#gamergate davis aurini drama kings evil SJWs grandiosity gross incompetence internecine warfare jordan owen men who really shouldn't be making movies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed white men PUA sarkeesian! schadenfreude

Oh my Lorem! The Sarkeesian Effect premiere was an even more glorious fiasco than we could have possibly imagined

This popcorn is delicious indeed.
This popcorn is delicious indeed.

Last night was the grand premiere of The Sarkeesian Effect (Team Jordan Owen Edition), and the response from critics and audience members alike has been overwhelming!

That video of crickets has gotten more than 3,344,825 views on Youtube. That’s 371,647 times the number of people who apparently showed up at the Sarkeesian Effect premiere/#GamerGate Meetup at the Landmark Midtown Art Cinema in Atlanta last night.

Yep. According to the organizer of the #GamerGate meetup, only nine people showed. Including the director.

Meanwhile, on Reddit’s Kotaku In Action subreddit, one of the main #GamerGate hubs, the excitement was palpable.


Even Jordan Owen — the director of this incarnation of the Sarkeesian Effect — was uncharacteristically quiet; his reports from the premiere consisted mainly of photos of the screen, evidently his attempt to prove to the critics that, yes, the film exists.

Those last two pics seem to suggest that the insidious “Sarkeesian Effect” that gave the film its title is Ms. Sarkeesian’s uncanny ability to cause her critics to wear plaid shirts vaguely similar to her own signature look.

Online, the only people excited about the event that I could find were an assortment of popcorn-munching critics of #GamerGate. And they were mostly excited about the discovery of the official Sarkeesian Effect website.

Sorry, I meant to say the discovery of ANOTHER official Sarkeesian Effect website.

You may vaguely remember the official website, unveiled several months back, an amateurish unfinished job, with crappy graphics; the links on the front page to the film’s trailer, press coverage, Sarkeesian Effect wallpapers (!), and a list of theaters showing the film (!!) all led to this page:


And they still do.

Owen says that this unfinished mess of a website is still the official Sarkeesian Effect website. But now it’s been joined by a second unfinished mess of a website that also seems to be staking a claim as the official Sarkeesian Effect website. It’s not clear if this new site is the handiwork of Davis Aurini, or if Owen hired someone to put it together and just forgot about it.

Weirdly, this last option seems the most probable. Given that the site was promoting the premiere last night — a premiere of Owen’s version of the film, which Aurini had disavowed in advance — it seems unlikely that Aurini had anything to do with it.

While a teensy bit slicker than the original, the new site isn’t quite ready for public consumption. Here, for example, are the bios of some of the famous NAMES interviewed in the film.


Yes, that’s right: Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry’s standard dummy text ever since the 1500s …

Also, Karen Straughan — the blabby FeMRA videoblogger and “Honey Badger” — is actually three women sitting next to each other.

Alas, the now-feuding “filmmakers” behind the “film” don’t fare any better themselves. In addition to giving both of them the Lorem treatment, whoever made the site also managed to misspell Aurini’s last name.


Clearly, from now on, Davis Aurini will be known as Davis-a-rooni.

Even the site’s Quick FAQs section has an impressive Lorem ratio.


And, yes, it is true that FILM starring NAME, NAME and NAME, has been featured on MEDIA.

This site, as, er, wildly optimistic about the commercial prospects of The Sarkeesian Effect as the old site, also includes a link to theaters showing the film. But instead of leading to a “Coming Soon” page, the new site links instead to …  a blank page on Google Docs.



I can only hope that the film itself — presumably headed ultimately for a YouTube release — lives up to this amazing website.

Sorry. I mean BOTH films live up to BOTH websites.

H/T — @tortoiseontour, who alerted me to the website and pointed out the misspelling of Aurini’s name.


272 replies on “Oh my Lorem! The Sarkeesian Effect premiere was an even more glorious fiasco than we could have possibly imagined”

tldr: When you’re being told you’re being mansplainy, don’t take it as a barrier to conversation caused by your gender. Take it as a (likely) valid criticism about your tone or attitude.


It was awkward the last time, too. And I’m pretty sure there was a time before that, but that was before *my* time so I can’t really comment. Basically there is a reason I am ticked off and that is why I am sounding angrier and tealer than normal. : P

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)says:


There seems to be a pattern here, then. A pattern maybe someone should examine a bit more thoroughly before repeating it. And stop being so stubborn about it and just accept and try to work on not repeating said patterns. /passive aggressiveness

Also, I really need to watch the Hobbit. Like, right now. For reasons.

Don’t you judge me.

I was the one who originally leapt from Devil’s Advocate to accusations of bad faith here, so although others (kirby, WWTH, Orion) have already covered it pretty well, I’d like to set the record straight:

I was objecting to the specific form “just playing devil’s advocate” – when the person saying it is new to the discussion and hasn’t been invited to take on that role. I’m aware of its usefulness to thoroughly test a popular view. But I’m sceptical of the disclaimer that “I don’t believe this myself, I’m just arguing as an intellectual exercise”, when there’s the possibility that they just don’t want to be seen to hold an unpopular view.


Yeah, GoM goes through cycles and has been doing so for, what, almost a year now? Great and thoughtful poster, angry mansplainy troll, great and thoughtful poster, angry mansplainy troll…

The worst one was when he “Realised” something (I forget what) and paraded it around like he’d solved sexism forever… Until a bunch of us pointed out that we’d all told him exactly the same thing a dozen times. He just hadn’t noticed because wimminz with ladybrains.

(And after finally getting some damn sleep, seems I was right to take that as GoM ‘splaining again and wasn’t just having my opinion coloured by his earlier cycles.)

But I think the success of feminism is so important that if I think I can say something that might advance the cause of feminism, I am willing to be considered an arrogant mansplaining doucheweasel.

First thing first: I do not consider you, and never have, an arrogant mansplaining doucheweasel.

I think you are an intelligent and sensitive person, who sometimes relies on privilege, like we all do at some point.

What I found interesting about this phrasing is that it reveals a paradox which feminist men (and privileged allies of any oppressed group) often encounter, and I think it is heart of the matter being discussed.

By which I mean: the real problem with mansplaining, is not that the man remains ignorant, and it’s not that it’s condescending and annoying and usually wastes the time of those who have less time to waste.

Those are problems, but the main one is: it silences women. It reinforces the dynamic by which we all make more space for men’s voice than for women’s.

So, I think it is great that you are willing to risk being called out when mansplaining.

The thing is, even if you are right about the importance of what you are saying, WHO is saying it and HOW is saying it and TO WHOM is saying it are all equally important.

And women being able to speak for ourselves, in our own terms, with our own words to describe what we live, is way more important than anything a man can say.

Because the feminist movement advances through action, way more than it advances through words.

(Words are important, especially in comment sections, but I’m speaking of the broader picture here).

Hence the paradox: even if your words might feel important, if the actions are going the opposite way, then you’re actually holding us back.

It is important to express your views and to transmit your knowledge. But it’s equally important to mind you power and how you might -unwillingly- use it to silence people.

Feminism is important, not only because it brings new ideas, but because those ideas belong to and are expressed by women. It’s not only important that we learn certain concepts and ideas, it’s important that we learn it by ourselves.

So, actually advancing the movement would have more to do with bringing women’s unheard voices to the table, making sure you actually understand what they are saying, making sure all women in the conversation feel as comfortable as possible when sharing their thoughts.

The people who need to listen to what you yearn to explain, are other men. With them, you can explain all day long, if you will. They have the time. They have the energy. Go for them!

Women don’t need a lot of teaching from men, as much as we need help to stop the violence against us so we can do the learning and teaching among ourselves.

Even if at a certain point it might seem like you could show a woman something she can’t see at that moment, believe me it’s way more important that she can learn about it by herself.

It is true that we, as women, are excluded from knowledge. But the way to fix that is not to hand knowledge down to us, but rather, that each woman can create her own knowledge, in her own times and opportunities.

We don’t get to that point by learning things from men.

We get to that point creating spaces where we can learn without having to worry about violence, about the conversation being dominated by men, even about being interrupted.

That’s the task at hand. I hope I helped you understand where I’m coming from.

@ Lux

That’s some interesting thoughts, and for what it’s worth (although obviously a blokes approval is irrelevant) I agree with you.

I do have one query about this point though:

It is true that we, as women, are excluded from knowledge

What knowledge are you referring to here? I’m assuming it’s not how the world works for women generally; you obviously know that better than any man can; even the most empathic.

Are you referring to the inner workings of the patriarchy? The reason I ask is that I would suggest it’s one time it would be helpful to listen to men. Not because we have some great insights but just as an intelligence gathering exercise.

I don’t want to suggest there’s some great gender war going on (although I wouldn’t disagree with anyone who thought there was) but as Sun Zsu might have put it “Knowing your enemy is half the battle”.

Women are often excluded from areas where men make decisions, whether that be the board room or the golf course. Knowing what takes place behind closed doors can be invaluable at times for formulating a strategy.

Perhaps I’m over applying the techniques of the intelligence services here, but a lot of military failures have arisen because people tried to form their own opinions as to what was going on in the enemy camp. A mole or even an indiscrete insider can be a valuable resource.

Apologies if I missed your point entirely; I often do that.


*high five*


I should add this before the usual suspects jump in to accuse us of BEING MEAN and BEING CLIQUEY and EATING OUR OWN… No. On a site as diverse as this one, accidental ‘splaining of one sort or another is bound to happen once in a while. Pobody’s nerfect and all that. The thing is, usually, when ‘splaining is called out, the ‘splainer immediately backs down and apologises. That’s awesome, that’s a learning experience, and we’ll never hold that against them (well, past maybe a little friendly teasing =P). Indeed, an apology always makes me respect them even more than I did beforehand.

GoM doesn’t apologise. He doubles down, always with these page-long paragraph-free rants that I can’t even friggin’ read with my nonexistent vision, mansplaining about mansplaining and why his mansplaining doesn’t count as mansplaining and… *my head a splode*

And that’s why we might seem harsh here. Because we’ve been here, we’ve done this, and he never fucking learns.


Exactly. Actually, I may have been there for a couple of the incidents, though I seem to be unable to find the “thing people had already been telling GOM.” (Do you have a link? I remember it, but can’t find it.)

@GOM, if you’re still around

Since you left a kinda weird non sequitur that didn’t address any of my points…

Part of being an ally is not going off on a huge “what about the menz” rant when you are called out. Your feminism has a different goal than ours, fine. Stop pretending that mansplaining is nobly saving us from ourselves.

There. Same points, less teal, more annoyed.



I liked your approach, I… I sort of dig the intelligence stuff you’re bringing up. You got me thinking about it.

Anyway, I was referring to a more ground level knowledge, as in: women were often banned from basic education, either by law or by tradition.

Women make up most of the population with no income, this usually also means: no education, and most of the population in unregistered labor: again, harder to get education.

Women are also excluded from most workplaces, by law or by harassment, which also means less opportunities to learn.

Nowadays, women have access to information like no generation of women before us. We have internet, those of us who are lucky enough can even access higher education levels.

But “knowledge” in a wide sense, is still mainly withheld and directed by men. They make the rules on education and work and who gets them and how much.

In the end, it’s always about overturning the system of oppression.

Education, access to knowledge and the possibility to create content (in any field: culture, technology, any industry, anything really) have been largely unavailable for women, for being women.

That’s why I think it is WAY more important for men to make space for women, than for men to say the “right” thing. It’s the system we’re trying to change, not one specific term or line of thought.

Paulo Freire, Brazilian teacher, preached that education is not about giving information to people, it’s about helping people be able to create their own information. (We could make a metaphor about the difference between giving a child a book, or teaching them to write their own).

It’s a bit like software, too: you may have a computer, and use it, but only programmers can create something new with it, even if it’s the same tool.

Women didn’t get to “program” culture yet -not as a group, even though, as a group, we are much more included in the “use” of culture than ever before.


I’m not very good with names and faces, and I haven’t noticed the cycles you mention, though of course I trust your eye more than mine.

I guess that gives me an advantage of some extra patience?

I’m glad you brought it up, anyway.

@ Lux

I see what you mean now; and you got me thinking too. It probably says something that I didn’t think it could be anything as general as basic information and education but you are of course right.

Initially I thought “well, teaching is a field that seems open to women, in fact there’s a shortage of male teachers” (in the UK at least) but then I thought deeper. It’s true that I had a lot of women teachers in school but then I thought about higher education. I’ve had a lot of that (I’m educated beyond my capacity as a friend once put it 🙂 ) and once you get to that level the gender ratios do shift. Most of the Dons and Professors I’ve encountered have been men; and that’s in the field of law, which might be expected to be more open to women than say a STEM subject.

Even when there are women teaching, we still use a lot of books that were written by crusty old white men. They’ve been updated over the years and a lot of the new editors are women, but there’s a tradition that the major textbooks keep the names of their original authors, and of course they set the original agenda.

Maybe we need a ‘year zero’ approach where we think about starting education from scratch, but this time with women’s full input?

I wonder what the result would be. Would history still be dominated by men? Was it the case that because of the power structures prevailing at the time, men’s contribution to history is greater. Or is it more likely that male historians just airbrushed women from history anyway.

Well, you know my fascination for women like Boudicca so you can probably guess what I think the case would be.

It’s funny, one of the many reasons I don’t identify as a feminist (although I am generally pro-feminist) is that I’m not entirely into equality. I’d be quite happy to see the balance shift to a matriarchy. It’s only fair women get a turn at the top and I’d be very keen as to what the result would be.

Of course the fact that I would welcome a matriarchy and don’t feel threatened by the thought is probably a reflection on my comfort in my own privilege anyway. Wow, lots to ponder.

I love talking to you; you’re a real muse! 🙂

Maybe we need a ‘year zero’ approach where we think about starting education from scratch, but this time with women’s full input?

That would certainly be an interesting experience.

There’s still a paradox in there, because if every other power structure remains in place, men would still dominate the process, but on the other hand, how do we even apply in practice an approach like that, without taking down the power structures which caused the problem in the first place?

This is something I’ve been wondering about many possible policies. As a wannabe politician, this stuff gets lots of my thinking.

I’m not entirely into equality. I’d be quite happy to see the balance shift to a matriarchy. It’s only fair women get a turn at the top and I’d be very keen as to what the result would be.

Well, I usually don’t say it like you did, because the most frequent result would be all sorts of accusations.

But in fact, I do believe taking turns is a form of equality.

That “mind you don’t step one millimeter too far, or it’s not equality anymoooore!!!” mentality is very useful to scare feminists into compliance, but the worst it does is it drowns creativity.

There are many, many ways to approach equality. “Year zero” is a bit more obvioulsy equal, perhaps, but taking turns is definitely another.

Instead of trying to raise the % of women in the congress, we could add more seats and give them to women until we reach a 50% ratio!

I mean, my initial point was maybe you are into equality, but I would add, creativity is key to a wide and deep approach to equality, IMHO.

love talking to you; you’re a real muse!

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)says:

It kinda makes me sad that Grumpy has been on and off again mansplaining for so long. I hold everyone here to a higher standard than most. I expect in the very least when someone is called out that they apologize and try their best to not do it again.

I hold those standards even higher for people who have been here so long. They shouldn’t even be doing it in the first place; I shouldn’t have to see one slip up from people who have been here so long. They should know better than anyone.

@ Lux

Well, I usually don’t say it like you did, because the most frequent result would be all sorts of accusations.

Yeah, it’s interesting. When I do mention this (and guys realise I’m being serious) they actually enter into a discussion (“So how would that work?”, “Would there be quotas for men?” etc.) They might think it’s an outlandish idea but they’re willing to listen.

If I was generous I could suggest it’s an “Only Nixon could go the China” thing; but I suspect we both know the real reason.

I like Ruth Ginsberg’s thing about having 9 women on the Supreme Court. I know she was making a rhetorical point; but why is it seen as inconceivable?

One thing I’m curious to see is how different a matriarchy would be in practice. I mentioned on another thread (or possibly this one) that I didn’t see pacifism for example as an inherently female trait; I suspect that view comes around more from the way traditional gender roles have been enforced.

Would business ethos actually change or would it just be a case where a woman CEO would be described as assertive rather than bossy?

Only one way to find out; get writing your manifesto!


I’m actually ok with passing that torch onto you guys… Probably will be even more effective.

I’m allowed to dream of “Men for Matriarchy” and of course its radicalized branch “Male Tears for Misandry”…

Then us feminists would quietly work for equality while you get the spotlight, and when everyone is used to the idea, BAM! FEMALE WORLD DOMINATION!!!! MWAHAHAHAHA!!!

[insert matriarchy gif]

I would just like to say that I have seldom enjoyed spectating a conversation as much as I have the one between Luzbelitx and Alan here.

GoM: The women here have done a magnificent job of dissecting your conduct and showing why it was problematic, and where some of the issues are in your thinking. Go back and re-read some of their posts when your head isn’t hurting and you’ve calmed down from the initial, perfectly human grumpiness that sets in when anyone gets called out.

Since that was all covered by people more qualified than me, I’m going to address your original point head-on.

I am with you on the issue of muddying the definition of words, broadening them until every epithet just means ‘bad’ and ever superlative just means ‘good’ without any shades of meaning. I fought a months-long battle on a webcomic forum over the over-broad application of the word ‘bully’ to one of the primary characters, simply because there were lots of perfectly good words to critique her conduct that didn’t rely on a power-imbalance that didn’t exist between her and her target.

But that’s not what is happening here.

Instead, you’re arguing for a tightened use of “mansplaining”, one that is exclusive to issues of feminism and women’s experiences–despite the fact that the term was coined (per the story related earlier in the discussion) by a woman who assigned it the broader meaning you’re objecting to. It is accurately used any time a man takes it upon himself to presume superior experience or understanding of a subject than a woman, especially if there’s reason to believe otherwise.

The reason you see it most clearly in cases of feminism and women’s issues, of course, is because of that bolded section. But those are simply the cases easiest to identify, since a man explaining feminism and women’s issues to women is so blatantly absurd. (Note: Due to the diversity of human experience, there are even cases of this where it might be plausible; I’d accept David explaining feminism to Janet Bloomfield. But don’t mistake such outliers as a useful topic for discussion of the general principle.)

However, insisting that that’s the only applicable definition lets other mansplainers off the hook, letting them weasel their way around the accusation by insisting that it’s not mansplaining for, FREX, a typical gamergator to explain technical issues to an actual programmer who happens to be a woman. The underlying impulse is clearly the same: I have testicles, ergo I have all the logics. It’s a presumption that needs to die, and diagnosis is the first step to a cure.


That is perfect, sir!


Thank you, and I’m glad you didn’t mind all the teal deering. It wasn’t all intentional…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.