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.

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. 

An online game invites players to "beat up Anita Sarkeesian".

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour and Tory MPs fear the political forces Brexit could unleash

The Liberal Democrats and Ukip are offering Remainers and Leavers alternative homes. 

Two years ago this month, MPs felt the tremors of a political earthquake. The 45 per cent of Scots who voted for independence had driven a surge in SNP support. Five months later, in the general election, old loyalties dissolved. Forty Scottish Labour MPs and ten Lib Dems were swept away.

The referendum realigned Scottish politics along nationalist and unionist lines. The Conservatives, once considered irrelevant, acquired new purpose as the SNP’s antithesis. Labour was pushed to the margins.

At Westminster on 5 December, MPs asked whether another tectonic shift was under way. That afternoon, Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat who overturned Zac Goldsmith’s 23,015 majority in the Richmond Park by-election, was sworn in to parliament. Like the Scottish Conservatives, the Lib Dems had been the subject of derision. But by adopting a resolutely anti-Brexit stance they ended their political exile. In a seat where 72 per cent of people voted Remain, the pro-Leave Goldsmith was caught on the wrong side of his constituents.

Three days before Olney’s election, the new Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall, declared it was his party’s mission to “replace Labour”. In a mirror image of the Lib Dems’ strategy, the Liverpudlian aims to unseat pro-Remain MPs in pro-Leave constituencies.

There is reason for caution in predicting Scottish-style ruptures. Brexit is a less defining issue than independence (turnout was 72.2 per cent in the former vote and 84.6 per cent in the latter). The SNP has formed a devolved government since 2007, allowing it to claim the mantle of incumbency as well as insurgency. The Liberal Democrats, punished for coalition in 2015, and Ukip, with a sole MP, cannot replicate this feat.

Though it felt churlish to say so following Olney’s triumph, by-elections are a historically poor indicator of general election results. In 2013 the Lib Dems hailed their victory in Eastleigh as proof that most of their 59 MPs could defy electoral gravity. Only eight did (Eastleigh’s was not among them). In 2014, after two Ukip by-election victories, excitable commentary suggested that the party could win as many as 30 seats. It won one. Supporters of both parties defected to the Conservatives when faced with the prospect of Labour taking power.

However, there are plausible reasons why the next election could upset these precedents. Brexit is a process, not an event. It will define UK politics for a decade or more. The next election could become a de facto second referendum. The Liberal Democrats will speak for aggrieved Remainers, Ukip for “betrayed” Leavers. Both Conservative and Labour MPs fear an electoral price.

“Remainers feel that they’ve been sidelined, pushed to one side, made to feel small,” Anna Soubry, the former Tory business minister, told me. She lamented that Theresa May’s “wonderful” words when she entered Downing Street were “undermined” by her “hard Brexit” conference speech. Soubry warned of the next election: “When 2020 comes along, those aged 15, 16, 17 now will be able to vote. A large number feel that they have had their future stolen by an older generation.”

To some, the potential for Lib Dem gains appears limited. Only two of their top 30 Tory targets (Hazel Grove and Lewes) are Remain seats with Leave MPs. But Conservatives worry that the Lib Dems could triumph by forging a pro-EU coalition of Labour and Green supporters. Under first-past-the-post, as the SNP can testify, seats can be won with significantly less than 50 per cent of the vote.

By far the greatest anxiety, however, is felt among Labour MPs. “We face a tougher electoral map than at any other time in our history,” Jonathan Reynolds, the shadow Treasury minister, told me. The party remains marooned in Scotland and fears a three-way squeeze in England between the Tories, Ukip and the Lib Dems. Labour’s poll ratings, which last month averaged 29.5 per cent, were described as “dire” by its general election co-ordinator, Jon Trickett, at an NEC meeting on 22 November. Jeremy Corbyn’s ally warned that the party would have to “defend some seats” at the next election, rather than focusing on targets alone.

MPs speak of a gnawing sense that Labour is the party of the past. In a less tribalistic age, when voters are no longer defined by their work, it risks political redundancy. Across Europe, social democracy appears in structural, not merely cyclical, decline.

Rather than pitching solely to Remain or Leave voters, Corbyn’s team intend to target both through a vision of “the kind of country we want to live in”, and a focus on jobs, living standards and the economy (though they do not rule out supporting a second referendum). Others, feeling the electoral ground shift beneath them, advocate more radical action. After Richmond, Clive Lewis, the shadow business secretary, reaffirmed his call for a “progressive alliance” under which Labour would not stand candidates in certain seats. Reynolds, a fellow pluralist, told me: “We can’t pretend that people have the class allegiances of the past.”

Another group, in the words of one MP, will “follow the Lib Dem playbook, treat the party as a franchise and run ultra-local campaigns”. Leaflets will be free of references to Corbyn and national policy. “You’ve got to cut the mother ship adrift and row yourself to safety.”

At the very moment that the UK is preparing to leave the EU, its politics has never appeared more European. Britain’s fractured opposition of socialists, nationalists, liberals and greens has long been common on the continent. Amid this tumult, Conservatives hope that Theresa May will predominate in the manner of Germany’s Angela Merkel. In the absence of a Labour recovery, they anticipate at least another decade in government. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 08 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brexit to Trump