Whenever the feminist games-critic and survivor of countless outraged misogynist stalkers Anita Sarkeesian’s name is invoked, there follows a flood of men who want to explain that she brought it on herself, that she isn’t a gamer, that she isn’t a good critic, and assorted related rubbish.
Indeed, if you mention that Sarkeesian’s critics haven’t got two coherent arguments to rub together and are obviously motived by sexism and denial that their favored pastime is riddled with casual violence and sexual violence against women, you, too, are accused of being part of the Sarkeesian cabal, or a dupe of her feminine wiles, or of “white knighting” (which is misogynist-creep-code for “man who doesn’t believe women are inferior and justly subjugated to men”).
In this excellent New Statesman piece, Ian Steadman picks apart the many arguments raised by Sarkeesian’s critics, painstakingly explaining the many ways in which they have (seemingly willfully) entirely missed the point:
