I'm going to just write some unstructured thoughts here to get them out of my head and into the light of day. Goats, feel free to scrutinize this submission, but there's no need for personal attacks. No one should take the following too seriously, unless of course it really, really resonates with your own thoughts and experiences. I'm not providing any evidence, so don't expect academic rigor here. If you aren't willing to engage this post on my terms, maybe ignore it, or at least don't expect me to respond to your complaints.
Thought #1: Feminists really do want to destroy all men and all they hold dear.
The ultimate goal of modern feminists isn't the mere subjugation of men. Their goal is to destroy masculinity in the near term, and ultimately maleness itself in the long term. Modern feminists ideals favor a world without any male children at all. Biological arguments for the two sex system nature has provided be damned: science will provide ways to continue humanity without the need for sexual reproduction.
Modern feminists view maleness itself as an aberration, or mutation. In their view, a world without men would be a better world in every way. The penis is nothing more than an overgrown clitoris: a mutation. There are examples of asexual reproduction in the natural world, and there's no reason humans can't use science to adapt ourselves to some such mode. Ideally, women shouldn't be required to carry the excess biological material inside their own bodies, but that can be addressed separately.
Thought #2: Anita Sarkeesian has polarized the environment around gamers, and maybe that's her goal.
If you wanted to persuade gamers they should be more accepting and respectful of women, how would you do it? You probably wouldn't do it by telling gamers, "Games are bad and you are bad for playing games." No? Me neither. :(
view the rest of the comments →
[–] effusive_ermine [S] 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
It's a way to divide people into smaller groups. Makes them easier to lead.
[–] 7853663? 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Yep. If you can trick people into identifying themselves just by what groups they belong to, then they'll be easy to control. You're no longer an individual with a complex personal history... you're a collection of the approved categories that you check off. It's demoralizing and disempowering, and robs people of their actual personal history.
Then you just need to control that group identity, which is a lot easier than trying to control how millions of individuals see themselves and others. It fits in with many people's natural pattern matching heuristics, so it's fiendishly easy to teach, and various groups have used it in different forms through history. The modern variant that's so popular in the western university system may be the most insidious, though.
[–] effusive_ermine [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Don't forget the part where you accuse your enemies of doing exactly what you're doing, and then provoke conflicts so you can claim to be the victim. It works.