Anita Sarkeesian made another video series, "Ordinary Women", for which she, of course, e-begged for a hefty sum of money. $200 thousand this time. When she started the fundraising campaign, the videos had actually already been shot, and the campaign was for "post-production".
The series is about famous historic women. So, where did the $200000 go? Maybe each episode is a full 1-hour documentary about a particular famous woman from history? Or, at the very least your standard 22-minute format?
No. The episodes are 3 to 5 minutes long.
Ok, then maybe there are lots and lots of episodes? Like 50 or so? That would explain why so much money is needed for "post-production".
No. There are 5 episodes.
So five episodes, each 3 to 5 minutes long. Surely the visual effects are awesome, with that money?
Once again, no. There are some graphics and extremely simplistic animations which you can do with basically any professional video editing software that costs $100 or even less. With even a modicum of searching you'll find amateur videos on YouTube with significantly more complex and involved visuals, which have been done on shoestring budgets by people on their own free time with their home PCs, using cheap or even free software.
Maybe the other production values of these episodes are very high, then? Well, no. Audio quality is poor, video quality is mediocre... There's nothing in them that you can't find in myriads of amateur videos, many of which are of much higher quality.
So, I have to ask, how much of those $200 thousand went into actually producing these five videos, and how much went into the pockets of the owners of this "non-profit" organization?
(A "non-profit" organization which, by the way, engages in political activism, which categorically disqualifies it from being classified as "non-profit", ie. tax-exempt, according to United States law.)