Tag Archives: Anita Sarkeesian

Huzzah! First part is up.

10 Mar

Remember the hate campaign against Anita Sarkeesian? The nutshell: she dares being an avid gamer and a feminist. The utter gall, I tell you.

Anyway, that Kickstart campaign was a resounding  success, and the first part of the video series is up–and it’s awesome.

Continue reading

Not about reviews

16 Jul

In the wake of the latest online kerfuffle involving authors and readers, I have read way too many comments (here and here to name but two) that focus on how authors should a) avoid reviews, b) not comment on reviews, c) grow a thicker skin, d) realize reviews are for readers, e) vent in private, keep a professional façade in public, etc

All sound advice, to be sure, if this was simply one. more. instance. of appallingly unprofessional and thin skinned snowflakes putting books out there for people to read and react to, and then having kittens when people do read (and react to) what they put out.

It’s not.

These commenters (who are mostly women) are missing the point entirely.

The point is that these people (some of whom may also be women) are attacking these female reviewers with utter viciousness for behaviour that many other male reviewers engage in, often, and without noticeable consequences.

Seriously–go check the titles of Roger Ebert‘s books. Now tell me, how come no one ever attacks him this way. And if/when he is attacked for being a meanie, you won’t see his parenting or housekeeping abilities brought up.

So let’s stop hiding behind the “authors behaving badly” issue and address the real one. Continue reading

Musing: On having “the right equipment”

11 Jul

The following is only tangentially connected to the Carreon farce of the last few weeks.

~~~ * ~~~

Over at Popehat, commenter Gerta made a correction on the purported/perceived origin of a reference, and was soundly slapped back by Thorne:

Let me clue you in to a little something here…

The secret behind Ken’s “it’s-a-cookbook moment” comment in Part III?


Twilight Zone? Star Trek? Star Wars? We can’t help ourselves. It really did come with the y-chromosome.
In our efforts to be funny, you never see us go “full Lennie”. (And that one IS an “Of Mice And Men” reference; not “Laverne and Shirley”.)

You can be forgiven this time for not possessing the requisite equipment to sufficiently ‘get it’ but now that I’ve dropped some serious ‘dude makeup’ on you, it can only be a one-time deal.

Next time, I’d suggest not climbing onto such a high horse. It’ll lessen the chance of injury when you fall off it.

While I see how Gerta’s comment was more than a bit extemporaneous (as both meanings had already been pointed out up-thread), I found Thorne’s reply tasteless and more than just a tad sexist. Frankly, I wonder what the gals over at The Discriminating Fangirl, or the Smart Bitches, or Meljean Brook would have to say to that.

~~~ * ~~~

Just a few days later (and I believe it was, once again, through a Popehat comment link–which I can’t find at the moment), I read about Donna Barstow, racist bigoted cartoonist, and her issues with Something Awful ‘goons’ (great analysis–at Popehat, of course). In brief, Ms Barstow is incensed that her cartoons are posted and discussed, in an overwhelmingly negative manner from what I gather, over at Something Awful. Further, Ms Barstow believes that criticism, particularly of the negative variety, is not protected under the First Amendment.

Continue reading