Canadian feminist activist receives death threats and other abuse after being targeted by Men’s Rights Activists
And so the MRAs have found yet another woman to hate.
Earlier this month, as many of you no doubt know, a Men’s Rights group sponsored a lecture at the University of Toronto. The event drew protesters, and the protesters drew MRAs with video cameras. One of the MRAs filmed a confrontation between a red-haired feminist activist and a number of MRAs who continually interrupted her as she tried to read a brief statement.
Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters. And so, after video of the confrontation was uploaded to YouTube, and linked to on the Men’s Rights subreddit and elsewhere, she became a virtual punching bag for the angry misogynists of the internet.
A Voice for Men, naturally, led the charge, running an article by Canadian MRA Dan Perrins labeling her “Little red frothing fornication mouth” and commenting on her breasts. The Amazing Atheist weighed in with a video I couldn’t bring myself to even watch.
Since being targeted by angry YouTube misogynists and MRAs, the red-haired activist has received death threats, rape threats and literally hundreds of other hateful and harassing messages. She’s also been “doxxed” — that is, she’s had her personal information plastered all over the internet, including on A Voice for Men’s forum. Ten days after being uploaded to YouTube, the video of her faceoff against the MRAs has garnered more than 300,000 views, and YouTubers are still leaving threats and insults and crude sexual comments.
This, apparently, is what “Men’s Human Rights Activism” consists of: the doxxing and harassment of individual women.
Several days ago, she contacted me to tell me about the harassment she’s endured. Here’s some of what she wrote:
I’m the red-head. I’m sure by now, you’re one of the 260,000 people who have seen the video of me … .
Because I had the audacity to tell a dude to stfu, an MRA no less, I have since been the target of not only just online misogyny (as if that’s a surprise) but cyber stalking, rape and death threats. They somehow found my facebook, they found my tumblr, they found a twitter acct that I don’t even use, they even found an old [dating site] profile of mine with outdated info …
I also got an anonymous message on tumblr that specifically said “[name deleted] would be disappointed”. [Name deleted] is my dog that died 1.5 years ago, I don’t talk about him on tumblr, nor fb, so they would have had to reaaaaalllly dig to find this info. …
In about 12-24hours, I got about400-500 new messages on my blog, most of them hate, which included rape and death threats, also people wishing death upon me or the typical troll “kill yourself” message. They made a meme of me.
I dunno how many haters I have, and I don’t know where they are. I can’t be sure at any given second, if I’m ever outside my house … if anyone is going to recognize me and try to hurt me.
With her permission, I am reposting screenshots she sent me documenting some of the harassment she’s endured. Even though her personal information has already been widely disseminated online, I don’t want to contribute to that, so I’ve whited out any information that might reveal her identity.
TRIGGER WARNING for what follows, for threatening language and crude sexual remarks.
Here’s a death threat she received from someone claiming to represent the “Islamic Brotherhood.”
Here are some sample comments from her Tumblr inbox. I’ve whited out comments and parts of comments that consist of her contact info, which being sent to her in an attempt to intimidate and frighten her by letting her know they “know where she lives.”
Here’s another threatening comment sent to her via Tumblr:
Here are some comments sent to her via her YouTube account. You’ll notice that the second comment comes from AVFM’s Dan Perrins, who is clearly relishing the attacks on her.
And another glimpse into her YouTube inbox:
Here’s a screenshot from a Men’s Rights forum revealing her personal information.
Meanwhile, over on YouTube, the hateful comments continue to pile up. Here are some of the nastiest ones I’ve collected. I am deliberately posting a lot of them in an attempt to convey something of the relentless nature of the attacks on teh red-haired activist — though I should note I’ve only gone through a small portion of the total comments there and this doesn’t even reflect all of the awful ones I found. These are not in any particular order. I threw in a few non-threatening ones that struck me as a tad ironic or otherwise revealing.
Again, this is only a small fraction of the abuse she’s gotten on YouTube.
This is what happens when MRAs and other misogynists target a woman online. The only thing that’s surprising here is the sheer amount of the hateful comments.
I’ve seen no serious attempts from any MRAs to rein in this sort of hatred. A Voice for Men has tried to distance itself in a superficial way from some of the harassment it has played a central role in unleashing, with an official announcement asking readers to refrain from posting the personal information of the red-haired activist in the comments. Meanwhile, in the AVFM forum, comments linking to her defunct dating profiles remain up.
This is what MRA “activism” looks like.
Coming tomorrow: A more detailed look at AVFM’s role in the harassment.
Posted on April 15, 2013, in a voice for men, antifeminism, atheism minus, gloating, harassment, hate, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, not-quite-plausible deniability, penises, racism, rape culture, rape jokes, reddit, sexual harassment, taking pleasure in women's pain, the c-word, threats and tagged a voice for men, antifeminism, harassment, men's rights, misogyny, rape jokes, reddit, university of toronto. Bookmark the permalink. 2,101 Comments.
Courts take a person’s income into account when deciding how much child support someone pays. So someone like Britney Spears had to pay $20 K a month to her ex, Kevin Federline. (Sorry for a celebrity reference, but I like how it shows women can pay child support to dads, too.) Then a friend of mine only gets $5 a month from her ex. If someone can’t afford to pay much, they can show their pay checks to the court and have that taken into consideration.
It doesn’t dramatically change a non custodial parent’s life nearly to the extent that it does the custodial parent’s. I don’t think writing a check every month is doing that much. That’s the amount of work it takes to pay the water bill. Would you trade places with a custodial parent and do all of the work of actually raising the child in exchange for $300 a month? Honestly, who do you think has the easier situation?
Lol, i get that all the time. I type or say something longwinded and at the end i”m like… what did I just say?
And somehow other people understand it.
@tomBcat
Well I understood it. ;) liked it too.
Oh my jeezus A) a fetus is not a child
B) NO HUMAN BEING HAS THE RIGHT TO USE ANOTHER HUMAN BEING’S BODY AGAINST THEIR CONSENT FFS
Sixty percent of abortions performed are for married women, because they and their partner do not want an unplanned child.
It’s almost like, in the real world, men often have a say in abortion already!
@esmnmb
Um, like people have reasons for making decisions. I’m pro choice because if people couldn’t get abortions it’d be violating their bodily autonomy, I don’t actually care why they get them. I mean, I’d like it if people were able to get less abortions, since I doubt they’re enjoyable and probably have some risks, but that’d be a ‘better, more affordable birth control thing.’ So, like, yeah people can get abortions for reasons, and why they do it isn’t my business. The point is that no one can force them to carry a baby. This is kinda rambly but I hope it made sense, at least to non edude people.
A fetus could have exactly the same status and rights as a full-grown human, and abortion should still be legal. A fetus’ rights do not trump the uterus-haver’s rights.
I’m a Kantian. I think it’s wrong to treat anyone as a mere means to an end (i.e. force them to do something), and so I’m against killing in principle. However, the person who is unwillingly pregnant stands as someone deprived of agency, and to regain that agency, that person must be allowed to stop the pregnancy. That this termination of pregnancy involves the death of the fetus is irrelevant.
So no, I don’t believe a child has a right to life at the expense of someone else’s agency.
yes, this. So much better than I tried to say it too…
Here’s my entry on the Kantian defense of abortion.
esmnmb: Please feel free to complain to either God (as you worship him, her, them or zie) or Evolution, as you prefer, about the fact that the woman’s body is where all the impact of pregnancy occurs. When discussing what to do about it, though, we have to deal with reality as it is.
You think an abortion is about the termination of parental rights/responsibilities. It isn’t. It’s about not being pregnant. Often, yes, that’s because of financial reasons. Doesn’t change the fact that abortion is nothing more or less than the termination of an existing pregnancy, a medical condition control of which, in any society which even claims to value bodily autonomy, must be granted to the person who has that condition. (Also, especially in the case of single women, the most serious expenses are those that arise out of the pregnancy–time lost from work, status lost at work, etc, all add up to a lifetime loss of income even if she were to immediately turn around and put the kid up for adoption.)
If a woman has a child, then dumps said child on the father’s doorstep, refusing to provide material care, the father could sue the mother for support, even if he was making more money than she is, because they are both responsible for the child’s well-being, period.
Sometimes people say dumbass things. I still want them to have the right to free speech. Sometimes people get in groups and do dumb stuff. I still want them to have the right to assemble. Sometimes people get ugly tattoos. I still want them to have the right to bodily autonomy.
SOMETIMES I DISAGREE WITH CHOICES, BUT PEOPLE STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO THOSE CHOICES!
Okay guys, I feel weird bringing this into an abortion talk, but it seems kinda relevant.
As y’all know, we’re multiple. Our system, unfortunately, spawns new members for only one reason: overwhelming stress.
A new system member here is NEVER a happy occasion. It’s a very sombre, mourning time, because in the middle of helltime, we now have an unintended brain pregnancy that requires time and energy, just like all people do, and sometimes, those new members are born in excruciating pain, because they’re born out of trauma.
As a result, we often find ourselves in ethical gray areas, because often, the best way to end the new member’s suffering is to take back the traumatic material, which ends their suffering… but also their existence. They die.
We prefer not to do this, so we try to keep from spawning new members whenever possible, because refusing to let one get born isn’t the same as one getting born and then euthanized. There’s also even a gray period where nobody’s certain whether the new member is quite ‘alive’ or not. Sound familiar?
I feel that an actual abortion is like preventing a new system member from getting born, preferably sooner rather than later because that eases everyone’s suffering. A paper abortion would be like us getting this new system member, refusing to have anything to do with it because we’re too overwhelmed, and just leaving it to suffer.
I have taken on new members’ trauma even when it meant losing my job and my home, and completely mentally incapacitating me for days or weeks at a time. In these cases, there is no such thing as being too overwhelmed. If we don’t take care of the new member or ease its suffering, who will? (And we don’t have the option of giving up brain children for adoption.)
I have yet to see a good rationale for paper abortions.
*Sigh*
I am feeling patient enough that, believe it or not, I am actually going to answer this. But this is the last time. If you still stick to your guns, I for one will take that as an indication that you are too reactionary to actually listen to (or understand) what anyone is saying to you and I will stop trying to engage.
You can be bigoted without actually coming out and saying a slur or something. Like even if you don’t say the N-word, if you fly a confederate flag and think we need poll tests in the South, you’re a racist. Got it? Same thing here. You are advocating things that are abhorrent to feminists. Your refusal to understand how and why doesn’t make them less abhorrent. You’ve never shown any indication that you’re anything other than an extremely entitled dude who wants dudes to be able to do whatever they want, regardless of the consequences for other people.
And being polite does not entitle you a polite response. If someone broke into your house and pointed a gun at you and said “Excuse me, I’m so sorry to disturb you, but I’d really appreciate it if you’d just give me a hand loading your TV and electronics into my truck, and could you please also give me any cash you might have around, if it’s not too much trouble?” then you’re not obligated to respond “Yes, certainly, whatever I can do to help” just because he’s being polite!
If, wherever you show up, people start out nice and gradually get pissed off, that would suggest that you’re incredibly obnoxious and should consider amending your own behavior.
Paper abortions are a difficult topic. On the surface it’s an eminently reasonable suggestion. After all, most women cite something along the lines of “not ready” when getting an abortion; men can’t do this. This female privilege is something that could be eliminated with paper abortions.
But I’m still against them, because it must be remembered that it’s for the *child*, not the mother, and definitely not to “stick it” to the father. Children require care, and this trumps the wants of the father. And since in 2013 women still have the babies, as it stands now biology forces us to impose this unjust double standard for the greater good.
bahumbugi, you are a goon and you missed the entire point.
You say you have a 0 tolerance for harassment, but you completely missed the fact that Chantity et al were involved in organized harassment. The people she was representing on camera marched on the campus where the Men’s issues group was meeting, chanted to the point where people with microphones couldn’t be heard, pulled the fire alarms so they had to leave, and generally did anything they could to stop this group from peaceably assembling and having a conversation among themselves.
I consider that harassment. Any attempt to take away rights to free speech and peaceable assembly is harassment. It doesn’t matter if it’s MRAs or the I love Hitler party of fucking Toronto, it’s harassment.
There is a history of harassment at this university. I didn’t make any value judgements about Warren Farrell, I just pointed out his credentials as someone who is aware of feminist arguments by mentioning that he was a 3 time board member of NOW and the only man to ever hold that honor.
I say men are always wrong, because if the genders were reversed, as I said, this would be front page news instead of back page blog material.
We either have free speech or we don’t. There is no such thing as some free speech.
Also you have done nothing to show why it’s not disingenuous to only focus in on online harassment of her, and completely omit the real world harassment and violation of rights committed by the “victim”. I’m not saying that harassing her online was the right thing to do, but I am saying that the story above completely ignores the fact that she was the original harasser, and had she not harassed anyone, no one would know her name. Leaving that out of the story and framing it as misogyny is questionable. The question it raises is did David know. If not why is he commenting on something without research, and if he did, what was his agenda in leaving that out?
You say my blog is a “bucket of hate” yet it’s one article questioning why misogyny is becoming more prevalent in the millennial generation, one about why the gun control debate is poison, one about how Anita Sarkeesian is inconsistent in her ideas about video games, and one about why people should stop using a bigoted twitter hashtag.
The only “bucket of hate” is the person you are defending.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/big-red-sings/
Like a boss.
too boring, didn’t read @ clintiskeen
only nitpicking, “if the genders were reversed, it’d be all over the news”
citation needed!
Doesn’t matter one bit. This isn’t about what she did or didn’t do. You are victim blaming. Also, the story ignores your facts because the story isn’t about those facts.
WTF.
If somebody was having an I love Hitler party, IT WOULD BE FUCKING HATE SPEECH! HITLER COMMITED GENOCIDE ON HOW MANY FUCKING PEOPLE!! ANd now you’re saying no one can try to shut down fucking HATE SPEECH without it being harrasment!
Newsflash: Freedom of speech does not protect you from freedom of criticism. Or give you the freedom to talk over people (those guys who kept trying to interrupt her).
If someone interrupts me, I will tell them to shut the fuck up. Especially if they do it repeatedly.
But no, criticising hate groups, not giving hate groups time to speak, is not harrassment. And that’s what the MRM is. A hate group.
I wish a fun thread to everyone, maybe this night is my night for sleeping.
I’m very thankful for this blog tonight, tackling issues that are too much for me right now, but reading all those intelligent comments helps dealing with them.
EPerson, maybe you should go and inform yourself about abortion a little better instead of discussing it on a feminist thread dedicated to mocking misogyny.
Also you should probably watch this.
“Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters.”
not so much, seriously watch the video after you get done with her singing cry me a river over the issue of male suicide. She’s inside the building just outside the door where they are trying to listen to some published authors speak, ironically the one speaking is someone who published a book about being a religious minority and how to deal with groups who are intolerant.
Does Clintshit have some sort of point? Because right now all he’s doing seems to be not knowing the definition of words and trying to imply that rape and death threats are okay if a woman steps out of line.
RE: clintiskeen
You obviously didn’t read my post.
THAT DOESN’T JUSTIFY HUNDREDS OF DEATH AND RAPE THREATS.
I mean, JESUS. The fuck is wrong with you?
Fade, no one said you aren’t allowed to criticise.
What you’re not allowed to do is break laws, act disorderly, pull fire alarms, block doors, and do all in your power to disallow peaceable assembly.
If you do those things, that is harassment. Taking away someone’s legal rights is an illegal act of force
um how did fire alarms pop up into this? There was no mention of fire alarms in the original post
I mean, Christ, I’ve heard all sorts of cruel wingnuttery from assholes before. And fuck, I wouldn’t wish hundreds of death and rape threats on FRED PHELPS, and he’s the most repulsive living human I can think of off hand.
So Clint, why should I give a shit and think it’s okay for this woman, who is no Fred Phelps?
God clintshit is annoying. Who wants to ignore him? I mean, you guys don’t have to if you’re having fun with him, but I’m bored now. I was having more fun with edude, cuz I felt like he had a slightly larger chance of getting the point. Clintshit’s just whining.
LBT, are you fucking dense? Show me where I said it was justified. i’ll save you the time, I not only said it didn’t but I said they were wrong.
My whole point is that there is a kind of one sided reporting going on here that lead to bahumbugi saying that it was because of a 0 tolerance to harassment while ignoring or being ignorant of the fact that the person being harassed was herself involved in harassment and intimidation
Fade that is precisely my point. David left out the fire alarms, the disorderly conduct, and all the other things that happened. My POINT was that the fire alarms weren’t mentioned in the OP
@clintisshit
Dude, you’re fucking implying it.
Um… anyone who is a semi reliable source? Because I am so not buying anything Clintshit says.
And Clintshit… EVEN IF THERE WAS UNRELIABLE REPORTING NO ONE WOULD DESERVE FUCKING RAPE AND DEATH THREATS! JESUS!
And the way that you are saying “no but (some bs I probably made up)” makes it SOUND like you think that if that is true, then she deserves the threats. Words. Can imply. Things. That are not exactly a word for word translation.
Hence, when people say “he scared me to death” I don’t assume they are a zombie.
You think I’m implying, but I said several times flat out in black and white text I don’t condone the response, but I think the framing of how things went down is completely disingenuous
RE: clintiskeen
LBT, are you fucking dense? Show me where I said it was justified. i’ll save you the time, I not only said it didn’t but I said they were wrong.
Look at the tagline, ya nimrod. We mock misogyny. That is what we’re here for. We are ergo mocking the misogynistic overreaction to her. We’re not talking about YOUR talking point. We’re talking about the post.
You’re the one coming in here like talking about basketball in a football forum is some brilliant act.
Women have the right to choose because pregnancy (usually) occurs inside a woman’s body, and thus she has a right to decide whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. In an instance where a male gets pregnant, he would also have the right to terminate the pregnancy.
The idea of a “paper abortion” draws a false equivalence between a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and a man deciding he doesn’t want to support a child.
The equivalent of a woman having the choice to terminate a pregnancy occurring in her body is a man being able to terminate a pregnancy occurring in his body.
Not everything has an equal and opposite. Drawing false equivalence where there is none leads to shit like “Why isn’t there a WHITE History Month???” or “How come there aren’t STRAIGHT pride parades??!?” or “If slut shaming is a thing, then CREEP shaming must be a thing too, right??!”
(Protip: the male equivalent of shaming a woman for having “too much” sex, or “too many” sexual partners would be shaming a male for same, and this isn’t generally a thing because men are expected to always want sex).
If “mra’s” wanted to reduce their odds of having to support child they didn’t want, they could be doing things like:
1. Pushing for the creation of a male birth control pill (from my understanding a big reason for the delay with this is that pharmaceutical companies don’t want to invest in it because they don’t see big profits in it).
2. Supporting comprehensive sex education and wide accessibility of contraceptives, thus reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies overall.
And if a guy is really, really wants to reduce his chances of fathering a child he didn’t want, he could get a vasectomy. Last I checked, there are no evul femuhnist groups standing in the way of any of the above.
Clint: fuck off, no one cares that David isn’t “reporting” to your liking. Still doesn’t justify the shit this woman is getting. Grow up and learn how to act human, don’t come back until you do.
Watch the video I linked. It’s in the video you can watch it and see for yourself
Shorter Clinty:
Waaaah, why is everyone acting like words have meanings and stuff!?!!!eleven
No. Doesn’t matter, Clint.
@because science
YES. QFT
Hellkell, you are putting words in my mouth. I didn’t ever say EVER that what is happening to her is right, what I said is that if we’re truly going to have 0 tolerance for harassment, we need to admit that she was also guilty of harassment instead of portraying her as a blameless party whose only crime and I quote:
“Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters”
If we can all admit that sentence is untrue, then we no longer disagree on anything
OKay, I saw people shouting in the hallway and people leaving the building because of the fire alarm… so I don’t get where you said they were blocking anyone, unless you were talking about the density of the crowd.
But… they didn’t even try to go through the crowd, they just walked through another door.
esmnmb:
“The top two reasons I can find are:
1. I can’t afford to have a child.
2. Having a baby would dramatically change my life.
So these reasons have little to do with the body. So a persons right to have an abortion isn’t just one that can be made on it’s my body, my rights. It can also be argued that because it’s my life, it’s my right as the top reasons all related to changing a person’s life.”
I think you’re confusing a right with a reason. A right in this case just means autonomy: the decisions about the pregnancy are up to the person who is pregnant. They will then weigh various reasons, like the ones you listed, for choosing their course of action. Saying that someone has a reason to want something and saying that a decision is up to someone are two different things.
Clintshit, how was she harrassing people? Because the video didn’t show who pulled the fire alarm…
You guys would tell me if I was being super annoying, right? I feel kinda weird today because headache acting up, and I think I’m acting strange, but can’t tell. Anyway, tell me if I’m bugging you :/
The physical blocking of the door was from the Warren Farrell incident from the year before.
The point is they effectively took away someone else’s right to free speech by bringing bullhorns in and generally acting like assholes. There is a pattern of harassment at this university and Chanity was the one out front with the bullhorn. It seriously doesn’t matter what group was saying what, these people were wrong, acting in a disorderly fashion, denying someone’s right to peaceable assembly, and generally acting in a manner consistent with intimidation.
I don’t mind people being angry at the way she was treated afterwards, but pretending this happened in a vacuum and all the harassment is happening because she wasn’t polite to people is bullshit. She was the leader of a group who broke up their conference. They aren’t interrupters, they are the interrupted.
I don’t find her disgusting because of men’s rights or whatever else. If she had done this to any group who wanted to peaceably discuss issues important to them because she didn’t agree, I would find it equally disgusting
Good one, I’m sure the fire alarm (which are found in hallways) was pulled by a completely unrelated party to the mob in the hallway.
For the people basically saying “Well yeah, maybe they crossed the line a bit with the death threats, but SHE WAS RUDE (so she kinda deserved it, amrite???)”
Even if you were going to attempt to justify that in this particular instance, the response was in any way proportionate (it isn’t), that’s not really the issue.
The issue is that this is just the latest in a consistent pattern of behavior where mra’s engage in, incite or facilitate harassment and threats towards women they don’t like. And the woman is always somehow or another “asking for it”, according to mra defenders.
This isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a systemic problem with the “men’s rights movement” and the type of men it attracts.
Oh, so the video doesn’t show what Clint says? Shocker.
Fuck off, Clint. Keep fucking that chicken.
Marie, this thread is getting flooded by this doof and you think you’re the one who might be annoying people?
(You are not annoying anyone.)
Clint: I watched your video.
1: It’s pretty clear she did not pull the fire alarm.
2: The protestors are NOT blocking access to the room. Rather, they are obstructing one hallway by virtue of being in it, but as the video demonstrates, there is a clear path from the door to the lecture room to the outside. Furthermore, the lecture had already begun, meaning that they weren’t preventing anyone from getting inside.
3: The one being targeted was also not the one using the bullhorn, so even if your ‘argument’ is that there are bad actors on both sides, you’re full of fail, because your own fucking video shows that the vitriol being directed at her, even if it were in proportion to the alleged offenses, is STILL being targeted at the wrong person.
4: The reason your desire for ‘balanced reporting’ is falling on deaf ears here is because the reporting IS balanced, by proportion of the offense. Not one thing in the video–even if it had all been done by the person being discussed–would rise to the level of the vitriol being produced by the MRA sites.
Now, this is the big point, the one you don’t get: This site? It’s not for you, or about you. We don’t give a shit about you, except insofar as you obstruct our goals of establishing a more equal society. Understand? So, if you want to go complain about… I dunno, women with bullhorns, you’re welcome to go start your own blog to do so. But don’t expect us to give you anything but shit for showing up here and trying to make this about what you care about, because we don’t care about you.
also this is what it was like inside
clintiskeen,
it may be worth noting that Canada does not have “free speech” in the way the States does. we’re not necessarily the “disagree, but will defend to the death” types when it comes to speech. our laws are different since we’re, you know, a different country. Canada’s speech laws are very much “some free speech” and not “all speech free speech!”.
and currently that’s in you and yours’ favour since our PM doesn’t think Internet harassment and threats count as hate speech/illegal. so hey! points for you, right? asshole.
OK fine, then there are some speech types that are legally actionable. That doesn’t excuse mob justice
for fuck’s sake I already said the blocking of doors was from the year before. Try to keep up
If she had done this to any group who wanted to peaceably discuss issues important to them because she didn’t agree, I would find it equally disgusting
Really? Any group? ‘Cause I’m pretty sure non-hate-group counter protests are a thing.
@becausescience: This is near how I wanted to phrase my response. The point of this article is basically: same shit, different day. Same shit, different setting. Same shit, different lady. Same shit, different justification.
Aw,look at Clint getting pissy. Go away, Clint.
for fuck’s sake I already said the blocking of doors was from the year before. Try to keep up
A feminist did a thing one time, and then did a different thing another time, and then I squished all the times together and implied it was the same time, because that’s legit!
Mob justice? Lord. You are not the Starks, everyone else are not the Baratheons.
You are not the Starks
WinterFeminists are coming!None of what any of you have said about your experiences with the men’s rights people in any way changes two facts:
1) I said they were wrong. That was the first thing I said was I don’t agree with the people who are threatening her. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
2) The way this was portrayed was a woman is trying to give an interview and then later gets harassed because she said fuck a lot. This is not what happened. She went out of her way to infringe on the rights of others through harassment. It’s not morally consistent to say that one has a 0 tolerance for harassment without condemning this woman as well.
LIke the harassment is in any way proportional, dipshit? Get a clue, Clint.
I know it’s not exactly on topic, but with the Farrell thing and now this it makes me snakey to read all the “FREE SPEECH” stuff from American MRAs. I realize that if they don’t understand the 1st Amendment in their own country asking then to understand that all government everywhere doesn’t work the same is a stretch, but sheesh. Our speech laws are the reason we don’t have a Canadian equivalent to Fox News. not that it’s all totally better (see my above comment about Harper), but seeing these idiots complain about a right they don’t even HAVE in Canada is just ridiculous.
@clinty
…lack of perspective time. People acting up at one meeting= freedom of speech taken away? no.
ffs, the harassment is targetting her not the whole mob.
@katz
Yay! :D
Just as tedious as a Stark mans ennui. Sorry Clint.
Nicely put.
Clintshit
The way you phrased it made it sound like the blocking the exits happened at the same thing.
It doesn’t fucking matter if the harassment was proportional. You can’t just omit that it happened and change history to say, and I quote for the 15th time “Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters.”
Is there some kind of dark matter field around your head that absorbs simple concepts and prevents them from penetrating?
“It doesn’t fucking matter if the harassment was proportional.”
“It doesn’t fucking matter if the harassment was proportional.”
“It doesn’t fucking matter if the harassment was proportional.”
You’re fucking showing your asshole flag, again and again.