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
NEW YORK TIMES YOU HAVE LIED TO ME
There’s also the issue of reading comprehension, and Steele seems to have some problems there as well. Anyone with decent reading comprehension can see right through Toy Soldier’s attempts at rewriting conversations to suit him.
Here is a chihuahua:
Actually, interestingly enough, the first subject I’ve ever failed in school was Language Arts in 7th grade. Make of that what you will.
In short, if you want to have a specific definition for “misandry,” fine.
It’s a legitimate definition that already exists- the more common one, actually. It is only the feminist definition that ascribes this bizarre “institutional” catch to it. Personally, I think it’s a mechanism to deny men’s issues.
Regardless of Toysoldier’s honesty- I do believe he is telling the truth about his rape, due to details he has provided that I won’t go into because it’s not my place. Are you willing to tell me that’s not an example of misandry? No matter whether you believe there is systematic bigotry against men- you won’t even grant that this is an example of isolated misandrist actions?
You’re an asshole if that is so.
And I’m not just repeating myself. If you’ll actually understand what I’m saying, I’m trying to drive home the point that what you call “episodic misandry” is just a fancy way of saying “a person who has an irrational hatred,” and has none of the meaning that the word “misogyny” does.
Only if we’re feminists (I’m not) and only if we’re using the sociological or “critical theory” definition of the word. This is simply not the only definition that is used, not even the most common one.
Secondly, “misandry” seems to me a much more efficient way of saying “an irrational hatred of men”, and I will continue using it. So will other sane people. Not my problem if you have a weird bugbear about it.
Thirdly, misandry is in fact institutional, thus invalidating everything you’ve said, but I don’t expect to convince you there.
But you do not get to equivocate and borrow meaning and importance from “misogyny”
Projection and paranoia, not good qualities. The mere existence of the word “misandry” in no way implies an equivalence to “misogyny”. It’s just what it is- a word to describe feelings of prejudice and hatred toward men.
A surprisingly useful word, I’ve found.
“Thirdly, misandry is in fact institutional, thus invalidating everything you’ve said, but I don’t expect to convince you there.”
Misandry is, in fact, not institutional, thus invalidating your entire worldview.
“Thirdly, misandry is in fact institutional, thus invalidating everything you’ve said, but I don’t expect to convince you there.”
It is pretty hard to convince people of something without actually making any arguments to support your position. Preemptively declaring that they won’t believe you so why bother is pretty lazy, and in this context also rather disengenuous.
@Steele:
Do you listen to yourself type? The first two highlighted sections imply that misandry is not an institional thing the way you use it, and the last says that it is. FFFffffff.
Welp, if you don’t expect to convince us of the bloody core point of your whole argument, I suppose we’re done here. Buh-bye Steele, nice wasting time with you.
P.S.
FUCK. EVERYTHING.
*rainbow-vomiting panda*
He can’t, feminists made him write poorly.
Kirbywarp, in the first two points- since you apparently have trouble reading for comprehension- I was operating within your feminist worldview. There would be no point in adopting an MRA worldview, because then we’d be talking past each other. I was saying that, even under the feminist umbrella, misandry is still a thing.
VoIP: “Misandry” (or misogyny) need not be an example of “bigotry”. It could simply be an isolated incident of “prejudice”.
And in Toysoldier’s case, it was a very extreme, very damaging and horrifyingly abusive instance of prejudice.
Hmmm, why am I not surprised that Steele’s representation of the achievement gap in education is not exactly the complete picture.
That’s where Toy Soldier’s entire theory goes wrong, really. Since he’s chosen to interpret his aunt’s actions as a manifestation of systemic misandry rather than being about fact that she was an abusive person who as an individual had issues with boys/men (and proof that child abuse actually is systemic), the entire theory that he then built upon that idea ends up being nonsense. Saying this is not a denial of the fact that he was abused, it’s just pointing out that the conclusions he ended up reaching are wrong and not supported by the evidence.
If “prejudice” means nothing more than “at least one person has a personal hatred,” then it’s a shame our society has prejudices against people who wear hats, people who don’t wear hats, people with blonde hair, violinists, people named Kyle, and people who drive Chevys.
Prejudice has to be systemic or it has no more power than some random person who doesn’t like Kyles.
@Steele:
*point*
[…] she was an abusive person who as an individual had issues with boys/men
You mean, she was a misandrist.
It’s really a source of increasing fascination to me that you can’t just say the word. It’s like watching Feminist Scrooge McDuck, or something.
I can sum up the entire conversation between steele and everyone else in two lines of dialogue.
Steele: Y u think it’s ok to hate teh menz?
Everyone else: We don’t hate teh menz, we just think you specifically are an idiot for thinking that we do, and that it’s not ok to have a game online about beating the shit out of a woman who is already under a ton of fire systematically.
I have a deep dislike of hairy chests on men. This means that hairy-chested men have a hard time getting hired for most jobs, are on average poorer than men who are not hairy, are more likely to be arrested and sent to jail, and in general suffer from all the ills that tend to affect people who suffer from societal prejudice, right?
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS, YOU TWIT.
Steele, no one is denying that there are a few individuals out there with an irrational hatred of men.
What we’re denying is that there is a systematic oppression of men.
If you are going to define that systematic, institutionalized misandry exists, you actually have to provide evidence.
No, because misandry is something systemic. We’ve already been over this numerous times.
Prejudice has to be systemic or it has no more power than some random person who doesn’t like Kyles.
If you have a record of a person who doesn’t like Kyles repeatedly raping and sodomizing someone named Kyle, well, I’d say that prejudice was pretty damned shitty, legitimate, and damaging. And I’d toss that person in jail next to a serial rapist.
Words have meanings, you monumental thickie: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ISOLATED SYSTEMIC EVENT.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE WORD MEANS, YOU TWIT.
“Prejudice” need not include any sort of systemic element. Learn English.