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
Oh my gawd!!!feminists have threatened Steele!!
The horror! We’ve just proven him right!!!
*sob*
Steele is groping towards the thing I’ve mentioned, so I’ll give him a freebie (if only because it’s so self-evidently wrong) if it weren’t for the fact that it’s true, the notion of pervasive misogyny would itself constitute pervasive misandry — it enhances women’s accomplishments and, in this formulation, magnifies men’s failures.
The trouble is that this requires nigh-NWO levels of Pyrrhonism, and it raises but leaves unanswered the question I always have for this type of MRA: if the Femspiracy is so all-powerful, why does it have to operate in secret? Why does it have to paint itself as oppressed?
Okay, I think I’ve finally got a handle on Steele’s logic here:
“Misandry” means “breakfast cereal.”
“Misandry” also means “institutionalized man-hatred.”
Breakfast cereal exists.
Therefore, institutionalized man-hatred exists.
QED
You’re a disingenuous turd.
If the actual definition of misandry, in the dictionary, was “breakfast cereal”, I’d acknowledge that as a useful application of the word.
I’ll repeat myself again:
I say again- it is you who have a specialized meaning for “misandry”, not me. I am putting forth the layman’s definition. You are putting forth the specialized sociological definition.
You cannot simply develop an alternate definition- the sociological one- and attempt to invalidate the basic definition. The critical theory approach may be useful, but it’s not the only one.
The burden of proof is not on me to defend the layman’s definition of “misandry”, as found in Merriam-Webster.
Whatever you call the non-sociological version actually obscures and erases real things, it’s not just another opinion or another point of view.
Nope- as I’ve said repeatedly, this is nothing but projection and paranoia. The existence of “misandry” as a word, in no way implies parity with “misogyny”. An anti-male teacher is a misandrist, and this “erases” nothing. In this context, it’s just an easier way to say, someone who hates men.
Get over it, ya big baby.
I saw a misandry once. I was hiking in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey, and evening was coming in.Then I head a sound behind me, like footsteps. I turned, but there was nothing there. Shuddering, I walked on, and I heard the footsteps again. Fear rose in my stomach, but I willed myself to keep to a walking pace – never run from a predator.
As I walked, I could hear the steps getting closer. I reached into my pocket, but there was nothing but a flashlight. It would have to do, perhaps I could dazzle it. Turning around I switched on the bright LED light, and standing there before me, large as life was institutional misandry! It shaded its eyes with one leathery wing, then with a hideous screech, it took to the skies.
I will never forget that horrible sound until the day I die. But it didn’t get me. And that is why I am able to write coherently.
And today on Spot That Fallacy!! we have an example of —
Mind projection fallacy – when one considers the way he sees the world as the way the world really is.
That feels like weaksauce considering his love for “you’re projecting” but seriously, he’s meeting the definition over and over again.
Shadow — that was the point, yeah. He can discount hating people in hats, but I really want to see his argument about hoodies (actually, I probably don’t, he’s been a one topic troll so far at least)
I’m hungry, I think I should make some misandry (that’d be Indian food in packet form, basically MREs, but more food like).
Damn… I forgot to call that one (the Swedish scum video).
Steele, care to cite one that celebrate women who actually killed men; for being men?
I also see you have the time to respond to that, but you completely ignore the stats on Vietnam/Korea.
I’ll take that as your conceding the point (tacit agreement that is, silence = assent)
@Steele:
The text you quoted was talking about “misogyny” not “misandry,” and I wasn’t arguing for the parity of the two there. Projection and paranoia, eh?
Hey, Steele, maybe don’t link to a post offering a bounty on women because they played fictional characters if your point is that men have it so rough.
Ain’t no bounty on Paul Elam, is there?
Of course not- Elam has not made a fictional video depicting the gleeful slaughter of a woman. If he did, I’m sure there would be “mucho” hate.
And by the way, vile jackass- nice weasel words. There’s a “bounty” on the identification of these individuals, so they can be placed on Register-Her.
“the notion of pervasive misogyny would itself constitute pervasive misandry — it enhances women’s accomplishments and, in this formulation, magnifies men’s failures.”
Yeah I explained misandry to a (male) friend just a bit ago, his answer was basically that “macho men” hate men with their requirements of proving one’s manhood…not really helping the whole “patriarchy doesn’t hurt everyone, that’s misandry!” bullshit (which Steele has somehow not managed to pull yet)
“Nope- as I’ve said repeatedly, this is nothing but projection and paranoia.”
Yeah, trust me here, we all know you keep repeating that, so let me repeat myself —
http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Oh great, now Steele is complaining of weasel words… Any more of this and I think my head will explode again. Again! Third time in as many days! This can’t be good for my health.
this is becoming, like, st. anselm’s argument for the existence of misandry
Steele, why is the word “misandry” so important to you? Everyone here is willing to concede that there are a few individuals out there who have an irrational hatred of men. We’ve explained to you why we don’t like using the word misandry to describe those rare occurrences. So why do you insist on using the word “misandry” for that?
The text you quoted was talking about “misogyny” not “misandry,” and I wasn’t arguing for the parity of the two there. Projection and paranoia, eh?
Then you’re simply a recluse who doesn’t live in the real world. “Misogyny” is, in common parlance, generally not used to talk about highbrow “systems of inequality”. It’s usually used to refer to someone who dislikes women. That’s it.
Remember, I’m referring to, you know, actual conversation here, not social justice news articles.
You really need to get relax a bit, my friend. It’s erasure to use misogyny in a context other than “sociological systems of inequality”? You’ve got a beef with a whole lot of people.
You’re comical.
Steele:
I don’t hope to get through to Steele, obviously, but I want to address this for the benefit of third parties.
The word “sexism” was coined on analogy with “racism” to indicate a parallel between the two forms of bigotry, as “like racism, but with sex.” Later came “ablism”: “like racism and sexism, but with abledness.”
By a similar process, but longer ago, John Milton created the word “pandemonium” to mean “a gathering of Devils,” as “pantheon” means “a gathering of gods.”
So when words are constructed in parallel like that, as ‘misogyny” and “misandry” are, it is an indication that they are parallel in meaning. If you don’t intend similar meanings there’s really no reason at all not to use dissimilar words, if you’re being honest.
@Steele:
Don’t forget I’m also a vile sack of shit!
Steele, why is the word “misandry” so important to you? Everyone here is willing to concede that there are a few individuals out there who have an irrational hatred of men.
Why is not using the term “misandry” so God-damn important to you? I’ve never in my life seen people so deadset against something so simple and so trivial.
“Misandry” is, in its most basic form, simply an efficient way to refer to a specific type of antipathy. Whether or not it’s “systemic”, it’s certainly more common than any old random hatred like “people with hats”, and so it’s a semi-useful word. That’s my position, in a nutshell.
mikey you are seriously a rhetorical treasure trove. i love how you think you can churn out this pissy, melodramatic mush and not realize how silly it sounds when you tell other people to ‘relax’.
you do you realize it’s been less than an hour since the last time you flipped the fuck out and screamed about how everyone was ‘vile scumbag’ right?
@Sir Bodsworth, I am so sorry that happened to you. Also, HA HA HA HAH HAH HA HA HAH HA
So when words are constructed in parallel like that, as ‘misogyny” and “misandry” are, it is an indication that they are parallel in meaning. If you don’t intend similar meanings there’s really no reason at all not to use dissimilar words, if you’re being honest.
I don’t accept this- etymology isn’t the be-all end-all of the meaning of a word. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have dictionaries.
I accept the critical theory approach. I accept it as a useful context. I don’t accept that this invalidates the meaning as established in the dictionary.
Steele: What about Vietnam?
What about the promised reciprocity of attacks on men for being men… you have three to account for (I’d probably add the Virginia Tech attacks as being murders caused by rage at women, but more than just women died, so it’s not as clear cut; if you want to swing for the fences you can give us four. I’ll give you all a pass on Brievik, since hatred of feminism/women wasn’t the prime mover, he was a fellow traveller, but misogyny wasn’t his sole driving force).
Steele still has nothing to say about my aspirations to become an artist and the many many people who did everything in their power to prevent me from pursuing my aspirations. They aren’t vile misogynists steele? Not willing to commiserate with me about an experience we have in common?
i dunno man probably because the more straightforward and commonplace term ‘being an asshole’ already exists, and that one doesnt require you to throw a screaming tantrum across multiple blogs in its defence?
So Steele, you acknowledge that misandry is trivial.
Ok, I can’t take him seriously anymore, I just nearly shot Indian out my nose at “you’re comical” and really, that’s a bit more pain than I’m up for over this. Thus — “I don’t accept this” — well I don’t accept you aren’t an Ood. (That is not a typo, please go away long enough to use google)
more straightforward and commonplace term ‘being an asshole’
That’s less descriptive. Why is this person an asshole?, is the next question. She hates men”, is the answer. Much easier- “This person is a misandrist”. It’s also a more exact way to describe someone’s personality- a lot of people are assholes. What kind?
Your way is inefficient; thus, it can be seen that having the word is optimal. But your obsessive and bizarre crusade against a useful word blinds you to your idiocy and inefficiency.