Sep 1, 2014

Women as Background Decoration Part Deux The Lies intensify.

The Hoop Earring, Plaid shirt wearing anti-Pay-Tree-Are-Key champion full of lies and deceit is back!
Roughly Two months? That was fast!

Before I start, I must Reiterate certain warnings:

-Disagreeing with her does not make a person (in this case me) a Pro-rape Misogynistic Agent of the Patriarchy.
-Disagreeing with her doesn't mean that I hate her. I just dislike the dishonest crap she is trying to pass off as fact. IF she says something that I agree with, I will say that I agree with it.
-Disagreeing with her doesn't mean that I believe that there are no issues with games like sexist themes, etc. It's just that I disagree with her points or the examples used.
-Wasting $160,000 in this First World Problems series to "protect the rights" of PIXELS AND POLYGONS when that money could have been used to help REAL LIVE WOMEN THAT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD is an atrocity.
-I'm gonna be firing from the hip as I watch this video. I don't want to watch her stuff any more than I have to.

Now let's start with the video.
She uses a few clips of women killed by THE BAD GUYS to start her Narrative.
Then she uses the ALREADY CONTROVERSIAL Hitman: Blood Money campaign to imply that gamers are into necrophilia, because of three ads that have women on it. I kid you not. She is calling male gamers Necrophiliacs.
 The marketing blitz surrounding the release of the 2006 game Hitman: Blood Money featured several advertisements depicting the murdered bodies of sexualized women with captions like “Beautifully executed”. Even in death these lingerie-clad women are posed provocatively in a way designed to sexually arouse straight male viewers.
BTW, she glosses over the fact that Dead Males are used in some ads, which further emphasizes the point that a man dies and no one gives a damn.

 Now she's showing a Line-up of games with this "trope" and once again, she has Red Dead Redemption on it.
 In that game you DO NOT HAVE TO KILL ANY Prostitutes. Hell, Marston even REFUSES sex with any prostitute in the game.(not objectifying them) Not only that, but in the Mission Eva's Peril (Which I'm sure she'll twist into something evil) Marston HELPS a Prostitute (Eva) to turn her life around by paying her debt to her pimp. Spoilers, she ends up being killed by the pimp and Marston Avenges her. Running with the game's theme of Redemption? (or how it can be futile) OK, in the Undead Nightmare DLC you have to kill UNDEAD Prostitutes among the rest of the undead. Pointing it out to stop any comments saying: You're lying because you HAVE to kill Prostitutes in RDR UdN!!

Back on topic. You know what all those games have in common? They are all Rated M for Mature Audiences. Here's a tip: using multiple games from the SAME Series (ie GTA IV and GTA V is pretty much trying to pad out the list) She will ignore completely how in most of those games you mow down men left and right with your weapons and overemphasize ONE or TWO Scenes where there are female bodies. It's OK to kill hundreds or thousands of Male NPCs that we know nothing about, but kill ONE Female NPC and it's Misogyny!

Wait... She mentioned Male Corpses!? Ah, I see... The Implied quote of the day is: If you play or make videogames, you're a Necrophiliac!

Again we can compare the way the murdered male bodies are displayed and notice the distinct lack of sexualization in their presentation. The male corpses may be designed to evoke a sense of horror or disgust, but it’s not coupled with elements of sexual titillation in the same way that female bodies are.
If your games have female corpses, you're a Necrophiliac... Let's ignore that having the Female Corpses in Sexualized poses also evoke sense of horror, disgust, and rage. Because let's face it; if a villain has the time to brutally kill a woman AND rearrange her corpse in some sort of pseudo erotic pose, then that villain is one sicko that NEEDS to be put down.

And here we go... Eva from Red Dead Redemption... I called it! I want to point out how she leaves the
part where Eva decides to go to a convent. Here's a walkthrough for the entire EVA IN PERIL mission.

The women who fulfill this trope in gaming universes are sometimes designed to occupy minor narrative roles but more often than not they’re just hollow shells, empty representations with little to no personality or individuality to speak of.
What she conveniently ignores is that we can apply the "hollow shell" definition to pretty much EVERY NPC and most of the "Strangers" on Red Dead Redemption. Minor Characters aren't as developed as main characters (in books, movies, tv and videogames) not simply women.

Now she is using random NPC events...

These vignettes are not major plot points, instead violence against women is essentially used as a set piece to establish or punctuate the seedy atmosphere of crime-and-chaos-ridden fictional universes.
It’s meant to paint the gaming environment with a harsh brush, but it ends up doing so on the backs of women’s bodies, casually sacrificing female characters in the name of setting a ruthless narrative tone.

Because talking about all those vignettes that have male victims being robbed, beaten or killed would put a hamper on the whole "Gaming is a breeding ground of misogyny" narrative.

Now, she goes on Assassin's Creed II and the mission Damsels in Distress. There "the player" keeps screwing up the mission to "make a point" that the Killer will keep going on and on... Meanwhile, when the mission is played correctly it takes less than a minute to beat... and no women (aside the one in the pre-mission cutscene) are killed. Just because a person SUCKS at a mission, does not mean that the DEVELOPERS intended that the Player must ROYALLY SUCK at the mission because Misogyny.

Now she comes back to Red Dead Redemption... Ah the Prostitute mini event. Funny she doesn't mention the Shopkeepers being robbed, Horsejacking, the Stagecoach robberies, or the "Rescue X from bandits", where X is a man or a woman about to be hanged by bandits. Surprised she doesn't talk about the ambush, where a "helpless" woman asks for help, then the player gets ambushed by 4-6 bandits.
What I find funny, not in a haha kind of funny is that for her video clip demo; the player reaches the prostitute with PLENTY ENOUGH TIME to save her, yet the player does nothing... and I mean stands still long enough that Marston begins his standing idly animations.
She then compares it with the Pirates of the Caribbean ride...
Is she capable of understanding Hardware Limitations? The same reason corpses vanish on Sandbox games is why some scripted events repeat themselves. (Or why some characters respawn, or there are multiple "clones" on these sandbox games)  Even the dialogue can repeat itself with NPCs. (Of course, more powerful consoles have less limitations than older, less powerful consoles) a PS4 can emulate a NES game, but a NES can't emulate a WiiU game. Not only that but the whole comparison is Apples to Canteloupes, because one is an interactive experience, and the other you're an external gazer and cannot interact with the events.
No game mechanics are provided to call an EMT, administer first aid or check in on the victim.
Wait... What? She's kidding right? Nope! She is not.. Does she understand what a GAME is? Where is the amusement or fun in calling an EMT and waiting for them to arrive? OK, let's imagine a game like that. The call to the EMT would be reduced to a Cutscene. Can you imagine recording dialogue for ALL of the situations where a random event that would require the EMT call needs? not to mention how that would break the flow of the game. Then there's the Administering CPR mini-game. Another set of controls that the programmers would have to add. Not to mention that it could be an intuitive or an annoying experience to players. (Having flashbacks to GTA 3's Paramedic Missions)
What's next? Enduring the entire law procedure when getting busted in Grand Theft Auto?
Meaning that these female characters exist to be assaulted in order to give the player something to do, a reason to chase down the bad guy, exact vigilante justice on him and gain the allotted experience points. After which the women are casually discarded, forgotten by the game and its characters.
Again, Hardware limitations, there are male characters who are assaulted as well, and not all characters are KEY to the story.

As you can see, the late Raúl Juliá explains it perfectly. It's all a matter of perspective. While yes, having characters die is bad, in the grand scheme of things (THE STORY) they are nothing, because the focus is NOT on them, but on the main characters. I cannot vouch for Watch Dog's case, because I've not played the game, but in most games, characters that die are erased because of hardware limitations.

When the victims are men, sexual objectification and sexual or domestic violence are almost never ingredients in the scenario. Even the countless male thugs and henchmen the player mows down in these games are depicted as active aggressors, not characterized as passive victims.
Um, aren't women the main target of domestic violence? (She'll probably put up the 1 out of 4 women are raped statistic and something about domestic violence affecting more women than men.) If Men are the minority of DV, why would a game put focus on DV against men on a random event that has NO Relevance to the main story?
The Thugs are the aggressors, not the victims!! She completely ignored the male victims and turned the focus on the aggressors. Why should the Aggressors be portrayed as victims?

Plot devices that capitalize on female trauma for shock value function in much the same way as the hitting a child, or kicking the dog, tropes do.
It’s casual cruelty implemented as an easy way to deliver a quick emotional punch to the player by presenting attacks on characters specifically designed to appear pitifully vulnerable.
These scenes serve no real purpose in the plot other than to let the audience know that the perpetrators are truly deplorable monsters.
Actions speak louder than words. Those despicable actions are used to show how much of a degenerate is said character. They are a shortcut to help the reader, viewer, gamer to easily identify the bad guy. We can't get to know the entire background story of everyone we meet in these games. Also, these simple actions make you loathe the villain and want revenge. The reason women are used as victims lies in the notion that Women are for some reason More important than Men. Since men are considered disposable compared to women, then having the villain kill men is akin to us killing a mosquito. You kill it and move on with your life. With women, it's a different ballgame.
The phrase "Women and Children First" in survival scenarios comes to mind. Why are they more important than Adult Men? Why must they be rescued first? Ensuring survival of the species... and all that.

Having these villains do these despicable acts, allows the players more reason to take out these sickos. Making victory much sweeter. Why did people cheered when this happened?

The death of a young man, in this case a King is wrong and despicable... Oh, it was because he's a rotten little turd tyrant!!

But back to the main topic. Yes, it's a bit lazy to show bad guys doing bad things that make the player involved with the action and save NPCs... But again, this is videogames that we're talking about, not reality. Being a colossal A-Hole on a game does not equal being one in Real Life.

It’s a lazy shorthand for “evil” meant to further motivate the protagonist to take the villain down and help justify the excessive violence committed by the player in these games.
After all, if the random thugs or villains are so heartless and vile they attack helpless women, then the player can feel completely justified and even take pleasure in murdering them in ever more gruesome ways.

It's bad if we sit and watch the FICTIONAL women die, but it's JUST AS BAD to SAVE THEM from Harm!? I point towards the Joffrey thing. We cheer when the Disturbing and disgusting villain falls, not when the likable villain does. Again, making the villains more evil, makes the vanquishing of said evil more enjoyable.

These women and their bodies are sacrificed in the name of infusing “mature themes” into gaming stories. But there is nothing “mature” about flippantly evoking shades of female trauma. It ends up sensationalizing an issue which is painfully familiar to a large percentage of women on this planet while also normalizing and trivializing their experiences.

These Fictional Women and their Fictional bodies join the thousands of fictional men who die due to circumstances. What about their trauma. All those male shopkeepers that I've Extorted in The Godfather suffered the same as the female shopkeepers... What about THEIR Trauma? what about the thousand dudes that I've killed in Contra? or Doom? or in the MSX Metal Gear games? right, Killing Millions of fictional men is OK, because Pay Tree Are Key!

BTW The "Mature" term is pretty much the same thing as "R" in movies.
Excessive cussing, excessive violence, glorifying drugs, crime, etc. Dealing with war and the atrocities committed during said wars are the type of things you'd see on a Mature game.

Sexual and domestic violence is at epidemic levels in the real world; one out of every five women in the United States will be raped in their lifetimes. One in four will be sexually assaulted. And women involved in prostitution are at a much higher risk of violence because they are seen as vessels to be used by others rather than as fully human.

So, basically, this is thrown in to create panic and make people believe that videogames cause violence against women... Because Women were not victims of abuse until Videogames were created.

I'm just going to throw this here for no reason at all... OK, I lied (lying is contagious when dealing with a mega liar like you-know-who) See what they did... No, not the Rape Whistle part... the 1 out of 2 girls will be raped or sexually abused. No! I want to know what is the ACTUAL statistics for rape and the actual statistics for sexual assault... Speaking of which
Quick question; what does Sexual Assault mean? It's a bit of a rhetorical question, because the definition keeps changing. Rape is sexual assault, in some places groping is qualified as Sexual assault. Some groups are trying to make catcalls as sexual assault. They're trying to make THIS to be the same thing as rape. See the problem here? Rape is Sexual Assault, but Sexual Assault is not rape, because Sexual assault covers other things.

By changing the definition of assault to include everything beyond a quick glance at a girl into "sexual assault" will inflate the cases of "sexual assault". Note: I am not condoning sexual assault (Things like groping, rape, etc.)  but it's getting to the point that complimenting a female could be considered assault. THAT is freaking scary.
So when games casually use sexualized violence as a ham-fisted form of character development for the “bad guys” it reinforces a popular misconception about gendered violence by framing it as something abnormal, as a cruelty only committed by the most transparently evil strangers. In reality, however, violence against women, and sexual violence in particular, is a common everyday occurrence often perpetrated by “normal men” known and trusted by those targeted.
If they commit such heinous acts then they are not "normal men", they are monsters with a decent facade.  By heinous acts I refer to rape, and/or physical assault. She's still trying to force the idea that "gendered violence" can be caused by videogames. Not going to mention a study that found that the whole "videogames cause violence" is rubbish. Now back unto the villains doing villainous things. Sure we could have them beat men up to show he is ruthless, but let's be fair. Beating up another man is not seen as evil as beating up a woman. (Not condoning violence against anyone.) I'll point out the disposable man. Since the man is expendable, beating up an "expendable object" is "not as bad" as beating up an "irreplaceable object" of greater value.
The truth is that the vast majority of cases are committed by friends, colleagues, relatives, and intimate partners. The gendered violence epidemic is a deep-seated cultural problem present in the homes, communities and workplaces of many millions of women all over the world. It is not something that mostly happens in dark alleys at the hands of cartoon villains twisting nefarious-looking mustaches.
Meanwhile, let's create a misandrist panic by making everything with a penis be a potential rapist.

Looking for positive role Models in Grand Theft Auto is as futile as finding Tetris Por...  winning the Lottery WITHOUT having any tickets. In those games you play as a criminal, who steals, kills and does multiple illicit acts to beat the game. She then goes on to mention how Kratos is ruthless because he has a female character killed to solve a puzzle. Uh, from my limited GoW knowledge, Kratos kills anything in his path because he is a ruthless asshat.
 There is a clear difference between replicating something and critiquing it. It’s not enough to simply present misery as miserable and exploitation as exploitative. Reproduction is not, in and of itself, a critical commentary. A critique must actually center on characters exploring, challenging, changing or struggling with oppressive social systems.
 Missing the point of the term game... It involves FUN! Also, isn't the whole point of that Mission in Watch Dogs to STOP the Human Trafficking ring?
But the game stories we’ve been discussing in this episode do not center or focus on women’s struggles, women’s perseverance or women’s survival in the face of oppression. Nor are these narratives seriously interested in any sort of critical analysis or exploration of the emotional ramifications of violence against women on either a cultural or an interpersonal level.
 Again, because THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THOSE GAMES!! Also, not all games need to be "Pretentious social justice pieces of pseudo-art" Some games are like Michael Bay movies. "turn off brain and enjoy insane action... and explosions!" Please rewatch the Bison videoclip posted above.
The truth is that these games do not expose some kind of “gritty reality” of women’s lives or sexual trauma, but instead sanitise violence against women and make it comfortably consumable.
 Yeah, no mention of all the violence against men that is sanitized and made "comfortably consumable"...
We don't see the effects of Goon #348's death by meeting his family.

She then talks about an indie game, Papo & yo that deals with the notion of how a kid copes with an Alcoholic father... Through a block puzzle type of game; which makes sense since she doesn't like action games. (she said that they were gross during a lecture in 2010) The game seems interesting, but I don't do Indie games that often, because they tend to be overpriced and buggy as heck, or they end up being pretentious non-games like Gone Home.

I want to emphasize the whole INDIE game thing. Indie Games can allow themselves to do the "pseudo-artsy" type of "games", since they are not tied to huge companies that are ruled by Bean counters and they want to rehash whatever is successful, because money. That's why we get CoD, CoD clones, GTA, GTA clones, Madden, FIFA, etc.
We must remember that games don’t just entertain. Intentional or not, they always express a set of values, and present us with concepts of normalcy. So what do games that casually rely on depictions of female victimhood tell us about women vis-a-vis their place in society?
And I think we have reached the crux of her argument. She can't distinguish between Fiction and Reality... Or at least taking the position of a person who can't distinguish fiction from reality. I thought I complained a lot, but she has got me beat. Looking for positive role models in games like GTA is like expecting Oscar Winning Performances on a movie based on 4 Mutant Turtles that Learn Ninjitsu from a rat... Who learned it from a book! Everything needs to be "Educational" is a crappy argument. The Target Audience of these M rated games are adults. the people that can distinguish between Fantasy and Reality. I'm not against things that target children to have certain educational elements, but to sanitize everything for the sake of "education" (in her case pseudo-feminist propaganda) is just wrong.
Well, the pattern of utilizing women as background decoration works to reinforce the myth that women are naturally fated to be objectified, vulnerable, and perpetually victimized by male violence. These games also tend to frame misogyny and sexual exploitation as an everlasting fact of life, as something inescapable and unchangeable.
But, wasn't she the one saying "one out of five women is raped" and that "rapists are not mustache twirling cartoons, but people close to them."!?  All this time I thought the games were saying: "Violence against women is bad. Therefore, this guy who is violent against women, is bad. Be better than this guy and save the woman."  Heck! I'm afraid to ask what do they say about men, since in games people mow them by the thousands. Oh wait... No one gives a damn about all those fictional men that are killed in games. Again, Representations of Humans in videogames are NOT REAL Humans. They are Literally objects that the player character (another object) interacts with. They are lines of code that are arranged in pixels or polygons. SHE is the one giving us the stats about women being perpetual victims as a fact.

This dominant narrative surrounding the inevitability of female objectification and victimhood is so powerful that it not only defines our concepts of reality but it even sets the parameters for how we think about entirely fictional worlds, even those taking place in the realms of fantasy and science fiction. It’s so normalized that when these elements are critiqued, the knee-jerk response I hear most often is that if these stories did not include the exploitation of women, then the game worlds would feel too “unrealistic” or “not historically accurate”.
Please rewatch the Naked Gun clip I posted above. She's trying to half-answer her critics... and failing.
She's complaining about the usage of strip clubs and brothels as backdrops for some games. These games often involve criminals and a common background for illegal transactions are often strip clubs and brothels. She also complains about said strip clubs and brothels to be full with strippers or prostitutes (depending on the location.) Is it weird to have strippers at a strip club? Or is she expecting Immortal Xiao Lin Nuns?
If a game is set during the prohibition era, speakeasies and brothels go hand in hand. Having no prostitutes at the saloons in Red Dead Redemption would have been historically inaccurate. If a game took place in say, Ponyville, having a Prostitute Pony would feel out of place...

Wait! The ponies are at a Western town, with Sterotypical Native American Buffaloes. So, a Saloon Girl makes sense! BOOM! When a show made for kids, by a feminist has a Western Episode, they made sure to add a Saloon Girl, for historical accuracy... You don't expect a Police Station to be filled with Firemen, or a Hospital full of school teachers, right? Same principle applies here. No one is defending the violence against women, but the idea that if an environment is used on a semi-realistic game, then the characters in those environments should more or less match the real world counterparts. It's like removing swastikas, nazi references, etc from WWII games.
I understand NOT having Prostitutes in, say, The Mushroom Kingdom. A fantasy world that is mostly idyllic, except the times that Bowser feels the need of taking over.
But let's go to the whole Objectification thing. Are these characters REAL HUMAN BEINGS? No, therefore, you can't objectify things that are not even human to begin with.

What does it say about our culture when games routinely bend or break the laws of physics and no one bats an eye? When dragons, ogres and magic are inserted into historically influenced settings without objection. We are perfectly willing to suspend our disbelief when it comes to multiple lives, superpowers, health regeneration and the ability to carry dozens of weapons and items in a massive invisible backpack. But somehow the idea of a world without sexual violence and exploitation is deemed too strange and too bizarre to be believable.
Gameplay Elements does not equal Plot elements. If an environment is used on a semi-realistic game, then the characters in those environments should more or less match the real world counterparts. Zombies worked on Red Dead Redemption, because they used a common trope (Indian Magic) to justify it... (by trope I mean: Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations.) Now, was it perfect? No, but there was no other way to justify zombies in a world before nuclear energy or genetic engineering.  Now, let's return to the characters matching their environments. So, you're in a GTA game. A mission sends you to a Strip Club. The Strip club is pretty much vacant... It's night. Your first instinct is:

Nope! It's a normal mission where you talk to the manager of the club that wants you to go somewhere and do something else for him. You have entered the "sanitized zone" a zone that cleans up the violence in games in the name of Political Correctness... "It's not censorship if it's for social justice, even if it's doing the exact same thing as censorship." Does anyone remember how the sanitizing games worked for Nintendo?  They gave up on it by the second Mortal Kombat.
The truth is that objectification and sexual violence are neither normal nor inevitable. We do not have to accept them as some kind of necessary cultural backdrop in our media stories. Contrary to popular belief, the system of patriarchy has not existed for all of history across all time and all cultures. And as such it can be changed. It is possible to imagine fictional worlds, even of the dark, twisted dystopian variety, where the oppression and exploitation of women is not framed as something expected and inevitable.
Except when men = cannon fodder... no one bats an eye at that. Why do I keep mentioning that? It's simple: slapping a woman in one mission is not worse than killing hundreds of men with guns, rifles, grenades, vehicles, Molotov cocktails, etc. Not condoning acts of violence towards real people, but one transgression against a woman is not worth more than murdering a hundred men. where's the "equality" in that?
Aaaaaand she HAD to mention the Patriarchy. FYI it's not real... Just like the monster under the bed and Justin Bieber's sense of decency.


Didn't she say a while back the following:
So when games casually use sexualized violence as a ham-fisted form of character development for the “bad guys” it reinforces a popular misconception about gendered violence by framing it as something abnormal, as a cruelty only committed by the most transparently evil strangers.
but now she says:
The truth is that objectification and sexual violence are neither normal nor inevitable. 

First sexual violence is NOT abnormal, because the misconception IS that it's abnormal and only people who are evil do it. Now it's NOT Normal and it can be avoided? How can it be one thing and be it's complete opposite at the same time?

BTW... Does she even know what the word Dystopia means? You can't have a dystopia without oppressing and exploiting people in general... The only way to have a Dystopia where women aren't oppressed is a Radical Feminist Matriarchy where men are the oppressed... and we'd be back to step one but with roles reversed.
When we see fictional universes challenging or even transcending systemic gender oppression, it subverts the dominant paradigm within our collective consciousness, and helps make a more just society feel possible, tangible and within reach. 
If she wants to see that, then she should make her own damned game! Put her money where her mouth is. She wants change, then she should start MAKING said change and not whine about it. SHE collected $160,000 to make these whine sessions. she should go back to kickstarter ask for a Million and MAKE the type of games SHE wants. Why must the Big Studios cater specifically to HER TASTES!? There is an indie market where social justice minded pseudo artsy "games" are made and sold. Why must Rockstar, Capcom, EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Square-Enix, etc. change the games they make to suit her wants? They'll make what brings them EASY MONEY. Taking risks on some experimental game, that may not be considered a game by hardcore gamers (and the main customer base) is not a financially viable idea for them. Indie Developers do it as a labor of love and to tell a story.
As my final thoughts, I'll leave with this:

Oh, who lives in peace 'neath the willow tree...
Sexual Harassment Panda!
Who explains sexual harassment to you and me...
Sexual Harassment Panda!
Don't say that! Don't touch there! Don't be nasty, says the silly bear!
He's come to teach you right and wrong...
Sexual Harassment Panda!

How is it related to her? Simple. The lyrics in Bold seem to match her behavior. She wants to bring awareness about "issues" but in reality she wants to make gaming fit her views. Of course she has an escape clause when she gets called out on that. She is simply teaching you what's right and wrong.

Just hurry up and do the fighting F-toy so I can see how DoA will show up there... Probably the only game we will agree on... BTW, Dead or Alive: the Movie passes the Bechdel Test... Life can be funny at times.

It's not that I am against equality, but there are FAR MORE important things to fight for than whether a game has virtual prostitutes, or how Princess Peach is such a victim. Again, Fighting Genital Mutilation of women in various countries (Meanwhile circumcision for males is legal...) , help Shelters for DV victims, etc. is FAR MORE Important than defending the "rights" of FICTIONAL CHARACTERS... Not Real People, but Lines of code represented visually by sprites or polygons.

"Preaching" from an ivory tower with a double wall protecting her: Her more zealous fans (ie the infamous White Knights) and her "no direct replies" wall keep her out of touch with reality.  She may have the knowledge in the areas of feminism, but it is RATHER OBVIOUS that she doesn't understand games too well. It's rather funny that she claims that women are oppressed yet, she was able to collect nearly $160,000 to make videos about first world problems. If she was as "oppressed" as she claims all women are; wouldn't "the Patriarchy" have stopped her kickstarter and automatically remove her youtube channel? Think about it. Don't believe her blindly. Question what she says, the same way you should question what EVERYONE says... Including me. Don't believe blindly without checking for facts.

As I was looking for the videos to put on the rant (both the serious ones and the joke ones) It was brought to my attention that she was allegedly harassed by a stalker who was threatening to rape and kill her. Personally, I think she's exploiting this situation to gather sympathy donations. (Whether the threats are real or not.)

I want to emphasize the following: IF the threats are real, I hope that no harm comes to her or her family and friends; that the authorities can apprehend the suspect. If proven guilty by a court of law, then the stalker should punished to the full extent of the law for stalking and threatening another person.

If it's proven that she made up the threats in order to gain sympathy; then she should be punished to the full extent of the law that would apply to making and reporting false accusations.   

No comments:

Post a Comment