About these ads

A Voice for Men’s Attempts to Find and Publicize the Personal Information of a Toronto Activist Could Threaten That Young Woman’s Safety

cropped-man-yelling-at-computer

[TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE THREATS]

The Men’s Rights movement has been described by some as “the abusers’ lobby.” I don’t think that’s fair, but there are certainly those within the movement that fit the bill – not necessarily because they themselves are abusers, but because, among other things, they lionize abusers and advocate on their behalf.

In the case of hate site A Voice for Men, there is another way in which the term applies: the “activism” of the site and its followers, insofar as it consists of anything more than self-promotion, often mirrors the actions of abusers – AVFM is known for harassing individuals, usually women, and exposing (or threatening to expose) personal information that could be used to stalk and harm them, in an attempt to intimidate them and other feminists and shut them up. Indeed, the site on several occasions has offered $1000 “bounties” on the personal information of its foes.

Now AVFM has another individual in its sights: a young woman, presumably a student, who participated in a recent demonstration against Men’s Rights author Warren Farrell at the University of Toronto. Men’s Rights activists have been promoting a video depicting the protest, in which a group of feminist activists blockaded the building at which Farrell was speaking, until they were forcibly removed by police. The carefully-edited video pays particular attention to one of the activists, the woman in question, as she confronts supporters of Farrell, calling one of them “fucking scum.” (See here for an even-more-manipulatively propagandistic video that focuses even more intently on the woman; and here for one that more clearly depicts the police pulling, shoving, and knocking non-violent protestors to the ground.)

I don’t personally support blocking speeches by opponents; I think it’s bad both in principle and as a political tactic. But Warren Farrell certainly deserves criticism; demonstrators certainly have the right to demonstrate; and as anyone who has ever been to a demonstration knows, sometimes people on opposite sides shout at another.

Apparently the politically inexperienced “activists” at AVFM are unaware of this. And so the site has responded to the demonstration with a campaign to uncover and publicize this woman’s personal information – for the “crime” of using angry language at a protest. In one of the several posts on the subject now up on AVFM, the MRA known as JohnTheOther describes her as, among other things

her own generation’s brown shirt, and she knows it. …

She is clearly sadistic, unable and unwilling to recognize the humanity of anyone who does not slavishly and blindly agree with her own religion of hate.

There is more, much more; if you have the stomach for it, I suggest you read the full post to see JtO’s extended attack on the woman. As is often the case with MRA writings, the full quotes in context are worse than the excerpts I quote here.

A later post from site founder and head Paul Elam includes a picture of the woman, with the caption “Seeking this undesirable’s identity.”

Elam warns that

We have her image and know her general location. We will identify her and profile her activity and name for public view.

We will not stop there, or just with her. And while we will not publish our complete intent, we are dogged in our efforts.

Again, this quote is if anything worse in context; see the entire post here, filled with vituperative, thuggish, threatening language and illustrated with a picture of a violent storm, evidently intended to represent what AVFM is threatening to rain down upon its opponents.

In still another post, with the inflammatory title “Yanking Off the Hood,” Elam defends his site’s “doxxing” policy, writing

AVfM is conducting outreach and investigation into the identities of the persons involved in the violent protest against the rights of men and boys orchestrated and conducted by the University of Toronto Student Union and other antisocial elements within that institution.

To that end, one individual has already been identified, and you will be seeing a story on her here in the near future. Our search for the woman highlighted in the video of the protest continues, with some leads. …

Gender ideologues absolutely hate the light of day. They hate it shining on their ideas and on their lies. Many of them also don’t want it shining on their identities. They seek anonymity for the same reason Klansmen wear hoods.

Even beyond the vicious nature of AVFM’s language and tactics, the hypocrisy here is off the charts: most of AVFM’s writers – gender ideologues all – hide their identities behind pseudonyms, including of course JohnTheOther, who launched AVFM’s campaign against the still-unknown protester.

JtO, who now wishes to conceal his identity, used to write under his own name, and has linked his name with his pseudonym on YouTube and on Men’s Rights sites he has written for. Though his real name is fairly widely known, and can be uncovered with the simplest of web searches, JtO has now decided to try to get that cat back in the bag, and at one point demanded that I remove all mentions of his real name on this site so that he would not – irony alert — face harassment. As much as I don’t respect John, I respected this wish of his, and did so; he may want to take this issue up with his friend Elam, as a post by the AVFM head still up on the site identifies JohnTheOther by both name and pseudonym.

There is no question that the student activist targeted by JtO and AVFM will face harassment when and if her personal information is exposed. Indeed, she is already being singled out for abuse now. On YouTube, videos featuring her have inspired numerous threatening comments. Here are a sampling of comments I’ve found there:

ytwf2ytwf5ytwf6ytwf7ytwf8

Here you can find even more, sent to me by someone who was at the protest.

If AVFM releases the personal information of the student now being attacked online they are giving a green light for this sort of harassment online and off. They are aiding and abetting those who wish this woman to come to real physical harm.

That’s why I think it is fair to call AVFM a hate site, and a member of the abusers’ lobby.

(Meanwhile, JohnTheOther seems to be undergoing some sort of meltdown on Reddit; more on this in my next post.)

About these ads

Posted on December 8, 2012, in a voice for men, advocacy of violence, antifeminism, bullying, drama kings, evil women, harassment, hate, hypocrisy, irony alert, johntheother, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, threats, trigger warning, video, warren farrell and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 207 Comments.

  1. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    @ katz – let’s just add ‘plausible deniability’ to the list of things that the MRM just does not get.

  2. @Pitchguest:

    The irony is that if this was in the reverse, you absolutely would want to know the identity of the man deriding a woman for merely wanting to attend a speech.

    That is a lie. We routinely have MRA’s showing up here who deride and insult us, and say that we should be beaten, raped, or murdered for merely wanting to attend a speech/reading books/going to school/having sex without the approval of a male guardian/withholding sex from a sex-starved man/etc. Occasionally, such men get banned. But David has never published any of their names despite the fact that, I am sure, he can find that information, sometimes easily. Never happened.

    As for “what about teh menz”, although I sometimes disagree when it’s invoked, in many situations the phrase is apt. Discuss rape in any context, and inevitably someone will derail the conversation with screams about false rape accusations, the idea being that criminalizing rape creates a bigger problem than it solves. Discuss any issue that affects women, like, I don’t know, childbirth, and a good minority of people will be horrified why anyone would worry about anything that affects women when there are men suffering in the world. There is definitely a widely popular belief that women constitute a small minority of humanity (I suppose it’s a belief embraced by people who are really bad at math and biology), and that no one may ever address any bad thing that happens to any woman until every single man on the planet is in a state of perfect happiness.

  3. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    and that no one may ever address any bad thing that happens to any woman until every single man on the planet is in a state of perfect happiness.

    And sometimes not even then.

  4. @katz

    Err. Yeah. I’m pretty sure that with the right determination, anyone could find the personal information of whomever their chagrin lies with at that moment. However, there is no evidence that AVfM is looking to reveal the home address of this woman, nor threaten her. They merely addressed her by name, from a twitter account that has her name on it. And they sure as hell haven’t dropped that bit of information for everyone to see. If someone did drop her docs, and the action did not get reprimanded, then we can talk. Not until then. It would do David Futrelle a world of good if he didn’t make blanket assertions without backing them up, just because he’s chiding MRA’s. The truth is, there are skeletons in the closet in both camps. For instance, I’ve never seen David denouncing the many radical feminist sites that spout similar rhetoric as some MRA’s do, but in reverse. Not in his best interest, I suppose.

    In any case, to get back to the “doxxing”, it’s asinine to claim that this woman is being doxxed because they linked to her twitter page. Again, that would mean I’d be doxxing David if I linked to the Manboobz site and asked the question, “Why is David Futrelle so [insert questionable attribute here]?” It doesn’t make any sense. At all. Then cherrypicking the comments on the video to highlight the ones about raping her, as if that’s the extent of what the comments there are like, is dishonest and slimy. Especially since the contention is the video of the protest is “carefully edited” and then he goes ahead and does the same thing, “carefully” picking the comments he wants us to focus on. So much for rising above that shit.

  5. Funny how feminists continue to believe that women have no agency and should never be held accountable for their actions and choices.

  6. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Funny how MRAs continue to ignore everything said to them and just reiterate their inane talking points.

  7. Dude, gateman, do you even READ? We are saying that internet vigilantism, rape threats, online or in-person harassment are not “holding someone accountable.” They are terrorism. Holding someone accountable is reporting them to the proper authorities.

    THIS IS NOT HARD. THIS IS SOMETHING CHILDREN LEARN FAIRLY EARLY ON. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR MRAs TO UNDERSTAND?

  8. Yet another MRA providing evidence that “accountability” to them means “arbitrary punishment meted out by men.”

  9. Hm. I thought pitchguest looked familiar. He’s the one with the creepy vendetta against Jen McCreight and Atheism+

    David, was pitchguest unbanned?

    http://manboobz.com/2012/10/16/reddit-mra-upvote-brigade-to-the-rescue-or-the-battle-of-the-urban-dictionary-atheism-definition/comment-page-3/#comment-214029

  10. Funny how feminists continue to believe that women have no agency and should never be held accountable for their actions and choices.

    Women have no agency in your eyes, since you believe only men should have the right to speak.

    As for the subject of accountability, no one should be “held accountable” for how a bunch of thugs and yahoos react to that person’s actions and choices. When someone gets carjacked, I doubt you argue that the carjacking is a way of holding the victim accountable for having a car in the first place. You are making precisely the kind of argument that terrorists make. “If you hadn’t pissed me off, I wouldn’t have bombed you. Accept responsibility for your choices!” Yours is also the argument that rape apologists make — that raping a woman is a way to hold her “accountable” for having the temerity to exist outside the home. Or in the home, even.

    You jokers need to come up with new material.

  11. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Unless the car owner is a woman, of course. Because women drivers, dood, amirite?

  12. Unless the car owner is a woman, of course. Because women drivers, dood, amirite?

    That’s right. Any uppity bitch who drives instead of letting a man drive deserves to get carjacked AND raped.

  13. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    But she shouldn’t be asking whining for a man to drive her around! It’s like those gold-digging whores in Saudi Arabia, innit?

  14. Tulgey, thanks for that. I forgot I banned, not just moderated, him. He’s banned agian.

  15. Gateman, consider this thread off limits.

  16. By the way, if you want to have any moral high ground, it’s usually a good idea to keep the “gets sexual release” memes out of the way, unless you wish to be deemed a hypocrite.

    Uh. Why?

    Also, I’m not sure if you realise, but whenever anyone of you says “what about the menz?” sarcastically, while I’m sure you think it’s clever, it’s actually a reverse “Dear Muslima” and, again, a tad hypocritical.

    Well, I guess since you asserted it, it’s true.

    And there is no indication what so ever that they’re looking to reveal the home address or other such crucial information in the blog posts you link to, that’s sensationalist nonsense

    Yeah, you’re right. I mean, it’s not like there’s some kind of systematic effort to go after the identities of small-fry feminists—oh, wait.

    There have been other examples, like Creepy Bittergirl, exposed as Sasha Wiley by first Mykeru, and subsequently this website, who is now making the Watsonesque claims of internet bullying, seeking sympathy and support, like a damsel in distress, from other hate mongers.

  17. Oh, darn. Now pitchguest isn’t going to be able to regale me with tales of how feminists regularly talk about getting off on fucking MRAs’ shit up and that we are therefore hypocrites.

  18. THIS IS SOMETHING CHILDREN LEARN FAIRLY EARLY ON. WHY IS IT SO HARD FOR MRAs TO UNDERSTAND?

    I’m just gonna leave this here…

  19. gateman: Pecunium, there’s a world of difference between someone posting comments online and those conducting criminal activity which is what the blockade was.

    Non-responsive. JtO says he has to hide his name to prevent being attacked. AvFM wants to, “fuck their shit up”, has Thomas Ball’s appeal to violence on it’s front page and is saying, “here is her name, she goes to school here, and she is evil”.

    That’s more than just, “here’s her twitter stream”.

    And harassment, online; as well as off, is criminal.

    Again, your “moral high ground” is well below sea-level.

    Moreover, your claim of, “criminal activity” suffers from several problems. 1: You have yet to show that she actively attempted to commit a crime.

    2: You haven’t told me what crime you believe to have been committed (that will require the statute in question).

    3: The presumptive condition is that she committed no crime(s) as there was a police presence, and arrests were made. A reasonable person would have to assume that had she been committing a crime, she would (as others were) have been arrested.

  20. Pitchguest: Err. Yeah. I’m pretty sure that with the right determination, anyone could find the personal information of whomever their chagrin lies with at that moment. However, there is no evidence that AVfM is looking to reveal the home address of this woman, nor threaten her

    They are threatening her. They have people in there fora who are calling for her to be raped: threats at least as plausible as her “desire to kill all men”.

    AvFM has made it much easier for those people to find her.

    That is a threat. Not, perhaps, overt; but actual nonetheless. One that their members admit to being a threat; as they go all sorts of rage-filled at the merest hint that one of them might get doxxed (see anti-manboobz for a ridiculous example of this).

  21. And,.. I see pitchguest can’t reply. Crushed am I to be deprived of his response.

  22. Funny how feminists continue to believe that women have no agency and should never be held accountable for their actions and choices.

    You know how you hold someone to account for their actions and choices (and oft times their words?)

    If it is illegal, you contact the authorities and report on it.

    If it is not illegal, you outline what it is and you explain why it is wrong. “Saying that incest is good because people do like it is wrong because the person who said that ignores the very real pain that it has caused. Here is a study that shows this.”

    You do not publish the person’s personal info and say “oh I hope no one hurts them…wink wink”

  23. Shit suz posted:

    ““I have no refutation of your arguments,”
    If anybody here were making arguments instead of squawking out spastic leaps of ‘logic,’ I’d be all in. Instead all you can offer is some weird variations on:
    “Give some examples of misandry.”
    So I make a short list and get responses like:
    “That’s not an argument, it’s a list” {duhhhh}
    “Some of that stuff is real, but the most important thing is the fact that Suz is creepy, hates women, has issues with her son, is a man…..”
    “Divorce theft is not a ‘thing.’”
    “You don’t agree with me, therefore you must be “fill-in-the-blank.”

    “Like I said, sixth grade girls. Drunk sixth grade girls playing house with stuffed animals. Boobzie is a joke and Booblets are the punchline. No wonder his readership is falling off; what “serious” feminist who wants to be taken seriously, can afford to be allied with this crowd? You grrrlz aren’t the only ones who come here for laughs.”

    OK.
    Boobzie is a joke? Then it’s a joke you take very seriously. Otherwise, why the hell do you keep showing up here? Because Man Boobz is a joke, dude? Where the hell did you get “his readership is falling off.” ?
    Also, You called us “grrrlz.” Gee, that’s not signifigant, is it, fella? Or referring to our replies as “squawking.”
    Your bullshit list of misandry was WEAK. A fifth grader could have shot holes through it. Ladies Night? Bumbling sitcom dads? Mean t-shirts? Rape reports being taken seriously is misandry? Complaining about the draft, when there is no active draft, at a time women are fighting to be equals in the armed forces? Oh, and you didn’t call it “divorce theft,” you called it “divorce rape.”

  24. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    Again, your “moral high ground” is well below sea-level.

    Somewhere around the level of the Mariana Trench, like the rest of that cohort.

  25. Hello David and MBz, long time, no see! I gather you’ve had a visitation from Pitchguest, who’s one of the fulminating misogynist Rebecca Watson haters from the aptly-named ‘Slymepit’ forum. He shouldn’t be too cocky, seeing as the trollish commentariat there are well-known for ‘doxxing’ people when it suits them. Like the MRA douchebag and sometime AVfM contributor Justin Vacula publishing a feminist skeptic’s home address and even putting up a picture of her apartment building on there.

    TL,DR: Nothing of value will be lost by banning him, or any of his ilk.

  26. I gather you’ve had a visitation from Pitchguest, who’s one of the fulminating misogynist Rebecca Watson haters from the aptly-named ‘Slymepit’ forum.

    That explains quite a bit.

  27. The sitcom dad: Why, when looking for misandry do they only look at sitcoms or jokey commercials? There are dramas, shows with actions and I have not seen the bumbling husband in those shows, yet some of them do have the nagging wife or hysterical woman. I always thought you only see that in comedies because the thought of a husband being dumber than his wife is so absurd it’s funny. At any rate there are plenty of depictions of great men doing great things in shows that are not comedies.

  28. Then cherrypicking the comments on the video to highlight the ones about raping her, as if that’s the extent of what the comments there are like, is dishonest and slimy.

    Not all the comments are talking about raping her, so it’s unfair to talk about the ones that are!

  29. @SSAE and the bumbling husband is still able to hold onto his hot and doting mother-wife, who does all the housework and child-rearing and forgives him for forgetting their anniversary again *laughtrack*, and loves him in spite of it all, because….well, we’re never shown why she loves him, but we’re told she does, and that’s good enough! Right?

  30. Cherrypicking the “rape” comments?

    The point isn’t that ALL the comments are rape comments. It’s that THERE ARE rape comments.

    If someone threatens the president and gets arrested, he can’t say, “well, you’e cherrypicking my comments. Most of my comments aren’t threats against the president.”

  31. Psh, nobody ever talks about the 40-something presidents Oswald didn’t shoot. And yet he gets shot and killed for just one?

    I call misandry.

  32. @ princessbonbon

    Why not?

    If you Feminist are so damn sure that what you say is so moral and great you would have no qualm about people finding out who you are. Unless of course you are cowards hiding under anonymity.

    If you are so proud of what you write/say why not have yourself known?

    Aren’t Feminist proud of what they stand for?

    Or if anyone actually met you in person you would be horrified and ashamed?

    This is going mainstream. Toronto is a start. Interesting.

  33. I find doxxing to be highly hypocritical. If you listen to them they assert if a woman tells her friend she was raped and that friend goes and does violence to the alleged rapist then the woman herself is culpable for this action. Men are helpless but to obey primal urges delivered from the lizard brain to protect women and every woman knows this!

    Here however if their actions lead to violence they are not to blame, violence by proxy only applies if you are a woman, particularly if you have been victimised.

    It is just a continuation of the trope that women are responsible for mens actions as seen in most victim blaming and rape apologism.

  34. If you JohntheOther is so damn sure that what he says is so moral and great he would have no qualm about people finding out who he is. Unless of course he’s a coward hiding under anonymity.

    I don’t agree with that; I like the interwebs being anonymous; I do, however, think you’re being Way Inconsistent there, Loser.

    Oh, and the other reason to want to be anonymous is that while we’re sure we’re morally right, we also know there are deeply unpleasant and odious people out there who’d harass us if they had our email or meatspace addresses, so there’s a practicality to it.

  35. Kendra, the bionic mommy

    Again, this quote is if anything worse in context; see the entire post here, filled with vituperative, thuggish, threatening language and illustrated with a picture of a violent storm, evidently intended to represent what AVFM is threatening to rain down upon its opponents.

    I’ve just caught up on reading about all this.

    They represent themselves with a picture of a tornado yet claim to be nonviolent. It’s unbelievable. I feel awful for all the students being targeted by the new doxxing and fear campaign. My main message to the victims is that even though the MRA’s imagines themselves to be a powerful tornado, they’re really more like thunder, just a lot of noise.

  36. That hateful woman (Vanja Krajina) was verbally harassing someone who only wanted to hear a different opinion and make up his own mind. If it was an MRA “confronting” (as you seem to describe it David F.) a feminist this way then he would deserve to be outed as well. It would be all over the media and your site as an example of a horrific “hate group” yet you seem to frame her as a victim in this article. She is no different than the hateful men in those disgusting comments you displayed. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of this?

  37. You don’t get it, do you? This about some middle aged men wanting to create a culture of fear so young women “learn” not to speak up. It’s about punishment.

    Fuck you and your talk of hypocrisy.

  38. Jon, the difference is that we expose the disgusting comments, but don’t try to expose the anonymous person making disgusting comments to a violent, hateful audience that then harasses them with rape and death threats. Unfortunately, your side has no such compunctions.

  39. Also, Jon, your folks have started just showing up at feminist rallies and making a point of photographing all in attendance. They aren’t photographing people blockading anything, just people having a peaceful gathering. Women who dare to disagree with MRAs.

    Own it, you violent, threatening asshat. Your intent is to be threatening, and frighten women out of exercising our rights to free speech. Asshat. You won’t win. We’ve faced much worse.

  40. That hateful woman was verbally harassing someone who only wanted to hear a different opinion and make up his own mind.

    That “different opinion” being that girls would probably enjoy being molested by their fathers if there weren’t this awful cultural taboo on incest. It’s pretty alarming that you see rape apologia as a mere “difference of opinion”.

    If it was an MRA “confronting” (as you seem to describe it David F.) a feminist this way then he would deserve to be outed as well.

    Why? What purpose is served by outing protesters? And does that purpose outweigh the chilling effect that the fear of such outing would have on people who might otherwise exercise their right to protest?

    It would be all over the media and your site as an example of a horrific “hate group”

    LOL. If men calling feminists “fucking scum” was newsworthy, we’d be hearing about it all the time, given how very common it is. Even to dedicated anti-MRA blogs like this one, it’s so common it hardly qualifies as news.

    She is no different than the hateful men in those disgusting comments you displayed.

    I must have missed the part where she expressed a desire to rape the men she was confronting, or tried to unearth their names so she could expose them to potentially violent harassment. Links?

    Why do you refuse to acknowledge the hypocrisy of this?

    Seeing a false equivalency for what it is is not hypocrisy. Sorry.

  41. Do you folks think that Toronto protest was lawful? Do you feel the police did not have a legal right, nay obligation, to ask them to move, and move them by force if they refused?

    Does it not strike any of you as a little off that Futrelle had to go to youtube to find trolling, hateful comments? The sorts of comments you can find on any video with sufficient views? And we are to summarily link the two by…what means, pray tell?

    Finally, how on earth is that woman’s empty, hateful rhetoric dumbed down to “angry language at a protest”, while an organization that simply wants to attach her name to her behavior is elevated to a hate organization, apparently condoning behavior from another website, and another person, altogether?

    Try this: go to AVfM, register, and make a comment condoning or inciting violence. Notice what happens.

  42. So is this one person posting the same “arguments” under multiple socks, or have we just had a steady stream of guys who (a) can’t be bothered to read the thread and (b) think these tired arguments are so very insightful and compelling?

    Lee, feel free to scroll up a bit if you want to see what people responded to the three or four guys before you who asked the same damn questions.

  43. Argenti Aertheri

    “So is this one person posting the same “arguments” under multiple socks, or have we just had a steady stream of guys…”

    Idk about now, but when I was here ALL THE TIME over the summer, either would’ve been likely. My vote is on the latter if this got posted at AVfM.

  44. Has anyone actually ever said “pray tell” and sounded as intelligent as they want to and not just like a parody of a cartoon villain?

  45. I think “pray tell” could be used sarcastically and not sound too cartoonish. Not sure if Lee pulled it off, though…

  46. Argenti Aertheri

    When I was mocking glossary troll in Victorian English? Either that or I sounded like a parody of a cartoon villain…not like what I was going for was that far off.

    Fuck though, wasn’t Steele a fan of “pray tell”?

  47. I seem to remember he was.

    He certainly had a writing style broadly comparable to the furthest extents of my egregiously verbose moods. Only less good.

  48. “Pray tell” has to join “how dare you!” and “would not…” as constructions that no one who isn’t a British theater actor can sound good saying.

  49. I’ve used “How dare you!” to good effect.

    … As my excessively arrogant noble LARP character. And I’m English. And have done some amateur acting.

    Yeah, OK.

    … I think he may have used “Would not…” as well…

  50. I think miss “pray tell” is driversuz.

  51. yes every single comment ever left anywhere is 100% totally serious. especially the threats. if somebody writes “this chick should be raped” in an article comment he WILL rape that chick on-sight should he ever see her.

    I’m assuming since you’re obviously a strong supporter of the feminist movement that you’ve never been victimized in one way or another by a female aggressor utilizing our culture’s current attitude towards women to destroy or seriously effect your life. Also, you can’t discredit the entire men’s rights movement just because a few huge misogynists are so outspoken. The whole idea of it, as I see it, is to replace the all to common idea that “women, naturally nurturing and loving, are always victims of men, naturally violent and cruel” with “men and women share equal capacities for different forms of violence and cruelty”. A very long time ago the feminist movement stopped earning women rights they didn’t have and started taking them away from men.

    Feminism is the hate group.

  52. The Radical One

    These men are dangerous. I will not support them but neither will I support feminism. If feminists get back to the original first-wave mantra of protecting wives and mothers and secure our positions within our homes then I would support them, but I don’t see a shred of evidence of them going back to that. Can women not keep some dignity about ourselves and ensure ourselves basic protections from male responsibilities and be protected in regards to our families and our children without advocating for feminism whose movement has only encouraged and enabled these assholes and stripped us of literally hundreds of laws that used to protect us? MRAs are nothing but feminists. The only thing that MRAs and feminists disagree on is who is the bigger victim. They all want the same thing. Feminism has failed women. It’s never had anything to offer us. The sooner women get their head out of the mainstream propaganda the sooner they will realize this and the better off we’ll all be. If it wasn’t for feminism these MRAs would have gotten their asses kicked up and down mainstreet.

  53. Um, “laws that used to protect [women]“? What about the laws that harmed us? Our husbands used to be able to rape us with impunity, and now they can’t. So much for feminists never having anything to offer us. And that’s just one example; if you require more, I and the others here will happily provide them.

  54. Can women not keep some dignity about ourselves and ensure ourselves basic protections from male responsibilities

    Whaaaaa…? Protection from male responsibilities? Wtf is a male responsibility? Is this like, learning as in school? Because I like learning? Or is it working, which is a necessary evil but gives us like, adult freedom instead of being dependent on getting married off. I seriously do not get you.

    If you are woman, do not presume you speak for all women. If you are a man, do not presume you speak for woman period.

  55. MRAs are feminists? Is today Bizzaro Day?

  56. @david barnes

    Seeing as about 6% of men will admit in an anonymous survey that they have raped someone, and fewer than 6% of men have ever posted rape threats, I don’t think we need to start splitting hairs about “Oh, not everyone who SAYS they want to rape ACTUALLY want to rape.” Odds are, they do.

  57. A very long time ago the feminist movement stopped earning women rights they didn’t have and started taking them away from men.

    Okay, I’ll humor you. Which rights is feminism taking away from men?

  58. david barnes: yes every single comment ever left anywhere is 100% totally serious. especially the threats. if somebody writes “this chick should be raped” in an article comment he WILL rape that chick on-sight should he ever see her.

    No, every single comment isn’t literal. But someone went to the effort to compose it, and post it. When one has hundreds, even thousands, then the lack of, “serious intent” of any one is moot.

    The collective effort is totally serious. Add the personal details and the scapegoating (to the point of villification ) based on lies and myths, and it becomes the case that you are defending terrorism.

    Saying that this behavior, on the part of men, is because feminism is the hate group… you’ve fallen through the looking glass dude.

  59. The Radical One: If this is your mantra These men are dangerous. I will not support them but neither will I support feminism. If feminists get back to the original first-wave mantra of protecting wives and mothers and secure our positions within our homes then I would support them,, then you aren’t radical, you aer reactionary.

    That’s not equality you are advocating. It’s not feminism.

    Can women not keep some dignity about ourselves and ensure ourselves basic protections from male responsibilities and be protected in regards to our families and our children without advocating for feminism

    No.

    The idea that there were “hundred of laws” which “protected us” is so wrong that it beggar description.

    What laws? Coverture? The need to have a man’s permission to do things?

    If it wasn’t for feminism these MRAs would have gotten their asses kicked up and down mainstreet.

    Bullshit. If it weren’t for feminism the MRA World is what we’d have.

    Feminism has failed women. It’s never had anything to offer us. … so the first part you said (when you were lying about first wave feminism) was bullshit too, you will never support feminism, because you don’t think it ever had anything to offer.

    Why am I not surprised.

  60. yes every single comment ever left anywhere is 100% totally serious. especially the threats. if somebody writes “this chick should be raped” in an article comment he WILL rape that chick on-sight should he ever see her.

    But rape is a threat that hangs over women’s lives on a daily basis. We don’t have the luxury of assuming any given person isn’t serious when he threatens us with rape – and we definitely don’t have the luxury of assuming that no one out of thousands of threats is serious. And even if not a single one of them is serious, it’s still an attempt to put a woman “in her place” by invoking this all too prevalent and all too gendered fear.

    The fact that threatening women with violence is the go-to response for so many men is a fucking problem, and the fact that you san say it’s feminist that’s the hateful element hear is mind-boggling.

  61. Wow… The Radical One, doesn’t even know what she’s quoting when she tries to make a point.

    In, The Failed Philosophy of Male-Female Fungibility she lays out (to be generous) the claim that Statutory Rape Laws are unfair, because women can violate them (i.e. it can be a crime for a woman to have sex with a male who is below the age of consent).

    She quotes from Justice William Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion on the matter in 1981 [Michael M. v. Superior Court (No. 79-1344)]. That, “Dissenting Opinion” was Justice Rhenquist affirming that Calif. was well within it’s rights to limit the crime of statutory rape to one only men could commit.

    I think I see what she is trying to say (Rhenquist disagreed with feminists… shocking revelation that), but her use of language makes it seem that the courts were forcing people to accept “feminist dogma”.

    Never mind that it wasn’t “feminists” who brought that case. Rather it was a guy who had been convicted of statutory rape saying it wasn’t fair.

    In July, 1978, a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of Sonoma County, Cal., alleging that petitioner, then a 17 1/2-year-old male, had had unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18, in violation of § 261.5. The evidence adduced at a preliminary hearing showed that, at approximately midnight on June 3, 1978, petitioner and two friends approached Sharon, a 16 1/2-year-old female, and her sister as they waited at a bus stop. Petitioner and Sharon, [p467] who had already been drinking, moved away from the others and began to kiss. After being struck in the face for rebuffing petitioner’s initial advances, Sharon submitted to sexual intercourse with petitioner. Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on both state and federal constitutional grounds, asserting that § 261.5 unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal denied petitioner’s request for relief, and petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court of California.

    Why does all this matter? I don’t know. Something about everyone getting up, and cats and dogs living together and then it all turns into anarchy. See for yourself:

    . You know, by all that’s holy how dare us force boys and girls into “stereotypes” regarding their sex! You know, it’s not like the girls will grow up to be mothers and need those nurturing home-making skills and it’s not like we should ever suggest that the boys grow up to be men who provide for and lead families! How dare us? Why a woman should march off to work big and pregnant while her dainty little house husband sits home knitting sweaters and painting his nails! What is wrong with society today? The entire point of marriage and bringing fathers into the family is for them to do their part providing for women and their children so that the mother does not have to both bear children and support the family on top of it. Intimacy and structure can be satisfied without marriage. There is no other point of marriage other than to be a safety net for women to bear and nurture children, which women are going to do no matter what. But the prime fact of life is that no man will bear the burden of pregnancy.

    Got that… women who rape minor men should be allowed to get away with it because someday those women might want to get pregnant and have kids, which is what society is all about; and sex has nothing to do with marriage; even though teenage girls are still getting pregnant as they have since the beginning of time! Who would have thought? But, of course, let’s continue on with this failed philosophy.

    Which makes me wonder… if teenaged girls are still getting pregnant as they have since the beginning of time!, what philosophy has had more time spent failing?

    Oh yeah, the one she calls, “common sense”.

    Let’s take a look at teenaged pregnancy rates. When was the peak? Was it 1984? Perhaps in the ’90s, when Clinton as in office (and all those feminists were around)? What about the ’60s, and all that, “Free Love”? Maybe the “Sexual Revolution of the ’70s?

    And the winner is… 1957

    Perhaps The Radical One is full of shit.

  62. And the Radical One can’t keep her story straight: Do MRAs Want to be Victims or Take Responsibility? she starts to detail some of the “helpful laws” we had in the past.

    Or perhaps what she thinks would be, “good” laws for the future.

    Yes, the husband should be the legal head of household. A woman has the choice who she wishes to marry. She should know when she says “I do” that she will become one with him. He has to pay the bills, therefore if he wants to move the family she should be under the obligation to live with him and take care of the home.Feminists were very bitter about this.

    In New York, a pamphlet supporting ratification of the ERA read:

    “DO YOU KNOW THAT RAPE IS LEGAL IN MARRIAGE?

    Remember, up above, where sex and intimacy were fine and dandy; marriage was about making sure the man was obliged to provide for the wife and kids?

    Yeah, not so much this time around, see when it’s a question of marital rape, then the song is,

    Well, sex is kind of the point of marriage dear feminists.

    This retort is in response to something from more than 30 years ago, when (as that pamphlet correctly stated, women were pretty much the property of the husband.

    DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE YOUR HUSBAND’S PRISONER?

    You have to live with him wherever he pleases. If he decides to move someplace else, either you go with him or he can charge you with desertion, get a divorce and, according to the law, you deserve nothing because you’re the guilty party. And that’s if he were the one who moved!”

    .

    Yep, those “protections” the law afforded were swell, things like, this: should I have to take my husband’s last name or obtain his consent to get a credit card or something like telephone service? Yes.

    This is her idea of returning to, “the good old days”.

  63. Yep, this is utterly bog-standard anti-feminist religious good-old-days ‘WOMEN ARE CHATTEL’ thinking.

    That sure is radical, yes indeedie.

    You keep on with that, oh radical one. We’ll keep on with the radical idea that women are actually people.

  64. Well Howard, she is so “edgy” She calls MRAs manginas.

  65. This is Mind blowing…..As a recent viewer to this video clip, I am appalled how this women is talking to anyone. I don’t care about all the titles, or organisations you people are bantering about, The man is quietly walking in to a lecture and is faced with this?. Its information, information to all, Most of all Regardless of anything you should never talk to anyone like this…. especially if you do not know them. Those are some pretty harsh accusation to be calling someone.

    I am interested in what Mr. Farrell has to say, as information whether right or wrong. and If I had known about this lecture I would have possibly wanted to go and listen. if I was approached like this and screamed at in my face like that I wouldn’t even know what to do..This women doesn’t know me, or my values. What if that Gent was there on behalf of her beliefs or organisation…however more civil about it? I guess she is a mind reader.

    I just can’t stand people talking to anyone like this…just trying to cause a reaction, you can tell she woudl have LOVED for him to take any kind of action…even opening his mouth to say something, Imagine if he had, what else wodul she have called him?

    Jeez… all of you people both “sides” nee dto get more positive hobbies, something to bring you all closer together, not fight and belittle each other with “what you know” and re-quoting Ad nauseam.

    Reading all this..it seems no one really has any infomitive comments, just trashing each other…its f**kin boring…

    -Doug

  66. Damn. While I firmly believe the tactics of the feminist protestors were uncalled for and stepped over the line, Paul Elam’s call to “dox” people is certainly dangerous and will likely lead to real-life harassment and perhaps even abuse. That’s not acceptable either.

    This shit has all gone too far. People should be able to disagree with one another without screaming in each other’s faces in person or suggesting online that they deserve to be victims of violence. Way too far.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,701 other followers

%d bloggers like this: