Because I think this is necessary.
While I have little respect for Anita Sarkeesian as a public personality, I do not recognize her as someone worthy of either mockery or admiration, much less hatred. Therefore, I see no reason to have a topic specifically for her as an individual.
*snip*
Okay. How are we supposed to react to this?
Get outraged over her claim that school shootings are ALWAYS commited by men? Sure, she did state in another tweet that "only" 98% of school shooters are male, something you know very well since
it was present in the image you coincidentally edited out... but I guess a sweeping generalisation
in a format limited to 140 characters is still an unforgivable crime.
Perhaps that book she's promoting is one we are supposed to know and hate? Apparently not, since you claim not to know the name of its author Dr. Allan Johnson..
What about her thesis that "ideas of toxic masculinity" are to blame for school shootings? I guess you could construe that as misandry...
Or maybe it's the very use of the word "patriarchy" that should have us up in arms.
Because Anita used a tragic shooting to plug a book that quoted her.
... oh.
I mean, self-promotion in a perfectly relevant context is already such a HUGE breach of ethics. But promoting a book because she appears in the cover of the latest edition, therefore increasing her visibility to people that are
already following her? The fiend! The witch! She should be burnt at the stake for this!