http://www.amazon.com/Hells-Angels-Strange-Terrible-Library/dp/067960331X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369918976&sr=8-1&keywords=Hell%27s+angels

I read this book, and it was a pretty enjoyable read, I've no idea how thruthfull the information is (I guess it depends if you consider Hunter S. THompson as someone to take seriosuly or someone who hits the bottle a bit too much and has strange ideas about reality) and I guess by now it's very much outdated. But it has some interesting information on how these clubs started and their influence on their surroundings.

Maybe European Hell's Angels are different than the ones in America? I can see, in your culture, only under 18 people become violent over insults but maybe that is not the case with 1%ers in the USA. Different cultures here, different environment.

Members of different clubs are much more likely to be attacked, even if they just ask for a cigarrete.
Younger members are more willing to prove they belong to the club, and assume that beating up someone will get them accepted.
A member in good standing of a club doesn't need to prove himself, unless asked to.

Probably because she's self entitled and deliberately ignoring aspects that don't agree with the conclusion that she wishes to make.

Plus, at least in the US, women are pretty much spoiled rotten with special rights and treatment. This goes way above and beyond things like Title IX that help even out the playing field to an educational system that devalues and denigrates men while tripping over itself to make women feel welcome.

As such, when there's a topic that discusses it, it's already poisoned it because the topic is about somebody that's best ignored.

I don't get it either. It's like everyone has a bloody telephone pole up their asses over even a mere mention of Anita Sarkeesian. Disagreeing with or simply disliking her videos is one thing, but with the sheer amount of hatred she gets, you'd think she's responsible for the holocaust or something.

Sigh, people are idiots.

If you've seen the videos, then it should be pretty obvious why we hate her. She's a prima donna princess that's furthering the myth that women are being oppressed, primarily in the US. Yes, women historically haven't had many options and that continues, but not in the US and she does a huge disservice to people seeking equality with her vapid and shallow analysis.
Her videos are specifically calibrated to evoke that sort of a response. I don't have the links, but if you look at her career path, she's not a feminist, she's more of a professional troll.

: P

You just don't appreciate all the different cultures we have in the US. What are you, one o' them furreners?

That was my point. I simply used fucking as the example since that was the word Keeveek used, but my point is the same. Most people don't get angry at what others have when our own needs are being met. When our needs are not being met however AND we see the needs of others are, sometimes in spades, THEN we get angry.

I have big issues with games frequently restricting us to playing what I call YHMWCM (Young Hetero Middle-class White Christian Males). I want to play women. I want to play Latin. I want to play gay. I want to play old. I want the ability to make my own character, to CHOOSE what I want to play. There's nothing wrong with _A_ game making you play a YHMWCM, but it's damn frustrating when almost every game does that.

I'm a gay man, and out of my entire life I have yet to play a single game where the hero is gay. Not once. Attitudes of people like Straight Male Gamer anger and depress me. Not only do we get shat on in reality, but we get shat on in games as well. Can't we have the steering wheel just once? Can't we get to enjoy living out our fantasies? The view that we can't even have crumbs off the table because hetero males deserve everything is just...

As of Mass Effect 3, Shepard can be gay if you want. I think Dragon Age: Origins and Dragon Age 2 had gay romance options too.

Sorry, I guess it is my lack cultural knowledge which makes me fail to assume that my partner would much more likely watch Angelina Jolie than Brad Pitt. My mistake.

Maybe the vid I posted earlier to JMich would appeal to you?

Which is an interesting factor. As conversation in this thread died about the content of her videos, I was thinking of raising the subject of how her and the videos themselves have been treated. How her videos have been flagged and pulled, how her accounts have been hacked, the threats she's received, the slew of venom directed at her. And does the overwhelming wave of hostility actually validate her position?

I was going to, but was too lazy to make a proper go of it.

Whatever floats ya boat.

Although a few things I can't quite let go:
1) " That has nothing to do with the damsel in distress trope. "

As I recall (although there is no way I intend to waste any more of my life watching a Tropes video to double check), Sarkessian does describe the damsel as (effectively) being male property that is passed around in the great game of patriarchy, or some such. The response video suggested a different interpretation. But I strongly suspect that different interpretations isn't what Sarkessian is after. Or her fans/acolytes for that matter.


2) "Why? Why can't she be someone who can fight evil (through brains or brawn or unfaltering wisdom and elegance?)?"

That... has nothing to do with the set-up (as described in the quote you posted from the video) of Zelda as a character. What you are talking about (if I understand this correctly) is Zelda's response to the evil she is subjected to, yes? I cannot answer that, as I do not know a great deal about Zelda. One possible suggestion? She does, but much like with Peach, when a thromping, stomping bad guy comes along, she has to rely on her army. Or, in Zelda's case, Link.


3) "The fact that there are a examples of games which don't involve the trope, doesn't lessen the relevance of the trope."

That rather depends. If Sarkessian was after presenting a balanced view point, then there would have been more examples in her video of games that do not feature the trope. You know, to say 'this is how it's done'. Or, rather, to show she actually did some research.

The fact that (as I recall) Sarkessian barely acknowledges any exceptions exceptions suggests either a distinct lack of research, or a huge amount of bias. In fact, I do believe that the history she gives concerning the development 'Starfox Adventures' has been shown to be somewhat lacking. Which makes you wonder what she spent $160,000 and nine months doing, considering she had already created at least half a dozen other 'Tropes' videos before the kickstarter.


4) "I will try to look at some of the videos but the lack of critical thinking (and in this video the implication that critical thinking is somehow bad) hurts my brain..."

Uh huh...


But hey, whatever. I'm off to play some games. They probably won't meet with the approval of the Supreme Arbitress of Equality, but... frankly, who gives a smeg?

If thats true, then I hope you know that people like you, who hate her, are the reason for her popularity. Without all the outrage I certainly would never have heard of her, and I bet most of those who donated the 150 grand wouldn't have either.
There are tons of trolls on youtube, why does she get so much of your attention? I am only interested because of your hatred.

Note that every answer on this subject contributes a small amount to her publicity, which I don't mind. I think you do.