"AnonGamer" uncovers possible Anita Sarkeesian scandal

No, I don't like talking about her this much as much as you probably hate me bringing her up, but I thought this was very interesting to share. It popped up on N4G today (it was approved an hour ago on that site), and the original source is http://www.gamesreviews.com/news/08/internet-sleuth-cyberstalks-anita-sarkeesian-comes-up-with-scandal/ :

Net sleuth cyberstalks Anita Sarkeesian, comes up with scandal

If you’ve been on the internet for any length of time, it’s petrifying what people may be able to find out about you. This has been proven today by an internet sleuth who decided to turn his eye to Tropes Vs Women creator Anita Sarkeesian. Along with a variety of pictures and posts, he’s also linked her to telemarketing programs and to what he calls “junk science [and] social manipulation.”

It’s obvious, reading through “Anongamer’s” post, that he’s not a huge fan of Sarkeesian and that he’s trying to discredit her, but that doesn’t stop some of the things he’s uncovered being at least vaguely interesting. He seems to spend a lot of time focussed on the fact that she didn’t seem to mind “provocative” sexualised women just a few years ago (because her Flickr account has a variety of pictures of things she’s now pointing out as sexist), but that’s not really what’s important.

More important is her own attempts at making quick money through telemarketing and her link to Jonathan Mcintosh (her boyfriend), who Anongamer implies may be the one really pulling the strings on the Tropes Vs Women videos for his own personal gain.

By going through the various social media accounts of both Anita and Jonathan, Anongamer’s biggest surprise was how much they seem to travel. He asserts that both must have a decent amount of money behind them, which he feels is odd considering how the Kickstarter for Tropes Vs Women famously worked out.

There may well be the seeds of a scandal here, although it rather depends on how much you want to “get” Sarkeesian. It will definitely be worth seeing what else comes up, and maybe it’ll help to either calm or conclude some of the controversy involving her from over the last few months.

To read through the entirety of AnonGamer’s post, click here.

Not sure what's wrong with discrediting anyone if the resources are there to make a valid reason to convict someone of wrongdoing on that front, but be it as it may, I do like conspiracy stories, so I'll be looking to see if this fizzles out or if it becomes a full blown issue. If the latter, then....wow! Just...wow!

For the record, though, I don't know if the site that posted this article really wants this story to become any more than a fizzle with how they worded this. "Cyberstalk"? Talking about discrediting her as if it's necessarily a bad thing?

And I didn't read AnonGamer's post yet. It's a good bit of reading that I don't have time to do right at the moment. I might later on, though! There's a ton of links to things in what I skimmed through in it, though.

Grenade!

From that summary, sounds like a bunch of bullshit on AnonGamer's part. "Somebody has changed their opinion on something over the years? WHAT IS THIS BITCH HIDING!?"

Wait, what's the scandal again?

I read the "article" but I don't really understand? She likes to travel?

No, I don't like talking about her this much

Of course not which is why you ran here and told us about it! But I've heard this "scandalous news" before....and I expect six months from now some one else will post it again.

No seriously, I don't even get what's supposed to be scandalous. And I don't even like her. Can somebody tell me what the problem is?

...What's the scandal, exactly?

@abendlaender said:

Apparently the problem is that they had all this money though telemarketing schemes (best term I can come up with right now), so what was the reason behind Kickstarter? And also, if they know how to persuade people into buying stuff, then there could be a legit claim about them troll baiting on the Kickstarter video to get the kind of reaction they got so they could solicit money from people who felt pitied about the issue (I can't remember what other Kickstarter project people donated to based on pity: think it was Arma or some game project; it was widely publicized, too). That's what I'm getting from that. Definitely the former, the latter is depending on how far down the rabbit hole goes.

I remember when this topic was making its rounds last time also, I think some of these details aren't really relevant as far as her personal dating life and travelling. I still think the kickstarter pledgers who assisted in the original project may have some interest in these details but I don't quite understand what is driving people to witch hunt who have no pony in the race.

This is the dumbest.

I thought everyone knew about the teleconferencing whatever-it-was thing last year?

That she's creating the videos so that she can make a dollar and a cent was never really in debate. Was it? It's not a spare time cause, it's what she does to get money. It's not even that different from how most feminist media mavens get their money, though usually they either go through the government or charitable organizations for their salaries.

Ignore the waste of space article. The tumblr page is better as it is just a bunch of finds and a small thoughts for each. The ONLY thing on there I saw that even remotely resembles just a hint that she is a giant troll was the quote "“Performance can fuse together entertainment and social consciousness. With my costumes I like to play with social stereotypes and test the audiences boundaries. “.

The "scandal" is that evidently in the past she might have had some money from another business (I guess telemarketing?). So then the super sleuths go "oh my god, she had a ton of money in the past so why is she doing a Kickstarter?!"

It seems like good bookkeeping to separate funding into projects but that is just me. If I went to Kickstarter saying "Hey I want to do this thing which will cost $100k" does it really matter if I had $100k already saved up? Or does it only matter if I had $1000 saved up? Will people get irate if they find out my uncle is Richard Garriot (note: this is not true) and could have asked him instead? It is frankly none of their business beyond what was promised and delivered in the KS proposal.

Who cares? Really?

When will the afternoon movie be made, these movies love scandal.

You know what. That's just fair. Hey, it might not be the nicest thing to do but what's wrong with trying to get attention by any means necessary? If she set up a trap and the internet walked into it then good job Anita, that was really clever. That's basically how marketing works.

@irvandus: Not completely. If you think about it, there's the valid question of why she needed Kickstarter to begin with if he had all this money through other means. They have enough money to travel places, so what stopped her (or him or both of them) from using that same money to fund the project.

And think about it: haven't we've been asking where the 160,000 bucks was going to for the series if it seems to be just an HD version of what she's been doing throughout her run of the Feminist Frequency channel with fancier graphics?

Again, I'm not saying there's a there there just yet. The conspiracy theorist in me would love for there to be a juicy story in there (the moral side of me is scolding the conspiracy theorist for wishing that as we speak, by the way), and as someone who's seen how these sort of stories start in the past with various other well known people, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a start of something.

@darkpower: I think you're applying a framework to Kickstarters that doesn't exist. It's not exclusively for poor people, or people who couldn't afford to bankroll their projects entirely by themselves; it also allows people who want to raise awareness or gain investment in a project rather than risking their entire bank accounts on something. Having money doesn't disqualify someone from running a Kickstarter. And running a Kickstarter can also lead to a lot of PR gains or discussion about your project, even if you could've funded your project all by yourself. E.g. I guarantee that Spike Lee or that guy from Scrubs could've covered their own projects, but they went to Kickstarter to get a lot of free press. If people really had a problem with this these projects wouldn't get funded.

I'm not defending or criticizing the argument that this thread concerns, but the the blog in question was first posted yesterday.

So basically bullshit, got it. Should I flag this? I really want to.

There's no real "scandal" here, and I say this as a person who doesn't much like Anita Sarkeesian or her obsessive defenders.

That being said, there are a few interesting tidbits of information that in and of themselves mean nothing but I feel like should be remembered:

She once knew some sort of scam artist.
She used to not give a fuck about feminism.
She was way into public speaking for money before she got involved in this feminism stuff and was involved in some sort of classes/organization that trained people to find ways to draw people into tele-seminar stuff.

None of that really proves anything, although it is quite interesting, at least.

@spaceinsomniac: I didn't mean the article but the accusation was made before. Sorry if that was a bit ambiguous.

This seems like a non-story to me. Her interest in PR and marketing, her financial situation outside of the Kickstarter, and any penchant for travel and food seem pretty irrelevant.

@abendlaender: I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with his assessment. Just that that's what I believe he's trying to ask. I wish the story was a lot more descriptive of what he was trying to get at (I think the article was written by someone that is hoping this fizzles out for whatever reason given how it was worded), and I'll read the post in full later to see if anything holds water and what the issue is. I'm just guessing and predicting if this will be the War-Z of 2013 or not!

@rorie said:

I've always contested that there should be SOME further rules in place on Kickstarter to make sure that the money that does get donated goes to what the person asking for it is SAYING it will go to (this is way Kickstarter funded games aren't being so funded anymore: it's a bet and a risk with real money many are not willing to make anymore). I think it might be more of the why that is being asked here.

Eh, she's changed her opinions over the years and she would rather use specified donations than personal assets to fund a project if people are willing to donate.

I do like that when Anita Sarkeesian is involved, Googling somebody's name, business or alias and looking at public information qualifies as 'cyberstalking'. Remind me to tell every person who is dating that googling their date makes them a cyberstalker.

Who is Anita Sarkeesian?

Sounds like a creep running with a tenuous link so he can keep creeping.

lol

So basically "This woman has earned money in the past" is what I am getting out of this.

This.

And also: Just because at some point she might have had some money (also, just because she traveled a lot doesn't mean she was wealthy. I travel a lot and I'm sure as hell not rich. As long as the "internet sleugh" doesn't uncover some actual numbers this is all just pure speculation) that doesn't mean she still has it. Hell, maybe she spent all that money on traveling, so what? This is just an example of pretty normal things being blown up cause somebody wants someone else to look bad.

@brodehouse said:

That was what I was thinking! Like I said, whoever wrote the article clearly had an opinion about this that showed in the wording of it. Regardless of it's a valid opinion or not, and regardless of what eventually happens from this, bottom line is that the way this was written is further proof that about 60% of game journalism is crap!

I did check out the link, but its got a whole bunch of archived pages I have no interest in visiting. I mean who ever put this together certainly has an ax to grind. I think they are trying to show that her past conduct isn't consistent with someone who would now be producing content about females in gaming.

Why the fuck does anybody still give a shit about her? If you don't like what she has to say, fucking ignore her. Jesus christ.

Cause that's not how the internet works, apparently.

As some have already said, she could've just changed her mind.
Seen it from the "other side of things" and agreed with it and thought it was beginning to be a bit much?
I don't know, I don't really find it "scandalous"

Not really sure how "her kickstarter was a PR stunt, so what?" is a great defense of her work when one of the main criticisms of her is that she manipulates people with clever presentation of footage and meticulous wording to support her pre-existing notions and gain attention and fame for personal reasons.

Here's the thing I come out of this with: Even though most of the stuff in that link is irrelevant random stuff about her past associations, why exactly is it so difficult to believe this woman might be scamming people or using people for her own gain? The internet is riddled with examples of shit like that, and there's every indication that marketing, PR, "tele-seminar" bullshit, and social psychology is her bread and butter.

Why is this such a distant possibility to some people who seem to treat her as if she is above reproach, particularly when everything about her style and videos is less about "conversations with pop culture" and more about "preaching to you about how perfectly right I am, enjoy the censored comments and ratings."

I've been unemployed for the past two months and even I think this guy has way too much time on his hands. Besides, his "findings" of this "scandal" are all massive stretches or completely irrelevant. I don't see why people are so obsessed with this lady on either side. Who cares?

Also, the bias in the anongamer tumblr is hilarious and the links to other people cosplaying apparently is evidence? What?

@brodehouse- If you don't see the difference between googling someones name and spending hours upon hours of personal time researching a person then you're delusional. If that's what you do before a date then you're incredibly creepy.

@abendlaender: I probably wouldn't care if the money was shown to have gone to the project in question. Like, if you were a game developer that needed funds for a project, and you did have money to fund it yourself but you wanted to get the word out and give people a "share" of that project, then that would be okay. However, I would want to know that the money I give is going to go to, one, a project that will see the light of day, and two, that it's going towards what you say it's going to go to. If the project I see could be done by any Joe Blow in his basement somewhere when you're asking for, say, 100k, then I might want to ask why you needed so much. The reason the Kickstarter for the Skullgirls character was so successful was because they broke down, right then and there, what the money was needed for, and how much was needed for each part of the development of that character. I wish there was more of that kind of break down on KS projects so we're not going down this road as often as we do for them.

That could be what this guy is probably getting at. This whole thing would be funded anyway, even if she didn't get even a penny out of Kickstarter, because she allegedly had the funds to go ahead with it, and it might be more of a criticism about Kickstarter than her (which, if it is a rant against Kickstarter, then he's got a good bit besides Anita to work with, and I'll be right there on his side).

But he could also be asking if, because the guy knew how to get people to BUY something, if she was able to use his skills to drudge up the tactic of baiting a hate campaign to get the funds because they've seen how those things get the pity vote. That's a much more serious accusation, I know.

Again, I'm just guessing and bringing this up because I thought it was an interesting story about a controversial figure, and guessing of what he's actually accusing her of. I don't mean any ill will by it. I'm thinking the story will untimely hurt Kickstarter moreso than anything else.

Goddammit, internet... just stop. Even Anita Sarkeesian doesn't give as much of a shit about Anita Sarkeesian as her hardcore detractors do. (not targeting you, OP... just the people that spend days on end trying to dig up dirt on her, which ironically accomplishes nothing but getting her more fame and views)

Part of my issue of Kickstarter as a whole, is accountability. If Kickstarter projects are putting the crowd into the seat of the publisher - why not release some cost breakdowns - the same thing any publisher would want when laying down cash. This protects backers from scams, and projects from accusations of being scams.

I feel like many projects - especially game development projects - cost far more than the average backer thinks. Knowing how much it cost to produce and ship backer rewards - project materials, equipment, software, overhead, payroll - and especially taxes.

In this case Anita is certainly entitled to draw some money from the total as salary for time spent on the project, for example. Nobody should be expected to work for free, and expecting this from people doing creative work is a trend that should stop.

the scandal is actually she is being controlled by the lizard people via her earrings.

So she had another job... and she used the money from that job to travel, because she enjoys travelling?

Unless they're implying she's using the money from her Kickstarter, but I would expect a chunk of that money went towards paying herself a liveable wage while she researches and produces her videos. As long as she delivers the product she said she would, why would you care?

@grantheaslip: grasping anonymous tumblr is my new indie band.

@grantheaslip: Fair point. The only thing I find interesting about this otherwise vaguely creepy and irrelevant tumblr post is her history as some sort of tele-seminar/public speaking/marketing/social psychology wizard, and only because that history lines up with everything I take issue with in the presentation of her videos.

You're completely right that all of this is otherwise unnecessary for criticizing her work.

You see, stalking is not dependent on the amount of time spent researching a person's public behavior, it's dependent on invasions of privacy. So you when throw around words like 'stalk', and expect any reasonable person to take you seriously, you need to prove that stalking actually occured. Otherwise, all you're doing is making a mockery of anyone who actually has suffered stalking. You may as well refer to being called an asshole as being physically assaulted.