On Monday, Anita Sarkeesian posted the latest installment of her Tropes Vs. Women in Video Games series on YouTube, a half-hour examination of the ways in which video game makers use sexualized violence against women as a cheap way to spice up their narratives and appeal to straight male gamers.
Her tone was measured, her analysis clear and logical and supported by dozens of clips from a wide assortment of games.
Late Tuesday night, this happened:
Some very scary threats have just been made against me and my family. Contacting authorities now.
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) August 27, 2014
I’m safe. Authorities have been notified. Staying with friends tonight. I’m not giving up. But this harassment of women in tech must stop!
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) August 27, 2014
That’s right: Sarkeesian was forced to leave her home due to violent threats against her and her family … because she made a YouTube video analyzing violence against women in video games.
She then posted some of the threats she had gotten from a Twitter account set up specifically to harass and threaten her and her family. [TRIGGER WARNING for graphic rape and death threats.]
I usually don’t share the really scary stuff. But it’s important for folks to know how bad it gets [TRIGGER WARNING] pic.twitter.com/u6b3i0fysI
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) August 27, 2014
For a larger version of the screenshot, see here.
Sarkeesian has also been tweeting some of the other threats she gets on a daily basis from anonymous gamers who are incensed that a woman has anything critical to say about their precious video games.
It’s especially amusing that this misogyny laced email is unironically signed “See you soon m'lady. *tips fedora*” pic.twitter.com/rLk3CvoxXV
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) July 15, 2014
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504437681527353344/photo/1
I get so many emails like this I could publish a coffee table book full of them. pic.twitter.com/qMoYOtV9tT
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) July 15, 2014
Unfortunately, this is an all too typical twitter response to my observations about video games. #E32014 pic.twitter.com/aWmwtQZLnm
— Feminist Frequency (@femfreq) June 9, 2014
You’ll notice that several of these threatening comments mention videos by Thunderf00t, a “skeptic” videoblogger best known, at least in the corner of the internet I write about, for a series of videos in which he viciously attacks some of the women who’ve drawn the most internet hate from angry misogynists – from skeptics like Rebecca Watson and Melody Hensley to video game maker Zoe Quinn and video game critic Sarkeesian.
Thunderf00t’s attacks have won him kudos from assorted Men’s Rights activists, from the regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit to A Voice for Men “operations manager” Dean Esmay, who has praised his videos and urged other MRAs to subscribe to them.
In other words, the harassment of feminist women on the internet is directly linked to antifeminist propagandists like Thunderf00t – and his MRA fans and enablers.
The constant, vicious, personal attacks on Sarkeesian you see not only in video game circles but from Men’s Rights Activists – on Reddit, on A Voice for Men, on YouTube, and so on – have helped to create a hostile environment in which critiques of sexism in games result in real-world death and rape threats against women. This has an undeniably chilling effect on the free speech of women. That in fact is the intent of the harassers.
Margaret Atwood once famously observed that
Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.
I think we need an internet corollary to Atwood’s observation:
Men posting on the internet are afraid that women will block them. Women are afraid that men will treat them like Anita Sarkeesian.
Thing is, Sarkeesian keeps moving forward, diligently researching and putting forth the videos she promised she would. All the huffing and puffing of her critics and attackers hasn’t shut her up. Each new video she puts out is a testament to her courage and her perseverance. Each new video is a blow against those who would shut women up. Each new video helps to inspire others who’ve gotten similar threats to continue speaking up and speaking out.
Supporting Sarkeesian helps to support every woman who wants to be able to speak out online without fear of violent threats. There’s no better proof of this than how angry the biggest misogynistic bullies get whenever feminists and other people of good conscience rally around her. The bullies are still angry about the money she raised via kickstarter, money that has enabled her to bring a new professionalism to her videos.
Hell, AVFM Bully-in-chief Paul Elam is still so angry about this that he’s already accusing her of “damseling for dollars,” collecting “gash-cash” because of these latest Twitter threats. Indeed, in a post that’s a lot more revealing than he intends it to be, he complains bitterly that she’s getting bigger donations than he is:
I am jealous. I have had half the major media in a couple of countries disingenuously and maliciously demonize me. Even after forcing some retractions I bet I got more threats than Sarkeesian.
My reward? Jack shit.
Maybe it was because I didn’t swoon hard enough or treat the threats like they were tickets to Disneyworld.
Oh, don’t be modest, Paul. You take in tens of thousands every year by pretending to be some sort of human rights generalissimo. You raked in $35,000 this summer by trumpeting “threats” that you were saying privately were phony.
While Elam “damsels” and fumes, Sarkeesian simply goes about doing the job she set out to do. Each video she puts out is yet another “fuck you” to her haters, and they know it.
U mad bros?
Here’s the video that caused all the stir. It’s well worth watching. CONTENT WARNING: Graphic violence against women.
“If she really liked games then she wouldn’t be so critical about this game that many people like” really isn’t a very strong argument. Critics are not obliged to carefully work around the feelings of people who are fans of any given cultural product when critiquing it.
Reblogged this on Just a History Geek and commented:
From David Futrelle, another insight into the impacted bowel of the internet that is the manosphere.
I’m thinkimg I should start a new battle cry. “I critique because I LOVE TOO MUCH!” Not all criticisms come from a place of love but I feel it is apt for this situation.
Despite my better judgement I checked /v/.
featured flat out chemtrail level conspiracy theories about zoe quinn
whining about PAX changing some mens bathrooms into womens bathrooms
and just general AAAA SJWS ARE GONNA STEAL MY VIDYAGAMES nonsense
Lady Gamer: You’re stomping on my foot.
Gamebro: No I’m not.
LG: Yes you are. Could you please stop?
GB: Ugh, I’m just stomping up and down for fun. I can’t even tell whether your foot’s there.
LG: Well, it is, and you’re stomping on it.
GB: Then you’d best leave. Because I decided this is the room where stomping happens.
LG: But it’s the room with the cool toys and snacks and stuff. I even brought some of the snacks. I just want to have a good time without getting my foot stomped on.
GB: See, this is why people with feet shouldn’t be allowed in here. They’re too mentally inferior to understand our culture.
LG: Why does our culture include stomping on my foot?
GB: I didn’t say I was stomping on your foot. You said that, which makes YOU the REAL foot-stomper.
LG: Ow! You did it again!
GB: Prove it.
LG: You’re doing it right now!
GB: That’s just an isolated incident.
LG: Fine. (three hours later) Here’s extensive video footage of you stomping on my foot and other people’s feet, along with a lengthy academic explanation of how stomping on people’s feet causes pain.
GB: Argh, what is this burning sensation? It’s…shame! You made me feel bad for stomping on your foot!
LG: So you’ll stop doing it?
GB: I’M GOING TO KILL YOU BITCH. KILL YOU WITH STOMPING.
LG: …You don’t get to share my snacks.
@tinyorc
Nail. Head.
Also the women are “emotional” thing bites us in the butt too.
Women being “emotional” indicates that they should be ignored until they stop. Women not showing their emotions indicates they have no inner emotional breadth.
@Edward Gemmer
Hello! Did you get tired of having your ass kicked at Pharyngula? Still carrying that cross for white men everywhere?
Anita Sarkeesian doesn’t love games because she didn’t talk about aspects of your favorite games that had nothing to do with the subject of the video. Boo hoo. She’s not making reviews. She’s talking about sexism in video games, not making one of those rambling opinion pieces that nasal nerds on YouTube vomit by the thousands.
@Edward, I like the fact that Sarkeesian doesn’t waste time pandering or handholding. People who throw a tantrum when someone points out the flaws in their favourite toys don’t need to be coddled, they need to grow the fuck up and come back when they can participate in conversation like adults and not like toddlers. And if GTA is universally acclaimed as a good game by any standard, why should Sarkeesian waste valuable minutes reiterating something that everyone takes for granted?
Also, you should read Tevis Thompson’s long and excellent essay on how the current state of videogame reviews is not at all conducive to creating better, more innovative videogames.
http://tevisthompson.com/on-videogame-reviews/
The idea that there is such thing as an objectively “good” game is ludicrous. The idea that anyone who wants to critique a well-reviewed game first needs to spend some time pandering to group consensus before they’re allowed get to to the meat of their argument is even more ludicrous. Spirited debate, dissenting opinions and harsh critique are essential to the development of any art-form. Playing emotional caretaker for sensitive nerds should not be part of any serious critic’s remit.
Oh, well done, Shaenon, well done.
These guys stalking Anita and Zoe, like, they’re just really pervs getting their rocks off scaring women. Sure, they think they’re settling some score, and all their misogynist friends cheer them on like they social justice warriors, but no. Just no.
When some men need to feel powerful in a jiff, they startle women in the street. Ever have that happen to you? You’re walking in public, a car races past you with some schmuck hanging out the window yelling, “YEAHHHHHHH!”
You jump a little and the guy smiles a shit-eating grin.
@ LeftWingFox
“Apparently, that’s not enough. Would you like her to stroke your hand, and tell you “There there, I really don’t think you’re a terrible person for playing a video game where you murder a prostitute in a snuff bar to use her body as a distraction”.
Would that be enough?”
She can do whatever she likes. I’m not saying I, personally, need her to do anything. My personal preference is that she should lay off the preachier aspects of her critiques and lay off the dubious connections of art and reality. My second critique was more aimed at how other people view her critiques. I’m not some sort of Gamer X who plays videogames and loves videogames. I like them fine, but I don’t feel much emotional connection to them. Many people do, and I suspect this is one root of the constant anger and harassment she gets.
Yeah, it doesn’t mix well with my PTSD. Assholes.
@Nathan, more hugs if you want them. I don’t understand why people are such assholes to other people.
Unless you were, say, doing an entire series of critiques themed around misogyny in movies, and you used Taxi Driver as one of many, many examples.
She’s not doing a single critique of a single game. She’s doing a series of critiques about themes across many games. Individual games, regardless of how well-loved, are not the point.
Re: irrefutable proof of sexism. The trolls in this thread have served as a pretty good example of why the MRM-o-sphere get things so freaking wrong. They don’t understand what words mean. Others have done a fine job before me, but repetition is helpful to learning, so:
What’s his troll, demanding proof that games are sexist, seems to think that whether something is sexist is a subjective judgment based on how that something makes you feel. He’s wrong. Whether something is sexist is an objective measurement. It doesn’t matter whether anybody’s feelings are hurt by using naked women as props, it’s a measurably sexist item.
What’s her inanity seems to think that social justice is about making oppressors feel bad. It’s not. It’s about correcting systemic inequalities that makes life harder or impossible for some groups, and easier or just obscenely padded for others.
You know what’s kind of strange is that this morning on facebook I saw another gentleman saying the exact same thing (almost word-for-word) in a thread about Anita’s video and harrasment that exuin.exe was saying. It is like they are reading off of the same sheet for their talking points. Very curious…
I think she SHOULD make a coffee table book out of it and then go on all the morning shows talking about the harassment she and so many other women have to deal with when discussing gender politics online.
*detects veiled diss at social sciences.*
http://psychology.okstate.edu/faculty/mburkley/Melissa_Burkley,_Ph.D._Social_Cognition_Lab/Publications_files/PPMC.pdf
Skimming the study…GTA was one of the games the study specifically mentioned. Game play increased levels of “benevolent” sexism.
I use “benevolent” sexism in quotes because it’s not actually all that benevolent…it assumes women are weaker, dumber, flakier, and less competent all around. Therefore they need “protection” and “help”.
…Since I was in a marriage like that I know how “benevolent” that really isn’t…it’s a subtle poison to one’s sense of agency.
Gamebro: I bet you’re wondering where I’ve been for the last two years.
Lady Gamer: Who are you again?
GB: Me and my buddies from the foot-adjacent stomping community THAT HAS NO CONNECTION WHATSOEVER TO STOMPING ON FEET HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST THAT formed a super secret club against you.
LG: Oh my god, you’re that guy who wouldn’t stop stomping on my foot.
GB: You can’t prove it. Anyway, we combed through all your personal information and have determined that in reality, you don’t have feet at all. You’re a liar!
LG: Of course I have feet. Here they are.
GB: This 40-minute YouTube video from a guy called f00tst0mper says otherwise.
LG: Okay, but that’s not true.
GB: We also found a Twitter post where you said you’d never eaten Cool Ranch Doritos.
LG: That one’s true.
GB: Aha! If you’ve never had Cool Ranch Doritos, you don’t belong in the Toys, Snacks, and Foot-Stomping Room!
LG: When did foot-stomping get officially added?
GB: What are you talking about? There’s no foot-stomping here. You’re trying to make me look bad.
LG: But you just said–
GB: I can’t believe this! After I exposed all your lies, you persist in claiming I stomped on your foot? There’s only one way to prove no foot-stomping goes on here in the Foot-Stomping Room!
LG: Leave me alone and stop blocking my path to the Doritos?
GB: Stomp on your foot EXTRA HARD.
LG: Ow!
GB: There! Try claiming there’s a foot-stomping problem NOW!
God, that has happened to me before. And it made me furious. Had a group of dudes in a car do that to me recently-ish. They laughed a lot and I was angry the whole time I was out. Fuck that shit. It isn’t funny. I bet that never happens to them.
Oh, increased benevolent sexism for both men and women, I should add.
The thing about the “damsels for dollars” idea is that it’s demonizing Sarkeesian for allegedly purposely taking advantage of Internet misogyny by placing herself up there for harassment. But this means they already acknowledge that misogyny and sexism are rampant. Even if she *was* being a scam artist, the fact that she could so easily succeed at it is a big clue that the environment has a big problem.
Jim Sterling said this before, but Anita Sarkeesian’s fame and fortune are the trolls’ own damn fault. If sexism was not such a big problem like they say it is, there would not be such an extreme reaction to her Kickstarter announcement, and she would have just remained a niche Internet reviewer. Which I agree with, as I never even heard of her until the whole fiasco about the harassment and threats toward her). They whine and gripe about her having support from anyone, and they continue to terrorize her for it. But that ironically is exactly why she is so well known.
@Unimaginitive,
“Unless you were, say, doing an entire series of critiques themed around misogyny in movies, and you used Taxi Driver as one of many, many examples.
She’s not doing a single critique of a single game. She’s doing a series of critiques about themes across many games. Individual games, regardless of how well-loved, are not the point.”
Yes – I realize this. I’m not saying she is wrong for doing things the way she is. My point is that she may be able to widen her appeal and thereby strengthen the value of her critiques by throwing a few more bones to people who love these games. Humiliating people is unlikely to result in a lot of positive feelings.
Or people could grow the fuck up and stop throwing tantrums every time something they like is criticized.
Which you haven’t actually defined. I guess it’s as good a way as any to be lazily dismissive. Good job.
To which I pointed out that every video, except the most recent, has had a great big “You can still like games that have sexist parts” disclaimer at the beginning, which no-one even bothers with.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who are willfully ignorant of arguments. I have less than none for people who are willing to harass, threaten and lie despite being ignorant.
@blahlistic
“*detects veiled diss at social sciences.*”
Interesting stuff – thank you. Though to clarify, I’m not claiming there can’t be a link between art and violence or art and sexism, but rather that her videos suggest there is such a link without any evidence at all. If she wants to connect the dots and make such a claim, that’s fine, but so far she hasn’t done that, which makes her claims somewhat hollow.
IOW, I agree that game developers use violence against digital women as a cheap and lazy way to show the bad guys and give you motivation. That doesn’t equate to actual women being raped or abused at a higher rate. It’s a pretty big assumption.
And?
And those people would be fucking crybabies. Getting insulted because someone else doesn’t like something you like is pretty much the definition of “overinvested”.
And if any of those people took their butthurt and made threats against the person who criticized their beloved movie, they’d be scumbags. Despite repeated trolls and their repeated attempts, we won’t be derailed from the main point: someone threatened Anita and her family. Over criticism of something they liked. They’re violent misogynist crybabies and no one here gives a fuck about their hurt feelings.