Ally Fogg weighs in on the Anita Sarkeesian controversy.
Originally published at Heteronormative Patriarchy for Men
I am not the most dedicated gamer of my generation. I never owned a Pong machine or a Gameboy, a ZX Spectrum or a SNES. I’ve never played Grand Theft Auto, Tomb Raider or Final Fantasy. My only engagement with an XBox is the occasional attempt to prise my 10 year old son away from Minecraft, an experience roughly akin to dragging a hippie raver out of a K-hole. The closest I’ve come to pixellated sexual violence against women has been blasting a red shell up Princess Peach’s exhaust pipe on Mario Kart.
So I don’t have much in the way of informed opinions about misogyny in video games, I’ll leave that to others. Nonetheless I couldn’t help but be sucked in by the debate surrounding Kickstarter Anita Sarkeesian, as good an illustration as we’ll ever need of the vitriol of the new gender wars. An intense storm of hatred was roused by her modest idea to crowd-fund research into sexism in the games industry. The many thousands of hostile comments posted on Sarkeesian’s YouTube video were of course heavily gendered and sexualised, but so too was some of the retaliation – notably Charlie Brooker’s description of the mob as “idiotic pebbledicks” who are terrified of women.
If one of the worst offences committed by sexists and anti-feminists online is to reduce women and their opinions to their genitalia and sexual worth, I’m not sure how the cause is helped by turning the precise same missiles around and hurling them back in the other direction – however deserving of mockery and disgust the targets might be. Without doubt, the hate-fest directed at Sarkeesian was repellent and indefensible. It was a display of the madness of crowds which would have come as no surprise to Mackay or Le Bon (Gustave, that is, not Simon.) There were a few sane voices raised in defence of the gaming culture, and a few reasonable points made about creative freedom and the demands of the free market. But such comments were few and far between, and lost in a swamp of ugly abuse.
In all the online articles and commentary that appeared, a point recurred that this phenomenon is an inevitable price of freedom. If we grant free expression, we also grant freedom to abuse, insult and offend. It’s a seductive argument, with a lot of merit. Offence is indeed in the eye of the beholder, and there has never been an opinion of value which didn’t cause offence to someone. But just as my right to swing my fist ends where it meets your right to not be punched in the face, so my right to freedom of speech does not extend to the point where it silences others.
Let there be no doubt, the hate campaign waged against Anita Sarkeesian was a concerted attempt to silence her voice, using intimidation and psychological warfare. The misogyny expressed may have been rooted deep in the personalities of her antagonists, but in most cases I doubt it. Instead I suspect it was instrumental, using vocabulary consciously chosen to wound as deeply as possible, and aimed at the (assumed) weak points of a woman and a feminist.
This boot can sometimes be on the other foot. While there is no direct symmetry, we have seen the same principle at play in the concerted attempts of some feminists (mostly, but not entirely historic) to stifle debate about male victims and female perpetrators of domestic violence, with activists, writers and academics being branded misogynists and abusers for even raising the issues. Anyone who dares to raise a sceptical voice in many feminist blog spaces can expect more aggression and abuse than reasoned debate. The urge to silence opponents is probably a human one, and for that reason it is all the more important we are conscious of it in ourselves and wary of it in others.
Those who participate in online hate campaigns are not the champions of freedom of speech, but its worst enemies. If they consider themselves libertarians, they are a disgrace to the label. It is not easy to see the solution. Censorship is never the answer, far too many babies go out with the filthy bathwater. Nor do I want to see our prisons filled with hot-headed flamers and trolls.
All we can do is be wise to the nature of these online flame wars, and be prepared to challenge abusive, insulting, silencing behaviour wherever it emerges; be prepared to confront bullies and mob mentality wherever they arise.
We can do that by questioning what they pack in their politics, not what they pack in their pants.
Photo—Angry young man from Shutterstock
About Ally Fogg
Just awesome.
Thank you!
Finally a sane piece on this issue.
I also loved the Duran Duran reference and the Holmes quote. I hope to read something else from you soon.
Love the article…the only thing I gotta do is defend Brooker a bit, and only because it’s Brooker. He’s a comedian and he says offensive things about pretty much everyone (not like Frankie Boyle but along the same lines). I mean in that article you mention, just look at his description of feminists playing Ms. Pac-Man…it’s meant to be outrageous.
But other then that, spot on.
Charlie paints with a broad, sloppy brush, but aside from that he reminds me there is hope for intelligent popular culture. At least in Britain. Not even on American public tv would you be allowed to critique consumerism and marketing in that rapier direct and funny way.
Hmmm. Still trying to figure out how one can be so direct yet paint with a broad brush.
I better go re-watch a few epps of Screenwipe and see.
if the reports of death threats, rape, and other abuses are true, that’s horrific. Fortunately and unfortunately, such speech can be made anonymously on the Internet. However, the backlash against that seems to have been equally strong. The only way to deal with a bully is to punch him/her in the nose (figuratively). Bullies are often cowards and unwilling to fight fair. They want to pick on those they percieve to be weaker than themselves.
On the other hand, the feminist movement has on many occassions sponsored gender-based hate-speech. It gets really old after a while
Thanks for the comments everyone. It’s nice to be here.
@HeatherN – My love for His Brookership is second to none, and I agree with your point, I’d forgive him almost anything. But that equation of misogyny & anti-feminism = small dick is pretty tiresome wherever it arises, even from him.
Oh I’ll agree it’s certainly a tired joke.
For me, it’s more than a tired joke- its pretty wounding.
Great Article! I echo all of the other comments.
“My only engagement with an XBox is the occasional attempt to prise my 10 year old son away from Minecraft, an experience roughly akin to dragging a hippie raver out of a K-hole.” <- This is freaking hilarious.
A balanced view Ally. I don’t get to use the word hegemony much….ha!
The cultural hegemony “was and is” on the side of Anita Sarkeesian in this episode, so let’s not lose sight of that little fact. She has the full support of the powerful, the money, and the media channels that matter. Your characterization of “silencing and intimidation” is off base, but I agree with the rest of your level headed approach.
You’re right that it panned out that way. As it turned out, the attempts to silence and intimidate were not only ineffective, they were massively counter-productive.
But that was after the fact. I’m sure the people making most of the comments on the YouTube site didn’t expect to become part of an international media hullaballoo, they just weighed in.
And I’m sure when the comments first started appearing, Sarkeesian had no idea what degree of support she was going to end up receiving. She could quite easily have just gone away to cry in a quiet corner somewhere. I know for a fact that many people who have been on the receiving end of this kind of thing have done just that.
Maybe so.
I think it was a predictable pan out. The YouTube 4 Chan gangs live mostly in the Matrix, never say never to be sure, but they had no real chance against the BLOGS!!
A comparable worthy challenger would need to be a CockZilla of some sort.
The current viral story of the poor bus monitor being terribly harassed in meat-space – she now has near half a million in donations from the Internet public, the guilty boys are receiving death threats from the Internet, Disney wants to put her up at their Presidential Suite in some wonder-park, and technology has finally found a way to make victims cash in their pain through PayPal (I mean this in a simple matter of fact way). There is a brokerage business to be had here. Who wants to write a business case with me?
This isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be. It isn’t just this scientists speech we need to be concerned about, but also the speech of the gamers.
Don’t you think that the hostility toward this was caused, at least in part, by the impression that this study was meant to chill their speech? To shame them by shining a critical light on their speech? To prevent them, in some way or another, from using the words and phrases they’ve always used?
Sarkeesian is probably doing this in attempt to silence them, just as they want to silence her. The only difference is that they go all out with their hostility, while she veils hers behind scientific purpose and jargon. Freedom of speech means the freedom to say things you hate, too.
No, I’m sorry Soullite but I’m not buying that for a moment.
Don’t you think that the hostility toward this was caused, at least in part, by the impression that this study was meant to chill their speech?
No, I don’t. Unless by the phrase “chill their speech” you mean that she wanted to persuade gamers away from rank sexism and violent misogyny. In which case they can take a running jump, because freedom of speech does not entitle someone to indulge in hate speech and abuse and more than freedom of movement entitles someone to climb through a neighbour’s window and bunk down on their couch.
Sarkeesian is probably doing this in attempt to silence them, just as they want to silence her
From everything I’ve seen and read, she wanted to contribute to an ongoing debate about what we, as a society, consider acceptable or unacceptable.in our culture. You (or the people flaming her) may have a different view to her as to what is and is not acceptable, but that doesn’t entitle them to bully her into silence, to prevent the debate even being held. That is fundamentally undemocratic and illiberal.
Sarkeesian does not appear to be trying to persuade anyone as much as she is playing to an existing audience of feminists who already agree with her. It is more likely that the games she will “research” will probably be those poo-pooed by feminists. That is not remotely close to objective analysis, and that is worsened by her statements in the video in which she says she is looking for specific tropes. In other words, she will ignore anything that does not fit her argument, which is consistent with her analysis of other pop culture things.
As for the negative response, I agree with Soullite that it was likely a preemptive retort to what will probably be a rather vicious attack on the game community and male gamers. While I do not support anyone using threats and insults, as a gamer and a geek I am well aware that feminists love to attack the game and geek community because it is male-oriented. Whenever feminists talk about video games, they will quickly turn to bashing male gamers. That train is never late, and I suspect that this is what some of the people who lashed out were thinking. I also suspect that plenty of those comments were faked in an attempt to help bring attention to Sarkeesian’s project.
Hi Jacob
Sarkeesian does not appear to be trying to persuade anyone as much as she is playing to an existing audience of feminists who already agree with her. It is more likely that the games she will “research” will probably be those poo-pooed by feminists. That is not remotely close to objective analysis, and that is worsened by her statements in the video in which she says she is looking for specific tropes. In other words, she will ignore anything that does not fit her argument, which is consistent with her analysis of other pop culture things.
Even if that is true (I have no opinion either way) it doesn’t excuse or justify the reaction. She’s perfectly entitled to play to her own audience and to construct a partisan case against aspects of gaming culture. Other gamers are equally entitled to create a case in the other direction. That’s how politics work. Politics does not work by shouting down contrary opinions and intimidating opponents into silence.
it was likely a preemptive retort to what will probably be a rather vicious attack on the game community and male gamers.
and
I also suspect that plenty of those comments were faked in an attempt to help bring attention to Sarkeesian’s project.
So you think the reaction was understandable and acceptable, but you also think it was (at least partially) faked to get attention? Don’t you see the contradiction there? It can be one or the other but it can’t be both.
But as it happens I think the idea the comments were faked is pretty ludicrous. We both know that the type of onslaught we saw on that thread was by no means unprecedented and, although unusually extreme,) entirely in keeping with flame attacks on other feminists.
” Politics does not work by shouting down contrary opinions and intimidating opponents into silence.”
Perhaps it shouldn’t but the feminist movement has done precisely that for decades, very successfully.
Here’s a classic example from a men’s domestic violence discussion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM
I never said it did. I think it is fine for people to object to her project , but I do not agree with attacking people, threatening them, or using vile language. People can critique her without being nasty.
In theory, I would agree. However, in practice politics is very much about shutting down and intimidating opponents into silence. Let us not deceive ourselves. Sarkeesian’s project will not be used to talk with non-feminist male gamers. It will be used by feminists to shut down any male gamers trying to defend their community.
Actually, it can be both because I am talking about two separate groups: actual male gamers and people posing a male gamers.
I do not think all of them were faked, but I do think some of them likely were.
“Let us not deceive ourselves. Sarkeesian’s project will not be used to talk with non-feminist male gamers. It will be used by feminists to shut down any male gamers trying to defend their community.”
I think everything else you say is reasonable Jacob, but I just don’t see this. What’s the worst that could possibly happen? Maybe Sarkeesian is strongly pro-censorship and a radical extremist in terms of what she sees as unacceptable misogyny and sexism, I don’t know. But even if she is, it is a long way from putting together a polemical argument or a few propaganda films to actually influencing the legal culture.
Despite their best efforts over about 40 years, feminists have failed dismally to restrict pornography, sexualisation of mass media, sexist language or any of the other things they complain about. Why on earth should gamers be worried when there is not the remotest hope of attaining any form of censorship, especially in the US?
What feminists might have a hope of achieving is influencing the social and cultural consensus about what is and is not acceptable. Whether you agree with them or not, that’s a perfectly legitimate political / social goal for any movement – just as it is perfectly legitimate for MRAs to argue the case about demeaning representations of men in advertising.
Which, come to think of it, is quite a good analogy. Do you argue strongly against MRAs who (in your terms) want to silence the voices and opinions of advertisers and media creatives?
(FWIW, my own position is that advertisers do have a responsibility to society to address some of that misandric behaviour, just as I think games industry has a responsibility to address sexism and misogyny on its watch, so my position is consistent).
Ally,
It is not true that feminism has not been successful. The movement has been extraordinarily effective in many of its endeavors. For example, decades ago, it achieved equal legal rights for women. A very good thing.
The movement has successfully made domestic violence synonymous with violence against women, making violence against women a crime (as it should be) but violence against men a joke.
The movement has successfully made the term “sexism” synonymous with discrimination against women. So it doesn’t matter what the inequality is, it can’t be considered discrimination because a male is the victim.
Feminist efforts led to the creation Title IX which has resulted in both a dramatic increase in opportunities for girls women, and the elimination of thousands of boys and men’s high school and college sports opportunities, such as the cutting of hundreds of men’s’ wrestling, gymnastics, track, baseball, golf, and other teams.
The feminist movement successfully worked to create education reform to advance girls and women past boys and men. And, it has been very successful. So, we now have a large and ever widening gender education gap with boys graduating from high school far less often than girls. Women will soon comprise over 60% of college graduates, dropping men to 40% uor lower. This is already true on many college campuses.
The movement has successfully convinced the federal government that this gender gap is “a great accomplishment” and should continue.
Feminism has successfully created anti-equality federal, state, and local government agencies, and lobbied for and won anti-equality / anti-male legislation, such as VAWA and ACA.
There is no question but that feminism has done, and is doing, much good for girls and women, and much harm to boys and men.
With that history of success in serious, tangible areas,it’s no wonder they have time to attack games.
All we can do is be wise to the nature of these online flame wars, and be prepared to challenge abusive, insulting, silencing behaviour wherever it emerges; be prepared to confront bullies and mob mentality wherever they arise.
I dig.
The only reason why this is garnering so much backlash is because so much energy, concern, money, and time is spent unearthing even the slightest unflattering, less-than-ideal representation of women, while even the most egregiously sexist portrayals of men are left unquestioned by those in power.
Men are simply fed up with it and since they can do nothing about it, respond with rage.
Ironically, the project itself is arguably an example. From what I know of it, Anita has no plans to examine sexism as it relates to men. She has no responsibility to, of course, but I don’t logically see how someone can call a trope sexist unless they know how it affects the other gender.
…but I don’t logically see how someone can call a trope sexist unless they know how it affects the other gender.
I think it’s entirely possible to see if something is sexist toward one gender without knowing how it affects the other. That’s how you end up with situations where you can take one topic and see how it’s sexist against one gender but not the other or even both.
Just a heads up.
Word through the grapevine at many 4chan boards (the supposed attackers) is that this whole thing was manufactured to get publicity and sympathy. A number of users have been poking around (via legal and less than legal means) to get to the bottom of it, and came up with some interesting info.
All I know is, I didn’t know about this whole thing until kotaku broke the story. I read 4chan daily in my downtime, and even I didn’t know about this until the media spoke up on it. Kinda makes you wonder…
I do believe women should hve rights but till my dying breath I will never believe that the female species is superior to males or man. Many cultures have proven this to be so from before Egypt to indians we see that male has always played a dominant role in society. I am not a muslim but even Muslims have fought against Feminism because look at what it is doing to our men and their ability to work . I feel its a great thing to provide great wages for all people and equal access to housing for our men something I have failed to see since I can remember when was the last time we say men having access to Fair Housing unless they where dying of AIDs. I support no feminist group because I have never gotten anything benifical from women besides massive amountd of debt . I have spent 3 years in prison because of trying to support a women. I have lost most than that . Its seems the only men that support Feminism these days are men that where raped as a child , raised by a single mom , been stripped of the Masculinity as a young man ,expereinced massive amounts of rejection and a young man , low wages upon entering the job market , what do u get a man that talks with a very low low girly voice . Screw Feminist and feminism . I ahted it when I had more and I hated it when I had nothing.
Check out my site Support Rights For Men .
http://youtu.be/-JrF1l_BYPc
Why do feminists hate free speech?
Every single one of those entitled princesses on YouTube, who are obviously too accustomed to hearing praise and compliments all the time, will block you for asking the wrong questions. In most cases, it’s approval pending for comments and in most cases, the ‘wrong’ questions, no matter how politely you ask them, will never be approved.
To give you just one example, a couple of months ago, I simply pointed out to “TheFeministFrequency” that her use of the word “fallacy” in her “The Straw Feminist” video was wrong. She decided not publish it.
In fact, I do not know a single feminist on YouTube that will not block you for asking the wrong questions or saying the wrong things. In contrast to this, I do not know a single MRA who blocks anyone, moderates his comment thread or indeed shows any sign of annoyance at differing opinions. On my channels, people frequently wish death, cancer, AIDS, the pox and the common flu on me. They threaten to kill various members of my family, call me names, ridicule me, insult me. I never delete anything.
The feminists have raised the ire of everyone who respects freedom speech, freedom of expression and democracy. They are held in contempt by everyone who loves those basic western values of the enlightenment.
The feminists, it would appear, do not have this much of a principled attitude toward other people’s freedom of expression. If so many followers of an ideology have such a totalitarian, anti-free-speech sort of mindset, I get suspicious of the whole movement. Couple this with the volumes upon volumes of “hate speech” legislation that has been passed in various western countries, and you’ve got yourself a political movement that is clearly out to undermine democracy.
There is no such thing as hate speech. There is only free speech.
Totalitarians attempting to ban urinals (as in Germany, Sweden and other countries) would not worry me much in and of itself. Alright it’s creepy and disgusting that those perverts seem to feel the need to follow me into the lavatory with their silly ideas. But that on its own would not worry me.
Totalitarians passing “hate speech” legislation to limit other people’s ability to express themselves freely, will not worry me as long as the totalitarians do not have enough political clout to implement their perverted dreams about society. Sadly, the opposite is true.
Totalitarians incessantly spreading and perpetuating the “rape culture” myth, thus deliberately aggravating the false accusation epidemic is disgusting and reprehensible, but it falls under freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is something that feminists are happy to have around when it suits them, but which they hate when they are being criticised.
Totalitarians whingeing and whining about male-dominated and male-invented art forms such as video games
(just on a side note: the boys and men who invented that art form in the 70s and 80s were ridiculed as dweebs and nerds. Does anyone remember Comicon? Women will ridicule and piss all over new art forms that men invent for as long as those art forms have not made it into the mainstream yet. Once it has, they will go into full parasite mode)
is arrogant and annoying. But they can do whatever they like for as long as they have the freedom of speech that they themselves are working so hard to undermine.
But my question remains. Why do feminists hate free speech?
There is no such thing as hate speech. There is only free speech
Really?
Presumably you believe it is free speech to burn crosses in black households’ front yards? Or publish tracts calling for all gay people to be murdered? Or call for genocide on the airwaves?
Well, no.
My front yard is my front yard. You cannot just put up a cross there without asking me. A comment thread is not a front yard. Not because the burning cross is hateful, but because I have invested money in cultivating that lawn and I am the one who is going to clean it up.
A comment thread is very different. It exists precisely so people can express their opinions there. A front yard was not put there so the KKK can burn crosses there. The YouTube aoftware gives its users the option of curbing free speech to the point of maing it entirely impossible. It is disturbing how many people use that option. Feminism should be judged by the people who subscribe to that ideology. And again and again, it reveals itself to be a totalitarians, anti-free speech ideology. Anyone who vaguely respects the enlightenment accomplishment of freedom of expression should be deeply suspicious of that kind of an anti-democratic mindset.
As for calling for other people’s death, this happens to me on my blog all the time. People want me to be killed, mutilated, raped, they wish all those things upon various members of my family… It isn’t nice but something I am happy to tolerate if the trade-off is the protection of free speech.
Well, whether it is your yard or not is not really the point here. If you want to be like that, suppose it is the common land in the middle of an African-American neighborhood, is it acceptable use of freedom of speech to be burning crosses there?
In the broader argument, I’d ask you to consider this.
Suppose the internet is a ‘speakers corner’ type area, where anyone can get up on a soapbox and speak their mind, however right or wrong, sane or crazy he or she may be.
If one person stands up to make a point to a small audience of like minds, and is quickly and unexpectedly surrounded by a mob of several thousand people yelling abuse and insults in an attempt to intimidate him or her into silence – who is using free speech more appropriately there? The speaker or the mob? Would you not accept that the mob is acting in opposition to free speech, rather than to exercise it?
Well, let’s not mix too many apples and oranges here. A person who is obviously out to limit your freedom of expression by shouting you down obviously infringes upon your right to express yourself. However the horde of trolls that posted on TheFeministFrequency’s channel did not shout her down. They were not able to. The video was still up and every single word of her excruciatingly monotonous pitch was still clearly audible.
The very few miscreants that tried to flag her video down could have done so even if Anita Sarkeesian was in favour of free speech. The option to flag videos is always there whether you are blocked or not.
What compounds matters is that TheFeministFrequency is an anti-free speech channel itself. The video in question was the first one in months were any kind of free speech was allowed for a very limited time. This anti-social, totalitarian attitude that many feminist channels takes has raised the ire of everyone who has any respect of basic democratic values. That the understandable resentment at this disrespectful trampling over other people’s rights has discharged in such a trolly, unthinking way is regrettable. But let’s not pretend that we are talking about a channel that deserves any kind of respect from people who seek to defend freedom of speech.
“Hate speech” is always a losing argument with me. There’s no such thing as a right not to have your feelings hurt.
Theoretically, everyone should get to answer back. It doesn’t always happen. Maybe that’s a good thing; we’ve got enough people peeing in the pool of public discourse as it is.
Late comment regard Wikipedia:
Wikipedia has been mobbing-for-sport ever since it’s inception. Changes are defended by ruthless gangs who seem to be made up of men, and their target is usually a loan woman who challenged their not-so-neutral POV. When mods are called in, they are usually no help because the gangs are engaging in obscure Wikipedia procedures which will bring about what’ they want, while their target can’t figure out why the Wikipedia page was “frozen” after it looks like the gang wants it to look.
Most people tend to give up on Wikipedia after a couple of experiences like this: score one for the bullies! Jimmy Wales acknowledged this goes on, and he’s never done anything to address it. This is why ideas about “crowd-sourcing” and “wisdom of crowds” fail: it’s just too easy to marginalize dissent and, worse, get unreason to prevail just because everyone will get on a colorful bandwagon.
I would really like to ask the men in theis blog to read” Mysogyny and the straw feminst” under the blog site” A Series Of Random Tangents”, by Anna Johnstome. It shows feminst verbally beating the shit out of this man on the blog that asked one question , what rights are American women lacking, its pretty shocking.
Really? You think that’s shocking? She unfriended him on Facebook and called him a dick, and then wrote a very long and tedious blogpost about their tedious Facebook spat? And that’s it? You think that is shocking? I’ve had more malicious hatchet jobs against me on a good day.
I hate to think what you’d think of this
Oh, I’ve just noticed your name. I guess it was you she called a dick? Well I can see why you’re upset, but word to the wise:
1. Feminist posts something feminist on her blog or FB Page
2. Someone else says “Fuck I hate feminist with a passion”
3. Feminist says “piss off you dick”
That’s kind of how this works. Welcome to the internet, pal.
Feminists will typically block dissenters/silence non-feminists by deleting their comments. Feminism is, at its heart, a totalitarian ideology. Believe in the pay gap myth or be bannes. By contrast, I do not know a single MRA who blocks people or deletes comments. It makes you wonder what the feminists will do once they have taken over every echelon of government in western society. Democracy and freedom of exppression have already suffered a great deal. We are close to losing the last few freedoms we’ve got.
The man vs woman and vice versa and hate vs love is a great tragedy. Its a heavy burden on the back of humanity. Turning back to God (not religion) but scriptures in the (NKJV study) bible, to learn what love means is in John 1. This is the way to get a fresh start, away from the worlds template of what a man or woman should or should not be. Turning back to God allows you to cut through all the crap the world regurgitates at your feet. Opens your eyes to deception on a whole different level. Don’t accuse an entire gender. Don’t let the media determine your worth. Learn wisdom from unparalleled truth. Persevere in Love. Let your heart retain my words.