Anita Sarkeesian is a Misogynist
Now, more than ever, we need empowerment for women, yet for some unknown reason, there are people like Anita Sarkeesian who do their utmost to keep half of the human population in a state of fear and submission. Much like the beauty and fem-mag industries, Anita exploits the insecurities of women for profit and attention. In the same way Cosmo and similar publications can hold opposing standards simultaneously (all women are beautiful/come and judge these women for how they look), Anita preaches the inner strength and capability of women before combing through games in order to shame any women that appear in them, regardless of their accomplishments. Even Zelda, who gamers universally adore for her strength, and patience, and wisdom, is criticised because…well, because those qualities aren’t good enough.
For Anita, nothing women accomplish is good enough. It is time for her misogynistic views to stop.
Oh Hai There
To all of you out there thinking ‘what a load of shit’, I’d like to introduce you to those out there that will read this and think ‘wow he’s got a point’. See, the thing is, this kind of stuff is easy to me. I would probably make it to the mental gymnastic olympics, but I wouldn’t win gold, because I suffer from self awareness.
For example — a straight white guy called me a straight white guy on twitter — because nothing says ‘white’ like Ankucic — so I immediately jumped on the idiot pommel horse, which goes a little something like this:
- Identify myself as a minority (son of an immigrant, Romanian/Serb heritage)
- Get offended that a white guy tried to tell a minority what his culture was
- Get offended that my orientation was none of his business while slightly hinting at maybe I might also like guys
- Call him my oppressor over and over again
Moronic, but incredibly effective, because there it completely avoids talking about the issue in question.
Interpretation Is Not Truth
I once did I pretty hefty essay analysing Lord of the Rings with Freud’s hefty cock in my mouth. Shit, I mean, analysed Lord of the Rings using Freudian theory. Shoving an oedipus complex into narrative is remarkably easy. See if you can follow me in your headspace — grab Aragorn. Now he’s got to kill his father. If we want to get real fancy, we can shove in something about jealousy here to. So we’ve got Aragorn, and his father figure can be his ancestor who decided to be an idiot and kept the ring of power. Together, let’s try to get from ‘this is his relation’ to ‘this is his father that he has to kill/has some jealousy over’.
Let’s stretch the term ‘kill’ to mean literally anything we want it to mean. In this case, let’s use something like ‘banishing the memory thereof’. Aragorn wants to ensure the ring is destroyed so he can, in turn ‘kill’ his father who failed to destroy the ring. Initially, his refusal to take up his destiny was because he was both jealous and furious with his ‘father’s’ weakness — so he avoided his responsibility in the same way that his ‘father’ once had.
Arwen fills the role of the mother figure quite nicely — she’s older, part of an older race, one could easily argue (or for the purpose of this exercise, state as fact despite having no authority to do so) that Arwen and elves are the prototypical embodiments of motherhood. Aragorn couldn’t be with Arwen in any real sense until he had fully committed to ‘killing’ his ‘father’. Then when he did, he was able to live happily and bang his ‘mother’ to his heart’s content.
Oh, and for extra credit, Aragorn wanted to return to the womb, which in this case is Minas Tirith, which is where he came from and is basically a vagina carved out of the side of a mountain.
Ok Time To Breathe
Does this make any sense to you whatsoever? If so, thanks for reading my work Sigmund Freud. For all of you who are trying to piece this together mentally, have a break. It’s complete fucking nonsense, and this is part of the problem:
People who once upon a time subscribed to Freud’s ideology would have LOVED this. Truly fucking loved it. Batshit insane as it may be, the circle-jerking this kind of article would have produced would have made it soggier than a half-drowned cat.
This Is Ideology In Play
Have a watch of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk8ibrfXvpQ
This is Slavoj Žižek, Marxist philosopher and tightrope champion of brilliant/completely insane. His commentary on ideology terrifies me, because you can shove literally any ideology into what he’s saying and it makes equal sense. Try it out. Any religion, any -ism…fuck, make up your own one, apply the same logic, and you come to the same conclusion. Ideology (x) sets you free.
I get that when he watches the film he sees some guy being liberated. What I see is a man who puts on literal lenses and warps his perception of reality. When our mulleted protagonist sees money as ‘your god’, for some strange reason Slavoj nods his head sagely instead of thinking ‘money can be exchanged for goods and services, which are in today’s world, resources’. If I was in that same scene and the guy holding the money was instead holding a steak, and I put on the glasses, I would see the Same. Fucking. Message. Because food is what I need to actually survive, and the best way to get food in modernity is by monetary exchange.
It also strikes me as lunacy that we assume, in regards to its ideological analogy, that we don’t expect two people to see two different things when putting on the glasses. Remember that time that all Christians agreed on one interpretation of one bible? Me neither!
You can get two people in the same ideology who have completely conflicting ideas. So what’s the point of ideology? From what I can tell, it’s so you can say you belong to a particular group, and you can belong to any ideological group you want to, because to get in all you have to do is identify as one. Watch:
I’m a feminist.
Bam. Now I’m a feminist. A lot of people that know me will say this isn’t true, which I could counter with:
But I believe in equality between men and women.
To which they might believe I’m a feminist, in which case:
I’m not a feminist, but I do believe in equality between genders.
This is where a lot of people get lost. Here’s how to break it down simply:
Your ideology doesn’t own the stances it takes
Christians don’t own morality, feminists don’t own equality, unions don’t own workers, capitalism doesn’t own money. Your involvement in an ideological group doesn’t give you more right or reason or claim to the conversation, it doesn’t make you more right or more knowledgeable, and, hear me, it doesn’t make you a better person.
Lastly — if you look to your own fringe group and think ‘well they’re not a real (x), they’re looking straight back at you and thinking the same thing — because ideology serves the individual, not the other way around.
