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
@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?