Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Obscene images, hate sites and a game where people are invited to beat you up have been inflicted on Anita Sarkeesian.
I wouldn't worry so much. The writers of such things are usually the kind who, if they actually have wives, end up on the sofa anyway. More generally, they don't and can't comprehend why the only woman who thinks they're special is mom, and even she's not sure anymore.
This, contributed by Spokker, deserves repeating:
Helen Lewis wrote a fun little article highlighting a game where you hit Tea Party Republican zombies with a crowbar. I wonder how many people she incited to hurt conservative personalities. Did she do it for the "lolz?" Yes, she used lolz in her article.
Hypocrisy at its finest.
Do you post this because you like debating or because you condone rape threats?
Oh wait, probably to shut Helen up.
Look at the headline. She DISapproves.
And why are you out to discredit this piece on online harrassment of Anita?
Because feminists are a protected class and if you disagree, you are engaging in hate speech and should be jailed!!!!
happily you are Far Too Small and the movement is SO BIG.
As small as your IQ and as big as your mum's fat arse, friend. :)
The really awful thing here is how you're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.
I can't stress this enough, mras and people who seem to advocate for them most often use this tactic: false equivalence. No its not the same thing, you are being either disingenuous or stupid, I of course need a larger sample size to figure out which.
There is no "false equivalence" here.
What we have is the author, Helen Lewis, decrying Internet harassment of a feminist, with special attention to a violent online game.
Yet the same writer approvingly reviews a violent online game that attacks Republicans, and stays silent when right-wing women are subjected to online harassment.
This is an example of sexist and political hypocrisy, plain and simple.
throw yourself off a bridge
NO SUICIDE TRIGGER WARNING PROVIDED = minus 50 points for Gryffindor.
If 5000 people shout down a woman in Hyde Park she can no longer be heard. If 5000 people leave tasteless comments under her blog the blog is not thereby rendered illegible. There is no freedom of speech issue here except the one involved in trying to stop losers writing nasty messages or drawing nasty pictures. Let the losers publish their preoccupations to the world!
This article was very good, the sexist simpleton rush is a proof of it ! ^_^
Oh nice. A bully. I have a secret for you -- NO ONE LIKES YOU. Because you're creepy.
all those disgusting pictures are coming from that site "9gag". someone should do something.
Truly disgusting stuff.
But since we are talking about sexist online bullying being something that designed to silence the target and other women from participating in the exchange of ideas and the political process, I have a couple of questions.
What was your position on sexist abuse of Sarah Palin and her daughters?
On sexist abuse of Ann Coulter.
On sexist (and racist) abuse of Michelle Malkin?
What's that? Crickets chirping?
Feminists have been deploring sexist attacks against Sara Palin and her daughters, of Ann Coulter, and of Michelle Malkin all along.
Are you honestly unaware of that? Every time it happens, it is pointed out and deplored 0n all the feminist blogs.
Did you not KNOW that? You're honestly trying to score points against feminists for not doing something that they already ARE doing?
It's as unacceptable as what's described in the article, and it's something that many (but not enough) contemporary feminists also condemn. I'm so liberal my heart's out of blood, but I despise Bill Maher and other commentators for participating in misogynist attacks. I think Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin are themselves sexist and racist, but they deserve to be free from attacks based on their sex and race.
Spokker, grow up already.
In the head of the post it says: 'tasteless game'
Furthermore, there is a big difference with referring specifically to (domestic) violence , which is something that is frequently done to women in real life (ever seen anybody in real life attack zombie politicians? I don't think so), beating up a specific woman's face because she points out sexism, and a group of politicians whose political agenda you don't like. The latter is a disgusting form of 'satire', not a personal threat at least, the former is threatening a specific woman with specific gender related abuse.
Get over yourself, start thinking.
For instance about why it is that you feel the need to defend people who send rape threats to a woman. Do you like rape? Do you think sexism is ok?Women are asking for it and should just take it and shut the hell up? Why are you so desperate to stand up for Anita's harrassers?
Come on, be honest, we're all c*nts right? I know you're dying to, but you're just afraid to own up, keeping up an air of rationality and pretending to provide actual arguments.
Why are you not shocked by pictures of rape and abuse?
Because two wrong totally make a right.
No, two wrongs make two wrongs, and Helen only sees one.
If you read the feminist blogosphere you would know that sexist / transphobic slurs against Ann Coulter, Sarah Palin and others have been roundly and repeatedly condemned, because "that's what feminists do" - regardless of the awfulness of their views. But of course you don't read the feminist blogosphere, because you already have a picture in your head of what a feminist is and how a feminist thinks, and it would be uncomfortable if that came up against any actual facts.
so what is your answer then as to what should happen, oh wise defender of the internet??
But two Wongs can make it white.
Oh wow, Spokker - well spotted indeed!
What do you have to say for yourself, Ms Lewis?
Why do you need $6000 to make Youtube videos about videogame tropes anyway?
That's a fair question, but it belongs to an entirely different conversation. Even if she pocketed all that money (which I'm fairly secure to assume she won't), does that mean she deserves this? Do you not find it disturbing that a person takes pleasure in beating the image of a woman up and seeing this very accurate and detailed bruises? How is that person not the same that would beat a woman in the street? So far the apologetic "explanation" for this pleasure has been "the lolz", "having fun". If this is your idea of fun, who are you and where has your humanity gone to?
"does that mean she deserves this?"
She doesn't, because I wasn't implying that. Rather, I'd have preferred it if the 4chan nerds kept their mouths shut and left her to be one of the hundreds of thousands of irrelevent feminist whiners on the Internet. Instead, they've turned her into a martyr for the likes of the New Statesman. Great job.
they don't have humanity whatsoever, they've traded it in to receive packs of bacon shoved into their gullets every minute of their "i should have been a blow job" lives.
You're very angry. You should calm down. If only you put your futile rage into something more productive, like gardening.
You're very angry. You should calm down. If only you put their futile rage into something more productive, like gardening.
Very creative, kudos to you. Never heard this one before.
I'd say that $6000 is pretty reasonable as compensation for her work. Researching and creating videos takes time, after all. People who care about the issue donated willingly. I don't see a problem with that. Why do you care if you didn't donate? It's not your money being spent.
Right. I'll be waiting on your piece on the abuse Sarah Palin and a host of conservative bloggers deal with every day. Ugh. Spare me your leftist crap.
If you ever went on a feminist blog or website you would see that there have been articles denouncing the public abuse of women who are in both the democratic and republican spheres. Yes, I roll my eyes when I hear some of the things that Palin has had to say and her daughter's views on life and raising a child are genuinely worrisome. However, if I saw rude, crude and abusive images posted of them being beaten or raped I would be just as pissed off. In fact here is an article in which a feminist blogger defends Michelle Bachman. http://feministing.com/2011/08/17/bachmann-sexism-watch-get-this-conserv... This blogger completely disagrees with Bachman's political views but feels that she should be discredited via a political argument, not calling in to question her sexuality or creating sexualized imagery from something as innocuous as her eating a hot dog. My point is that as a general consensus amongst feminists, we generally agree that abuse against any woman regardless of whether or not we agree with her personal views is not OK.
Are you really so stupid as to believe just because someone you deem as more important is also under sexist attacks that the attacks on someone else don't matter?
So, let me get this straight. You're reading from a source that you directly identify as "leftist," with a disdain that clearly identifies you as not being leftist, and you're complaining that this leftist source is not catering to both sides of this imagined fence?
If you want to read about someone creating their own Crocker impression over Sarah Palin, then go look for that. Don't come to a place that you admittedly know does not cover that sort of thing then whine and complain because you're not finding what you want.
You don't go to a bakery and bitch at the baker for not slicing you up a rack of lamb.
Seriously. Get a hold of yourself.
If you want to have a reasonable discussion about how certain stories or topics indicate particular political lean while other stories or topics get left in the dust, then do that, but take five minutes to logically back up whatever claim you're trying to make and be sure that the very foundation of your argument -- which, to underline this again, was that you went somewhere known for Thing A and not for Thing B, then griped that Thing B wasn't there -- isn't made of pudding.
"Sticks and stones may break her bones but words will never hurt her"
Which is of course utter nonsense. Anyone subjected to contact abuse can easily explain the genuine pain they feel. The emotional is a part of our physical selves; unless someone believes in the nonsense idea of soul/body duality (utter disproven by neuroscience since the self is a product of the physical body).
However you are right that we shouldn't feed the trolls. I worry that a lot of the Feminist writing about abuse is fuelling the trolls need for attention. What would be more interesting is to see if some positive writing about men that have decent relationships with women. Basically if the male trolls were ignored and instead the "nice guys" got a little more credit I think the positive reward for good behaviour would diminish the need for negative comment.
More carrot less stick (yes I know they are both phallic).
Or as Tim Minchin put it: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can break my heart".
No outrage over the multitude over the countless Hit Justin Bieber flash games. The reason why is obvious.
Justin Bieber may seem like a girl, but he isn't. He is not being attacked over sexism, or racism. People just don't like him.
>Justin Bieber may seem like a girl, but he isn't.
Actually, this is the reason there's no outrage. He isn't a girl.
It's fine to make games about beating up males, but females are off-limits.
Sexist hypocrisy at its best.
"It's fine to make games about beating up males, but females are off-limits."
Err.... --> http://skullgirls.com/
He's being targeted due to homophobia, because he isn't "manly" enough. Games about beating him up aren't right either.
So when people write hateful comments on Justin Bieber's Facebook page, make pictures of his "death," perform raids on his youtube videos in an attempt to make "the dislike bar larger than the like bar," use death threats in MULTIPLE forums, Twitters, and other social media that's all fine isn't it.
But the moment someone says anything about Anita, oh no! Trouble!
Being famous on the internet or in real life means you will get shit thrown at you. Do you think Obama broke down, started crying and making blogposts that the republicans were so mean drawing him with big ears? Nope. He dealt with it. Anita should too. Free speech means I can draw a picture of Anita and write all the hateful and spiteful things I want. It also means I can preach what a terrible person she is. Free speech doesn't mean "hey, shut up because you disagree with me!"
"So when people write hateful comments on Justin Bieber's Facebook page, ... that's all fine isn't it."
No, it isn't fine! How do you miss the point so much?
Well, his point, which you seem to have missed, is, that the attacks against Bieber seem to be all right and totally normal, since they're not worth being written about.
Your criticism is that this piece should not have been just about Anita but also about Justin. Do you have any others that should be mentioned?
Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She tweets @helenlewis