Categories
douchebaggery MGTOW misogyny MRA rape violence against men/women

>Two “manosphere” blogs have now posted the contact information of Assange’s accusers

>Two influential blogs in the “manosphere” — there may be more, I don’t know — have now posted the names and contact information of Julian Assange’s accusers; I won’t link to the posts. Clearly the purpose of doing this is to encourage harassment of these women. Disgraceful.

EDIT: Some asshole keeps posting the contact info here so I am moderating comments for now.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

71 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
IR
IR
9 years ago

>Serves them right. It's only leveling the playing field to post the contact information of the accusers. If you theoretical, ideological feminists didn't like it, you would bare your red-eyed, self-righteous anger about the accused (oh who are we kidding, mens') names and contact information published by the media. But when one or two little websites do unto you – EEK! It's a fucking sex war waged against women! Oh, the humanity!Doesn't feel so good when it's your goddesses who take the fall, does it castrato? Sorry, if these equivocal tactics are what it takes to show a feminist "how it feels," that's what it's going to take. Until you start thinking, it keeps happening.

J. Durden
9 years ago

>TheVagrantsVoice:I can agree with that. Unfortunately, rape IS a crime that there is an absurdly high incidence of false accusations for (I'm not gonna bust out a bunch of links and quotes and what not, a) because I'm lazy and b) because I don't care to try to make the point on this blog) which explains (though perhaps does not excuse) the tendency towards the "false accuser" label. I chalk it up as another example of how feminist activism and victim idolatry actually hurts the real victims. As for the case of Julian Assange, the facts which are in about the case are pretty ri-god-damn-diculous but I digress.

Yohan
9 years ago

>Interesting article in the dailymail news, and it was written by a woman!Instead of giving anonymity to men charged with rape we should name their accusers http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1280752/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Instead-giving-anonymity-men-charged-rape-accusers.html…..feminist activists claim, perversely, that the acquittal rate demonstrates bias against women – and have accordingly tried vindictively to load the judicial dice against men. Without any doubt, rape is a vile and disgusting crime. But these feminists have used it as a stick with which to beat the entire male sex. In a reversal of the most fundamental principle of justice, men accused of rape are perceived to be guilty and accordingly have to prove that they are innocent. …..the important point is that the real injustice to men in those 40 per cent of rape cases where they are acquitted is not that their identities are made known but that they are the victims of false allegations in the first place.And if women were held publicly to account for the claims they make, the number of those false accusations would undoubtedly drop. 40 percent?

Christine WE
9 years ago

>@yohan,I'm not sure that you get how the justice system works given your failure to grasp it in the discussion of the OJ Simpson case the other day, but acquitted doesn't automatically mean the person did not do what they were accused of. Assuming that all who are acquitted of a crime were falsely accused is irresponsible of the writer as anybody who does understand the system knows that sometimes guilty persons go free. In that 40% acquitted, there will be some falsely accused and some who were not falsely accused. In addition, MRA's are tainting juries with their idiotic pact to try to get chosen for jury pools and voting all men accused of rape and other crimes "not guilty" no matter what the evidence, so the outcome of trials are not even close to reliable indicators of whether a man actually did it or not. Who knows how many criminals have gone free thanks to the MRM?

Christine WE
9 years ago

>I'd like to see that 40% broken down by how many were acquitted due to false accusations, lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, mistakes in investigation or prosecution, and how many trials had tainted jury pools due to the MRM pact to find all men "not guilty" in rape trials no matter what the evidence.

Blackwell
9 years ago

>There's only a logical fallacy to a consistent application of 'innocent until proven guilty' if you take it as a literal expression of a person's guilt or innocence. In fact, as should be fairly obvious, a person can be guilty of a crime before they're convicted so it makes little sense to claim that someone accused of a crime is literally 'innocent' until proven guilty. As has been observed, the spirit of the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is to remind the court and public that legally guilt must be proven, and not to assume that someone is guilty before they've heard the evidence. There is no contradiction to holding the same principal for both Assange and his accusers: to wait until guilt is proven before branding either a rapist or false-accuser. In neither case has evidence been brought forward to convict one or the other. N.B. This does not mean that both are concurrently 'innocent', only that guilt has not been proven on one side or the other. Although it should be noted that the criminal justice system does actually presume guilt: this is why people accused of violent crimes are often taken into custody and kept in prison until their trials. Thus rather than being considered innocent, the accused are actually placed in a limbo where they're waiting to see whether their guilt is legally established or not.

Cold
9 years ago

>One of the "consequences" of Ferdinand posting these peoples' contact information is making people like me-folks who dislike feminism but are leery of the MRM–much more suspicious of the supposedly non-violent and benevolent nature of the MRM.And nothing of value was lost.

Cold
9 years ago

>I'd like to see that 40% broken down by how many were acquitted due to false accusations, lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, mistakes in investigation or prosecution, and how many trials had tainted jury pools due to the MRM pact to find all men "not guilty" in rape trials no matter what the evidence.There is no formal pact; just an essay which lucidly explains why, under the current legal climate, juries should acquit alleged rapists. The essay was published on August 1, 2010, so you can stop frothing at the mouth about statistics from before that date being "tainted".

Cold
9 years ago

>Oops, and nothing of value was lost was supposed to link to this article like it does now.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>The problem is, of course, that if the "reality on the ground" are really so bad, men dealing with it need all the help they can get. And the fact that MRAs like you seem so dead-set on alienating virtually everyone, male or female, who's not crazy enough to embrace the use of these sorts of tactics, means that you're separating those unfortunate men from a sizable population of people who'd otherwise be more than happy to help them. This doesn't apply to me, of course–regardless of whether you MRAs call me a "mangina" or an "ignoramus" or whatever, I'll continue to condemn false rape accusations, advocate for anonymity for the accused, lend what support I can to male victims of domestic abuse, and generally speak up for men. Unfortunately, the fact that the MRM, if you're any indication, is so fond of tactics that will alienate so many potential supporters is not going to make my job easier, nor is it going to help men dealing with "the reality on the ground" very much either.

Cold
9 years ago

>Forgive me for being skeptical of your status as a would-be helper. If the likes of, say, Glenn Sacks decide that they need to distance themselves from the MRM, that is when I will become concerned about our tactics.The fact is, we have been trying for years to get ANY western government to do something about the epidemic of false rape accusations, and this year we finally got the UK government to take the most minimal measure of protecting the anonymity of the accused the same way they protect the anonymity of the accuser, and they backed down from doing so the second that some feminists starting complaining about it. It was only after that fiasco that we began to seriously discuss the idea of taking matters into our own hands without resorting to any kind of violence. Subjecting people who are clearly false accusers to the same publicity and scorn as the men they accuse is, in my opinion, a very fair-minded way of restoring some balance to the legal system and, as far as I'm concerned, any would-be ally who is alienated by such a tactic is not someone who would be of value to the movement anyway. Hence, my position that nothing of value was lost.

thevagrantsvoice
9 years ago

>If the likes of, say, Glenn Sacks decide that they need to distance themselves from the MRM, that is when I will become concerned about our tactics.I'm no fortune-teller, but I wouldn't be surprised if that day came eventually, even if in a long time. Mr. Sacks has previously expressed his hopes the he and feminists might eventually be able to "work together" and that, for instance, "any linkage between the men's & fathers' movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view"." If you also look at the several hundred entries dealing with false accusations on his blog, you'll notice that he rarely, if ever, posts pictures and detailed contact information of the false accusers. Despite being considered a bigwig among MRA, I'm not sure how many other MRA sites besides his own he actually reads…perhaps if he ever does, listening to folks like Arpagus (who isn't just some random person, but who thinks of himself as an MRA and an antifeminist, just like you) call Sodini an "MRA Hero," or Ferdinand posting up pictures and contact information of two false accusers (something Mr. Sacks has never done, despite, as I said, writing a great deal on the problem of false accusations), he might very well reconsider his relationship with you people someday.Subjecting people who are clearly false accusers to the same publicity and scorn as the men they accuse is, in my opinion, a very fair-minded way of restoring some balance to the legal system and, as far as I'm concerned, any would-be ally who is alienated by such a tactic is not someone who would be of value to the movement anyway. Hence, my position that nothing of value was lost. You are entitled to your opinions, but the ultimate efficacy of such a tactic is up for debate. If something happens to these women, regardless of whether or not Ferdinand even had anything to do with it specifically, feminists will point to his blog post and scream about how anonymity for accusers is even ~*MORE*~ important, and given how much many people in positions of power hate Assange (such as the U.S Government), they'll likely listen. The ultimate result will be more rape hysteria, more "protections" for accusers (and less for the accused) and, in general, an even more hostile environment for men such as ourselves.

Yohan
9 years ago

>This question can be asked in any form you like, for example how many criminals (regardless their gender) have gone free thanks to their wealth and aggressive lawyers?Or, how many criminals have gone free solely because of their female gender? etc. etc.I was posting merely the link to that article, and it shows that false rape allegations are a problem and men are the victims, sometimes however victims are also his family members, while the false accuser remains anonymous.So you think, that's all fine and laws should not be changed?False rape allegations are also an annoyance for police investigators and I think, police should file lawsuits against these women demanding compensation for wasted investigation time.To finish with this nonsense, the only way I see is to consider false rape allegations as a felony which should result in very long jail terms for these women, equal to those of rape.I do not understand why feminists are so highly protective to such criminal females – maybe out of that fact that the victim is only a male?Of course females who are real victims will face a wall of mistrust.In this case a woman reported 40 (!) false rape allegations – and remains anonymous.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133104/BBC-wasted-legal-fees-protect-rape-personality.htmlThe BBC has spent licence-payers’ money in a failed attempt to prevent The Mail on Sunday publishing a story about how one of the Corporation’s personalities had falsely accused her former boyfriend of rape.Last Sunday we revealed the woman told police she had been assaulted 40 times during their relationship, before withdrawing the allegations. The officer investigating the case described her claims as ‘inconsistent’ and ‘not credible’. Yet, because of a legal loophole, the incident remains on the Police National Computer, ruining her former boyfriend’s job prospects and his freedom to travel.Whereas his life has been wrecked, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 guarantees her anonymity and prevents him suing for damages. Call us misogynists or rape apologists or whatever you like. I say it again, MRAs what such laws to be changed.

Yohan
9 years ago

>And about a certain lady, please readhttp://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/10/854025/officer-testifies-at-mangum-trial.htmlThe charges include arson, injury to personal property, resisting arrest and contributing to the delinquency, abuse or neglect of her children. Attorneys spent five days weeding through 40 potential jurors to pick 12 and two alternates who could try Mangum without prejudging her credibility because of her false rape accusations in the Duke lacrosse case.Mangum threatened to stab boyfriend Milton Walker after piling his clothes in the bathtub and setting them on fire – all in the presence of two police officers. It's time now again for feminists to become active to protect their poor sister…Mangum could get up to 7 years. Arson is not the same as false rape allegations…

Yohan
9 years ago

>This is a report about an innocent girl and her thug-boy.For sure, not all girls are like that – says the feminist…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339154/Ruby-Thomas-19-guilty-drunk-attack-killing-gay-civil-servant-Trafalgar-Square.html A former public schoolgirl who stamped to death a gay civil servant in a homophobic attack in the middle of Trafalgar Square was facing life behind bars last night.Ruby Thomas, 17, launched a savage attack on Ian Baynham, 62, simply because he was holding hands with another man.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Yohan, no one disputes the fact that some women commit violent crimes. Random stories about random evil women, like this last comment of yours, aren't relevant to the issue here, and in the future I will simply delete them as spam.

Yohan
9 years ago

>Well, you are posting here comments of a few radical men and are claiming all (or at least most) MRAs are into violence.Do you not see how biased your way of moderation really is?You are also claiming that MRAs are against gays, but you see there are violent women who are also against gays.You are only presuming something, usually without any link to reality, without any links to references.This thread is about rape and anonymity, and I gave you plenty of links and stuff to think about it.About violent crimes, you highlight only rape (as it is frequently from men against women) but you do not highlight crimes from women to men.About rape, I do not know a better example than Mangum, the accuser of the Duke Lacrosse team.And now this poor girl, supported heavily by feminists, is facing jail for arson and violence.I think, this is very much related to this thread about rape and anonymity.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Yohan, where exactly have I claimed that all or most MRAs are into violence? Oh yeah, nowhere. I haven't. I do think there are violent people in the MRM, and that the manifestos of Lepine and Sodini remind me an awful lot of a lot of what I read on MRA/MGTOW blogs and message boards. That doesn't mean that all or most MRAs are into violence. Please READ WHAT I WRITE instead of glancing at it and making up your own version of what I've said.As for your comments, the Mangum comment is on topic. I wasn't talking about that comment. I was talking about your comment about the gay-bashing murderer. As I made perfectly clear. Again, READ WHAT I WRITE.

Yohan
9 years ago

> thevagrantsvoice said… That's a good question, Yohan …..What else can you do? Well, I'm no expert…..Talking them down and trying to convince them to calm down is good, sure, but setting up some sort of IRL charity or group for men to get counseling from male-friendly therapists if they feel themselves on the verge of violence, or some money and a place to stay if they absolutely need to get away from an oppressive environment, or something like that might be very effective…Thank you for your nice reply.I am no expert either.The Men's Rights Movement is growing, but has openly said, problems related to organization.Most of it are small groups with not much connection between themselves or to politicians, neither local nor international, and one group is only for fathers, another group only for prisoners, another one for cheated men/divorce or for old men and so on. Some men we can advice, others will never listen to us…As I said, I am not an expert, my reaction and advice as MRA is only about what happened to me, how I was treated by Western females and about the lesson I learnt.About violent men, I am convinced most men would not be violent at all, if not strongly provocated by women. Instigating violence by females is very common, as the general opinion whatever happens is always to the favor of the woman as a victim.

Christine WE
9 years ago

>@yohan,You are not convinced most men would be violent at all if not strongly provocated by women? What? For not being submissive or compliant enough? For not meeting your expectations based on stereotypes? Have you checked out the rate of male on male violence? This statement by you clinches suspicions I have had that you are an abusive person. You would be the exact person telling the police "She made me do it." as the handcuffs are slapped on. Do you tell your foreign wife it's all her fault as you're pushing her around? Talk about not taking responsibility for your actions. You are the epitome of that. I'm not surprised you believe this, but it would be more honest to say "Because I believe women should be obedient, I choose to beat them when they don't do what I want".

Danny
9 years ago

>thevagrantsvoice:Mr. Sacks has previously expressed his hopes the he and feminists might eventually be able to "work together" and that, for instance,…Yes he did try that on at least one occasion that I recall pretty well. About 2-3 years ago he made a big fuss about the "Open Wide/Shut Up" cut tags that are used on a major feminist blog. He went on and on about how mean they were. Then someone informed him that they were not meant to shut people up but just a way to condense really long posts.After admitting he didn't know what he was talking about he pretty much said, "Well since we are interacting let's talk about other things and get the ball rolling." They all but literally spit in his face and continued to rant on about how he intentionally too it the wrong way just to cause trouble (and this is after a post where he open said he didn't know what he was talking about). Why make nice when you can get more high fives and page views by attacking "the enemy"?