I wasn't joking when I said she was a con artist. She's just milking money out of feminists with more money than sense.
I don't see the problem.
She fucked over SJW crowd (and J. Sawyer). She's a total BRO
I wouldn't really say she fucked them over. Scammed them, yes, but her donators got what they wanted; the warm fuzzy feeling of paying money to fight the patriarchy. If the KS backers had actually cared about the videos she promised to make they would be getting angry now over the lack of delivery, but almost nobody is complaining.
True, but in almost all political movements once a particular project gets enough focus that people start seeing their ideological reflection in it, many individuals find it difficult to back away from anything other than 100% support and 100% confidence in it (see the way in which climate change, a science issue first raised in 1896 and utterly apolitical until about 15 years ago, has now divided so neatly over left-right lines - truly bizarre given the apolitical nature of the thing being studied; regardless of whether it's true or false, you'd expect to have only a minimal relationship between someone's views on, say, centralisation v deregulation, or tarrifs v free trade...let alone on whether gay marriage should be allowed).
Her KS backers are only a portion of her supporters, and I wouldn't be surprised if the loudest voices that dominate discussion didn't give a dime to her work. The project has become an ideological mirror to them, so people are worried that calling her out will be seen as attacking the principles the project claims to support. Others just wanted an ideological mirror and have gotten it, exactly as you suggest - especially if only a small proportion of the people talking up the project actually gave money to it.
This is magnified greatly when something becomes a disputed/'hotbutton' issue that people are really invested in. You might expect people who are financially orr emotionally invested to be the ones with the greatest interest in calling the project out, but they don't. Because 'the other side' is just as enthral to groupthink, they've started combining ideological opposition with raging on every alleged practical error - both sides end up just throwing random groups of claims together that individually seem to support their view, with no thought to whether those groups of claims are even consistent. Practical misgivings thus become indistuinguishable from ideological opposition, and everyone assumes that anyone who identifies a practical failing must also oppose the project's principles, and that anyone who says 'well, actually, that isn't an error after all' must support the project's principles.
Then when misgivings are raised by people who undeniably support the project's principles, the standard response is silence, as though vociferously attacking one's ideological opponents is enough to rebut the practical concerns of one's ideological friends.
And when the misgivings of impeachable supporters becoming too great to ignore, people just back away quietlly until a project drops from public consciousness.
I actually suspect that if more people backed her for the 'warm feeling of supporting a cause', rather than as something to file ranks and go to battle for, they'd be a lot quicker in calling her out over where the money has gone.