the planet. Advances which incidentally spurred major social changes - science and engineering for example produced washing machine, fridges, cookers, all of the white goods, then capitalism made these goods both profitable to produce and distribute as well as affordable.
This in turn led to women having a great deal of free time on their hands and provided an incentive for them to enter the workforce in far greater numbers than before, which we can all agree is a very positive thing - note they were always part of the workforce to one degree or another. I mean that computer you're typing on is another excellent example of capitalism in action.
So yes I'd say that capitalism had and has a great deal to do with the growth of western civilisation.
Remember - those commie Russians got to space BEFORE the USA did, and it was only by adopting THEIR tactics that the USA beat them to the moon. Not with capitalism but with 10 years of the most massively communist project in United States history.
So, the US had atomic bombs first. The ongoing economic and associated technological stagnation leading to the ultimate collapse of the soviet union were a direct result of neomarxist policies. China has more or less embraced capitalism and has advanced in leaps and bounds as a result.
One problem I think is that the left, aka marxists and derivatives, tend to lay claim to anything remotely collective in nature as if they had invented it. This turns off rational people and turns them against quite rational ideas. Social safety nets for example are an eminently sensible idea, but your marxist views them as a step in the direction towards their utopia, not as an end unto themselves, which is a major mistake and gets people angry with anyone proposing social safety nets, purely by association. Again it's an ideology that does more harm than good.
Possibly because marxism and its derivatives were responsible for the murders of over 100 million innocent people in the 20th century. And don't give me any bullshit about capitalism being responsible for more, people have been killing other people to take their stuff long, long before there were any "isms" worth mentioning.
What makes marxism et al special is that you don't even need greed to go on a mass murdering spree, all you need are some airy justifications and a handwave towards some utopian future in order to create the othering effect that enables murderous behaviour. "We could live in paradise, comrades, if only these bourgeoise/jews/intellectuals/patriarchal men weren't standing in our way!"
And this is without even thinking about the structural and logical failings of marxism. Talk about starting with the answers and going looking for the questions.
You are a white knight you fuckstick, and you are holding men collectively responsible for the actions of a few deranged individuals. What you're actually saying is that a culture exists which objectifies women to the extent that men feel they are disposable objects of sex. Which is horseshit on the face of it, but to the extent that such attitudes exist they are absolutely mirrored by womens attitudes to very attractive men, maybe have a look through Cosmo sometime.
Oh fuck off. That's another way of saying that men are collectively responsible for the miniscule number of sexual abusers out there. How about most burglaries are commited by men, men can stop burglaries. Not working for you? Really!
Slashdot Mirror
Not technically she isn't. Her bachelors is in Communications, Masters in social and political thought... NOT gender studies. Now she has an interest in it, of course, which leads to her videos, but she is NOT the "Gender studies major" that some people claim she is.
*snort*
Why re-invent the wheel?
Because if you don't it's copyright fraud. Seriously, look it up. People were pissed.
IMy sister has a double major Bachelors degree in Social work and English (writing)....she runs Ubuntu LTS.
Is your sister Anita Sarkeesian? This idiot doesn't even know what game she's playing half the time, never mind the finer points of distros, and I mean that literally. It's a common complaint among gamers regarding her "reviews".
>Just as an aside, on my bookshelf with my various Linux books, there are copies of "The Beauty Myth" and "Fire with Fire" by Naomi Wolf, Gender Outlaw by Kate Bornstein, and Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.
How embarrassing for you. I seriously have no idea how people can publicly call themselves feminists in this day and age, talk about a faux pas. Ugh. Let's not invite that one to the next party.
Without criticising your script, Sarkeesian is a gender studies maven who stole much of her video material from other youtube channels.
It's likely that she would believe Linux to be a brand of moistened paper towel.
Ohh such muh soggy knees!
There are people who are absolutely incensed at her relatively mild and well-documented criticisms of some common features of video games.
Actually they're mostly pissed at her incessant bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Who can blame them for wondering if this is more of the same?
but at this time I'm holding judgement on either possibility until we find out more information.
Likewise, the main reason this is being highlighted is because she's got a pretty patchy track record with the truth already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The only thing you're doing here is throwing up random objections that aren't really objections, or indeed relevant, aka critical theory. You say could have, might have, maybe, I can't really say much else. It's not direct evidence, but in light of her track record it certainly is enough to start probing a bit deeper. And that track record is the reason for suspicion, no other.
I have the feeling that we shall find out the truth soon enough.
That doesn't in fact answer the questions raised in the image. In any case, I believe a healthy dose of suspicion is justified given this sort of carry on - don't worry, it's only a few seconds long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
That's very interesting. Of course, so is this: http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
But it's okay to advise people to commit suicide? Not the sharpest tool in the box are you.
I fview Sarkeesian as a professional victim hustling for funds, and hence the darling of the SJWs who aspire to her level of solvency, but in this particular instance I'd like an explanation for this: http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
White knight to the rescuuuue! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
I wonder what else will surface in this story?
http://i.imgur.com/zHPLIan.jpg
Oh gosh, look the screenshots of her evidence tweets came twelve seconds after the tweets themselves, from someone who was not logged in and hadn't done a search.
Almost as if she'd created the account, threatened herself, logged out, hit the back button on her browser, and taken the screenshots just in time for the release of her new video. Never you say? What motivation could she possibly have to pull such a damselling fraudulent stunt you ask? Maybe the over €150,000 of donations she got last time perhaps?
Not enough hot green alien ladies to make first contact with yet, I surmise is the root cause of this problem.
Still pretty awful. This is "teach a man to fish" stuff. The scientific method and critical thinking are basic intellectual tools that everyone should learn at a very young age, not simply to progress their careers but to learn to question the ever increasing torrent of bullshit being disgorged from spheres political and academic, to say nothing of the fourth estate. The only thing that shouldn't be questioned (without plenty of evidence) is the maxim that everything should be questioned.
It was kind of going that way anyhow though, either to a tropical earth or back towards a new ice age. And really given the choice the tropical option is less destrcutive. As I understand it we were in an interglacial until people started digging up sequestered carbon and injecting it into the atmosphere. Either way I don't believe it will be possible to stabilise the climate over the mid to long term, at least not with our current technology, so maybe its best just to prepare to adapt to these changes.
You know I don't think I've ever heard anyone being called a "geek" or a "nerd" outside of the US.
Like dimples in space.
To be honest the best way for us to colonise the universe will be through space stations. We can control the gravity, the atmosphere, the environment completely, and the raw materials are just floating around in insane abundance. Socially it's not even that much different to the way most people live today anyway, with most of their lives spent in urban environments commuting from home to work or class and back again, peppered with occasional vacations to other habitats or planetside.
No need to plot centuries-long pilgrimages strapped to the top of an antimatter skyscraper for a while yet. The first step is to build great city states in the sky.
Yes. Same goes for the things that USSR had first.
I disagree. One of the major failings of marxist-derived ideological systems is that they ignore the incentivisation that capitalism brings to the table. Marxists do the whole "one for all and to the gulags with anyone who disagrees" thing while capitalism harnesses the desire to better one's own station in life, which is why the US and other western countries enjoyed a steady increase in the quality of life, while the USSR suffered a lengthy decline. Of course I wouldn't advocate for pure capitalism but I do recognise its strengths.
You forget the soldiers that return dead. This is the missing workforce women were set to replace.
Really. The US lost half a million in total during world war two, out of a 1939 population of over 131 million people. That's about a third of a percent of the total population, and about 1% of the labour force. Your narrative is missing a few facts.
Who cares about one specific woman? It is only an anecdote, not data.
All things considered I find it entertainingly ironic, and in all likelihood representative.
But if you really want to know about things that happened immediately following 1917 revolution: USSR was the first country to legalise abortions. USSR had equal rights and women's suffrage starting with the first constitution of soviet Russia - in 1918..
Yes, that was my point. That does not resemble events in the US or much of Western Europe however.
It's unbelievable in this day and age that people can actually sit there with a straight face and argue in favour of neomarxist ideologies. You go ahead and talk to anyone from Eastern Europe who remembers those days and they won't be long setting you straight. But oh right that wasn't real marxism. Your version will be the one that gets it right, and if a few hundred million people have to die to prove you wrong again, que sera sera.
US had the atomic bomb first because USSR was busy fighting the Germans so nuclear physics had a very low priority
And all the other stuff the US had first, that was just coincidence was it?
Women entering the workforce had also nothing to do with the additional free time.
Hoo my sides. Really though what the left like to call the traditional or nuclear family is nothing of the sort. It's an artifical creation put in place to give returning soldiers a place to go. The result of this farcical social engineering was housewives self medicating on a variety of narcotics through boredom and men working themselves into an early grave. You should go study the actual historical or natural structure of the family, or even go examine one in the developing country of your choice. Hint: it's not a patriarchal prison.
It was just that many men were on the front and this had to be compensated for.
You know your Rosie the Riveter quit her job after two weeks, right?
This is, by the way, the reason why the gender equality was much more pronounced in the USSR.
Read up on the events immediately following the 1917 revolution. They don't agree with your narrative.
And social safety nets were caused by the socialists - albeit indirectly. Von Bismarck introduced them because he was afraid of socialists and wanted to lessen the socialist parties appeal.
As I said, social safety nets are good ideas. When you start viewing them through a left wing lens however they become a stepping stone rather than a simple component of a developed country's society, and therein lies the problem. "Always more to do", eh.
Flat out bullshit.
Oho, if that's the level of discourse I believe you intend to preach rather than discuss, in which case get fucked and good day sir.
This is why people hate ideologues.
Why do you people always imagine that nobody else has read and completely understood what marx was gabbling about. Marx was the author of the communist manifesto along with Engels wherein he declaimed mandatory adherence to rules such as "confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels" and "centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state". In reality Stalin was the purest Marxist that ever lived, and the degenerate state he spawned was the embodiment of Marxs' ideals. And keep in mind that Marx was a perenially drunken adulterous reprobate who refused to repay loans and acknowledge his own illegitimate children.
What's that you say, they were just doing it wrong? Everyone seems to do it wrong, how many more millions need to be murdered before you people get it through your thick skulls that it's a nonfunctional religion?
A myth- Western civilization embraced and was built on literally dozens of different economic systems, capitalism didn't take over until the industrial revolution.
And have you noticed any particular changes in western civilisation since then?
Capitalism had nothing to do with the growth of Western civilization, which in any event, is no more civilized or advanced than Eastern civilization or Balcan civilization.
Eh "civilised" is a moving target, some people think that the only civilised societies are hunter gatherers living in grass huts, but by any rational measure western civilisation is the most advanced set of countries on the planet. Advances which incidentally spurred major social changes - science and engineering for example produced washing machine, fridges, cookers, all of the white goods, then capitalism made these goods both profitable to produce and distribute as well as affordable.
This in turn led to women having a great deal of free time on their hands and provided an incentive for them to enter the workforce in far greater numbers than before, which we can all agree is a very positive thing - note they were always part of the workforce to one degree or another. I mean that computer you're typing on is another excellent example of capitalism in action.
So yes I'd say that capitalism had and has a great deal to do with the growth of western civilisation.
Remember - those commie Russians got to space BEFORE the USA did, and it was only by adopting THEIR tactics that the USA beat them to the moon.
Not with capitalism but with 10 years of the most massively communist project in United States history.
So, the US had atomic bombs first. The ongoing economic and associated technological stagnation leading to the ultimate collapse of the soviet union were a direct result of neomarxist policies. China has more or less embraced capitalism and has advanced in leaps and bounds as a result.
One problem I think is that the left, aka marxists and derivatives, tend to lay claim to anything remotely collective in nature as if they had invented it. This turns off rational people and turns them against quite rational ideas. Social safety nets for example are an eminently sensible idea, but your marxist views them as a step in the direction towards their utopia, not as an end unto themselves, which is a major mistake and gets people angry with anyone proposing social safety nets, purely by association. Again it's an ideology that does more harm than good.
It certainly is NOT any better than Marxism was
Except for that whole western civilisation thing, yanno...
Possibly because marxism and its derivatives were responsible for the murders of over 100 million innocent people in the 20th century. And don't give me any bullshit about capitalism being responsible for more, people have been killing other people to take their stuff long, long before there were any "isms" worth mentioning.
What makes marxism et al special is that you don't even need greed to go on a mass murdering spree, all you need are some airy justifications and a handwave towards some utopian future in order to create the othering effect that enables murderous behaviour. "We could live in paradise, comrades, if only these bourgeoise/jews/intellectuals/patriarchal men weren't standing in our way!"
And this is without even thinking about the structural and logical failings of marxism. Talk about starting with the answers and going looking for the questions.
You are a white knight you fuckstick, and you are holding men collectively responsible for the actions of a few deranged individuals. What you're actually saying is that a culture exists which objectifies women to the extent that men feel they are disposable objects of sex. Which is horseshit on the face of it, but to the extent that such attitudes exist they are absolutely mirrored by womens attitudes to very attractive men, maybe have a look through Cosmo sometime.
Oh fuck off. That's another way of saying that men are collectively responsible for the miniscule number of sexual abusers out there. How about most burglaries are commited by men, men can stop burglaries. Not working for you? Really!