person:anita sarkeesian

  • Klara K Network Honors Anita Sarkeesian With 2016 Penguin Award
    https://feministfrequency.com/2016/12/12/klara-k-network-honors-anita-sarkeesian-with-2016-penguin-award

    On December 6th in Stockholm, Swedish business network Klara K honored Anita Sarkeesian with the Penguin Award 2016 at this year’s K-Day ceremony. The event brings together scholars, journalists, and policy makers for a conversation on equality, courage and inclusive leadership. The Penguin Award recognizes individuals who have acted with bravery and resilience in the face of opposition, in an effort to motivate and inspire others. photo credits: Ivan da Silva […]


    http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/7b9b699a1ebe8eae1245ca601b04007a?s=96&d=identicon&r=G

  • Dans la série des films qu’on trouvait bien avant de chausser ses lunettes de féministes pour le rematter... bye bye Gondry !

    http://feministfrequency.com/2011/03/24/tropes-vs-women-1-the-manic-pixie-dream-girl

    « Un trope est un modèle type dans une histoire ou un attribut reconnaissable dans un personage qui transmet des informations au public. Un trope devient un cliché quand il est galvaudé, utilisé sans cesse. Malheureusement, certains de ces tropes perpétuent souvent les stéréotypes offensifs, c’est à dire sexistes, racistes, homophobes, validistes...
    (...)
    La Manic Pixie Dream Girl est un terme inventé par Nathan Rabin pour décrire le personnage féminin qui est là pour aider le héro, en général blanc et hétéro, pour qu’il se détende et profite de la vie.
    (...)
    C’est un personnage de soutien utilisé pour faire avancer l’histoire du héros masculin. Elle n’a pas vraiment de vie propre, elle n’a pas de famille, d’intérêts ou de travail, en tout cas de ce que nous pouvons voir. Elle est en train de soutenir un protagoniste masculin déprimé pour qu’il sorte du marasme, et non en train de poursuivre son propre bonheur »
    (...)
    La Manic Pixie perpétue le mythe de la femme qui dans son essence même serait « soignante », pour que nous, les meufs, puissions continuer à « réparer » ces mecs tristes et solitaires, afin qu’ils puissent aller « réparer le monde ». La Manic Pixie Dream Girl existe pour être la muse, l’inspiration, pour ces mecs torturé. En fait, c’est cette idée de muse qui est le fondement de ce trope, et c’est de ça qu’il est question.
    (...)
    Scénaristes à Hollywood, permettez-moi de vous rappeler que les femmes ne sont pas ici pour votre inspiration, pour que vous accédiez à la célébrité ou pour vous cajoler. Vous n’êtes peut être pas au courant, mais nous sommes de vrais êtres humaines, avec nos propres problèmes, intérêts et créativité.
    Et si vous arretiez de nous utiliser comme vos muses et que vous commenciez à nous décrire comme de vrai individues ?"

    ("Fréquence féministe est une série de vidéo sur le web qui explore les représentations des femmes dans les récits de la culture pop. La série de vidéos a été créé par Anita Sarkeesian.
    En Août 2014, Fréquence féministe a publié une nouvelle Tropes vs femmes dans les jeux vidéo, qui a coïncidé avec le harcèlement continu de Zoe Quinn dans le cadre de la controverse gamergate ; cet épisode a déclenché une réaction impitoyable. Parmi de nombreux actes ignobles, Anita Sarkeesian a du faire face au vandalisme de sa page Wikipedia qui a été remplie d’insultes dégradantes, la réception d’illustrations où elle est représentée comme victime d"agressions sexuelles, et même à la création d’un jeu en ligne intitulé « Tabasses Anita Sarkeesian ». Internet est arrivé à la rescousse : Sarkeesian a réussi à atteindre son objectif de 6000 $ sur Kickstarter pour la série en moins de 24 heures, et a depuis amassé plus de 25 fois cette somme pour son développement. Game Over pour les trolls. ")

  • Incorporation de caractère sexuel à un comportement ou à un produit | Entre les lignes entre les mots
    https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/incorporation-de-caractere-sexuel-a-un-comport

    Les auteures parlent, entre autres, de la publicité, de l’incorporation du besoin d’affirmation, de « formation identitaire centrée sur l’image et la vulnérabilité », de savoir faire sexualisé précoce, de sous-culture de sexe, de situation de dépendance et d’effacement, de culture du rêve, d’insatisfaction par rapport à son corps, de dynamique identitaire, de vêtements aguichants et dénudants, de consommation compulsive, du factice, de double standard dans le domaine de la sexualité…

    Elles analysent cette « logique économique de mise en marché », la sexualisation des filles, l’action publicitaire consistant « à donner un caractère sexuel à un produit ou à un comportement qui n’en possède pas en soi », la construction de besoins présentés comme vitaux…

    J’ai particulièrement apprécié les paragraphes sur la réduction de la personne à l’image qu’elle projette, la valorisation grâce à des moyens superficiels, les paradoxes (« être soi-même, une mode en soi », « le « style sportif » sans l’activité physique », « des produits pour être « naturelle » »), la recherche d’approbation…

    Les auteures dénoncent l’éducation, non pour soi et pour ses besoins, mais pour le service d’autrui ; l’apprentissage du prendre soin de soi, de son corps pour plaire ; la construction d’« identité » à l’extérieur de soi…

    Elles soulignent des éléments de la construction sociale de la féminité, la soumission inculquée, l’idée martelée d’une « différence irréductible entre les deux groupes de sexe », le renversement inventé de la domination dans la presse pour jeunes filles (les garçons seraient les victimes ! et il faudrait que les filles préservent et s’effacent devant leur « masculinité »)…

    Sans oublier qu’il est important d’analyser les forces sociales et économiques, leurs contradictions, « derrière des actes en apparence personnels et choisis librement ».

    #lolita #éducation #féminisme #genre #filles

    • It is a fact universally acknowledged that a woman in possession of an opinion must be in want of a correction. Well, actually, no it isn’t, but who doesn’t love riffing on Jane Austen? The answer is: lots of people, because we’re all different and some of us haven’t even read Pride and Prejudicedozens of times, but the main point is that I’ve been performing interesting experiments in proffering my opinions and finding that some of the men out there respond on the grounds that my opinion is wrong, while theirs is right because they are convinced that their opinion is a fact, while mine is a delusion. Sometimes they also seem to think that they are in charge, of me as well of facts.

      It isn’t a fact universally acknowledged that a person who mistakes his opinions for facts may also mistake himself for God. This can happen if he’s been insufficiently exposed to the fact that there are also other people who have other experiences, and that they too were created equal, with certain inalienable rights, and that consciousness thing that is so interesting and troubling is also going on inside their heads. This is a problem straight white men suffer from especially, because the western world has held up a mirror to them for so long—and turns compliant women into mirrors reflecting them back twice life size, Virginia Woolf noted. The rest of us get used to the transgendering and cross-racializing of our identities as we invest in protagonists like Ishmael or Dirty Harry or Holden Caulfield. But straight white men don’t, so much. I coined a term a while ago, privelobliviousness, to try to describe the way that being the advantaged one, the represented one, often means being the one who doesn’t need to be aware and, often, isn’t. Which is a form of loss in its own way.

      So much of feminism has been women speaking up about hitherto unacknowledged experiences, and so much of antifeminism has been men telling them these things don’t happen. “You were not just raped,” your rapist may say, and then if you persist there may be death threats, because killing people is the easy way to be the only voice in the room. Non-white people get much the same rubbish about how there isn’t racism and they don’t get treated differently and race doesn’t affect any of us, because who knows better than white people who are trying to silence people of color? And queer people too, but we all know all of that already, or should if we are paying attention.

      This paying attention is the foundational act of empathy, of listening, of seeing, of imagining experiences other than one’s own, of getting out of the boundaries of one’s own experience. There’s a currently popular argument that books help us feel empathy, but if they do so they do it by helping us imagine that we are people we are not. Or to go deeper within ourselves, to be more aware of what it means to be heartbroken, or ill, or six, or ninety-six, or completely lost. Not just versions of our self rendered awesome and eternally justified and always right, living in a world in which other people only exist to help reinforce our magnificence, though those kinds of books and comic books and movies exist in abundance and cater to the male imagination. Which is a reminder that literature and art can also help us fail at empathy if it sequesters us in the Boring Old Fortress of Magnificent Me.

      This is why I had a nice time last month picking on a very male literary canon lined up by Esquire as “80 Books Every Man Should Read,” 79 of them by men. It seemed to encourage this narrowness of experience and I was arguing not that everyone should read books by ladies—though shifting the balance matters—but that maybe the whole point of reading is to be able to explore and also transcend your gender (and race and class and nationality and moment in history and age and ability) and experience being others. Saying this upset some men. Many among that curious gender are easy to upset, and when they are upset they don’t know it (see: privelobliviousness). They just think you’re wrong and sometimes also evil.

      There has been a lot said this year about college students—meaning female college students, black students, trans students—and how they’re hypersensitive and demanding that others be censored. That’s why The Atlantic, a strange publication that veers from progressive to regressive and back again like a weighty pendulum recently did a piece on “The Coddling of the American Mind.” It tells us that, “Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher have publicly condemned the oversensitivity of college students, saying too many of them can’t take a joke,” with the invocation of these two white guys as definitive authorities.

      But seriously, you know who can’t take a joke? White guys. Not if it implicates them and their universe, and when you see the rage, the pettiness, the meltdowns and fountains of male tears of fury, you’re seeing people who really expected to get their own way and be told they’re wonderful all through the days. And here, just for the record, let me clarify that I’m not saying that all of them can’t take it. Many white men—among whom I count many friends (and, naturally, family members nearly as pale as I)—have a sense of humor, that talent for seeing the gap between what things are supposed to be and what they are and for seeing beyond the limits of their own position. Some have deep empathy and insight and write as well as the rest of us. Some are champions of human rights.

      But there are also those other ones, and they do pop up and demand coddling. A group of black college students doesn’t like something and they ask for something different in a fairly civil way and they’re accused of needing coddling as though it’s needing nuclear arms. A group of white male gamers doesn’t like what a woman cultural critic says about misogyny in gaming and they spend a year or so persecuting her with an unending torrent of rape threats, death threats, bomb threats, doxxing, and eventually a threat of a massacre that cites Marc LePine, the Montreal misogynist who murdered 14 women in 1989, as a role model. I’m speaking, of course, about the case of Anita Sarkeesian and Gamergate. You could call those guys coddled. We should. And seriously, did they feel they were owed a world in which everyone thought everything they did and liked and made was awesome or just remained silent? Maybe, because they had it for a long time.

      I sort of kicked the hornets’ nest the other day, by expressing feminist opinions about books. It all came down to Lolita. “Some of my favorite novels are disparaged in a fairly shallow way. To read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely misunderstand Nabokov,” one commenter informed me, which made me wonder if there’s a book called Reading Lolita in Patriarchy. The popular argument that novels are good because they inculcate empathy assumes that we identify with characters, and no one gets told they’re wrong for identifying with Gilgamesh or even Elizabeth Bennett. It’s just when you identify with Lolita you’re clarifying that this is a book about a white man serially raping a child over a period of years. Should you read Lolita and strenuously avoid noticing that this is the plot and these are the characters? Should the narrative have no relationship to your own experience? This man thinks so, which is probably his way of saying that I made him uncomfortable.

      All I had actually said was that, just as I had identified with a character who’s dismissively treated in On the Road, so I’d identified with Lolita. I read many Nabokov novels back in the day, but a novel centered around the serial rape of a kidnapped child, back when I was near that child’s age was a little reminder how hostile the world, or rather the men in it, could be. Which is not a pleasure.

      The omnipresence of men raping female children as a literary subject, from Tess of the d’Urbervilles to Less Than Zero, along with real-life accounts like that of Jaycee Dugard (kidnapped at 11 in 1991 and used as a sex slave for 18 years by a Bay Area man), can have the cumulative effect of reminding women that we spend a lot of our lives quietly, strategically trying not to get raped, which takes a huge toll on our lives and affects our sense of self. Sometimes art reminds us of life.

      Hardy’s novel is in fact a tragedy of what happens when a poor young woman’s lack of agency, beginning with her lack of the right to say no to the sex forced on her by a rich man, spirals out to destroy her life in a grand manner. It could be recuperated as a great feminist novel. There are a lot of male writers, even a long way back, who I think of as humane and empathic toward female as well as male characters: Wordsworth, Hardy, Tolstoy, Trollope, Dickens come to mind. (That none of them are blemishless human beings we can discuss another time, possibly after hell freezes over.)

      There is a common attack on art that thinks it is a defense. It is the argument that art has no impact on our lives, that art is not dangerous, and therefore all art is beyond reproach, and we have no grounds to object to any of it, and any objection is censorship. No one has ever argued against this view more elegantly than the great, now-gone critic Arthur C. Danto, whose 1988 essay on the subject was formative for my own thinking. That was in the era when right-wing senators wanted to censor art or cancel the National Endowment for the Arts altogether. The argument against this art, which included Robert Mapplethorpe’s elegantly formalist pictures of men engaged in sadomasochistic play, was that it was dangerous, that it might change individual minds and lives and then our culture. Some of the defenders took the unfortunate position that art is not dangerous because, ultimately, it has no impact.

      Photographs and essays and novels and the rest can change your life; they are dangerous. Art shapes the world. I know many people who found a book that determined what they would do with their life or saved their life. Books aren’t life preservers; there are more complex, less urgent reasons to read them, including pleasure, and pleasure matters. Danto describes the worldview of those who assert there is an apartheid system between art and life: “But the concept of art interposes between life and literature a very tough membrane, which insures the incapacity of the artist to inflict moral harm so long as it is recognized that what he is doing is art.” His point is that art can inflict moral harm and often does, just as other books do good. Danto references the totalitarian regimes whose officials recognized very clearly that art can change the world and repressed the stuff that might.

      You can read Nabokov’s relationship to his character in many ways. Vera Nabokov, the author’s wife, wrote, “I wish, though, somebody would notice the tender description of the child, her pathetic dependence on monstrous HH, and her heartrending courage all along…” And the women who read Nabokov’s novel in repressive Iran, says Azar Nafisi of Reading Lolita in Tehran, identified too: “Lolita belongs to a category of victims who have no defense and are never given a chance to articulate their own story. As such she becomes a double victim—not only her life but also her life story is taken from her. We told ourselves we were in that class to prevent ourselves from falling victim to this second crime.”

      When I wrote the essay that provoked such splenetic responses, I was trying to articulate that there is a canonical body of literature in which women’s stories are taken away from them, in which all we get are men’s stories. And that these are sometimes not only books that don’t describe the world from a woman’s point of view, but inculcate denigration and degradation of women as cool things to do.

      Dilbert comic Scott Adams wrote last month that we live in a matriarchy because, “access to sex is strictly controlled by the woman.” Meaning that you don’t get to have sex with someone unless they want to have sex with you, which if we say it without any gender pronouns sounds completely reasonable. You don’t get to share someone’s sandwich unless they want to share their sandwich with you, and that’s not a form of oppression either. You probably learned that in kindergarten.

      But if you assume that sex with a female body is a right that heterosexual men have, then women are just these crazy illegitimate gatekeepers always trying to get in between you and your rights. Which means you have failed to recognize that women are people, and perhaps that comes from the books and movies you have—and haven’t—been exposed to, as well as the direct inculcation of the people and systems around you. Art matters, and there’s a fair bit of art in which rape is celebrated as a triumph of the will (see Kate Millet’s 1970 book Sexual Politics, which covers some of the same male writers as the Esquire list) . It’s always ideological, and it makes the world we live in.

      Investigative journalists T. Christian Miller and Ken Armstrong just published a long piece about how police caught a serial rapist (and how one of his victims was not only disbelieved for years but was bullied into saying she lied and then prosecuted for lying). The rapist told them, “Deviant fantasies had gripped him since he was a kid, way back to when he had seen Jabba the Hutt enslave and chain Princess Leia.” Culture shapes us. Miller and Armstrong’s grim and gripping essay, “An Unbelievable Story of Rape,” bears witness to both the impact of popular culture and of women’s stories being discounted and discredited.

      But “to read Lolita and ‘identify’ with one of the characters is to entirely misunderstand Nabokov” said one of my volunteer instructors. I thought that was funny, so I posted it on Facebook, and another nice liberal man came along and explained to me this book was actually an allegory as though I hadn’t thought of that yet. It is, and it’s also a novel about a big old guy violating a spindly child over and over and over. Then she weeps. And then another nice liberal man came along and said, “You don’t seem to understand the basic truth of art. I wouldn’t care if a novel was about a bunch of women running around castrating men. If it was great writing, I’d want to read it. Probably more than once.” Of course there is no such body of literature, and if the nice liberal man who made that statement had been assigned book after book full of castration scenes, maybe even celebrations of castration, it might have made an impact on him.

      I hasten to add that I don’t think I’m injured by these guys at this point in my life, and I don’t feel sorry for myself. I just goggle in amazement at the batshit that comes out of them; it’s like I’m running a laboratory and they keep offering up magnificent specimens. Apparently over the horizon some of them got so upset that no less a literary voice than this year’s Booker Prize winner Marlon James said, “Liberal men. I’m not about to stop your inevitable progress to neo-liberal and eventually, neocon, so let’s make this one quick. It seems some of you have a problem with Rebecca Solnit’s new piece. There is censorship, and there is challenging somebody’s access to making money. This is not the same thing.”

      And though I was grateful to James for calling them out, I wasn’t even challenging anyone’s access to making money. I just made humorous remarks about some books and some dead writers’ characters. These guys were apparently so upset and so convinced that the existence of my opinions and voice menaced others’ rights. Guys: censorship is when the authorities repress a work of art, not when someone dislikes it.

      I had never said that we shouldn’t read Lolita. I’ve read it more than once. I joked that there should be a list of books no woman should read, because quite a few lionized books are rather nasty about my gender, but I’d also said “of course I believe everyone should read anything they want. I just think some books are instructions on why women are dirt or hardly exist at all except as accessories or are inherently evil and empty.” And then I’d had fun throwing out some opinions about books and writers. But I was serious about this. You read enough books in which people like you are disposable, or are dirt, or are silent, absent, or worthless, and it makes an impact on you. Because art makes the world, because it matters, because it makes us.

      Rebecca SolnitSan Francisco writer, historian, and activist, Rebecca Solnit is the author of seventeen books about geography, community, art, politics, hope, and feminism and the recipient of many awards, including the Lannan Literary Award, and the National Book Critics Circle Award. She is a contributing editor to Harper’s, where she is the first woman to regularly write the Easy Chair column (founded in 1851).

      http://lithub.com/men-explain-lolita-to-me

  • Why Are You So Angry? Part 1: A Short History of Anita Sarkeesian
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ

    « Jack is not a psychopath. Since his only understanding of dealing with a sexist is shunning, shaming or incarcerating, he reads any critics of his own gender politics as an appeal to shun, shame or incarcerate HIM. He is a guy who is terrified of who he is if the world Sarkeesian describes is real. »

    Cette petite série de vidéos qui cherche à établir POURQUOI les gamers sexistes réagissent avec autant de haine aux analyses féministes du jeu vidéo est vraiment bien faite et ne s’applique pas uniquement au gaming mais plus globalement à toutes les réactions conservatrices que les progressistes rencontrent.(Permalink)

    #feminisme

  • Pourquoi Internet est-il trop souvent hostile aux femmes ?
    http://www.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2015/03/23/pourquoi-internet-est-il-trop-souvent-hostile-aux-femmes_4599136_4408996.htm

    « Blagues » de mauvais goût, messages sexuellement explicites, menaces de #viol voire de #mort : de nombreuses femmes ont été prises pour cible ces dernières années sur Internet, de la chanteuse écossaise Lauren Mayberry aux différentes protagonistes du « GamerGate » (Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, Jenn Frank...), en passant par la journaliste brésilienne Nana Queiroz. Sans compter toutes les anonymes harcelées chaque jour. Ce n’est donc pas par hasard si la question de la place réservée aux femmes sur #Internet a été particulièrement discutée cette année au festival South by Southwest (SXSW) d’Austin.

    Bien sûr, personne n’est à l’abri de menaces ou de commentaires déplacés sur Internet. Mais les #femmes sont une cible de choix. Une étude menée en 2006 par l’université du Maryland a ainsi démontré que, au sein d’un même forum de discussion (« chat room »), les pseudos féminins recevaient 25 fois plus de messages tendancieux ou sexuellement explicites que les pseudos masculins. En avril 2014, la journaliste indépendante Jamie Nesbitt Golden a remplacé la photographie figurant habituellement sur sa page Twitter par celle d’un homme blanc, sans modifier toutefois sa description ni sa manière de s’exprimer sur le réseau social. Résultat, « le nombre de tweets déplacés et condescendants a considérablement chuté », témoigne-t-elle.

    #sexisme #harcèlement

  • Anita Sarkeesian : What I Couldn’t Say - Feminist Fiction
    http://feministfiction.com/2015/03/20/anita-sarkeesian-what-i-couldnt-say

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhgEuY64ECw

    I rarely feel comfortable speaking spontaneously in public spaces, I’m intentional and careful about the media interviews I do, I decline most invitations to be on podcasts or webshows, I carefully consider the wording of every tweet to make sure it is clear and can’t be misconstrued. Over the last several years, I’ve become hypervigilant. My life, my words and my actions are placed under a magnifying glass. Every day I see my words scrutinized, twisted and distorted by thousands of men hell-bent on destroying and silencing me.

    What I couldn’t say is, ‘I’m a human being.’ I don’t get to publicly express sadness or rage or exhaustion or anxiety or depression. I can’t say that sometimes the harassment really gets to me, or that conversely the harassment has become so normal that sometimes I don’t feel anything at all. The death threats come through on my social media, and it’s just become a routine. Screencap, forward to the FBI, block and move on. I don’t get to express feelings of fear or how tiring it is to be constantly vigilant of my physical and digital surroundings. How I don’t go to certain events because I don’t feel safe. Or how I sit in the more secluded areas of coffee shops and restaurants so the least amount of people can recognize me. I don’t show how embarrassment I am when I have to ask the person who recognized me in my local grocery store to please not mention the location where they met me.

    #sexisme #harcèlement

  • Schadenfreude time!
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/03/03/schadenfreude-time

    Les deux PUA/MRA qui avaient lancés une collecte pour tourner un documentaire nommé The Sarkeesian Effect visant à révéler au grand jour la malveillance d’Anita Sarkeesian n’ont toujours rien tourné et… ils se séparent… et celui qui se fait virer accuse l’autre d’avoir tout dépensé.

    J’en rigolerais bien si ces connards ne participaient pas à l’enfer que vivent les femmes dans le monde du gaming et de la hi-tech.(Permalink)

    #feminisme

  • prenez ce couteau (Nous vivons dans un monde où signaler le sexisme...)
    http://prenezcecouteau.tumblr.com/post/103386629073/nous-vivons-dans-un-monde-ou-signaler-le-sexisme

    Nous vivons dans un monde où signaler le sexisme vous rend plus vulnérable que de le perpétuer. C’est pourquoi des gens comme George Will, un apologiste du viol qui a déjà appelé les survivant-e-s d’agressions sexuelles des “personnes privilégiées”, peut aller gagner 48000 dollars en allant parler à un centre universitaire, tandis que l’activiste féministe Anita Sarkeesian est forcée d’annuler son discours après que l’école ait reçu un avertissement de la part de quelqu’un qui menaçant une fusillade de masse en représailles. Même lorsque les hommes sont accusés de viol, ils ne rencontrent pas la même quantité de vitriol. Cette logique tordue explique pourquoi des filles comme Rehtaeh Parsons ou Audrie Pott ont été victimes de cyber-intimidation jusqu’au suicide après avoir été violées, tandis que la réputation de leurs violeurs a été largement épargnée. Cela explique également pourquoi la victime du viol de Steubenville a été violemment menacée en ligne, tandis que ses violeurs n’étaient pas visés du tout. Dans de nombreux cas, il est plus facile d’avoir une vie publique en tant que violeur qu’en tant que victime.

    We live in a world where calling out sexism makes you more vulnerable than perpetuating it. That’s why people like George Will, a rape apologist who has called survivors of sexual assault “privileged,” can go on to earn $48,000 to speak at a college, while feminist activist Anita Sarkeesian is forced to cancel her speech after the school received a warning from someone threatening a mass shooting in retaliation. Even when men are accused of rape, they aren’t met with the same amount of vitriol. That twisted logic explains why girls like Rehtaeh Parsons or Audrie Pott were cyberbullied to death after being raped, while their attackers’ reputations have remained largely unscathed. It also explains why the Steubenville rape victim was violently threatened online, while her rapists weren’t targeted at all. In many cases, it’s easier to have a public life as a rapist than as a rape victim.

    #culture_du_viol #sexisme #féminisme #harcèlement

  • Anita Sarkeesian on Video Games’ Great Future
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/anita-sarkeesian-on-video-games-great-future.html?_r=0

    « My own contentious relationship with #gaming continued through high school and college: I still enjoyed playing games from time to time, but I always found myself pushed away by the sexism that permeated gaming culture. There were constant reminders that I didn’t really belong.

    As a kid, I didn’t understand that this feeling of alienation wasn’t unique to me, but was part of a systemic problem. Traditionally, advertisements for mainstream games were almost exclusively aimed at men and boys. When women and girls appeared, typically it was either as eye candy or as annoying girlfriends. »(Permalink)

    #feminisme

  • The Post-VMAs Pop Cultural Comedown: How Did We Go From “FEMINIST” to the “Fappening”? | Alternet
    http://www.alternet.org/media/how-did-we-go-feminist-fappening?akid=12208.108806.NZcM0D&rd=1&src=newslet

    his isn’t just about the hypocrisy of a bunch of dudes who rail against NSA snooping but pat themselves on the back after launching campaigns of privacy violation and intimidation against women. It’s also about the intersection of a sociopolitical culture that still hasn’t figured out whether women can be trusted — trusted with their bodies and sexualities, trusted to have opinions on culturally male mainstays like video games — and an Internet culture that, simply put, values the sanctity of anonymity over the safety of users.

    This won’t be the last horrible week, or the last photo hack. It almost certainly won’t be the last celebrity badly misunderstanding the difference between silence and consent. And as long as Anita Sarkeesian continues making videos, her naysayers will resort to threats and epithets because they don’t have any real ammunation against her generally commensense arguments. But if each incident also brings a fresh wave of outraged déjà vu — wait, we’re still dealing with this BS? — there may be real change on the horizon.

  • Feminist Frequency sur Twitter : I usually don’t share the really scary stuff. But it’s important for folks to know how bad it gets [TRIGGER WARNING]
    https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/504718160902492160/photo/1

    Un exemple des menaces reçues par Anita Sarkeesian.

    C’est un dingue isolé vous allez me dire. Moi je trouve ça curieux que les « dingues isolés » sont quasiment tous des hommes qui s’en prennent à des femmes.

    Et je pense que si on peut parler d’eux au pluriel, c’est peut-être qu’ils sont pas si « isolés » que ça.(Permalink)

    #feminisme #gaming

  • Feminist video game critic forced to leave her home after online rape and death threats
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/27/feminist-video-game-critic-forced-to-leave-her-home-after-online-rape-and-

    Anita Sarkeesian, creator of an online video series analyzing problematic representations of women in video games, was forced to leave her home on Tuesday after death threats made online against herself and her family, Polygon reported.

    “Some very scary threats have just been made against me and my family,” Sarkeesian posted on Tuesday. “Contacting authorities now.”

    After confirming she had found a safe place to stay, Sarkeesian posted a screengrab of the threats, posted by a Twitter account calling itself “Kevin Dobson,” which identified her address and her parents, as well as several vulgar threats, including one to “ram a hot tire iron up [her] c*nt”:

    #harcèlement #masculinisme #Video_games #feminisme #culture_du_viol

  • Sexisme dans les jeux videos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7FbTZHj6rg

    Ca commence à 7:00 et on sent que Bob viens de visionner les videos d’Anita Sarkeesian et qu’il n’y comprend rien.

    Je joue a Minecraft depuis un ou deux ans et j’ai découvert le jeu grâce aux videos de fantasio974 dans le style de celle ci
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoiYLQduH9M


    J’aime bien Fantasio mais j’ai déchanté ces derniers temps. Dans leur programme D&Cube (il y a Bob Lennon qui est le pire des deux), leur maison était déjà baptisé « la maison du viol » ce qui m’avais fortement déplu, mais cette semaine dans ma video de déco de cube (oui j’ai du temps pour cela ^^) je me suis fait traité de « complémentaire » de « féministe extrémiste » de « sexe faible » et j’ai pas le droit de répondre, puisque dans la vidéo il est précisé que ca ne sert à rien.
    Comme les gameurs se défendent toujours du sexisme en disant que ce n’est que dans les jeux de shooteurs et les propos de kevins, Minecraft n’échappe pourtant pas au sexisme et Fantasio et Bob n’ont pas l’excuse de la jeunsse (si c’en etait une) car ils ont dépassé la trentaine. Je met ici la video pour documenté le sexisme dans les jeux vidéos et la culture #geek.

    #sexisme #jeu_video #femme #femmes