Oh great, another misogynist made a misogynistic video about her (based on a fake tweet) and lost a sponsor because of it and then reconciled with her when his subscribers increased due to the controversy... Never mind the general irony that it’s somehow bad when you go after a
male streamer's revenue sources but totally okay when you go after a female streamer's revenue sources (it’s not sexism it’s just because she’s attractive! /s). Yes no double standards here
If you’re going to call someone "toxic" while you’re being accused of denigrating women it’s probably best not to use a guy who has a YouTube channel where almost all of the content is devoted to (drumroll please you’ll never guess) denigrating women. This guy literally gets up every day to make fun of female streamers...
It'sAGundam is a comedian, culture critic, streamer, and YouTuber vlogger who is mostly known for making YouTube rant videos and news about criticizing the
knowyourmeme.com
Popular streamer Pokimane, has become notoriously known for threatening to go after YouTuber ItsAGundam's sponsors. ItsAGundam has released a video where he reveals that Pokimane and him have now officially reconciled.
www.sportskeeda.com
also about you calling that guy for lying.
I didn’t call him out for lying to people — I called him out for sexual harassment. I hope you appreciate the difference.
from my standpoint it sounds like he was being manipulated.
I guess he was being manipulated when he got drunk and crawled into his roommates bed and started groping her while she asked him to stop and leave
That must be why he admitted that his behavior was inappropriate and reconciled with his accusers. Sounds right he was definitely being coerced by these women to admit that he harassed them much sense made here very good so beautiful
Though the Fedmeister thing is just one peice of the first article i listed. She lied to try and get another streamer kicked out of their residence who she didnt like.
Really? Now we’re surprised that a bunch of attention-obsessed 20-something internet celebrities living in a house don’t get along... Wait, I think I’ve seen this show before, pretty sure I’ve lived in this situation, too. I mean, half the reason they moved in together was probably so that they would have more content...
Have you ever considered why you care about this at all? Why are you so interested in Pokimane's quarrels with her roommates? Why do you mention her vagina when talking about her? Are you a huge Kingston fan? What does all of this say about you?
If you’ll read the article you posted you’ll notice that that the accusation you mention in this post isn’t warranted in any way (except that a serial abuser says so), argues that said abuser
also wanted to kick them out, and, again, is only corroborated by a serial abuser...
Like I said, maybe she is a shitty person. It would not be hard for me to believe that a lot of internet celebrities are self-obsessed narcissists with little regard for others. Not that I wouldn’t feel extremely lucky and love to pay my bills by streaming all day... Hell, if I thought I could make money on onlyfans/modeling/wasn't ashamed of my body, I totally would... Wouldn't you?
But that doesn’t mean that sexual harassment isn’t sexual harassment, misogyny isn’t misogyny, etc. If you want to hate her for having profited off of a career that probably shouldn’t exist, fine (although a totally lame pasttime), but no need to be sexist about it. It's not like there aren't hundreds of other people, mostly male, who make money playing video games all day or podcasting with their friends. We could go on to sports, too, or music, or artists, or people who make fidget spinners, and all of the media that goes into supporting and promoting this work -- but why be so hateful? Who gives a shit? And, frankly, I like all of those things and appreciate the labor that goes into it, even if I think most of these things shouldn’t be as valued (I mean $) as much as they are in our societies when compared to other things.
If you want to hate her because she has breasts and a vagina, that’s fine, too, but it is what it is — misogyny.
Your eyes seem to be focused on a weird place. If you want to talk about objectifying women maybe take a look at eastern European women being forced into sex work in Germany en masse (some reports claim more than a hundred thousand victims right now, and that's just Germany!). This and similar girls get corporate sugar daddies just for showing some skin. But sexual slavery in western countries is not such an attractive topic to research, innit?
I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, I am aware that sex trafficking exists across the globe. It exists here, in NYC, too. Michigan is notorious for it, and Florida is no slouch. It's true -- I don't have to look very hard at all to acknowledge that women are oppressed the world over (didn't I just list a bunch of examples in my last post?). What is your point beyond showing that women are exploited for their sexuality?
Also, how is it objectifying?
Because society objectifies women? If "sugar daddies" didn't objectify women for their sexuality then the woman you are talking about wouldn't exist... Blame the daddies, not the women -- it's not their fault men are attracted to them and are willing to support them.
I spent almost fifteen years on the university, learning by day and working by night just to support myself on any reasonable level. I spent unreasonable amounts of money and time to improve my qualifications. A woman I grew up with has no education, no skills, no ambition above finding a rich guy. And yet she makes more than me, just for showing her body on the Internet.
Yeah, and male models exist, and male porn stars exist, and they make great money. The wealthiest actors are, more often than not, traditionally attractive. I'm sure you've been turned down for jobs and promotions because there were what-are-seen-as traditionally "more attractive" or "more charming" male competitors, despite perhaps being a better candidate.
Sex work is labor. Work on your body, get comfortable with it, and you, too, can make money on onlyfans. Hell, a lot of people in sex work aren't even traditionally attractive, meeting all sorts of consumer demands that totally undermine your claims about beauty.
And, more importantly, a hypothetical female coworker of yours, who is doing the exact same work, makes less money, is less likely to get a promotion, and is more likely to have to perform additional labor in the form of social reproduction tasks at work (getting coffee, handling the lunch order, etc) and potentially outside of it (raising children, cooking and cleaning for the family, etc), while having to deal with sexual harassment (81% of women), sexual assault (50%), sexual assault (30%), and rape (20%). Blame capitalism, not women, because they actually (objectively, according to all data) have to work harder than you to achieve what you have.
It's me who has to pay child support (in taxes) for women
No, you don't, at least not in the US. Child support is paid for by the paternal father. AFAIK no citizen's tax money goes to child support.
who just don't feel like working so they have a baby or two and live on government support.
If you want to make a criticism about welfare, fine, but don't pretend that welfare and poverty aren't issues that affect both men and women, or that poverty doesn't disproportionately affect women.
But, more, if you had two children to raise and no spouse to support you, would you have been able to get that degree? Would you be able to hold down a job? What does your hypothetical say about the father who isn't paying child support? He's more oppressed than the mother?
Women, due to traditional general roles and, again, sexism, are asked to perform a ton of labor for the sake of social reproduction. There's no need to pretend that parenting isn't a laborious, time-consuming task that is essential for society. Respect your mothers.
If anything, exploitation goes both ways. Yes, some men treat women as sexual objects, but even more women treat men as mobile ATMs. I'd say humans are just a shitty species in general.
Yes, exploitation goes both ways, but you are insane if you actually think there are more golddiggers than people objectifying women lol. Like, really, how did you come to this formulation? How many sugar daddies are out there?
Hint: I think it might have to do with your being interpolated into a patriarchal society, like all of us, that devalues women, seeing them as sex objects made for raising children while simultaneously holding that same sexuality against them.
Double-post! Almost 8 hours later, but now I’ve had some drinks, so some exciting content ahead!
I have no will towards (either) of you, and doubt you actually hate women, but your arguments beg the questions, so, in the spirit of the enlightenment and friendly curiosity, here are a few more:
To that effect, if gold diggers are a phenomena that exists, why aren’t there more sugar mommas? Why aren’t there more female billionaires? Surely a society that values sexuality so much that women can make a living off of it would have also produced sexy female titans of industry? I wonder why women have trouble reaching the upper echelons of commerce? Hmm what’s going on here etc
Also, following your logic, if every woman who is wealthier than you is the benefactor of a) their sexuality and b) wealthy men, I have to ask, how much do you make? It sounds like things aren’t ideal, so I’ll guess, as a hypothetical and with no shade in your direction (sincerely hope that you are happy and healthy and ideally in love), <$60k? Does this mean that every woman who is married to someone who makes more than that (or, alternatively, let’s say $120k, since there are two primary spenders), is a golddigger?
If we’re talking $60k, we’re talking about less than the median household income in the US, which means that we (well, you) are arguing that more than 1/2 of the household couples in the US consist of at least one “hot” (because they’re using their attractiveness as leverage) gold digger. Having met one or a thousand moms in my life, I think this is unlikely, both because $60k a year split between adults is hovering above poverty, even without children, and because most people just aren’t hot (and smart) enough to run a ruse on a dude lol (shoutout to all the moms; you don’t need me a degenerate like me to explain your beauty and value to you
).
Are you calling my mom someone who used her sexuality to exploit my dad’s (totally legitimate /s) sexual desires in order to exploit (or at least benefit from) him financially lol? Is your mom a gold digger, too? I imagine something like, I don’t know, half of our moms are gold diggers
If we’re talking $120k, then you mean 15% of households, which is certainly not “most women.” Aside, it’s actually on par with a teacher’s or nurse’s salary (if we divide by two, since someone has to not have a job in the gold digger scenario). I get it, though, I think teachers and nurses are inherently hot, too.
Finally, I just realized, and the reason for the double-post — did you really just argue that victims of sex trafficking are “sugar babies?”
By that logic, women who are abducted, primarily in their youth, and forced into prostitution against their will are just trying to find a wealthy benefactor? Are you sure this is what you meant to say? They chose that route because it was easier than all of the hard work you had to do? Are we for real?
And, if we are, then aren’t gold diggers amazing? Here they are, escaping sexual slavery and a life of rape by taking advantage of the patrons of their abductors and manipulating them into thinking they actually love them?! Shout out to gold diggers, that’s fucking baller, mental fortitude like a motherfucker, I don’t think I could handle that profound of a sexuality
nypost.com
www.cnn.com
