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.
Games where you kill graphical representations of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are also okay. In fact, it's just "cheap lolz."
Attack a feminist activist? Not cheap lolz. It's very very sad lolz :(
That link doesn't say it's OK. It says that it's tasteless.
And the LULZ refers to the joke about Glenn Beck leaving Fox... But full marks for finding something that's a BIT like the thing we're discussing, so you can try to score a cheap point.
Actually, the article doesn't say the game is tasteless - it says that depicting a Republican female in a bikini is tasteless.
But killing Republicans earns no condemnation from the hypocritical Ms Lewis.
Writing for the New Statesman is all about cognitive dissonance.
- "Actually, the article doesn't say the game is tasteless - it says that depicting a Republican female in a bikini is tasteless."
Um, no, it refers to the game as being tasteleess, twice. Then gives that as an *example* of why. Comprehension skills - you lack them.
Why doesn't she just, man up.
Stop hiding behind "trolls" and using that strawman as a way to refute all criticism.
Maybe people wouldn't want to shut her up if everything she was saying wasn't so god damn biased and retarded.
Here's the deal. I don't like what a lot of people have to say... I believe it firmly to be biased and unquestionably stupid or unfounded(or even disproved)... but you know what I don't do? I don't create games that go far beyond insinuating violence against them is acceptable, don't post comments that suggest they should be killed/maimed/sexually violated, don't create images that depict extreme violence/rape/sexual shaming and humiliation based on sexist society-created gender roles.
There is absolutely no place for suggesting violence, sexual assault, gender-shaming or the depiction of any such thing just because you strongly disagree with someone. There is absolutely a place for disagreement... but resorting to accepting violence, suggesting it and promoting it, especially specifically because she has a vagina and an opinion and doesn't live barefoot, impregnated and in a kitchen... unnecessary and abhorrent to be quite frank. If you aren't capable of expressing your disagreement based on legitimate facts and proof as to why your opinion holds merit or value, then you need to be re-thinking why you have the stance you do on whatever issue it may be... instead of thinking about ways to scare, humiliate and violate another person... especially because she's a woman and puts your misogynist vitriolic stance on what women should say or do to shame.
She is voicing an opinions, which in their nature are 'biased'. She is allowed to say what she thinks and feels, and people can support her for that if they choose. Why are people so threatened and angry about her opinion? No one is stopping you having your say either, but there is no need to slander and be threatening towards someone just because you don't like what they say.
Also, 'retarded'?! Seriously? Are we stuck in the 1960's here?
they're threatened because she's actually confronting them with some truths they aren't willing to face. probably affiliated with being spoon fed lard their entire lives.
Oh Look a women wrote this article and she also looks like a feminist herself (dike)
You make being a heterosexual women so much more attractive.
You spelled 'dyke' wrong. Also, you're an idiot.
Free speech is the biggest threat to free speech? Stifling the speech of people who don't agree with you is the solution? Hilarious.
Your right to free speech is in regards to the government not passing laws about it or telling people they can't talk about something.
It does not extend to large scale harassment and bullying of someone just because you disagree with their opinion.
The Bill of Rights is a fascinating document, maybe you should read it before claiming things from it that it simply doesn't provide. The first amendment does not give you the right to draw pornographic imagery of anyone in an effort to silence them, nor does it give you the right to make a game about beating them up. It does not give you the right to post racial and sexual slurs on someone's wikipedia page, or hack their website.
All of this is being done to "shut her up." Why does she need to be shut up? People can't bear to just not watch her videos? She's making opinion pieces that do not specifically call out people, yet people are making very personal attacks on her. How in the world you think this sort of thing is protected by the first ammendment is beyond me, other than you must not have actually read it.
the best part is people telling her and others to get "thicker skin" about the harassment. yet they can't have thick enough skin to get over having their masculinity deconstructed. the worlds tiniest violins couldn't even play them a sad enough song.
The very fact that you show the bully that you are annoyed with such behaviour is to give the green light for the bully to continue. In all cases the bully has a deep hatred of the delete button.
Trolls are simply announcing to the rest of the world that, for whatever reason, they are starved of attention, and their balls (if indeed they have any) have not fully descended yet.
The internet is the perfect hiding place for people such as these to project their emasculation onto other, more public, and therefore more courageous, people (male or female).
It's not just about the abuse doled out to Sarkeesian, which is abhorrent. There is also the chilling effect this has on any of us who might want to do feminist work, whether or not we need to fundraise. We have the right to be able to do our work and express our ideas without violence and without the fear of violence. Some of the individuals involved may not have that motive but the overall effect is to terrorise feminists into silence. It is very controlling and can be very effective; no one wants to let the misogynists behind these attacks 'win' but who would volunteer for similar treatment?
Beyond just expressing my horror at & sympathy for what she is going through, is there any way we can support her?
What makes me really mad is the fact that they said that people hacked the wikipedia page when in fact people can just make an account and change it... Get your shit together?
*That* is what makes you mad?
Somehow, I do not feel that you and I would get along terribly well.
Hate what is called " trolling " now, to sound like an old fart in the gaming world now( 24 ) ; back in my day of trolling... it was at least funny and tasteful as well as well thought out and actually sparked intellectual conversation afterwards. Now it's just plain retarded and not even funny at all. Grow up a little kids.
Yeah...no. Even in the old Usenet usage, trolling involved inanely controversial drive-by posts which sparked flame wars where none previously existed, among the regulars of the forum. Not funny, tasteful, or involving intellectual conversation. Universally reviled unless you were a member of one of the forerunners of /b/ that spawned them into the other groups.
Trolling sparked intellectual conversation? Where? Usenet? You're looking at the past through rose-colored glasses friend.
Really good article, really lame comment section.
A quote from a previous article by Ms Lewis
"It's a tempting argument, but wrong. Politicians are public property. They must submit to being pilloried by cartoonists and columnists in office and having their legacy fought over once they step off the stage."
Being unapologetic in advance presumably for the inevitable torrent of personal slurs and attacks that will be made on Marget Thatcher on the occasion of her state funeral by commentators [both professional and amateur] of her political ilk
Presumably this only extends to people who get paid directly for their political views, and therfore fair game for personal insult?
Or just another instance of "liberal" double standards and the preparedness of Staggers Journos to defend to the death the freedom of speech of people who agree with them, perhaps
This woman isn't being attacked for being a politician, and it isn't her views, policies, or even her actions that are being attacked. It's the fact that she's a woman that is being attacked here, and that is being exploited. I'm certain in saying Thatcher would be attacked on her death, Lewis was saying that such attacks would be political and based on Thatcher's controversial career, not simply attacks focused on the fact that she was a woman.
This isn't a double standard, and calling it such is disingenuous on your part and an attempt to undermine what this issue is really about.
she's basically a journalist, as she makes political videos for the public to see on the internet. So are the political cartoons, internet memes, daily show segments at the expense of Glen Beck and Bill O'Reilly also harassment? Everything that has been done to her has been done to them, only much worse. But I guess because she's a woman and her feelings were hurt it must be harassment.
First of all, it's a ridiculous argument in general to excuse organised abuse by pointing at other abuse. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Secondly, Bill O'Reilly has made a career out of being an a-hole towards anyone with liberal/secular views. A few goofy one-liners became a funny meme. I'm convinced he's also faced death threats and the like. Of course such threats can never be endorsed no matter what your political views are. Still, O'Reilly cannot hope to be respected among his political antagonists as long as he persists in his constant lying and derogatory remarks.
Never has Anita Sarkeesian said anything even remotely similar to the kind of verbal abuse that Bill O'Reilly has committed himself to. She's a feminist blogger, only recently made famous because of the torrent of attacks upon her. Her analysis is clear and well articulated. You may disagree with her but you can't put her on a level with O'Reilly. That's just cheap rhetorics.
Finally, the consistent way in which the attacks upon Sarkeesian are being carried out suggests a strong pattern of sexism and misogyny. It is obvious that she is being objectified through derogatory pornographic imagery. Pornography is clearly used as a means of power, to reduce an individual to her basic sexual functions. And that's just seriously effed up.
In no way does she have a well thought out analysis.
Watch this. She basically only quotes other people and chooses her tropes based on what ever catches her eye on TV. She doesnt formulate her own opinions, instead uses others.
Uhm, sorry, I somehow doubt they have been threatened with rape and murder because they announced that they at some point in the future would talk about a problematic issue. Because that's what this is about. This is not people reacting in a horrible way to anything Anita Sarkeesian has said, but people threatening to kill her, to abuse her, to rape her just because she planned to make a few videos about sexism in videogames. They didn't wait to hear what she said and then comment, no, they did not want her to get the opportunity to say anything at all.
Funny thing about trolls is that the draw MORE attention to the very thing they hate. Some of my best traffic builders are trolls. =)
So the trolls fail.
They just fail.
Nicely done gentlemen, nicely done. /sarcasm
Why are all the little MRA's so pissed off she's pointing out what we've seen for years? Just shut up and let her make the damn videos.
Hahahaha Anita got exactly what she deserved. Hard-lined feminist/man-hater with nothing better to do than scam innocent straight men out of their sperm, and the rest of the world out of their money - because she has a vagina, and vaginas SELL. Might just as well have made herself stand on the street corner, selling her vagina to passers-by. Hats-off to the 25 year old male in Ontario, Canada. He's probably been messed-over by a butchy lesbian, himself. This is a great way to strike back, without going to jail.
In case we needed another brilliant example of the misogynistic troll, see above. Good job ticking all the boxes, there! Feminist=man-hater, lesbian and "sperm-stealing".
Don't worry, I can pretty much guarantee no sane person wants your sperm, oh clever one.
I'd laugh if you weren't so bloody pathetic.
No on deserves this period. She's a little radical in her views but it doesn't mean she deserves a single damn thing that's happening. What has happened to her and the things you're saying only makes her points all the more valid. You're feeding fuel to a fire you obviously want to be put out, why not actually dump some water on it with a reasonable argument that opposes what she's doing rather than look like an immature moron.
Oh nice. A bully. I have a secret for you -- NO ONE LIKES YOU. Because you're creepy.
If by 'got what she deserved' you mean more attention and funding, then yeah, you're right.
This has to be a huge fail for the misogynists. They seem to have failed at every aspect of what they tried to achieve. She wasn't intimidated out of her project, she raised the funds probably a lot faster thanks to the controversy, and she has a lot more attention. Even their attempts to skew the google results haven't really succeeded.
Not that that makes it okay, and certainly some women would be put off by the sort of attacks Sarkeesian got. But on this occasion at least, its feminist 1, misogynts 0.
you're awesome dude, there aren't enough people like you
Good job your mum doesn't know your password isn't it?
I'd never heard of Anita Sarkeesian before, and I can't believe anyone would get upset or even much care about someone who's making a video about video games.
One way for her to do something about this would be to try to find someone to sue, get their real name, and then publicize what they did under their real name.
I've been able to do that in a few cases of people harassing me, albeit at a much lower level than making a game about me. But, in those cases it was different from what she's getting: poli bloggers like Yglesias, Drum, and Reason Mag know who or could find out who some of the harassers are, but won't. Her harassers aren't being protected by "reputable" people.
covcomm, arguing with ideologues is rarely fruitful.
A lot of the reactions are reprehensible, but probably do not rise to the level of illegality currently. There is also no "free speech" issue here. Citizens shouting down another may be rude or stifling of their speech, but our "right to free speech" only protects us from state censorship.
Politically I'm not down with Tropes vs videogames. I believe that women should change the conversation about sexism in videogames by making videogames. By getting venture capital and starting a game company or doing it the old fashioned way: learning programming, grabbing a copy of unity or the unreal engine and getting their voices heard in the indie game community. YouTube videos are not the way in my opinion.
I'd also like to add that I'm getting very pissed at all of the violent threats against Anita Sarkeesian. WTF is violence the goto choice for the opposition?! No one thought about simply using logic?! Just argue with her, geez. This insanity is uncalled for.
How is this a solution? Changing the channel or creating for yourself are both valid arguments in some cases, but ignoring what is habitually problematic in our culture is how we perpetuate inequality. Women can and have helped make wildly successful video games (consider women like Kim Swift & Portal), but it doesn't mean that misogyny is over because of it.
The issue at hand is that she started a kickstarter campaign that insulted some fedora wearing, basement dwelling neckbeards, so they have to belittle her for it.
Of course if you're going to make videos that insult people there's going to be some backlash. And I'm not saying their reaction was justified. The problem I have with Anita is that she milked it so hard in order to further her cause. She played the victim and it payed off. Is that how feminist want to bee seen? To be pitied in order to further their cause? I think a better reaction would be to disregard the army of haters and continue without acknowledging them at all, and instead of being being the weak victim that needs support she'd be the strong and respected leader.
In what way did she "milk" it? By making it public? By putting the problem out there so that people could learn from it? How else is she going to raise awareness? a lot of people have no idea things like this goes on so of course she's going to do that. Especially when her cause is originally fueled by the problem she's now pointing at. Misogyny, sexism, harrassment etc.
Your notion of playing victim is skewed. She's the perfect leader in this case, where she's actually hammering at the problem and going on with her mission of raising awareness to solve it, using the harrassment as motivation instead of letting it silence her. She's inspiring people to fight for a good cause, why else would anyone write articles about this? If that doesn't make her a great leader, what does?
So she should just shut up and take it?
I don't know about you, but I can only take so much before I fight back. Bullies thrive on the silence of others, and I'm done being silent. The older I get, the less it takes. I'm sick of bullies and bully behavior.
Bullying is getting your ass kicked every single day because you are the only white kid in an all black school. It isn't getting photoshopped by anonymous people on the Internet.
Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She tweets @helenlewis