This is what online harassment looks like
Obscene images, hate sites and a game where people are invited to beat you up have been inflicted on Anita Sarkeesian.
By Helen Lewis Published 06 July 2012 9:30
When I first wrote about the sexist abuse of women online, collating the experiences of nearly a dozen writers, the response was largely positive. Many hadn't been aware there was a problem; they were shocked. Others had assumed that they were the only ones whose every word on the web was greeted with a torrent of abusive, threatening comments.
But a few reactions stood out, among them that of Brendan O'Neill, the Telegraph blogs section's resident contrarian. He wrote that feminist campaigners pointing this out was a "hilarious echo of the 19th-century notion that women need protecting from vulgar and foul speech". We were, he said, "a tiny number of peculiarly sensitive female bloggers" trying to close down freedom of speech.
The best response to that argument, incidentally, comes from Ally Fogg, who wrote recently:
What you fail to understand is that the use of hate speech, threats and bullying to terrify and intimidate people into silence or away from certain topics is a far bigger threat to free speech than any legal sanction.
Imagine this is not the internet but a public square. One woman stands on a soapbox and expresses an idea. She is instantly surrounded by an army of 5,000 angry people yelling the worst kind of abuse at her in an attempt to shut her up. Yes, there's a free speech issue there. But not the one you think.
I couldn't have put it better myself. As the months have gone on, and more "trolls" (or "online bullies", if you're a semantic stickler) have been exposed, the perception that what we're talking about when we talk about online harrassment is "a few mean comments" or an insult or two has grown.
On 12 June, I wrote about American blogger Anita Sarkeesian, who launched a Kickstarter programme to raise $6,000 to research "tropes vs women in videogames". Donating was - and I really can't stress this enough - completely voluntary. There are Kickstarters for all kinds of things: for example, a "dance narrative featuring some of NYC's most compelling performers that celebrates the pursuit of love and the joys of imperfection" doesn't sound like my kind of thing, but God Bless Them, they are 89% funded towards their $12,000 goal.
But a big swath of the internet wasn't prepared to live and let live in Sarkeesian's case, and began spamming her YouTube video comments with a pot-pourri of misogynist, racist and generally vile abuse. Each one individually was grim; together they constituted harassment. (You can read the full story in my blog here).
Since then, Anita Sarkeesian has been subjected to a good deal more harassment. Let's run through the list for anyone who still thinks this issue is about a few mean words.
Image-based harassment

This is the kind of stuff people have been sending to Sarkeesian's inbox, repeatedly, and posting on the internet in an attempt to game her Google Image search results. There have also been drawings of her in sexually degrading situations:

Both these sets of images are taken from Sarkeesian's blog post documenting the harassment (and are reproduced with her permission). They have been posted on the web generally, and also sent specifically to her Facebook page, Twitter account and YouTube channel. The second set show, in her words:
The first image depicts a woman drawn to resemble me who is tied up with a wii controller shoved in her mouth while being raped by Mario from behind. The second image is another drawing (clearly sketched to resemble me) featuring a chained nude figure on her knees with 5 penises ejaculating on her face with the words “fuck toy” written on her torso.
Hate sites
These take a couple of forms: either the creation of specific sites dedicated to trashing you (and again, to come up in Google searches of your name) or posting your details on established forums where haters like to hang out. In Sarkeesian's case, that has involved posting her phone number and address. It's hard to see that as anything other than an attempt to intimidate her: "We know where you live".
The interactive "Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian" game
This one is so incredible I had trouble believing it existed.

It's an interactive game, inviting players to "beat up Anita Sarkeesian".

As you click the screen, bruises and welts appear on her face.

I find this fairly disturbing - the idea that somewhere out there is a man - a 25-year-old from Sault Ste Marie, a city in Ontario, Canada, who was offended enough by Sarkeesian's Kickstarter project that he made this.
In the description accompanying the games, he adds:
Anita Sarkeesian has not only scammed thousands of people out of over $160,000, but also uses the excuse that she is a woman to get away with whatever she damn well pleases. Any form of constructive criticism, even from fellow women, is either ignored or labelled to be sexist against her.
She claims to want gender equality in video games, but in reality, she just wants to use the fact that she was born with a vagina to get free money and sympathy from everyone who crosses her path.
Some of the commenters on the game have expressed disgust, but not all of them. One wrote:

You are so right, sir. It's the execution which lets this game down.
Wikipedia Vandalism
I wrote about this in the initial post, so I'll be brief here: Sarkeesian's Wikipedia page was repeatedly hacked with crude messages and porn images, until it was locked. This went hand in hand with...
Hacking/DDOSing
Hacking is gaining entrance to someone's private data or website, while DDOSing - using "denial of service" attacks - involves sending a website's server so many requests to load the page that it crashes.
That's what happened to Sarkeesian's site as her story got shared around the world. This image was posted as a way of bragging about taking it down:

Personal Life
Sarkeesian is rare in sharing so much of the harassment that she has been subjected to -- and it's a brave choice for her to make. Every time I write about this subject, I get a few emails from women who've been through the same thing (and I'm sure there are men, too). They tell me much the same story: this happened to them, but they don't want to talk publicly about it, because they don't want to goad the bullies further.
If you were Anita Sarkeesian, how would you feel right now? She's somebody with a big online presence through her website, YouTube channel and social media use. All of that has been targeted by people who - and I can't say this enough - didn't like her asking for money to make feminist videos.
I think Sarkeesian has been incredibly courageous in sharing what's happened to her. Those obscene pictures are intended to shame her, to reduce her to her genitals, and to intimidate her.
I'm sure there's plenty here which breaks the law - both in the UK and the US. But the solution here probably isn't a legal one: it's for everyone involved to have some basic human decency. This isn't just a few rude words, and it isn't OK.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















480 comments
Comments on this column are now closed.
No se puede acorsar a una persona solo por dar su opinión sobre los videojuegos. Si ella ve mal el rol de las mujeres en los videojuegos creo que es un punto de vista que hay que respetar, quizás mucho no lo comparta y sienta que esta mujer se equivoca, pero respetarla es lo fundamental. Los que si se han equivocado realmente y hay que denunciar son los programadores de estos juegos de acosos y a todos los participantes de esta campaña en contra de Anita Sarkeesian.
Puedo decir sin equivocarme que ninguno de los hombres que han participado en este acoso, nunca encontraran a una mujer tan bella e inteligente como Anita y sus vidas probablemente estén vacía, o quizás me equivoco y la tienen llena de odio y soledad.
After years of harassment and judicial abuse in the state of Maine, protective mother Lori Handrahan and her supporters face threats of rape and other verbal sexual abuse on social networking media. Welcome to the new world disorder of social networking, where ethics are meaningless and anyone can get away with practically anything - unless it would seriously help make the world a better place, and then it can be flagged, reported or deleted (by invisible and unaccountable administrators) if it threatens someone's violent or hateful interestss or 'offends' the abusers.
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/06/threats-on-facebook-to-rap...
Most of these negative comments just prove that we as a society are still ignorant and still refuse to act like adults when it comes to listening to different opinions. Instead of giving constructive critisims of her opinions, they act like uneducated idiots that have nothing better than to rag on this woman because she's pointing out things in society that are wrong and that do need change. Promoting violence against her and acting like it's not a big deal is total bs. A threat is a threat no matter if it's said in real life or online shouldn't matter.
All you people who are saying "Huh, so it's okay for men to get beaten up in games but not women, so hypocrisy!" - google Skullgirls. It's a game where you beat up women. That's all you do. You spend the entire game beating up women. Wanna beat up some women? Play this game.
Now, do you see anyone, feminists or otherwise, decrying this game for misogyny? Probably not. Take a moment to think about why.
Just a question, in the skullgirls game, do they have images of real women who get their web sites hacked too?
... uh, that's my point.
Pretty sure we're on the same side here, Sandra.
Wanna hear a joke?
Girl gamers.
Want to hear a joke? Your brain, girls in North America make up almost 50% of the gaming public. 42 percent, that's an almost 50/50 breakdown. If you want to be a sexist idiot do it offline so you don't expose your self as the moron you are (that took ONE google search to get, really research your hate a bit makes it a little less unbelieveable http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/08/esa-2011-essential-facts-note-rise-in-...)
Of course if you mean "GURRRLLL GAMURRSS" that only play on their crappy iPhones and own mac computers, that it's about 50%.
You are casual cancer, not a real gamer. A real gamer doesn't go spouting around yelling "HURR DURR I LIEK MARIO" and that. A real gamer goes to a freaking arcade, wastes his coins away for entertainment, and reaches for those hard to get hi-scores that were probably made by some Japanese guy. Either that or games on a PC or a console, and actually enjoys it. (Call of Duty and Skyrim needn't apply, they sucks)
That's real gaming.
There's nothing wrong with your lifestyle, I want to make this clear. You have every right to enjoy yourself in whatever way makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone else. So I don't want to imply that I disapprove of you, or that your life choices are invalid at all.
But I do feel like I should tell you that claiming the moral high ground because you spend more time playing video games than the average person . . . is . . . odd, perhaps? I think it's fine that you enjoy playing video games, that you put effort into it, that perhaps you work toward mastery and excellence. Excellence in any endeavor is worthwhile for its own sake.
Yet the fact remains that many people find the desire to excel within the world of video gaming to be an unambitious goal. It doesn't improve the external world, and so, decrying someone else from not valuing mastery in this particular hobby as highly as you do doesn't feel like a compelling argument.
And I further submit that you might be surprised at the gender-makeup of the people within your subculture.
"A real gamer goes to a freaking arcade, wastes his coins away for entertainment ..."
Oh, hey, that was the nineties on the phone just now. They want to know if you'll be home before it gets dark.
Wanna hear a joke?
Girl gamers.
Wanna hear a joke?
Girl gamers.
Wanna hear a joke?
Your life.
Oh it see! It's funny because you have a Y chromosome!!! I get it!!!
Wanna hear a joke?
Your rectal anguish.
buahahahahahhaahahahhahaahahahhahaha
omg
good one
I'm a white man who has never once come under scrutiny for anything that makes me who I am. Excluding the typical high school harassment gauntlet, nobody has ever attacked me personally based on my beliefs, my sexual orientation, or my firm stance as a feminist. Compared to any woman who has a public name for herself on the internet, I've had it more than easy, so saying that I know what it's like to be in Ms. Sarkeesian's shoes. I'd also read an article about a month ago about a similar situation, where a woman writing feminist articles for an online website was constantly bullied by the online community. I wish I had a link to share, but the poor dear had come under some very serious threats (including the typical misogynistic fallback of rape, and promises of homicide) in attempts to intimidate her into silence. People had her address, her phone number, her social security code...people like these? They scare me, and I'm not even on the receiving end of their vile bigotry.
I don't understand this mentality. We live in the year 2012, but the way women are treated nowadays makes it look like we're back in the 1950s. The internet has bestowed freedom of speech unto all, with the handy perk of anonymity; one can leave comments with as much vitriol as they like about whatever they see fit and suffer minimal - if any - consequence. This power works against a great many decent things, including ANYTHING to do with women. It's like, once somebody realizes they can say whatever the hell they want and get away with it, they devolve to the lowest common denominator.
What's happening to Ms. Sarkeesian is deplorable. She has the courage to stand up and speak out for something that has needed saying for years - things that I've been trying to tell people about (though perhaps my delivery is off as nobody seems to want to listen). Women aren't treated fairly in media. It's a simple concept that Ms. Sarkeesian wants to bring to light, and this documentary has the potential to change that, if it's brought to the attention to the right people. I admire her strength and bravery, and I feel sorrow for the parochial fools who are giving men and (on a greater scale) all of humankind a terrible name.
Having a penis is never as shameful as it is when you read stuff like this.
Isn't it funny when it happens to a feminist it is just horrible. The other way around? Perfectly acceptable. This was an internet attack. No actual violence happened.
Last year, a man's penis was cut off by a vengeful, man-hating bitch because he wanted to divorce her. Sharon Osbourne LAUGHED as did other members of "The Talk" AND the female audience on national television. What did feminists do then? NOTHING.
Can you say, HYPOCRISY?
I don't care what Sharon Osbourne and other members of 'The Talk' did - no one thinks cutting off someone's penis is an acceptable thing to do, least of all the law. But it's not an everyday occurrence, which abuse of women (verbal, sexual, physical) clearly is.
Do you know why people like me read posts like yours and immediately think you're a woman-hating lunatic? Partly, it's because you feel the need to lather up your point with phrases like "man-hating bitch", but mostly it's because people like you seem to be incapable of reading about something horrible being done to a women without scrambling over each other to shout: "It happens to men too!"
It's ridiculous. Imagine if there were articles on illegal whaling that were constantly besieged by people shouting, "But ... but tiger poaching is a serious issue too! Let's talk about that instead."
It betrays the fact that you're obsessed with a false perception of your own persecution.
Once again. Full display of feminist hypocrisy. It's hilarious when it happens to them but is just so damn terrible when it happens to us. Actual violence against men is funny BUT just a threat of violence against a feminist is worse. Feminist logic. FAIL!!!!!
Do you know why people like me think that feminists are hypocrites and man hating bigots? Read what they write and listen to what they say. It's all the same BS. Disregard what happens to a man because it's irrelevant but we must protect the helpless little wimminz at all costs. So much for equality.
I laugh mostly at idiots like you because your blatant disregard for reality. Just toss it aside when it completely destroys your utterly worthless arguments. So much for equality indeed.
"Do you know why people like me think that feminists are hypocrites and man hating bigots? Read what they write and listen to what they say."
I do, and your characterisation is wrong. Show me some proof - because I read feminist sites a-plenty and I've never come across any of what you're describing.
You say you "laugh mostly at idiots" like me but you can't explain why I, as a man, can be perfectly happy with and supportive of feminism. Why aren't I terrified and angry about it like you are? Any idea, mate?
I do read what feminists write and listen to what they say! And pretty much every single time they try to say something, a certain type of man replies with the exact same sort of "BUT WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE MEN?!"
And that shit gets old and frustrating after a while. When you are constantly blocked from talking about issues that affect you every day, it's so aggravating that this sort of person is just incapable of listening, and only cares enough about the things that frustrate you insomuch as he can use them to point out how you don't have it so bad because sometimes men are hurt too! That this sort of person is so uncomfortable with the idea of having his own privilege pointed out that he'll do anything in his power, make giant mental leaps, shut his eyes and his ears and not even attempt to empathize or understand the experiences of other people, just because he doesn't like what he hears. He reverts immediately to hate: you feminist b*tch, you dirty hypocrite, you g*dd*mn man-hating wh**re. Not, "let's talk about this, why do you feel this way?" No asking questions, no interest in my positions or my arguments, just straight to stereotypical condemnations of all feminist concerns as hysterical rhetoric. If all feminists are crazy, angry man-haters, that means that you don't have to xare about why they're angry, right? It's easy to dismiss and dehumanize people who make you uncomfortable if you write them off as deplorable.
It doesn't make you a bad person to be a member of a privileged group: white, male, straight, rich, etc. I fall into a few of those myself. But it doesn't help the people who don't have the same privileges as you to respond with vitriol, hatred, and a complete unwillingness to sympathize with others. Just because you don't attribute certain things to sexism doesn't mean that sexism doesn't exist.
I'm a woman. I'm a feminist. I don't hate men. I don't think that women are superior to men. I don't think that women should be given things because of their gender. I don't believe that men don't suffer from sexism and abuse as well (although I do believe we have to be realistic and acknowledge that women are statistically more likely to become victims of sexual assault and abuse). In fact, SEXISM HURTS EVERYONE BECAUSE IT MAKES GENERALIZATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT EVERYONE, INCLUDING MEN. I am completely willing to have discussions about the negative impact that sexism has on men--indeed, let's!
But just because I want to talk about women doesn't mean I'm disregarding the men -- it's just that there are a LOT of men who do a good enough job making it all about them already. That's pretty much what they (again: not all of them) do whenever I want to talk about women. 90% of my conversations with men about my own experience with sexism involves them making the conversation all about them and their experiences. Not once have I had a man listen and sympathize with me and try to understand. After a while it becomes so, so clear that this sort of man isn't really concerned with the lack of support for male rape victims (a topic totally worth discussing), he just doesn't like to have his privilege called out and wants to put me in my place and convince me that my firsthand experiences are wrong. Disclaimer again: I've never met any IRL, but tons of guys don't do this, and are willing to listen. I've seen a lot of guys online, like here, who are willing to listen, to ask questions, to try to improve their understanding. I'm always pleasantly surprised and happy to find them on the internet--thanks for being good allies, guys!
Sorry if you think I'm a hypocrite. I don't personally feel like I'm an unreasonable person. I'm just sick of having my experiences dismissed by people who are far less likely be on the receiving end of many of the same prejudices I am.
yes yesss, mysterious *they* Should Have Done Something. 'What did feminists do then? NOTHING.'
awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww...
THEY should do something about it. Or better, Something Should Be Done About It.
Yes yessssssss
yes one flagrantly unsourced example clearly excuses a bunch of men acting like raging high schoolers getting their first testosterone rushes. f off dude.
Unsourced? You obviously don't watch tv. Do research before spewing bile.
Your comment about an unsourced sample is a bit silly as it doesnt take much to youtube/google it. It is a really messed up example of sexism. The majority of the female crowd laughs. If a group of men on tv started laughing about a female having her genitals mutilated, I wonder what would happen to them... Think they would lose their jobs at least, or be reprimanded to some extent? But the media were perfectly fine with that of course.
I think why people would have been against this kickstarter is because if you are an actual gamer and have been gaming for years, you are well aware that females get treated a whole lot better than male players. First person shooter and real time strategy games create a fast paced stressful enviroment where people frequently rage and insult each other. In many of these games, female gamers are quite rare and every time I have heard a female on a microphone, the other players are nice to them straight away (yes this is sexism I am aware, but not the kind feminists complain about). For a male joining the microphone they will often be insulted for a while unless they are quite a good player or known beforehand on the server. Also, if any one of the players in game insults the female player, you will have a horde of the other players stick up for them. If it happens to a male player, nobody cares. So to specifically focus a project on female predjudice in a gaming scenario does not make a whole lot of sense to most long time gamers who are well aware of this pattern in gaming, and this project actually comes off as somewhat sexist.
Why not focus on both genders and have an unbiased comparison at the end and do science the right way?
"if you are an actual gamer and have been gaming for years, you are well aware that females get treated a whole lot better than male players"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You're funny! You've got a good head for comedy--what's that? You were serious? Oh. Oh, never mind, then, not comedically gifted, just deluded, I see.
Please tell me exactly where I am wrong instead of making general statements that dont actually refute anything. I'm happy to debate, but sarcasm gets people nowhere besides coming of as an arrogant person with a position that is not founded in reason. What I am talking about is a trend I have noticed over a bit less than the past decade where I have been an avid gamer. This position has been echoed by my other friends online who also game, and this includes female gamers.
Try being a girl on Xbox live. My gender is set to M because otherwise I get people sending me dick picks. And I don't want to tell you what happens when I use a mike.
It may be true that women are treated well, by male gamers, during playing. But that does not take away that the female characters in games are tropes. It also does not take away that Anita here has been treated poorly.
And then you are moving in the direction of the very familiar 'what about the mens' argument, which is often invoked to stop feminist from talking about problems that women have. You say that Anita should not only be concerned about women, but also about men. Well, if you are concerned about men, then you tackle that problem. Feminists will applaud you.
It may be true that women are treated well, by male gamers, during playing. But that does not take away that the female characters in games are tropes. It also does not take away that Anita here has been treated poorly.
And then you are moving in the direction of the very familiar 'what about the mens' argument, which is often invoked to stop feminist from talking about problems that women have. You say that Anita should not only be concerned about women, but also about men. Well, if you are concerned about men, then you tackle that problem. Feminists will applaud you.
Being concerned about both would be a better option than focussing on one that is all I am saying. And yes Anita has been treated poorly, but there will always be trolls in any issues on the internet as attacks really have no consequences here. When it gets to hacking then legal action should be taken but before that, it helps to remember that the people attacking you over the internet really do not know you and are just being deliberately frustrating for the hell of it. People who go to the effort of making things like that game though are a breed apart from your average internet users and are probably actual misogynists.
I think people use the what about mens arguement because they see the focus on womens issues in the community and little action on behalf of men. Its not that we dont want female right to be extended, it is that the efforts for should be around equal. A good example of this I think is that at my uni, there are scholarships that are female specific for high percentage male courses (engineering, computer science etc) but nothing in the opposite direction for high percentage female attendence degrees (my uni has a search criteria check box that just says "female"). It is just frustrating there is a whole movement (and a large one at that) focussed soley on female rights instead of gender rights as a whole which I think would be a far more nobel and helpful movement which would be more inclusive
Yes, well put Amanda K!
Although I must say, I feel incredibly nervous about writing on here and giving my name. The amount of vitriol put on this comment page clearly supports the argument being made in this article:
That it's REALLY dangerous to have a fanny and an opinion!
It must also be said that feminism works really hard for the rights of women AND men. This has been a large part of the feminist movement since the 90's.
This article was also not taking away any of the rights of men, so calm down. It's an article talking about online abuse due to a bloggers political convictions.
Brilliant stuff- thanks for this informative article. Strength to you Anita!
Because the focus is already 99.9% on men and barely on women and other genders, unless to strip them of their rights.
Fail, dude. It doesn't always have to be about you. Deal with it.
Overly dramatic huh? The focus is ALWAYS on women. Women's rights. Women's health. Protect the little women. Women's daytime talk crapfest.
Isn't it funny on the news when there is an explosion of some kind, or a natural disaster, and there are numerous deaths the reports always go something like this, "...killing 25 people including 13 women!"
Who are the other 12 then. Aliens? The focus is ALWAYS on women.
As a woman, haha, screw you dude. Being treated as a special interest group doesn't help women in any way, nor does it give us any real power. It's about treating us as "others." Men have been the centre of the universe all throughout history. A talkshow with four women and the acknowledgement that women have health concerns different from men are small peanuts. If people bring up women specifically, it's because men don't NEED to be brought up specifically. They're already considered to be the centre of everything.
When the focus is on women, it's rarely anything positive.
As for being treated as the centre of the universe all throughout history, I guess that may have been true for the upper classes, however how much power do you really think a peasant had? And as a man had to do the work, do you really think that is on par with having to cook and clean for children and the husband? I think I would take that over backbreaking labor is terrible conditions any day. Naturally I am not saying that womens lot in life was far better than mens throughout history, I am just saying you seem to be making a very niave assertion about how all the power was in mens hands. All the power recided in the hands of the very few lavishly wealthy at the top
...who were men.
And you dont think the women had any say in what went on? I just meant that gender probably had less of a role in equality and rights than wealth did in the past that is all.
Go find a history book and read it and stop talking about this until you come back. Opinions on what might have happened is not a substitute for fact.
"it's because men don't NEED to be brought up specifically" Ah awesome, another person who doesnt think there are mens rights issues. Lets go for reproductive rights where if a man gets a woman pregnant it is the last of his say in the matter legally and if the woman decides to carry it to term he HAS to pay for child care until they are 18. Or men receiving longer jail sentences. Or to address where men dont need to be talked about specifically, how about the vast amount of funding breast cancer gets instead of just ALL cancers, why is this exactly? Funding should be split purely on a basis of rate of incidence and mortality. How about in instances of domestic violence, do you think that a woman hitting a man is treated anything near as seriously in the opposite direction? Im just giving a few examples, but I just want to show you how utterly wrong you are in your statement. Equal rights should be sought for both sexes, and both genders should have their issues examined instead of an entire movement devoted totally to females. That is sexism
"Equal rights should be sought for both sexes, and both genders should have their issues examined instead of an entire movement devoted totally to females. That is sexism"
Feminists agree with you on the first part.
But on the second part: would you say that a movement to abolish slavery of black people was a racist movement because it was a movement 'devoted to' black people? I don't think you will.
If you look around you you will see that men are in power of most corporations, of government, the media etc. Almost all the news you see is about men dealing with men....Bankers, war, foreign regimes, Obama dealing with Poetin....etc... and almost all the movies are about men dealing with men too (see for instance Anita's video about the Bechdel test).
(On your remark about paying for a child: what do you think that the woman does those 18 years? She is raising the kid. Do you think she should do that alone and pay for all the expenses as well? )
For the second part context matters. As we move closer to equality (we have come a very long way in the last 60ish years) focus should be spread to both genders. At the beginning I definately agree feminism was important and integral for gaining equal rights in a variety of areas. And I think it is the same for movements against racism and other forms of bigotry. As the biggest issues are resolved, it is important not to focus soley on one party, and look to both parties to attempt to resolve problems they both have as the difference between the two has substantially decreased.
A simple fact for getting to the top of buisness and getting into power is that you need utter focus and can drop anything in an instant to deal with problems. Many females decide to have babies, and though there are women who are happy to leave their children under other supervision, just by having a child you are taken out of work for quite a while, even if someone else is there to take care of it once it is born. Top jobs you dont get the luxury of leaving for a while, you need utter dedication. Now obviously there are women out there who are utterly dedicated, and therefore they get the top jobs. However men do not suffer from this buisness "disadvantage" and therefore will hold a higher percentage of top jobs, which makes sense when male and females have equal skill sets on average. Also, the lower ratio of women in top positions is still fallout from unequal education opportunities in the past as most people in top position are middle age.
About paying for a child, if a parent, male or female, wants to raise a child and the other does not, and this is decided before the abortion cut off date, I think it should be reasonable to opt out of a pregnancy. If the female still wants to go ahead with the pregnancy after that, it is her responsibility. In these situations the female is obviously at a disadvantage as she has to bear the child to term, but she ultimately will have the final say to terminate a pregnancy even if the male wants the child so that is where the balance comes in. After the abortion cut of date child care payments should of course be mandatory to whoever is looking after the child if they have agreed to carry the zygote to term.
AS for the movie thing you are right, but the movies she showed were a majority of action movies which have a strong male audience. If you applied the test in the opposite direction for "chick flicks" Im sure you would get a similar result, where males are tropes. It was disturbing to see a few childrens movies on the list though I thought
LOL. Keep telling yourself that while the rest of us laugh at you.
bluestarz, your level of interaction is pathetic
Who let her out of the kitchen?
Plain and simple. I agree with what this chap is saying, but I don't agree with the method he's using to convey it. Honestly, it's fiction. Why should she care so much about it? Another thing I'd like to bring to the table is the fact that every male character in gaming are generally handsome chaps. A few examples off the top of my head.
Link
Nathan Drake
Gordon Freeman
Cloud Strife
Sephiroth
I could use her exact arguments from a male point of view, but that would be considered sexism.
We care about fiction because fiction and media inform our culture. Values, culture and standards of femininity and masculinity are defined through media, whether we like it or not.
I don't think it's the same, not the way you outline it here. The most famous example of a video game character is a fat short plumber with a moustache, after all. You have characters like Lester the Unlikely. Nerdy guys who get the girl, fat guys with the hot wife, etc., all of these are pretty common tropes in various media. Guys are more likely to see diversity in games (and most media) that women don't - almost every woman in videogames is hot in almost exactly the same way, or else she's there to be evil or laughed at. And those women are still usually love interests or side characters - I can't think of a game with a plus sized female protagonist.
Female objectification is also different from the way men are objectified. Men aren't designed to be handsome and buff for the benefit of women. That's a power fantasy expressly for men about being able to be this super manly ideal. Giant muscles are about strength, not arousing women. There are no loving shots of male as*cracks; no generous pans up sweaty male genitalia barely contained in thong underwear; no men bending over so that their rears stick out towards the camera; no salivating pan up oiled abdominals; no men running around in speedos that ride up the butt; no men given rape backstories in order to give them 'depth'; no DOA-type game with men running around scantily clad on a beach, packages bouncing at the slightest movement, having homoerotic funtimes with one another. Women are rendered in this way expressly to arouse guys. Men being handsome is not the same--they're handsome for YOUR benefit, as escapist avatars for you the male player. When you imagine yourself as a hero, do you imagine yourself as fat and ugly? Probably not.
As a female gamer, the gaming world just doesn't feel like a world that's made with me in mind. And when I try to express that, I'm either dismissed or harassed for mentioning it at all--which only makes me feel like gaming isn't a safe or welcoming place for me even MORE.
All I want is to see female characters who are complex, diverse, meaningfully involved in the plot, and treated with the same respect and given the same agency as the male ones. I don't think that's a lot to ask. It's not like those characters don't exist--they do, they're just so painfully rare.