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.

ChinaFotoPress/ChinaFotoPress via Getty Images
Show Hide image

Leader: Goodbye to global glut as the financial markets stumble

Cheap money is a shaky foundation on which to build genuine economic growth.

After China’s main stock exchange plunged by 8.5 per cent on 24 August, the Shanghai composite index’s worst single day fall in eight years, state media declared it “Black Monday”. Markets elsewhere in the world fared little better. Germany’s DAX index fell 4.7 per cent, pushing it into a bear market. The FTSE 100 also slid nearly 5 per cent, a tenth consecutive day of falls, and in the US the S&P 500 slipped 4 per cent, taking its losses since May to 11 per cent.

If traders – and anyone with a share portfolio or pension invested in shares – were not already nervous enough, the former US treasury secretary Larry Summers weighed in. “As in August 1997, 1998, 2007 and 2008 we could be in the early stage of a very serious situation,” he wrote on Twitter.

That remains to be seen, and the small bounce in share markets outside Asia on 25 August would have offered some reassurance. What is clear, however, is that more than seven years after the start of the global financial crisis, which ushered in the present period of austerity and deepening inequality, the world economy remains fragile.

One reason is its heavy dependence on China as an engine of growth. For years the world’s second-biggest economy has been sucking in raw materials from around the world to feed its factories and infrastructure projects: it is the world’s most voracious consumer of energy and buys about half of the world’s industrial metals, such as copper. But the days of 10 per cent or even 8 per cent growth in China are over. Even before the recent stock slide in Shanghai, which should not have been a big shock, given the steep rise in the market earlier this year, there were signs that the economy was slowing. Prices for commodities from iron ore and platinum to oil have slumped over the past year, partly because of supply issues but also because of weaker Chinese demand.

For countries dependent on revenues from raw materials, such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Nigeria, this is a challenge and raises concern about unrest. Even Saudi Arabia has been forced to borrow on the financial markets for the first time since 2007. Emerging-market currencies have plunged: it now costs more than 20 South African rand to buy a pound.

Rich western economies, which are left as the main drivers of global growth, appear to be more insulated from China’s troubles. But as our columnist Felix Martin points out, there are warning signs. The strong performance of US stocks in recent years is at odds with the underlying economic data. The strength of shares there and in the UK owes more to loose monetary policy: mainly low interest rates and quantitative easing, which involves printing money to buy back assets from banks and other institutions, in effect pumping cash into the financial system.

Yet cheap money is a shaky foundation on which to build genuine economic growth. And because interest rates are ­already so low, and debt and deficits high, governments have few tools to employ if investors’ confidence melts further and markets crash. Much worse may be to come.

This article first appeared in the 27 August 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Isis and the new barbarism