Anita Sarkeesian Unmasked: Feminist Icon or Con Artist?

Anita Sarkeesian

Anita Sarkeesian has recently entered the public conscious as something of a new Sandra Fluke, riding the wave of controversy to her fifteen minutes of fame and assuming the role of a de facto representative of feminism in the GamerGate controversy. Her participation has mainly been as an impressively successful foil, redirecting the narrative away from one of a consumer base betrayed by media collusion and portraying them as potentially violent misogynists, with what has been so far the most persistent messaging.

Anita Sarkeesian is quite possibly the closest thing to a “face” that feminism has had for a generation, if one discounts Beyoncé’s over-sized sign onstage at the VMAs and Emma Watson’s United Nations’ “HeForShe” hashtag launch. Sadly, her fit for the role is reflective of the superficial aspect of feminism in recent years, that it often comes across as a “name” for the Hollywood crowd to drop more so than an egalitarian movement for social equality. Anita Sarkeesian, for all of her recent flirtation with fame, is definitely a person with skeletons in their closet.

The story, in terms of the earliest event supported by evidence, begins in January of 2005. It is from that time that Anita Sarkeesian’s name appears as the contact for a press release [1] published by PRWeb entitled, National Handwriting Week Jan 23-29th Brings Attention To Your Signature. The document appears to be an advertisement in the style of a press release, a familiar annoyance. The most relevant element of this document is that it serves to chronicle the first indication of a relationship between Anita Sarkeesian and an individual known as Bart Baggett, an actor (somewhat less than famous; he appeared in at least three films rated 2.5 or less out of 10 by IMDb.com) [2] and self-professed handwriting analysis expert.

I use the characterization “self-professed” because of the difficulty I had in regards to finding information on his professional education. On Handwritingexpertusa.com, a site which appears to belong to Mr. Baggett, a document [3] in the style of a third-person resume purports to list Baggett’s education, qualifications and experience. At a cursory inspection, Mr. Baggett appears to have founded more schools than he has attended. Also of note is that the primary education he claims comes from apprenticeships with recognized handwriting experts. [4][5]

I cannot effectively express to the readers of this post how daunting it has been to follow the trail online, when so many leads end in dead links. Suffice to say that I spent an entirely sleepless night chasing online apparitions of seemingly endless sites, many appearing inactive and all with permutations of handwriting expertise or education related phrases forming the URLs. This post simply cannot encompass the entirety of Mr. Baggetts’ story, although it is riveting. In terms broader than this article intends to cover, his story contains fascinating and peculiar intersections, including an appearance on Judge Judy and his commentary on the case of Jon Benet Ramsey. [6][7]

Returning to the matter at hand, Anita Sarkeesian’s professional relationship with Mr. Baggett seems to have lasted at least into the later part of 2007, as a phone number registered to Sarkeesian appears on multiple websites created to promote Mr. Baggetts’ business. On her own early site, Neonandchrome.com, [8][11] Anita lists a “Curriculum Vitae” of her experience in event planning, consisting of being a Seminar Manager/Coordinator for events tied to Mr. Baggetts’ handwriting analysis in 13 out of the 15 entries. The handwriting analysis that Bart Baggett sold with Anita Sarkeesian’s help carried at times the claim that teaching people to pay attention to the way they wrote could improve their love lives, and Mr. Baggett was even listed as an author on a Pick-up Artist directory. [9] Strange company for an ardent feminist like Anita Sarkeesian to keep, in consideration of how concerned she is over the potential of animated, fictional women in video games being objectified. Why the lengthy, years-long professional relationship with a man who wrote books on how to use things like the oft-debunked Neuro Linguistic Programming pseudo-science to convince women to sleep with people in the absence of meaningful consent, while referring to them as “sluts?” [10] Why would Anita Sarkeesian manage and coordinate seminars for him?

Further collaboration between Baggett and Sarkeesian appears in the form of both their relationships to a man named Alex Mandossian, evidenced by their video testimonials in support of Mandossian’s web seminars. [11][12] While there is doubtlessly more to the Mandossian angle, I doubted the pertinence of pursuing it further. The business relationship between Sarkeesian and Baggett seemed enough, and there was less evidence pointing to a substantial relationship with the latter party.

In an effort to correlate her past in arguably shady marketing to her approach in representing feminism, I will borrow from and paraphrase a post made to Medium.com by contributor @cainejw. [13] The user’s post was, in fact, where I became convinced that Anita Sarkeesian’s contribution to modern feminism was a negative influence. @cainejw discredits Sarkeesian’s Feminist Frequency videos in one regard by speaking of “conceptualization,” or the process in the academic discussion of a subject where an author defines terms and jargon to familiarize their audience with the subject matter. Sarkeesian, along with her “partner” John McIntosh, [14] routinely forgoes defining ubiquitously recurrent terms such as patriarchy and sexism in her videos, despite claiming the opposite, while she has expressed the intent to be used as educational materials. [15]

While topically convincing her audience that she is providing a valuable educational experience, under scrutiny it appears instead that Anita Sarkeesian is applying her extensive experience in marketing to gain exposure, successfully I might add, by weaponizing feminist rhetoric to undermine and demean first video games, and then the people who play them.

Of further interest is how her Kickstarter project to fund the production of 12 videos met its funding goals on June 16, 2012, and appeared to suggest a completion date for the videos of Dec. 2012, although to date only videos one, five and eight are now complete. This is in spite of the fact that her project vastly exceeded the $6,000 it originally sought, ultimately raking in nearly $160,000 before closing, [15] and that she did not actually need to use that money for as much “research” as she claimed, due to unlicensed, unpaid use of copyrighted artwork and other intellectual property. [13]

One might fairly question where, exactly, the six-figure sum has gotten off to. I am getting seriously tired of tacking on addendums to the litany of tasteless offenses committed by Anita Sarkeesian, but here is another one for my intrepid reader, for making it this far into my post. Despite the claims of Feminist Frequency being a non-profit that were made in the introductory video on her Kickstarter project page, which officially closed the funding for the project in June of 2012, a search of the IRS website reveals that it only received 501(c)3 status in May of 2014.

I am just going to wrap it up here. If the above has not succeeded in convincing a reader to use a skeptical eye towards Anita Sarkeesian, several more paragraphs would not either. I would like to leave off on this thought: If the equality of genders is an important principle that you care deeply for and are willing to fight for, is Anita Sarkeesian who you want as your spokesperson? For feminism to regain a status deeper than occasional flashes across the zeitgeist it is going to have to vet its representatives better.

UPDATE: Mr. Baggett has since contacted me and wished certain points to be amended in this article. I agreed, as the original draft failed to represent his viewpoint or portray him with adequate balance. He wished to clarify that the seminars Anita Sarkeesian assisted him with were self-help oriented and primarily [65% or more] attended by women over the age of 40, and not events purporting to offer strategies to pick up women. In regards to his qualification as a handwriting expert, Mr. Baggett states that in excess of 45 judges, from the state and federal level, have confirmed him to be a handwriting expert and held his testimony admissable in court. Further, this article points out that Bart Baggett was at times an actor, and an author of a book which purported to help teach men to use graphology to gain an advantage in pursuing women. In regards to both, Baggett wrote me:

“And, yes, being in any movie is a bunch of fun. Honestly, you usually don’t know they are going to be [redacted] when you make them. It’s like trying to funny in books. What I wrote 22 years ago seems [sic] funny and light at the time. Upon reflection, I was immature and used insensitive language in an attempt to make the lessons more interesting. I have much more compassion and class now… Lessons learned.”

Blog by Brian Whittemore

Sources:

1. PRWeb

2. IMDb

3. Handwritingexpertusa.com

4. Findagrave.com

5. Davidmattingly.com

6. Ark TV

7. The Denver Post

8. Neonandchrome.com

9. Pualib.com

10. Nlpinfocentre.com, .pdf of Baggetts’ book, “slut” reference page 157

11. Youtube (Sarkeesian testimonial)

12. Youtube (Baggett testimonial)

13. Medium.com

14. Genderacrossborders.com Article refers to McIntosh as Sarkeesian’s “partner” in the first paragraph

15. Kickstarter.com

Photo by Melanie Klein – flickr License

70 Responses to "Anita Sarkeesian Unmasked: Feminist Icon or Con Artist?"

  1. Icyfrill   June 28, 2015 at 9:44 pm

    Finally, thank god for real journalists.

    Reply
  2. seanwafer   May 5, 2015 at 3:16 am

    This was an investigative masterpiece. Wonderful exposé on the grand fraudster.

    Reply
  3. TMaster   January 31, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    She is a con artist and has no idea what she is talking about… Fabricating evidence and dramatising her life to get in the public eye so she can con them. She is a criminal and should be treatd as such.

    Reply
  4. Reason   January 16, 2015 at 6:19 pm

    Her testimonial sounds like the crowd is dubbed in from a sound track and she’s obviously reading a script. Is she a psycho fake? Wouldn’t surprise me. Nothing has proven her otherwise.

    Reply
  5. jtveg   December 18, 2014 at 6:11 am

    Sounds like she’s in it for the money. She doesn’t even like video games, she said so herself. Her criticisms are always very biased and her ‘research’ doesn’t seem thorough or scientific. Her videos have a telemarketing feel in their presentation. (The few videos that she has done).

    Reply
  6. Richie Cahill   December 17, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Hi “Bob”. Hows Anita today?

    Reply
    • C-Rain   January 15, 2015 at 10:31 pm

      I Believe Bob was referencing Osip’s reply to Brian, not Brian’s article. The words inside the quote’s match up to that, too.

      Reply
  7. Bob   November 30, 2014 at 4:50 am

    “Setting aside the untoward condescension and rather unprofessional tone of your response.”

    You’re the snarky unprofessional one. He said nothing offensive but you sure did.

    “Since you don’t understand the most basic aspect of this issue, I don’t feel the need to belabor the point any further.”

    After accusing him of being unprofessional and rude.

    You could also argue that calling someone unprofessional or rude when they clearly aren’t is a defense mechanism.

    Reply
  8. Dr. Russ   November 28, 2014 at 6:18 pm

    I believe this article to be true and it looks well researched at first glance, but your sourcing is the kind of amateurish work I would expect from a freshman in high school. At least give proper links to the exact pages you got your information from, or nobody is going to take what you say seriously.

    Reply
    • Dr. Russ   November 28, 2014 at 6:24 pm

      Actually, looks like I didn’t bother to actually check the links before posting. Woops! I’m an idiot, my apologies.

      Reply
    • Steven Pipkin   November 28, 2014 at 10:42 pm

      Do you have an actual Doctorate?

      Reply
      • Paul Stufkosky   November 30, 2014 at 4:17 am

        The doctor did apologize, I understand your frustrations on how he initially made his statement he did apologize, which is why I am stepping in. I feel you two are very logical people, I hate to see a flame fight start. I to apologise for over stepping my bounds but think we should take these comments with a grain of salt.

        Reply
  9. Osip   November 27, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    Incorporation as a non-profit happens with your local secretary of state. Application for non-profit status is an entirely different matter with the IRS, and can take months or even years. FF was obviously incorporated as a nonprofit, and then received its tax exempt status later. Donations made in that meantime actually become tax deductible retroactively in most circumstances. This is of all things is not even remotely a scandal.

    Reply
    • Brian Whittemore   November 28, 2014 at 12:20 am

      Sorry, no. Cowkitty.net, whom Sarkeesian “borrowed” artwork from in a tortured misinterpretation of “fair use,” would have allowed her to continue using it if the use was non-commerical. Read as, if Sarkeesian could prove to her that Feminist Frequency was non profit. Tammy, a.k.a. Cowkitty, writes this polite post in regard to the matter, and two months later Feminist Frequency is an IRS registered non-profit.

      http://cowkitty.net/post/79912196471/update-3-you-stole-my-artwork-an-open-letter

      You see here that Feminist Frequency gains non-profit status May 5, 2014. Also, they don’t appear to claim any retroactively tax deductible income, per your claim, for 2013.

      http://nonprofitlocator.org/organizations/ca/walnut/463408143-feminist-frequency

      It would be nice if wishes = truth, but they don’t, and I’m sorry for the grief you must be feeling.

      Reply
      • Osip   November 28, 2014 at 8:25 am

        Setting aside the untoward condescension and rather unprofessional tone of your response, it is clear that neither you nor the Cowkitty proprietor understand the distinction between a non-profit and a 501(c)(3). She even indicates that “the easiest way to confirm a business is really a non-profit is to search via the official IRS charity site.” That is actually the way to determine if the organization is tax exempt courtesy of the IRS examiners, not whether it is a non-profit.

        FF “gains non-profit status” not on May 5, 2014, as you incorrectly put it, but when it registers as a non-profit in California the year before. It gains 501(c)(3) status on May 5, 2014, which is relevant for their own tax purposes, and opens up donors seeking to make exempt donations of their own, but it is not dispositive of whether they are in fact a non-profit, a public benefit corporation, &c.

        Since you don’t understand the most basic aspect of this issue, I don’t feel the need to belabor the point any further.

        That said, I am fairly sure the introductory video for FF does not mention anything about non-profit status, nor does the project page itself. I just watched it, and didn’t hear anything along those lines, but I am open to correction. If my suspicions are correct, however, this article should correct or clarify that particular claim.

        In any event, those are all later developments, when FF decided to make itself a non-profit and then went through the complex and time-consuming process of getting 501(c)(3) status, which evidently they proved to the IRS’ satisfaction. Once again, this matter of all things does not amount to a scandal.

        Reply
        • Brian Whittemore   December 13, 2014 at 2:38 am

          Cowkitty linked to a non-profit locating website in the same state that Feminist Frequency was based in. I assume that it worked off of a mechanism other than IRS status due to it’s use of the term “non-profit” rather than “501(c)3”. Also, Sarkeesian’s reference to being a non-profit was in the description of her Kickstarter page, not in the video. I’m sorry that I did not include exhaustive specificity in my citations, but I’m sure that you’ll find that if you look at the vast majority of much more popular news sites which pay their writers much better than I, you’ll find that my citations are much more thorough as they stand than the industry standard. ESPECIALLY for something written as a blog post. That was my personal touch, because I wanted people to grant it the bare minimum of credibility that it would take for them to bestir themselves to give the broader narrative a second look. I am sorry that it was not enough to convince you to.

          Further, the date listed was the first evidence of any sort that Feminist Frequency had attempted to gain non-profit status, while you conflated to your convenience that I did not understand the distinction between non-profit and federally tax-exempt. For the reason previously stated, I object to your unfounded criticism of me. Allow me to reciprocate your chiding, potentially threatening tone, and say that if my suspicions are correct, you should correct or clarify that particular claim. Also, may I retort in regards to your characterization of the process of applying for a 501(c)3 exempt status being a complicated and lengthy process?

          http://www.form1023help.com/id3.html states that as far back as 2002, 80 percent or more claims were filed by individuals without the aid or assistance of an attorney, and 80 percent or so of the forms received that year were approved. Also, while at times the wait period for results from the application process could take as much as 2-8 months (higher end reserved for conservative organizations during Lois Lerner’s tenure), the average wait time is 10-11 days since the implementation of the 1023-EZ form in July. While Sarkeesian received hers in May, it easily fits within the expected time frame to have been filed after Cowkitty’s public shaming of her.

          Further still, you did not address that Sarkeesian never did claim any retroactive tax credits, as you stated that she was entitled to in your first comment. Also, Feminist Frequency claimed a suspiciously small quantity of income. Would you, by any chance, know how far back the IRS is interested in knowing your tax information for their exhaustive 501(c)3 examination? S

          I respond to tone in my comments, as I generally think it absurd to be expected to lower my gaze when facing critics. I do not SET negative tones. I also have no further need to explain myself to you, as you seem not to understand that I do so as a COURTESY, not as an obligation. Again, ask another journalist to spend the time that I have in responding to you, when an openly hostile tone has set the stage for discourse. All I would ask of you is some basic level of respect for the simple fact that I responded to you. Thank you for reading my article, I appreciate your patronage.

          Reply
  10. Terrence S M Popp   November 27, 2014 at 5:02 pm

    HERE IS YOUR FEMINISM COMEDY LECTURE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EanGv1j-sSE

    Reply
  11. nubbit   November 27, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    What is the difference between 501(c) 3 and being a nonprofit exactly?

    Reply
    • Random Guest   November 27, 2014 at 4:45 pm

      The important part about that paragraph was the date. She announced that Feminist Frequency was a non-profit during the kickstarter in 2012. However, the IRS website states that it did not become a non-profit until 2014. So, she not only lied about Feminist Frequency being a non-profit back in 2012 when she got the $160,000, but she did not even bother making it into a non-profit until two years later.

      Reply
  12. ACIoannina (@ACIoannina)   November 27, 2014 at 3:28 pm

    Mr. Russell, other than insults, do you have anything substantial to say about the article, to debunk it? Did u even read it?

    Reply
  13. James Russell   November 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm

    this article is a HATE CRIME AGAINST WOMEN, the bigoted straight white male who wrote this needs to be reported to the authorities for hate speech against women. Anita Sarkeesian is the rosa parks of gaming only a few geeky nerds speak out against her because they are mad that they have no girlfriends. This article needs to be taken down immediately.

    Reply
    • steve69   November 27, 2014 at 4:41 pm

      Laying it on a bit thick there. Almost believable but you slipped with the no girlfriends and double use of hate speech/crime..

      Reply
    • Nate Halbert   November 27, 2014 at 7:24 pm

      Wow…..I’m not being sarcastic when I ask you…is your post a joke? Cuz if it is it’s hilarious. If not, just wow. The rosa parks of gaming. I’ve heard that as a joke but not for real. Please tell me you are joking. I don’t want to believe you exist.

      Reply
      • markxneil   November 28, 2014 at 8:36 am

        I suspect it’s a poe. So hard to tell these days regarding feminist poes

        Reply
    • John Sheen   November 28, 2014 at 7:48 am

      ‘Staright white male who wrote this’, I’m glad to see were characterizing by how a person is born rather then their life actions.

      Reply
    • Dre Zee   November 29, 2014 at 2:26 pm

      Only feminists spew hate speech as the National Anthem

      Reply
    • Spikes D   November 29, 2014 at 7:53 pm

      Mr. Russell, your bigotry is showing. You should really cover that up; it is not polite to show it in public.

      Reply
  14. shajustice   November 27, 2014 at 9:37 am

    horrible !!
    what a shameless person !!
    not only is she negative , but spreading a lot of negativity !
    typical feminist.

    Reply
  15. Lars Anderson   November 27, 2014 at 8:26 am

    Tool. Her pet BF comes up with all her ideas.

    Reply
  16. codrin   November 27, 2014 at 5:33 am

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bWeOXK3Sbw&list=UU8RJExf7iNpV6tp6hvNtwww meanwhile this happened

    Reply
  17. aaa (@BusterBeam)   November 27, 2014 at 2:34 am

    “Allow me to clarify the “snake oil” remark; the handwriting analysis that Bart Baggett sold with Anita Sarkeesian’s help carried at times the claim that teaching people to pay attention to the way they wrote could improve their love lives.Mr. Baggett was even listed as an author on a Pick-up Artist directory. [9] Strange company for an ardent feminist like Anita Sarkeesian to keep, in consideration of how concerned she is over the potential of animated, fictional women in video games being objectified.”

    hmm surely this is just sensationalism, I don’t see the book being that bad, maybe the PUAs just took what he said out of context and treat him as one of their own, I’m gonna check the book’s Amazon profile and find o-

    ” As I read through this book it really seemed more about Bart Baggett bragging about how many women he slept with than about any secrets to making love or relationships happen. After several shocking pages of reading about his “sl*t” and “wh*re” and “b**ch” conquests (all his word choices, not mine!), in a book about “making love happen.” I am seriously confused. Why would a man, who by his own admission is 1) highly promiscuous and seeks out vulnerable women in order to “get laid,” 2) has never been in a seriously committed relationship and 3) openly views any woman who would have a sexual interest in him as a “sl*t,” writing a book on “LOVE.” This book is not about true relationships nor is it in any way about love or creating a loving relationship.”

    …jesus christ!

    Reply
  18. W   November 27, 2014 at 12:31 am

    ‘Con Artist’ implies a level of wit and intelligence, Anita has neither of these traits, shes simply a loud imbecile who appeals to majority of imbeciles. Shes a compulsive liar and a staunch advocater of censorship specifically against any criticism. She has completely and utterly demonised femenism and the movements deserves way better.

    Reply
  19. Pete   November 26, 2014 at 8:52 pm

    In 2010 she made this statement

    Reply
  20. Drako L Bluewing   November 26, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    There is something extremelly wrong with Sarkeesian.

    Reply
  21. Scott   November 26, 2014 at 7:28 pm

    Fantastic read.

    Reply
  22. Chino Gambino   November 26, 2014 at 4:08 pm

    Even being a non-profit is not an argument against Sarkeesian making a good living doing this. In essence what does the money go to? All I can see is the money goes to making the videos(ie her), travel expenses to ‘educate’ the public at events(ie her), research(…her) and salaries to administer this ‘educational’ outreach organisation(ie her and McIntosh). Her thesis was ridiculous so she may actually be sincere in spreading her brand of feminism and this arrangement seems perfect for that also.

    Marketing her work as a tax exempt charity is far more palatable for public perception and sustainable, especially for rich liberal types looking for charities to dump money on for tax deductions.

    Either way having a high profile and sycophants in the media are great perks if she wants to enter PR after all this.

    Reply
  23. Yuri Carlson   November 26, 2014 at 3:50 pm

    The SS have no strings on history. Have an archive link and save away:
    https://archive.today/PS5M8

    Reply
  24. Kris Pai   November 26, 2014 at 3:21 pm

    If this fraud ever were to enter my children’s schools, I would organize a parental revolt to get this expunged from the curriculum for good!

    Reply
  25. Mikel Crawford   November 26, 2014 at 2:55 pm

    All of this evidence will be taken down by SilverString Media.

    Reply
  26. Bill   November 26, 2014 at 2:51 pm

    I don’t think this will change anything, tumblr and moronic Social Justice Warriors will still stand behind her, as will beta white-knights. Good article though.

    Reply
    • WrathofKarma   December 13, 2014 at 9:30 pm

      Nah. Even Tumblr will eventually catch on. I’ve seen a user that’s specifically against the retardation that comes with SJ.

      Reply
  27. Sockpuppet123 (@Sockpuppet893)   November 26, 2014 at 2:47 pm

    A very succesful con-artist with a huge following indeed, though then again as of the Sargon of Akkad videos i already knew it, now we should just drop those names into conversations on social media randomly 😛

    Reply
  28. Fhgef Drerff   November 26, 2014 at 2:39 pm

    From watching all of her stuff Con Artist fits very well.

    Reply
  29. Ilia Gourianov   November 26, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    MUH SOGGY KNEE!!!!!!!

    Reply
  30. hguderian   November 26, 2014 at 2:33 pm

    Great digging!

    Reply
  31. Richard Sanderson (@RichSandersen)   November 26, 2014 at 2:24 pm

    Con Artist, obviously.

    Reply
  32. steve141761   November 26, 2014 at 2:22 pm

    This has been going on for a while now. No one will listen because no one cares what she does with money, only that she’s a “Victim,”

    Reply
  33. Kendra   November 26, 2014 at 2:18 pm

    Yeah. . .gotta say, the last person I’m going to listen to when choosing my feminist role model is a guy who spends hours trying to discredit a feminist role model. And I’m going to wrap this up because if years of women trying to make inroads with a man like this has not yet made inroads with a man like this, then several more paragraphs are not going to make a difference.

    Reply
  34. John Cobalt   November 26, 2014 at 1:20 pm

    Nothing new under the sun, just more links to key it all together =(

    Reply
  35. wtfwtf13   November 26, 2014 at 1:07 pm

    But obviously she knows her audience better.

    Reply
  36. Dre Zee   November 26, 2014 at 1:05 pm

    Aren’t the two one and the same?

    Reply
  37. Jay   November 26, 2014 at 12:48 pm

    We’ve been saying all along that she’s a con artist.

    Reply
  38. wgannessw   November 26, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    Misogynist!!!!!

    Reply
  39. Political Cynic   November 26, 2014 at 12:40 pm

    Countdown to deflective screams of “this is all MISOGYNY” to distract from ethical questions in 10…9…8…

    Reply
  40. Anthropophagic   November 26, 2014 at 12:36 pm

    Kudos on the take down piece. I mean even if the death threats are true, she should ignore them and focus on the whole ethics. Just like what your doing.. Right focusing on the ethics… Right?

    Reply
  41. Paul   November 26, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    Actual investigative journalism? In 2014?… On the internet of all places?

    I feel like I’ve found a unicorn.

    Reply
  42. Jordan Owen   November 26, 2014 at 12:04 pm

    Kudos to you for writing this sir- it’s good that the truth is getting out there!

    Reply
  43. Dean Esmay   November 26, 2014 at 11:42 am

    Someone outside the gaming world finally recognizes that Sarkeesian is a con artist? Outstanding!

    Reply
  44. Myr   November 26, 2014 at 11:26 am

    It is remarkable how little attention the media(and her supporters) pays to her actual “work”. I strongly encourage you to check it out and decide for yourself if she is a total hack and a fraud.

    Reply
  45. Logan   November 26, 2014 at 11:22 am

    She’s just another Jack Thompson, she’ll come to be forgotten soon. The only difference now is that her PR actually reached gaming websites. So gaming media is saying games make us sexists and violent when they defended us of such claims less than 10 years ago

    Reply
  46. Greg   November 26, 2014 at 11:18 am

    What convinced me that she was just another opportunist is that given her audience (200K+ followers) and her supposed grand ideal of female equality, she didn’t bother telling people to vote last election (look it up yourself on twitter, there’s zilch). We have politicians with mysogynistic views writing laws and policy that hurt REAL women who should have been voted out. If she really cared about all women, she would at least speak to this because it’s actually something actionable her supporters can do rather than just having exchanges with internet trolls. But Anita couldn’t care less. Fictional plotlines and computer graphics as the source of female hate. What a charlatan.

    Reply
  47. hm   November 26, 2014 at 9:21 am

    Interesting read. Something that rubs me the wrong way about Sarkeesian is that she’ll go on Stephen Colbert and promote a friendly “equal rights” feminism but then promote some third wave “anti-oppression” radicalism at other times. It’s bait and switch. She’s a fairly standard radical, or at least doing a mean impression of one, along with her partner McIntosh. I don’t believe that they really know what they want beyond changing the entire social and economic structure in some “anti-oppressive” way.

    Reply
  48. J Scott   November 26, 2014 at 9:11 am

    I am in genuine disbelief that people continually ignore the idea that Anita is a con woman.

    I don’t care about GamersGate or the scandals she’s involved in, I don’t think games journalism is a big problem, but I think I’m slowly beginning to realize why they’re so upset.

    I’m guessing it isn’t just gaming journalism, but instead shock and outrage that such a horrible non-academic could come into the industry they love, fill it with un-backed vitriol and attack the hobby, then somehow magically deflect all criticism as “sexism”.

    Anita, I’ve seen your videos, they are anything but educational. Claims with no statistics backing them. Gaming experiences you claim to be an expert in when all else suggests otherwise. Little evidence other than carefully selected short video clips. Dishonestly in the buff.

    I hope Anita is unmasked, but I fear her fans are approaching cult-level status of cognitive dissonance.

    Good luck GamersGate, for gamers and society both.

    Reply
  49. J   November 26, 2014 at 9:10 am

    “Interesting article with verifiable facts, but I don’t like two of the commenters therefore these revelations are irrelevant and you’re probably lying.”

    Ryan, I award you the gold in Mental Gymnastics and I’m sure there’s a Wheaties deal coming your way.

    Reply
  50. patrick   November 26, 2014 at 8:43 am

    and she does not like videogames either

    Reply
  51. Paul Peterson   November 26, 2014 at 8:35 am

    Her being a con artist isn’t that far-fetched to be honest. Look at the thousands of dollars she has gained from this entire debacle. It is truly sad people are funding her anti-men and anti-gamer rhetoric. She is a poison hidden in the drink that is feminism. And a lot of people are drinking it all up

    Reply
  52. Ryan   November 26, 2014 at 8:35 am

    This article is pretty good, but the (currently) 2 ProGG commenters have murdered credibility unfortunately.

    Reply
  53. Fred Doran   November 26, 2014 at 8:26 am

    Good read

    Reply
  54. Black ☕ (@blackmagic124)   November 26, 2014 at 8:19 am

    This is pretty bad… She already had tenuous credibility at best… This just kills it entirely.

    Reply
  55. KFC Jess #15370 (@ZombieNeith)   November 26, 2014 at 8:04 am

    I was already well aware of the teleseminar spiel and the ridiculous amount of money thrown at a few youtube vids, but wow. More damning evidence of her fraud that her cult will shrug off, I’m sure.

    Reply

Your Thoughts?