The wit and wisdom of the guy who created that “beat up Anita Sarkeesian” game
Yesterday I wrote about a vile online game in which players were invited to “beat up Anita Sarkeesian,” the feminist cultural critic who’s faced endless harassment because she had the temerity to ask for donations to fund a video project looking at sexist tropes in video games.
The game, which (happily) has been removed from Newgrounds.com, where it was originally posted, was put together by a young Canadian gamer named Bendilin Spurr. On the game’s page, he offered this explanation as to why he created the game:
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.
That doesn’t really explain much, as asking people for voluntary donations to a video project is a far cry from “scamming,” especially since she’d asked for far less, and that the misogynist backlash to her project began long before she’d collected anywhere near this amount.
It also doesn’t quite explain why Bendilin felt that a Sarkessian-punching game was the best format to make this, er, critique.
Last night, after learning from the comments here that young Bendilin had a profile on Steam and a Twitter account, I decided to peruse both to see if I could find more clues that might explain his foul game.
On his Steam profile, he’s set forth his basic philosophy of life, video games, and how much women suck:
I think it’s just adorable how absolutely no girls are any good at video games, just like how no woman has ever written a good novel. They are nothing but talk and no action, probably because girls are such emotional creatures and base everything they do on their current feelings and then try to rationalize their actions later. How pathetic.
You know what’s priceless? When a gamer girl posts a pic of herself looking as slutty as possible and then throws a fake fit when people talk to her like she’s a whore. What did you think was going to happen, you dumb broad? Lose thirty pounds.
Sadly, these aren’t terribly rare or original opinions for a young male gamer.
Over on Twitter, Bendilin has offered a number of conflicting explanations for why he felt so much hostility for Sarkeesian and her video project that he felt justified in creating a video game devoted to punching her in the face.
There’s the fiscal argument:
There’s the laziness argument:
There’s the rather strange argument that Sarkeesian is not taking the proper time to research the subject, although she has not yet started the project. (Also, one of the reasons she was asking for money was so that she could take the time to research the subject properly.)
The “nuh-uh you’re wrong” argument:
The “she won’t listen to me argument.” Part one: The Lego Incident
And Part 2, in which our hero explains that making a video game about punching someone in the face is a great way to open a dialogue with them:
Naturally, Bendilin, like most misogynists, fervently denies that he’s a misogynist:
Yep, that’s right. The guy whose Steam profile claims that “absolutely no girls are any good at video games” and that “no woman has ever written a good novel,” and who decided to express his criticism for a video project that hasn’t even started by making a video game in which players punch the woman behind it in the face, is angry that anyone might conclude that he hates women.
Well, Bendilin, if you wanted to defend video games and the gaming community at large from charges of sexism, you’ve done a bang-up job of it.
UPDATE: Bendilin is also an artist! Here, Virgil Texas takes a look at Bendilin’s erotically charged Sonic the Hedgehog art.
That last paragraph and the update contained
Posted on July 8, 2012, in antifeminism, bullying, harassment, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, narcissism, oppressed men, pussy pass, vaginas, violence. Bookmark the permalink. 1,286 Comments.
I’m starting to wonder if “I was shamed out of pursuing a writing career” means “my English teacher kept handing my papers back to me with corrections all over them, that misandrist bitch”.
Hear that, y’all? The fact that words have meanings, and the fact that the properties “systematic” and “isolated” are contradictory, are both predicted by a feminist world view that most people don’t hold!
That’s a take on the declining of the US education system I’ve never seen.
I wonder if he understands that when we say his writing isn’t very good we mean the content and not just grammar, spelling, etc. You know, little details like systemic and isolated being contradictory.
Oh Gawd some of you sure are patient to be able to converse with this troll in such a calm and intelligent manner. I decided hours ago that I’d have more fun cleaning my toilet. You deserve a prize!!
I’d toss them in jail too! Because they raped someone!
But you’re using “prejudice” to mean “one person anywhere hates you for it” when that definition suits you, and “there is a systemic hatred in all of society” when that definition suits you. (And doing this weird thing where if one person has a hatred, it proves everyone has that hatred?) It’s kinda bullshit, dude. Pick one.
Can the prize be food? I’m hungry but it’s too hot to cook.
@ CassandraSays – yeah, I get that vibe from a lot of MRAs, like they’re actually complaining about their mothers/female teachers/ some other female authority figure from when they were young. Not all the time, but you sometimes get these weird tangents like “feminists are always telling us to make our beds and eat our green vegetables!”
If you want to loudly commiserate over Sarkeesian, there are countless echo chamber feminist spaces where you can do just that. The post- like every post on this blog- was more concerned with attacking MRAs than Sarkeesian herself. I maintain it’s fair game for MRAs to post here- or as you put it, “derail”.
[..] expect to try to pull the daft sleight-of-hand of saying that “misandry” doesn’t imply an instutional component, but “misandry” is in fact insitutional.
It’s not a sleight-of-hand. Misandry is institutional, but the word itself doesn’t imply an institutional component. Ya got me- but it’s true. Heterophobia, for example, is not institutional, but it’s still a real word with a real meaning, and there exist heterophobes.
To prove misandry exists, you point to the existence of people who have an irrational hatred of men. Once people agree that that shit happens, you then go on to say that his proves there is a systematic institutional misandry.
You can acknowledge the reality of the former without agreeing with the latter, ya know. Unless you’re more concerned with shoring up your rhetoric position than you are with the truth.
Because it by its very etymology is a false equivalence with a real thing. [...] But don’t expect people to assume you are talking about a different definition than the word implies [...]
Again, the existence of “misandry” in no way implies such an equivalence.
If you are so dead-set on using the word, nobody can stop you.
I am. Not that I expect most people will have a problem with it, because in the end most people, I believe, would realize that you’re a scumbag who is unduly and bizarrely concerned with performing mental gymnastics to avoid using a single word.
You have a more generous spirit than I do, Cliff. I think he’s deliberately trying to blur the boundaries so that he can push the idea that systemic misandry is a think that is just as pervasive as misogyny.
Perhaps I’m giving him too much credit in terms of intellect, though.
No idea. Is Wikipedia good in this area? some of their articles are pretty bad.
*sigh*
So out of all this, we’ve got:
* Misandry simply means “an irrational hatred of men”
* Only feminists attach this weird “institutional” component to the word Misandry in order to say it isn’t real
* Misandry is institutional
So if we admit that there are people out there in the wide world who have an irrational hatred of men, we have thus admitted that misandry is real. Since misandry is institutional, that proves that institutional misandry exists. Despite the fact that feminists argue that institutional misandry doesn’t exist. And despite lack of evidence.
565+ comments, and this is what we’ve got.
@ Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Either that or the inspiration is an ex. Remember that guy who posted the video rant about skidmarks and how women think we’re so perfect and expect men not to make them and omg expecting grown men to know how to wipe their own asses is sexism against men and somehow feminism was to blame for this?
Steele believes that the entire American public agrees with him in secret. Not just about feminism (and yeah, we are pretty patriarchal still), but about the meaning of words. He thinks that if you just explain it to a random person off the street, they will go YUP, SYSTEMIC = EPISODIC, STRUCTURAL = ISOLATED, WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH HYUCK HYUCK.
See, THIS is why a site like Manboobz exists. Not to convert the MRAs–they will or they won’t change their minds, whatever. It’s so this can be brought out into the open so the undecided can see it for the bilge it is.
* Misandry simply means “an irrational hatred of men”
This is the layman’s definition, yes. The existence of the layman’s definition of misandry is really not arguable.
I also maintain the layman’s definition is an entirely legitimate use of the word- this seems to be where most of the disagreement stems from.
* Misandry is institutional
This is debatable. As an MRA, I think there’s ample evidence that misandry is institutional. Feminists, due to stupidity, disagree.
So yeah, you’ve basically got it.
It also kind of funny how he keeps telling us to go to a feminist blog if we want to talk about Sarkeesian. Um, dude, guess what? The killer is already inside the house.
@Steele:
No, its not fair game for MRAs to derail. It’s fair game for MRAs to post here in response to the OP. You are not doing the latter, you are doing the former. You have been for a while now.
Misandry points to a thing. If that thing is institional, then misandry implies institutionality. IF that thing is not institutional, then it does not. THAT’S HOW WORDS WORK. And your comparison with “heterophobia” is irrelevant, because it’s not an example of something we would agree is institional, but the word itself doesn’t imply that it is (or vice verse).
I know. I have. Many many many many times.
To quote you, “repeating yourself does not make it true.” And apparently you don’t know the word “etymology,” which I use as evidence for why it does in fact imply an equivalence.
I believe I’ve given you an explanation multiple times as to why I avoid using the word “misandry.” Ignore me if you wish, argue that my explanation is a bad one if you wish, but don’t ignore me and then say that I’m just performing mental gymnastics.
The subject (subject of all posts here) is misogyny, a real thing. It is not okay to try to derail this into a discussion about how this imaginary thing called misandry is a real world problem. When significant numbers of men are having acid thrown in their faces for being men, and the women who throw the acid are getting off scot free, talk to me about misandry. When men are being bombed for pursuing education, talk to me about misandry. When men are fucking targeted like Sarkeesian was, merely for being men expressing an opinion on the internet, talk to me about misandry.
Show me the groups of men assassinated by misandric women. (You dismissing that as isolated? Misogyny.) Show me the equivalent to Polliwog’s story. Show me the equivalent to pillowinhell’s story.
False equivalence: Steele provides the textbook example. He could not have done a better job of this if it was intentional.
Admit it nothin’, I know it for a fact. From personal experience, no less. And yet I somehow don’t feel I’m the most oppressedest evar, but because the facts don’t bear that out.
SYSTEMIC = EPISODIC, STRUCTURAL = ISOLATED, WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH HYUCK HYUCK.
Monumental idiot.
Did I say this? Nope. I said that misandry need not require a structural component to be legitimate. Structural misandry and episodic misandry are distinct- you claim that structural misandry doesn’t exist, however, this does not invalidate episodic misandry.
Oh Jesus, the heterophobes. Guys, can we talk about the heterophobes for a minute? I mean, homophobia is bad I guess sometimes or whatever, but there’s probably 6 or 7 people who just full-on don’t like straight folks! Maybe they laugh at them behind their backs! That’s bad too, right? OMG. You all hate straight people, don’t you. It’s so obvious.
This is why I make sure to come out whenever I walk into a room, to ensure that no heterophobes physically attack me or deny me employment or tell me I’ve been abused and that’s why I’m too slutty to deserve lov–OH WAIT.
I have asked you for evidence that misandry is institutional. You have provided none.
I think that this has more to do with why I doubt systematic misandry exists than my stupidity.
@Steele:
Way to leave out the all-important second bullet point which, when taken with the other two, provides the context that you are being self-contradictory. Hooray.
At this point, we’ve deraild so much that I sorta want Steele to come out and actually make an argument for all of his assertions that everything boils down to. “Feminism, due to stupidity, disagrees” that misandry is institutional? Arguing that would be a modicum more interesting and a modicum less tedious than the current blather back and forth.
“This is debatable. As an MRA, I think there’s ample evidence that misandry is institutional. Feminists, due to stupidity, disagree.”
This is an excellent example of bad, lazy writing. If you have a point to make then make it. If you enter a space in which you can assume that people will probably not agree with you, it’s your responsibility to prove your points. If you tried to write this way in an academic context, you would fail all your humanities classes.
Especially the history ones ^_^
CassandraSays: oh, yes that too. Very much that. My first encounter with the MRM was right in the middle of a very ugly breakup. If I learned nothing else from the encounter it was “sure, you’re feeling hurt, but get the fuck over it before you end up like those clowns.” So I stopped being an ass, sat down with my ex and we were able to talk things through so we could at least part as friends.
So maybe I should be less hard on MRAs, since I’m one of the few people to have actually benefited from the MRM in any meaningful way.
@CassandraSays:
What makes it worse is that literally every single point of contention that he’s willing to actually argue about boils down to his assertion that “misandry” is an institutional thing. The only useful thing that’s happened so far is that we’ve clarified what he’s trying to say. Slowly, and very painfully.
You were bitten by their poison and it made you stronger. You are the Spiderman of the MRM.
Steele’s whole schtick can be reduced to “my life is worse than yours. No, really. Being me sucks, and it’s other people’s fault, and I would explain why to you except you won’t believe me. Wish I could, gosh darnit, but you’re such meanies. Maybe you should admit that I’m right, and THEN I might be able to justify it, but not if you’re going to cruelly demand evidence like this.”
But no one here is denying the existence of episodic misandry! It’s your claims about structural misandry that we’re having problems with.
This conversation is stupid. Here are some dogs greeting returning soldiers.
See, Steele, what I think your teacher was saying is not that the humanities are not for men, it is that they are not for YOU.
What do you do now, anyway? PLEASE DON’T SAY WRITE INSTRUCTION MANUALS
Misogyman, Misogyman.
Does whatever a Misogy-can.
He can hate, sling a slur.
Moving goal-posts in a blur.
Looook ooouuuttt, it’s Misogyman.
To quote you, “repeating yourself does not make it true.” And apparently you don’t know the word “etymology,” which I use as evidence for why it does in fact imply an equivalence.
Explain to me the etymology of “misandry”, then. Because I know you’re full of crap.
Misandry points to a thing. If that thing is institional, then misandry implies institutionality. IF that thing is not institutional, then it does not. THAT’S HOW WORDS WORK. And your comparison with “heterophobia” is irrelevant, because it’s not an example of something we would agree is institional, but the word itself doesn’t imply that it is (or vice verse).
Again- explain to me the etymology of “misandry” that implies institutionality. It does not. Called out, what now?
I believe I’ve given you an explanation multiple times as to why I avoid using the word “misandry.” Ignore me if you wish, argue that my explanation is a bad one if you wish, but don’t ignore me and then say that I’m just performing mental gymnastics.
Right, you said,
See, this is exactly what I mean when I say the people who use the word “misandry” are trying to borrow meaning from the word “misogyny.” To prove misandry exists, you point to the existence of people who have an irrational hatred of men. Once people agree that that shit happens, you then go on to say that his proves there is a systematic institutional misandry.
To which I said,
Again, the existence of “misandry” in no way implies such an equivalence.
Projection and paranoia, not good qualities. Explain the etymology.
Speaking of which, we’re still waiting on that feminist death threat.
But no one here is denying the existence of episodic misandry! It’s your claims about structural misandry that we’re having problems with.
Kirbywarp has said that he wouldn’t even call a violent rape by a woman, fueled by her hatred of men, as episodic misandry.
He is not alone in that view.
Disgusting.
So basically in a few lucky cases the MRM works like a flu shot, but for sexism and self-pity instead of coughing? I feel like this analogy is nice in theory but doesn’t really work, since the sexism in the MRM is very much alive.
Wow, you’re pretty concerned, troll.
Oh Jesus, the heterophobes. Guys, can we talk about the heterophobes for a minute? I mean, homophobia is bad I guess sometimes or whatever, but there’s probably 6 or 7 people who just full-on don’t like straight folks! Maybe they laugh at them behind their backs! That’s bad too, right? OMG. You all hate straight people, don’t you. It’s so obvious.
Let’s engage at an adult level, all right? If you’d bothered to read instead of going knee-jerk feminist rage-mode, you’d have noticed that I said that heterophobia is institutional. This is no way invalidates the word as a concept. It still exists, and there exist individual heterophobes.
That should be not institutional.
@Steele:
You might as well just read the wiki. Here are some choice highlights:
My main point is that this a similar derrivation for the word “Misogyny.” Illustrated thus:
An example of how misandry refers to an institutionalized thing.
And as a grand finale, a citation on someone who notes that the concept of “misandry” is used to erase misogyny and shift focus, and that there is in fact a comparison between misogyny and misandry (one that is misguided).
Ta da! Wish you could deliver on your challenges. When were you going to reciprocate and bring up an example of a woman killing men for being men?
How can we when you still haven’t learned how to talk properly?
Concern troll with poor reading comprehension cannot tell the difference between rage and mockery. Thinks that people who are laughing at him are very very angry. Why would any teacher discourage this person from pursuing a career in which reading comprehension is important? Must be the misandry.
It’s in the same place as his MOUNTAINS OF SEEEECRET EVIDENCE for the death threats that MRA bloggers get.
Oooh, shoot, forgot. Wikipedia is a notorious feminist hate site, so anything on it can be dismissed…
“Not that I expect most people will have a problem with it, because in the end most people, I believe, would realize that you’re a scumbag who is unduly and bizarrely concerned with performing mental gymnastics to avoid using a single word.”
This from the man who had to be bombarded for two pages with links about George Sodini and Marc Lepine before he would actually admit they existed, and then it was just to say, “they were isolated incidents”. But we’re supposed to listen to all of your anecdotes as if they’re happening! Right! Now! Kindly go fuck yourself, you disingenuous shitheel. You’ve been doing nothing but arguing in bad faith since you got here and on top of that you try and shame us for something that NEVER HAPPENED. Or did you all ready forget your slanderous accusations that we belittled and made fun of a rape victim? You’re on a blog where someone who made light of CONVICTED MURDERERS being raped got their ass chewed into a rag for it. As usual, more bullshit from you without a shred of proof.
Oh damn, there I go being angry, I guess that means Steele wins. *eyeroll*
Kirbywarp, damn, guy. Way to help me out! I see how “misandry” refers to some specific individuals:
opposed to their Egyptian cousins in particular
And refers to a more systematic hatred:
often extend their objections to include the race of males as a whole
Interesting. It seems, based on the wiki, that “misandry” could refer to a more specific hatred, as well as a general antipathy. Shocking!
I really don’t give a damn about the opinion of Allan G. Johnson, a feminist who retroactively justifies his crap with hack sociology at some SUNY school.
Aw, muffin, but I thought I went into knee-jerk LGBT rage-mode. :( Did I mix rages? Will that have any long-lasting side effects, guys? Because I need to go in to work tomorrow.
I did actually see that you said it’s not institutional, congratulations for not being a totally helpless case! However, you’re like it’s still something meaningful enough that there would be merit to talking about it (much like the “misandry” you’re totally incapable of defining or backing up). And that’s fucking ludicrous, because it’s not institutional, because it’s only select, powerless individuals who might be “heterophobes”.
There is no point in discussing “misandry” unless you can actually argue that it has an institutional basis, because otherwise it makes no more difference in the real world than heterophobia does, or a hatred of pretty little sticky-stemmed pink flowers.
Allan G Johnson… man’s name, I guess. A sociologist? Hm, that’s the humanities. I wonder how he got past the female gatekeepers that ruthlessly exclude men?
But…I believe pretty flowers have an influence in the real world, Viscaria.
@Steele:
Wow. Huh. And yet, even if we grant that misandry could refer to both, proving the existence of the individual case still doesn’t show that the systematic case exists. Exactly what we’ve all been saying all along.
You should listen to Johnson though, especially about that whole confusing “men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people.” You in fact did this very thing earlier when you implied that denying institutional misandry also denied that bad things ever happen to (white) men individually.
I’d also like to draw observers’ attention to this
I do not deny your experience. I’d ask that you extend to me the same courtesy, when I tell you I was emotionally damaged by a verbally abusive, misandrist female authority figure in similar (albeit probably more extreme) circumstances.
And note Kirbywarp’s monumental arrogance when he states that the bullying and abuse his teacher dished out was “good for him” and thus it was a positive. He presumes to pass judgement on which forms of hatred are “good” based on his hyper-feminist worldview. There are boys who probably were actually damaged by your teacher’s bullshit, and you praise her? You sack of shit.
OH THE HUE MANATEES
By the way, totally called the “WOOP WOOP feminist lackey, dismissing” thing.
But steele, I did deliver on the etymology, and you haven’t objected to the idea that “misandry” is supposed to be the counter-term to “misogyny,” and since you have a habit of just moving on when you’re proven wrong, I’ll take that as assent that you accept this now. You’re welcome. :)
@Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III:
“I wonder how he got past the female gatekeepers that ruthlessly exclude men?”
Come on, we know the answer to this one too. Obviously Allan G Johnson is a mangina who white-knighted his way through humanities.
Call me when your entire gender isn’t allowed to enroll in college.
Is it possible to white-knight your way through military history, I wonder? I mean, we have actual knights.
The rainbow manatee has made an appearance. All hail the rainbow manatee.
(God I love that manatee.)
There is no point in discussing “misandry” unless you can actually argue that it has an institutional basis, because otherwise it makes no more difference in the real world than heterophobia does
Well, I certainly disagree that misandry is as inconsequential as heterophobia, but there’s no point in arguing that, because you’re a feminist.
or a hatred of pretty little sticky-stemmed pink flowers.
Flowers cannot be violently raped and sodomized by their aunt, now can they?
Didn’t the knights all die in Vietnam? That was the mostly costly conflict ever, after all.
Steele, you’ve yet to provide any evidence for systematic misandry.
I’m still waiting.
@Steele:
Good thing I clarified that my teacher’s behavior was not, in fact, bullying or hatred in a comment I linked for you, and noted that it did me no harm (and some good by highlighting feminist issues at an early age and stimulating my curiosity) while probably helping the girls in the class as well.
It’s not like I’m saying I was beaten as a kid, and that was actually healthy for me. And it’s not like I’m then saying that your (as of yet still ambiguous) experience should have been good for you. So… I guess we’re cool then?
No, the reason that there’s no point in arguing it is that you are unwilling to provide us with any evidence for it.
@Steele:
*sigh* I look forward to the day when Steele is willing to actually debate the one thing about his whole spiel that has any relevence or consequence.
Anathema, Steele doesn’t attempt to prove anything. Notice he’s still harping on the “you made fun of a rape victim” thing even though it’s a complete fabrication. What he does is throw out accusations and slander so he can thump his chest about how he gave us what for later on when he’s talking to his fellow MRA bottom-feeders.
Don’t be silly, he can’t show evidence because your feminist worldview would just cause you to reject it. But rest assured it exists!
Steele, if you honestly believe that there’s no point in arguing that point then there is no purpose in you being here at all.
Steele, you seem mad, bro. Hug a kitten, or a manatee, or a puppy or something. You’re wrong about everything, but see no one is threatening to rape you or beat you up or anything. We’re just disagreeing with you.
And yet, even if we grant that misandry could refer to both, proving the existence of the individual case still doesn’t show that the systematic case exists.
Did I ever say otherwise?
All I’m saying is that isolated cases of misandry are still misandry. And I’ll continue referring to them as such, thank you very much.
Or maybe because you have no argument?