Feminist theory investigates misogyny in both historical and present situations to explain how sexism grows with culture. Misogyny is described not just as behaviour that objectifies, diminishes, or degrades women, but also as the exclusion of women, shown in discrimination, physical and sexual abuse, and hostile attitudes toward women (Farell et al, 2019, 88).

In general, sexism and misogyny look to maintain or restore a patriarchal social order. However, sexism feigns reasonableness, whereas misogyny becomes aggressive and attempts to force the issue (Mane, 2018, 80). Misogyny therefore aims to stifle the public and political voices of women, to push women away from public and political places, and to undermine any efforts to establish gender equality in the public domain (Baker, Jurasz, 2019b, 100). As a result, misogyny is a self-masking phenomenon: attempting to call attention to it is likely to increase its prevalence. (Manne, 2018, xix).

Misogyny is similar to hostile sexism (Glick and Fiske, 1997; García Díaz, 2021, 84) and is based on three axes: (i) the idea of domineering paternalism, i.e. understanding that women are inferior to men; (ii) the concept of competitive gender differentiation, which considers that women are different from men in the qualities that qualify them for public life; and (iii) heterosexual hostility, the consideration that women are objects of sexual desire (García Díaz, 2021, 84).

The relative absence of sex from the majority of institutional definitions of hate speech is indicative of a blind spot and shows the institutional failure to perceive gender as a social component sufficient to incite hatred. Several factors are at play here. The widespread notion that fundamental gender equality has been achieved, leaving merely vestiges of sexism in popular culture, may explain the reluctance to refer to sexist speech as hate speech. The lack of gender as a component of hatred is further explained by the fact that although hate speech targets “vulnerable minority” with racist and xenophobic aggressions aimed at their annihilation, the same cannot be said for women (Khosravinik, 2018, 52).

The broader concept of misogyny, which may or may not involve violence, yet almost always involves some form of harm. This harm may be direct, manifesting as psychological, professional, reputational or, in some cases, physical harm. Alternatively, it may be indirect, in the sense that it makes the internet a less equal, less safe, or less inclusive space for women and girls.

This cultural, rather than legal, approach captures manifestations and effects of online abuse that extend beyond violence, such as the chilling, silencing, or self-censorship effects this phenomenon has on women, and enables us to consider manifestations of online misogyny in the broader political contexts of the online culture wars (Ging, Siapera, 2018, 516)

Toxic masculinity refers to conventional male ideas that prioritise violence and domination above empathy and sensitivity, attributes often associated with women. Popular culture, such as movies, television programs, music videos, and video games, often reinforces these ideas, creating an environment in which males feel pushed to conform to these norms to achieve success.

Interestingly, the term toxic masculinity comes from the work of sociologists and psychologists working in the early 1990s, looking at different aspects of men’s thought in reference to feminism per se (Haider, 2016, 557). According to Haider, these studies examined different representations of masculinity and men’s relationship with their fathers, and not in relation to feminism as many people believe (Haider, 2016).

Some of these assessments centred on the social scripts that surrounded war, portraying idealised masculinity as a model for heroism and depicting war as a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood. Through the evolution of these social scripts, violence has become a means of asserting masculinity (Haider, 2016, 557). Furthermore, Haider maintains that masculinity is constantly defined in relation to femininity within the patriarchal matrix, and toxic masculinities exaggerate this binary (2016, 557). This dichotomy depicts the feminine as weak (subordinate) and the male as powerful (dominant) (Jones et al., 2020, 1905).

This is a socially detrimental manifestation of masculinity –“toxic masculinity”– with especially negative effects on social movement learning, which includes connecting, giving account, and transforming individual tales into collective political action (Simes, Amaral, & Santos, 2021, 172). Toxic masculinity is described this way to emphasise both its violent characteristics and negative outcomes. In fact, it comprises the precise components of hegemonic masculinity “that nurture others' dominance “(Kupers, 2005, p. 717). Toxic masculinity is characterised by extreme competition and greed, insensitivity to or disregard for the experiences and emotions of others, a strong need to dominate and control others, an inability to nurture, a fear of dependency, a willingness to resort to violence, and the stigmatisation and subjugation of women, gays, and men who exhibit feminine characteristics (Kupers, 2005, 717).

The term toxic masculinity is useful in discussions about gender and forms of masculinity because it delineates those aspects of hegemonic masculinity that are socially destructive, such as misogyny, homophobia, greed, and violent domination; and those that are culturally accepted and valued (Kupers, 2005). In the end, there is nothing particularly toxic about a man's pride in his ability to win sports games, keep friendships, perform at work, and provide for his family. These constructive activities are also facets of hegemonic masculinity, although they are scarcely harmful (Kupers, 2005, 716). In other words, a man who believes he cannot get respect in any other manner has a strong need to dominate people (Kupers, 2005, 717). Domestic violence, harassment, gender-based rhetorical violence or sexual violence are a few concrete expressions of what can be perceived and labelled as toxic masculinity (Simões, Amaral & Santos, 2021,172). Toxic masculinity transforms violence into rage, but the latter dissolves difference, renders the individual into an unmarked body, and into a mere channel for ‘‘drives’’ and ‘‘impulses” (Haider, 2016, 560).

Toxic masculinity is the outcome of glorifying these negative, hypermasculine characteristics to the point that they become the idealised and desired masculine identity. The key aspects of toxic masculinity identified from the literature that formed the deductive code frame for this study are homophobia, misogyny, violent domination, a willingness to resort to violence, the need to be dominant and controlling, not displaying or admitting weakness or dependence, and devaluing both women and feminine characteristics in men (Jones et al., 2020, 1906).

A network of websites and social media groups, known as the “manosphere”, clearly examine male viewpoints, wants, gripes, disappointments, and aspirations. Typically, women and feminism are objects of antagonism whilst men's rights activism, which exposes stories of discrimination against men ranging from child custody to homelessness and conscription, is a prevalent topic of conversation in such venues (Farell et al., 2019, 87). In recent years, the Manosphere has emerged as a notable collection of “niche “communities, essentially united by a shared interest in masculinity and its apparent crises. Communities like Pick Up Artists (PUAs), Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), and Involuntary Celibates (Incels) have increased in size and participation in online harassment and real-world violence (Horta Ribeiro et al, 2021, 196).

Donald Trump’s election as President in 2016 enabled these internet networks to be even more open on their worldview. As one manosphere thought leader stated, “His presence [in office] automatically legitimises masculine behaviours that were previously labelled sexist and misogynistic”. More concerning still, it has placed a few men who hold these views in positions of power close to the President (Zuckerberg, 2018, 4).

Online misogyny manifests when sexism, misogyny, and toxic masculinity have repercussions in the digital realm. This phenomenon look to have new dimensions owing to technological potential.

2. HOW MISOGYNY SPREADS ONLINE

Online misogyny refers to all acts of hatred against women that are committed, instigated, or aggravated, in part or in whole, through various digital environments (Internet, mobile phones, email, websites, social networking apps, instant messaging, virtual campuses, etc.) and that involve any type of direct or indirect psychological, professional, or physical harm (Ging and Siapera, 2018; Rubio Martin et al, 2021, 2).

According to Jane (2017, 51), online misogyny dates back as early as the 1990s, when feminist analyses emphasised a pessimistic attitude to resolving the processes through which the Internet was perceived as a masculine technology and males continued to exert authority over women.

The fundamental justification for this allegation is the Internet's origins in the so-called military-industrial complex, since the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network, the Internet's predecessor, was first constructed by male engineers and scientists for military purposes. In addition, many feminists acknowledged that the Internet has always been created and used under a patriarchal system, as men have traditionally controlled its technological development. Feminist researchers claim that the Internet is naturally imbued with masculine ethics and values and, therefore, is a patriarchal technology.

There is sufficient empirical evidence of power inequalities online, particularly in terms of discourse and linguistic style, despite computer-mediated communication flourishing in the late 1990s and more women learning about the communicative practices through user-friendly online applications. The findings reveal that apologetic, polite, and communicative language patterns are characteristic of female discourse, whilst argumentative, forceful, and even harsh and aggressive language patterns are typical of male discourse.

As a result, the growth of gendered cyberhatred today is best understood as a result of a mix of new technology, subcultural capital and appropriation, individual psychologies, mob dynamics, and, most significantly, systematic gender inequality (including a backlash against feminist gains and activism). Never before have misogynists had so many opportunities to collectivise and harm women with so few repercussions. Likewise, never before have so many potential victims been so conspicuous and so available (Jane, 2017, 51).

Online misogyny is a contemporary phenomenon that dominates women's online interactions. Online misogyny is only a kind of cyberhatred aimed at women because of their gender (Baker, Jurasz, 2019, 25). Misogyny, “in short, has gone viral” (Jane, 2017, 3).

Although online hate speech encompasses both gender and the online environment, it is insufficiently inclusive of the multiplicity of situations women face. Drilling down into legal, legislative, constitutional, and ethical frameworks reveals a labyrinth of contradictions, conflicts, and grey areas: about what constitutes hurt or actionable violence as opposed to offence, and what actions may be done without compromising on freedom of speech (both that of alleged abusers and of women at the receiving end of abuse). It could be used a broader concept of misogyny, which may or may not involve violence but almost always involves some form of harm; either directly as psychological, professional, reputational, or in some cases physical harm; or indirectly in the sense that it makes the internet a less equal, less safe, or less inclusive space for women and girls. This cultural, rather than legal, approach captures manifestations and effects of online abuse that extend beyond violence, such as the chilling, silencing, or self-censorship effects this phenomenon has on women, and enables us to consider manifestations of online misogyny in the broader political contexts of the online culture wars (Ging, Siapera, 2018, 516).

Other terms such as “online gender-based violence”, “online sexual harassment and violence” or “gender-based cyberhate”, which taken separately would only capture partial aspects of the problem (Ging and Siapera, 2018), may be included in the concept of “online misogyny”. Often, these acts of hate in new digital media converge and feed back into acts of hate in traditional media, creating cases of online misogyny in mixed spaces (referred to as “hybrid realities”) (Rubio Martin et al, 2021, 2). Jane (2017, 43) asks:

“So, why are so many men calling so many women ugly, fat, and slutty on the internet?
1. Because men continue to hold a disproportionate share of the political, economic, and social power, some using various forms of violence to keep women in their place; and
2. Because – thanks to the design and dominant norms of the contemporary. cybersphere – they can.”

More recently, an impressive array of Twitter hashtags, such as #PussyRiot, #YesAllWomen, #Slutwalk, #Gamergate, #EverydaySexism, #MeToo, etc., has refocused public and scholarly attention on the pervasiveness of online misogynist culture (Han, 2018, 4). This current research reveals that conventional gender norms can be regarded as a key factor accounting for the widespread phenomenon of misogyny in online environments (Han, 2018, 4).

It focuses on fundamentally organising society such that women are humiliated, diminished, and denied equal rights. In severe instances, it leads in unfriendly repercussions for women who transgress the standards connected with their position. Most online misogyny stems from the assumption that society is undergoing a “drop of males “as a result of the rising presence of women in the labour market and in positions of socio-political power. The informal and varied group of men's rights activists who adhere to this worldview is known as the “manosphere “domestically. Nonetheless, internet sexism extends beyond the manosphere. Diverse repercussions of online misogyny are concealed by benign and benevolent sexism, loyalty to stated conventional values, and assumptions about social secure (Kyleanne Hunter, 2021, 59).

The last two decades have seen a rise in radicalised violent organisations, hate groups, and other forms of misogyny on diverse social media platforms. Easy access to technology has increased misogynistic radicalisation at a pace with which neither the security sector nor the law has kept up. The widespread recruitment that the virtual world has facilitated has moved misogyny into the information warfare domain. There is a lack of preparedness and coordination among government and private security agencies to mount an appropriate and proportionate response to this new threat. This protean threat is evolving in two related “war zones” with shifting and ill-defined borders: cyberspace and the information space (Kyleanne Hunter, 2021, 61).

Contemporary misogyny is considered as a response to the diffusion of postfeminist sensibility into daily society. Frequently, online misogyny takes the form of anonymous and hostile sexism (MacCarthy, 2002, 365). Anonymity, or more precisely, the perception of anonymity, is one of the most well-acknowledged elements that increase online animosity. It is believed to have a significant part in liberating individuals from adhering to societal norms and traditions, as they do not fear punishment or responsibility for their actions. The notion of anonymity produces inhibitionlessness Closely linked to anonymity is an overall sense of de-individuation in the cybersphere, i.e. “a subjugation of the individual to the group and a concomitant reduction in self-focus” (KhosraviNik, 2018, 47-48).

First, the recognition of women's precarity in the cybersphere as a result of its users' adherence to gendered social norms. Second, an awareness that the subordination of women as precarious subjects in the cybersphere is largely achieved and maintained through harmful speech acts with a precise illocutionary and perlocutionary force aimed at annihilating certain groups, legitimising their discrimination, advocating violence and hatred, and causing changes in attitudes and behaviours (KhosraviNik, 2018, 53).

When transferred into the cybersphere, gender-based discrimination creates a new, subtle type of digital gap, which has the potential to diminish the equality and inclusiveness of both online and offline cultures. Only a feminist social critique of online misogyny would permit and be able to account for gender-based inequality, prejudice, and stereotyping in institutional, public, and media discourses as the substance of online misogyny (KhosraviNik, 2018, 57).

3. VARIOUS FORMS OF INTERNET MISOGYNY

Recent academic interest in online misogyny has seen the introduction of a variety of alternative terms for gendered online hostility, harassment, and abuse. Examples include ‘technology violence’, ‘technology-facilitated sexual violence’, ‘gender trolling’ and – from the United Nations (UN) Broadband Commission – ‘cyber violence against women and girls’ or ‘cyber VAWG’ (Jane 2017, 7). This phenomenon is described using a variety of different terms, including gendered cyberhate, technology-facilitated violence, tech-related violence, online abuse, hate speech online, digital violence, networked harassment, cyberbullying, cyberharassment, online violence against women, and online misogyny (Ging, Siapera, 2018, 516). There are several names used to characterise gendered types of online harm, including ‘e-bile’, online sexual harassment and gendertrolling (McCarthy, 2002, 366).

All of these relate to constellations of offensive behaviour on digital platforms that involve the purposeful imposition of severe emotional anguish, via online discourse, which is never an isolated occurrence but rather a consistent pattern of conduct (Simões, Amaral & Santos, 2021, 172). Problematic online behaviours include trolling, insults, sexual harassment and rape, and death threats, which are typically accompanied by racism, homophobia, ableism, and all other types of hate (McCarthy, 2002, 354-365).

It is not beneficial to establish a definitive definition of gendered cyberhatred. Rather than doing yet another search for a set of objective message qualities, Jane uses a casuistic approach by giving several examples of gendered cyberhatred. Then, a notion of the phenomenon may be constructed by extrapolating from these particulars (Jane 2017, 7).

For situations involving social media abuse, but where the reprehensible behaviour falls short of the making of threats to kill, it is possible to argue that the activity may amount to stalking (Baker Jurasz, 2019, 56). It refers to material that targets girls or women, includes abuse, death threats, rape threats, and/or sexually violent language, and involves the internet, social media platforms, or communications technology such as mobile phones (though it may also have offline dimensions). Jane (2017, 7) uses the slang term 'rapeglish' to describe the prevalence of sexual violence in much of this conversation.

Notably, in the context of social media abuse and online harassment, this includes: “contacting, or attempting to contact a person by any means.” On its own, this will fall short of the activity required to sustain a conviction for stalking. The behaviour complained of must also satisfy the requirements of harassment. In other words, trying simply to contact someone – for example, through Twitter – is not enough. The law requires that the contact be harassing; targeted at an individual; calculated to cause alarm, or distress to the individual; and oppressive, and unreasonable (Baker Jurasz, 2019, 58). In addition, to secure a conviction, the conduct must occur at least twice. The courts have interpreted these requirements strictly so as to limit the breadth of potential convictions (Baker Jurasz, 2019, 63).

Online harassment is a nuanced and complex concept as it varies in expression and severity. However, in recent years, research has begun to address online harassment from a gendered perspective, raising awareness of the often-gendered nature of the abuse and how women are disproportionately targeted (Jones et al., 2020, 1907). Online sexual harassment refers to any form of unwanted sexual advance that occurs in digital spaces, such as social media, online chat rooms, or email. This can include unwanted sexual advances, comments, or messages, and the sharing of express images or videos without consent. Online sexual harassment can take many forms, such as cyberstalking, trolling, sextortion, and revenge porn. It can also occur across various online platforms, such as dating apps, gaming communities, and social media platforms. Online sexual harassment can have significant negative impacts on the victim's mental and emotional well-being, and it is a serious violation of their privacy and safety. Many countries have laws that criminalise online sexual harassment² and victims are encouraged to report such behaviour to the relevant authorities or seek support from organisations that specialise in addressing online harassment.

Many of those who have experienced online abuse have received abusive messages containing threats. In the most serious cases in this area, the threats made include threats to rape, physically assault, or kill, or any combination of all three (Baker Jurasz, 2019, 47). Gender harassment consists of unwanted verbal and visual insults based on a person's gender, or the use of stimuli known or intended to evoke unpleasant feelings. These include publishing pornographic images in public or in areas where they want to offend, uttering chauvinistic jokes, and making gender-based derogatory comments (Barak, 2005, 78).

Similar to verbal gender harassment, visual harassment may be both active and passive. Active graphic gender harassment consists primarily of the intentional sending of erotic and pornographic still images or digital videos through individual online communication channels, such as email, or posting them online. The majority of examples of passive graphic gender harassment are images and videos posted on websites. In contrast to materials published in authorised pornography sites or online sex stores, where surfers often choose to visit and know what to expect, sexual harassment applies when web users do not know in advance and have no previous indication of what they may later find offensive. This sort of gender harassment is pervasive due to the widespread usage of forced pop-up windows and redirected connections to pornographic sites (Barak, 2005, 79).

Unwanted sexual attention refers to unsolicited advances that expressly communicate sexual desires or intension toward another individual. This category includes overt behaviours and comments, such as staring at a woman’s breasts or making verbal statements that express- or impliedly suggest or insinuate sexual activities. Sexual coercion involves putting physical or psychological pressure on a person to elicit sexual cooperation. This category includes actual, undesired physical touching, offers of a bribe for sexual favours, or making threats to receive sexual cooperation (Barak, 2005, 78).

Tracing a person's virtual tracks by monitoring their visits to chat rooms and forums might induce anxiety. Therefore, if online stalking (also known as cyberstalking) incorporates sexual insinuations and suggestions, it should be regarded a type of psychological pressure to attain sexual benefits, or a form of sexual coercion (Barak, 2005, 80). The non-consenting publication of sexually graphic photos, generally obtained from a previously consensual personal connection, is referred to as “revenge porn” (Barak, 2005). Victims of online sexual coercion often suffer great emotional distress and are at an increased risk of suicidality (Moloney, Love, 2018, 3-4)

Trolling is a common phrase used to describe anything from playground insults, nasty jokes, and intentional insensitivity to threats of assault, rape, and murder. Trolling appears to be the deliberate act of luring others into useless circular discussion, thereby interfering with the positive and productive exchange of ideas in a given environment (such as an online forum) and transforming the dialogue into one that is confusing, unsuccessful, and unproductive. This is often accomplished by making useless and provocative remarks with the sole intent of provoking an equally hostile response, relishing the ensuing discord and strife (KhosraviNik, 2018, 49-50).

Recent high-profile examples of gendertrolling include a website offering financial reward to anyone who could offer proof of the rape and/or murder of blogger Melissa McEwan. Women speaking out about sexually inappropriate behaviour are frequently “punished”. After Rebecca Watson spoke out about sexism she experienced at an atheist conference, her YouTube and Wikipedia pages were vandalised and trolls posted graphic photos of dead bodies to her Facebook page” (Moloney, Love, 2018, 4). There is a modality of trolling, which is called “strategic trolling”, aims to silence feminist critics (Rubio Martin et al, 2021, 5).

In early definitions, flaming was considered a generic statement of strong and provocative thoughts and expressing oneself more passionately on the internet than in other communication contexts “However, these basic descriptions do not seem to account for the phenomenon's aggressive, angry, and profanity-laced character. In actuality, flaming is often characterised by profanity, insults, bad affect, and 'typographic energy' such as capital letters and exclamation marks and involves cursing or otherwise objectionable words (KhosraviNik, 2018, 49).

Cyberbullying impacting children and adolescents has often been labelled as flaming or trolling. When speech has been coded using either of these concepts, it has, at least until recently, typically been classified as a mix of uncommon, innocuous, innovative, hilarious, crucial for identity formation, laudably transgressive, artistically rich, etc. Both flaming and trolling are contentious and imprecise terms. The former is fairly archaic and often refers to only heated cybercommunications that include vitriol, insults, and bad affect, etc. Trolling is sometimes used more openly to refer to the publishing of purposefully provocative or off-topic content with the intention of eliciting responses and emotional reactions in targeted (Jane, 2017, 5-6).

Doxing is the practice of acquiring and leaking personally identifiable or sensitive information about an individual or group without that person's consent. This can include their home address, email and phone numbers, social security number, and other personal information. Doxing is typically performed maliciously and can be used to irritate, upset, or intimidate the target. Doxing is a common internet crime³, and websites, online forums, and social media are used to spread the word. Many countries forbid the practice, and those who engage in it run the danger of harsh penalties like criminal prosecution and civil litigation. Doxing can have serious, long-lasting effects on a person, including loss of privacy, monetary loss, and even bodily injury.

Impersonation is the act of pretending to be someone else with a view to mislead or deceive another. This may involve adopting a false identity when interacting with people online or impersonating someone else without their consent. It can have disastrous effects when impersonation is used to perform fraudulent activities like identity theft or financial fraud. Often unlawful, impersonation can result in both criminal and civil legal action. Impersonation is possible in many contexts, including social media, email, online chat rooms, and other digital platforms. When interacting with strangers online, it is important to use caution and be vigilant for any signs of fraud or impersonation.

Underlying this conflict is the fact that social systems are, in general, constructed around generally stable patterns in which laws, conventions, beliefs, and practices are set by the dominant group of males, so making patriarchy a very major social order. In other words, because of its masculinist and militaristic beginnings, the Internet might become a new source of women's oppression and will reaffirm real-world power hierarchies (Han, 2018, 5).

4. GAMERGATE: SEXIST STEREOTYPES' DOMINANCE IN THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY

Stereotypes frequently found in video games have been related to one recent instance of misogyny. The videogame industry still produces material that caters to the alleged tastes of a young, male, heterosexual audience. Both the dearth of female video game characters and the hypersexualisation of those that do exist are indications of these biases. However, large-scale surveys that consistently reveal that at least 40% of video game players are female refute the assertion that women make up a tiny minority of gamers (Paaßen et al, 2017, 421-422).

The male gamer stereotype also informs the perceived audience for game developers, leading to game content and marketing that panders to a clichéd young male audience, most notably with violent game play and hyper-sexualised depictions of female characters (Paaßen et al, 2017, 429). Such symbolic border construction confines gender-based symbolic/social identities in addition to containing and separating the realm of play from its actual social setting (Dowling et al, 2020, 988). The idea that gamers are often unpleasant, unattractive, idle, and asocial has already been weakened by the prevalence of video game playing (Paaßen et al, 2017, 430).

Stereotypes about the ways in which men and women play video games could help to explain this seeming inconsistency. Women play video games, but are not seen as true gamers. This is apparently due to the fact that women only play informally and on “inferior platforms, “playing “inferior games “like Candy Crush Saga or Farmville (Paaßen et al, 2017, 422).

There are female-only leagues in e-sports, but they have not yet attracted a following comparable to that of competitions that are nearly exclusively male. Female-only competitions may increase the visibility of female athletes, but may also reinforce the notion that women and men have different “innate “skill sets, similar to the widespread belief that women and men have different upper-body strengths in physical sports where female-only leagues are common. Therefore, gendered gaming stereotypes may be reinforced rather than challenged by female-only leagues (Paaßen et al, 2017, 430).

FeministFrequency.com founder and executive director, Anita Sarkeesian, created the well-liked video series “Tropes vs Women in Video Games, “in which she explores the misogynistic representations in video games utilising feminist, sociological, psychological, and historical analyses. Unfortunately, in reaction to these well-reasoned comments, Sarkeesian was subjected to severe harassment and abuse. Threats of murder, rape, bombing, and a mass shooting were among the abuse that was experienced (Burgess et al, 2017, 2).

For instance, a Canadian blogger made a game in which players can strike Anita Sarkeesian, the brains behind the well-known website: “Feminist Frequency: Conversations with Pop Culture, “and inflict facial injuries. The game was created in response to news of her Kickstarter campaign, in which she suggested looking into historical representations of women in videogames. The game was just the most recent of many attacks on Sarkeesian related to her project, including death threats, having her Wikipedia page hacked with obscene images, and being harassed regularly on the Kickstarter website and elsewhere (Consalvo, 2012, 1).

Gamers' social definitions are deliberately intended to be depoliticised through the use of masculinist gaming identity. One tweet, for instance, included a link to a subreddit page that explained why Anita Sarkeesian was ruining the gaming community and why politics should not be included in video games. As a result, the magic circle is painted as being apolitical, and those who embrace it are painted as the community's natural opponents who pose a threat to Sarkeesian and her sympathisers (Dowling et al, 2020, 988).

Although the personal and usually violent character of these comments is viewed incidental to a discussion of journalistic ethics by many who view Gamergate as sexism in gaming, Gamergate is frequently represented as being about ethics in journalism (Burgess et al, 2017, 2). The magic circle, which is a depoliticised space for male gamers, has been invaded by feminist gamers and developers who have brought attention to gender inequality in traditional gaming structures. This poses a threat to the hegemony of a subculture that limits the appeal and acceptance of women, both in terms of community membership and game representation, for example, roles limited to non-player characters or victims in need of rescue (Dowling et al, 2020, 988).

Supporters of Gamergate launched their public campaign against corruption in game journalism in 2014. However, their online comments on the #GamerGate Twitter hashtag indicates a hotbed of misogynistic opposition to progressive feminist game makers and players. The hashtag campaign was intended “to perpetrate misogynistic insults by wrapping them in a debate about ethics in game journalism “according to a number of academic and journalistic studies” (Dowling et al, 2020, 983). Nevertheless, some game development houses have taken a stand against the sexist attitudes of some players while others have been slower to understand issues such as heteronormativity’s persistent presence in online game space (Consalvo, 2012, 1).

5. HOW THE LAW CAN BE USED TO FIGHT AGAINST ONLINE MISOGYNY

Misogyny is an aggressive form of sexism, which implies an ideological element. Both a practical element—the precise implied actions—and a hierarchical element—the subordination of women—are also present.⁴ Misogyny is a phenomenon with many dimensions and can occasionally be vague and ambiguous. The many connected actions frequently have varied legal implications. Therefore, sometimes a solid education in human rights is the answer, but in other cases, legal action will be necessary.

There are a number of situations where legal action is necessary to fight against online misogyny. These are listed below:

a) Express crimes

Online misogyny can involve behaviours contrary to the criminal law. Most states consider these acts, including as harassment, libel, threats of violence, hate speech, and the non-consensual distribution of private photographs or data, to be crimes. Here, the emphasis is on the connection between misogyny and hate speech motivated by gender.

Hate speech is expression that is characteristically hostile, and that tends to do certain things, like silence, disparage, vilify, degrade, and so forth (Richardson-Self, 2017, 260). A critical approach to online misogyny relies on feminist studies to recognise misogyny as a type of hate speech in a comprehensive and systematic manner (KhosraviNik, 2018, 53). Historically, at the international level, hate speech was linked to motivations based on race or religion. Nonetheless, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance's General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on Combating Hate Speech covers gender-based hate speech, since it states:

“(…) the use of one or more particular forms of expression – namely, the advocacy, promotion or incitement of the denigration, hatred or vilification of a person or group of persons, as well any harassment, insult, negative stereotyping, stigmatisation or threat of such person or persons and any justification of all these forms of expression – that is based on a non-exhaustive list of personal characteristics or status that includes “race”, colour, language, religion or belief, nationality or national or ethnic origin, and descent, age, disability, sex, gender, gender identity and sexual orientation⁵” (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, 2015, 16).

It is particularly interesting that section 510 of the Spanish Criminal Code (Código Penal), as amended in 2015, contains gender-based hate speech:

“Those who, either directly or indirectly, foster, promote or incite hatred, hostility, discrimination or violence against a group, or part of such, or against a certain person for belonging to such a group, for reasons of racism, antisemitism or for other reasons related to ideology, religion or beliefs, family circumstances, the fact that the members belong to an ethnicity, race or nation, national origin, gender, sexual orientation or identity, or due to gender, illness or disability⁶” (Spanish Law 10/1995, 23 November, section 510(a)).⁷

In a European context, inciting hatred through gender-based hate speech is prohibited. Determining whether the complex phenomenon of misogyny can be reduced to gender hate speech is the task for jurists because it is the first in a broader concept.

It is noteworthy that GREVIO General Recommendation No. 1 on the digital dimension of violence against women, adopted by the Council of Europe on 20 October 2021, analyses the obligations under the Istanbul Convention in relation to violence against women and domestic violence in its digital dimension. In particular, it states:

“33. The digital dimension of violence against women encompasses a wide range of behaviour that falls under the definition of violence against women set out in Article 3a of the Istanbul Convention. This definition comprises “all acts of genderbased violence against women that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological or economic harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life”. Non-consensual image or video sharing, coercion and threats, including rape threats, sexualised bullying and other forms of intimidation, online sexual harassment, impersonation, online stalking or stalking via the Internet of Things and psychological abuse and economic harm perpetrated via digital means against women and girls all come under the above definition” (Council of Europe, 2021, 17).

This recommendation includes these behaviours under the label of online sexual harassment: (i) non-consensual image or video sharing; (ii) non-consensual taking, producing or procuring of intimate images or videos; (iii) exploitation, coercion and threats (iv) sexualised bullying: and (v) cyberflashing. Specifically, this recommendation affirms:

“(a) non-consensual sharing of nude or sexual images (photos or videos) of a person or threats thereof include acts of image-based sexual abuse (also known as “revenge pornography”);
(b) non-consensual taking, producing or procuring of intimate images or videos include acts of “upskirting” and taking “creepshots” as well as producing digitally altered imagery in which a person’s face or body is superimposed or “stitched into” a pornographic photo or video, known as “fake pornography” (such as “deepfakes”, when synthetic images are created using artificial intelligence);
(c) exploitation, coercion and threats coming within the remit of Article 40 of the Convention include forms of violence such as forced sexting, sexual extortion, rape threats, sexualised/gendered doxing, impersonation and outing;
(d) sexualised bullying constitutes behaviours such as circulating gossip or rumours about a victim’s alleged sexual behaviour, posting sexualised comments under the victim’s posts or photos, impersonating a victim and sharing sexual content or sexually harassing others, thus impacting their reputation and/or livelihood, or “outing” someone without their consent with the purpose of scaring, threatening and body shaming; and
(e) cyberflashing consists of sending unsolicited sexual images via dating or messaging applications, texts, or using Airdrop or Bluetooth technologies” (Council of Europe, 2021, 18-19).

The legal landscape is evolving, but the challenge for jurists remains: to determine whether the multifaceted phenomenon of online misogyny can be adequately addressed as gender-based hate speech. The Council of Europe's recommendations provide a robust framework for understanding and combating digital violence against women, but the onus is on individual states to enact and enforce laws that align with these international standards.

While the law is a critical tool, it must be supplemented by educational and societal activities that combat gender stereotypes and encourage digital literacy. As the digital era advances, the social need to prevent online sexism becomes more essential. It is not only a legal or technological difficulty, but also a human rights obligation that requires joint effort from all sectors of society.

b) Breaching the platforms policies

Based on the platform policies, the second sort of legal action to stop online misogyny is taken. The benefit of this strategy is a kind of self-regulation. On the 31 May 2016, the European Union Commission presented with Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter and YouTube (“the IT Companies”) a “Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online”. The main commitments are:

“a) The IT Companies to have in place clear and effective processes to review notifications regarding illegal hate speech on their services so they can remove or disable access to such content. The IT Companies to have in place Rules or Community Guidelines clarifying that they prohibit the promotion of incitement to violence and hateful conduct.
b) Upon receipt of a valid removal notification, the IT Companies to review such requests against their rules and community guidelines and, where necessary, national laws transposing the Framework Decision 2008/913/JHA, with dedicated teams reviewing requests.
c) The IT Companies to review the majority of valid notifications for removal of illegal hate speech in less than 24 hours and remove or disable access to such content, if necessary” (European Union, Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online, 2016).