>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.
>Er, 2010.
>There are many MRA's who say violence against women is inevitable, understandable, justifiable, etc. on MRM websites – because they leave them, because they get child support, alimony, because they are disobedient, disrespectful, and other reasons. Whenever the topic is discussed, I never see MRA's say it's wrong, I just see them say things to the effect of 'tone it down, this is a public forum'. Criminal law is no deterrent for some people as there are murders every day in the U.S. for those reasons. There are even MRA's that follow the domestic homicide stories and post their propaganda in the comments below about how it is inevitable that men kill women due to divorce for the grieving families to see basically blaming the victim. I've seen videos of MRA's at sentencings justify the murders of their wives and girlfriends spewing MRM propaganda about how what they did was justified to the judge and family – also blaming the victim. There is no other group that I have ever seen that identifies with these killers and some even openly applaud men for killing women and even cops and judges. Some examples of this have been posted on this blog. There's no doubt in my mind that some MRA's have killed and none that some will in the future. It would not surprise me at all if an MRA harmed these women, while of course, blaming them. And, if it does happen, inevitably we will read in the MRM community all the justifications and applause – just as we did with Rauol Moat after he shot his ex-girlfriend, her boyfriend and a cop; with Darren Mack who killed his estranged wife and shot a judge sniper style; Gerardo Regalado who rampaged a restaraunt his estranged wife worked at and shot only women; and of course, George Sodini and Marc Lepine. The MRM is full of dangerous people.
>@Eoghan,Your post will be deleted of course, but why don't you start reading stories posted online by television stations of sentencings in domestic homicide cases, you'll find those videos here and there. Anyway, it's not important that you believe it, those who need to know see them and some of them are used in trainings for criminal justice professionals, etc..
>"It would not surprise me at all if an MRA harmed these women, while of course, blaming them. And, if it does happen, inevitably we will read in the MRM community all the justifications and applause… The MRM is full of dangerous people."If the MRM is "full of dangerous people," are any of them billionaires with their own weekly televised talk show, onto which they invite spouse murderers? Internationally known feminist Oprah Winfrey has invited women who had mutilated or murdered their partners onto her show, which in my opinion was an attempt to legitimize their violence:Mary Winkler (husband murderer):http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Mary-Winklers-First-InterviewClara Harris (husband murderer):http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Exclusive-Clara-Harris-The-Woman-Who-Ran-Over-Her-HusbandLorena Bobbitt (husband batterer/mutilator):http://www.oprah.com/world/Lorena-Bobbitts-Unforgettable-Story
>"There have actually been numerous cases involving father's rights activists harassing, threatening, plotting to or using violence against people who opposed or otherwise angered them:"I still have yet to see any case of an MRA/FRA actually engaging in any kind of physical violence. If you have an actual, verified case from a CREDIBLE source, then by all means share it."Heck, Cold, you may recall someone basically defending Lepine on the "NiceGuy" forum the other day, and no one criticizing him for it until after some blog quoted it. Does any of that sound familiar to you?"That someone has a history of talking about shooting people which goes back at least a full year, and I complained about it back then along with many others. A lot of metadiscussion takes place in the form of private messages which you can't see.
>There are many MRA's who say violence against women is inevitable, understandable, justifiable, etc. on MRM websites – because they leave them, because they get child support, alimony, because they are disobedient, disrespectful, and other reasons.Many men have had their lives completely destroyed by women via both legal means like financially raping them in the courts, and illegal means like falsely accusing them of domestic violence which they can do with impunity because the government refuses to address the problem. That leads to…Criminal law is no deterrent for some people as there are murders every day in the U.S. for those reasons.All deterrents to criminal activity depend on the would-be criminal having something meaningful to lose. If you completely destroy a man's life, as our courts often do using feminist-inspired laws and precedents, then you nullify that deterrent. Yes, that makes such crimes both inevitable and understandable, but as must always be explicitly pointed out to feminists, explanation is not justification and prediction is not prescription.If you want fewer murders, then stop driving normal, non-psychopathic citizens to the point that they will commit murder.
>Far be it from me to tell you how to keep yourself secure, but considering how many people have been murdered or survived murder attempts by folks they pissed off at some point or another who managed to track them down.You're talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of one percent of the population. You're more likely to die crossing the street than you are to be murdered by someone who you pissed off and who knows your address. However, if it concerns you that much, then don't give out your address to anyone and/or don't give anyone a reason to want to kill you. Following the Golden Rule is a good way to satisfy the latter condition.
>It's weird to me that these guys show up and put on this big show of trying to sound hyper-reasonable and then go right ahead and blame feminism for men who go nuts and kill women. It's a frightening level of delusion.
>Since when was pointing out valid cause-and-effect relationships in contradiction with being "hyper-reasonable"?
>You're talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of one percent of the population. You're more likely to die crossing the street than you are to be murdered by someone who you pissed off and who knows your address. However, if it concerns you that much, then don't give out your address to anyone and/or don't give anyone a reason to want to kill you. Following the Golden Rule is a good way to satisfy the latter condition. Yes, yes, but those two women probably belong to that "tiny fraction of one percent" for the reasons I've described above. Thus, the simple point I was making originally stands–it's more than a distant possibility that something a good deal more fatal than being mailed a few snarky letters is going to happen to those two.
>Yes it's somewhat more likely to happen to them than the general population, but I still consider the probability to be VERY low. Plus, their names and addresses wouldn't be known in the first place had they not falsely accused a man of sex crimes. Moral of the story: actions have consequences.
>Well, here's hoping the probability really is as low as you say. And while you're correct in saying that actions have consequences, that applies to many things, not just false rape accusations. 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.
>Since when was pointing out valid cause-and-effect relationships in contradiction with being "hyper-reasonable"?You do realize that feminists say the exact same thing, right? Whenever you hear somebody trying to justify what Lorena Bobbitt or Valerie Solanas did, it's often something along the lines of, "well, I don't CONDONE violence, but it's simply a natural result of patriarchal oppression! Their violent husbands/fathers/whoever just pushed them until they couldn't take any more! If only our society wasn't so misogynistic, these murders/attacks wouldn't happen! It's just cause and effect!"That may be true, but I doubt it, personally. Unfortunately, by the same token, this also makes me suspicious of similar "predictions" coming from the other side of the gender wars.
>Christine WE said… There are many MRA's who say violence against women is inevitable, understandable, justifiable, etc. on MRM websites – because they leave them, because they get child support, alimony, because they are disobedient, disrespectful, and other reasonsWhat a nonsense is this? What a drivel!MRAs do not support any violence.First of all you should ask, who is the instigator of violence.But anyway, we always tell such men, who suffer a lot by manipulation of malicious women, to stay calm and to move away, quickly. Don't say a single word, move on!This makes it impossible to claim violence, as you have not been there. – Easy!Best is to move to another city, if possible, and start quickly a new job and life with entire new people. No contacts anymore with the ex-wife and friends around her except by letters, checked by a lawyer, no phonecalls. Get away first of all! Make a clean cut with your past.—–However most activity now for most MRAs like me, who are living within a violent-free family overseas is prevention. PREVENTION. I say it again. How to PREVENT such problems in the future of young men.The best advice I can give to a young man living in a country which has hostile law execution against men is to AVOID situations, which might turn out to be harmful for him as man.That's easy now for MRAs to explain, as many young men are getting more and more mistrusting towards females in Western countries. Advice 1: Stay single, don't bring females in your private room. Be aware of 'false rape allegations'. No marriage, no co-habitation. Don't pay for sex, porno, bar-girls etc.Advice 2: No friendly conversation at your workplace, say good morning and good evening, do your work and do not socialize. No talks.Study about existing laws and execution, like sexual harassment claims. Anything what you say now, can be used against you anytime. Even 20 years later…Advice 3: Get on airplanes, countries are not the same everywhere. Study about what is going on beyond your borders, especially if you are from USA. Notice the difference between USA/UK, continental Europe, Asia etc. Notice the difference in other countries, where English is not generally used, and you will see all is much much less hateful elsewhere. Learn to communicate in foreign languages.Foreign wife? This is NOT an option for the beginning, regulate your own life first, be emotionally and financially stable.This is about what we are doing as MRAs, who are NOT living in the feminist hate-zone anymore. Basically said, we advice all young men to stay calm, to remain single, to save money through regular work and in future to move on to a better place.We advice all men, that they cannot expect any help – they have to go their own way making their own decisions. There are virtually 10000 of organizations for women, but there is nothing for men.I don't know, what such advice has to do with 'violence'. – It's about reality.I know feminists do not like such advice as it is cutting down their financial resources. My advice is clear and not-violent about feminism. Don't give them money. No money and feminism is finished, as it is a non-productive, parasite hate-movement.
>MRAs do not support any violence.Some of you do–the examples of Arpagus calling Sodini an "MRA hero" and the support Lepine has received from some people in the manosphere is evidence of that.
>why there is a perception that feminists are pathological liarsI think, this question is not relevant, if you follow MRA-advice and IGNORE feminists. As young man you need not even acknowledge its existence. Nobody can force you to socialize with women in a feminist country.A man has the right to say NO! Advice: AVOID feminism!———-The problem is more about cheated older men, frequently divorced or in unhappy marriage, they cannot change their life so easily anymore.There are children and these men want to have contact with them and not only to pay child-support for them to the ex-wife, who is using the money for something else.Or, there is an ex-wife working nothing but claiming alimony for life after divorce while living together with a thug-boy.Other women claiming violence and the man is gone to jail, and she takes the house etc.Again, we MRAs can only ask ALL these men regardless the circumstances to remain calm, to move away, to start again, and to avoid some certain mistakes of their life.' she is a liar ' – This talk will not help you as man… better is to avoid her, be strong in your decision, leave her and never see her again in your life.
>thevagrantsvoice said… MRAs do not support any violence.Some of you do–the examples of Arpagus calling Sodini an "MRA hero"There are always some people who need a psychiatric evaluation. Both, the criminal and the people who admire them…Some feminists admire Solanas, a convicted prostitute and killer. And nobody says a word about it…Feminist Robin Morgan (later editor of Ms. magazine) demonstrated for Solanas' release from prison. Ti-Grace Atkinson, the New York chapter president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), described Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights." Another member, Florynce Kennedy, represented Solanas at her trial, calling her "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement." Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas
>@Raul Groom:"It's weird to me that these guys show up and put on this big show of trying to sound hyper-reasonable and then go right ahead and blame feminism for men who go nuts and kill women.It's a frightening level of delusion."Gee, Raul. Were you really frightened by a mere blog comment? Or were you just trying to make someone with whom you have a disagreement feel ashamed?
>Some feminists admire Solanas, a convicted prostitute and killer. And nobody says a word about it…I do–like I said above, with apologies to our host, I hate feminism. The fact that some feminists admire Solanas is one reason I want nothing to do with them…just like the fact that some MRAs admire Sodini and Lepine is one reason I'm not a part of their movement either.Gee, Raul. Were you really frightened by a mere blog comment?Perhaps "frightened" is too strong a word, but it's not really unreasonable to be suspicious of even blog comments online. The vast majority of crap people spew in support of violence (whether from feminists or MRAs) is just tough talk and hot air. There are always a few, however, which might actually be serious, and it can be hard to separate those from the rest. Perhaps the attempts of some (not all) MRAs to justify, condone, or even advocate for violence (and not necessarily just against women, either) online isn't "frightening," but it is something to be concerned about.
>"Ugh. Innocent until proven guilty? The MRA are very fond of yelling about this in one breath (and rightly so – false rape claims are disgraceful) but then doing the exact same thing to any rape claimant while attacking straw-feminists for hypocrisy.It has to work both ways, or not at all."What?
>Some asshole keeps posting the contact info here so I am moderating comments until this dies down.
>From Dr. Deezee's article,We cannot, at the same time, believe that the accused rapist is innocent AND that the person leveraging accusations is telling the truth.While this may be true in this case, to be fair, it's not true in other situations I can think of. For instance, purely for the sake of argument, let's think of a hypothetical situation in which a woman gets raped (and is actually, genuinely raped–yes, I know, some MRAs might claim that sort of thing doesn't happen, but for the purposes of argument let's just pretend) at night when it's dark, she can't can't see her attacker clearly, and the only thing she knows is that her assailant is wearing a hoodie. So she's been legitimately raped, and when the police show her a lineup of suspects, she can't remember anything else about her assailant except what he was wearing. She sees a random black dude wearing the same type of hoodie and accuses him of being the culprit. DNA testing, however, reveals that the black dude was innocent, and it turns out that a white guy in the area was also wearing the same hoodie and the DNA matches with his (i.e he's the real guilty party).In this case, the woman wasn't "falsely accusing" anyone, she really WAS raped and just made a misidentification. It sucks, but it does happen, and not just in cases of rape either–as the innocence project proves, people get convicted of MURDER (which I'm sure you'll agree is more serious than rape) simply because they happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time, got framed for it, or whatever. At the same time, though, the black dude in my example was innocent of the accusation. So in some cases, at least, we can believe that an accused rapist is innocent while also believing his accuser isn't levying a false accusation–the crime may have actually happened, but the person being accused was framed or was a victim of mistaken identity, not a "false accusation."Again, that's not the case here, but I'm just sayin it does happen.
>@thevagrantsvoiceYou are talking about misidentification. This is very common in any criminal case, like theft, robbery. Often something really happens and the person misidentify the criminal, because it was dark, the victim was shocked, or has seen the criminal running away only for a few moments…Some women are known claiming sexual harassment, but the person arrested was a pickpocket and the hand in the trousers was for the wallet…We know about that, and MRAs do not accuse such women for any wrongdoing. —–We are talking about DELIBERATE false rape allegations, about sex-crimes which do not exist. Sometimes it's done out of the bad mood of a malicious woman to keep the police busy, sometimes however even accusing a certain totally innocent person, known or unknown to this crazy woman, like a taxi-driver, policeman, boyfriend, father etc. MRAs want such false rape allegations considered as a felony, such women to be sentenced to a long jail-term similar to rape and, already done sometimes, police given the right to charge this woman for wasted investigation hours.However all these women so far are getting away with lenient sentences and even with anonymity for life, despite some men spent years innocent in jail and had considerable problems to return to their jobs and suffered big financial losses, had family problems etc. etc.As MRA I want all governments to do something to finish with that nonsense, to finish with such dangerous hoax of false rape allegation.Change the laws, some days community service is by far not enough for such crimes.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338835/Heidi-Jones-Good-Morning-America-weather-girl-falsely-claimed-raped-jogging-Central-Park.htmlThe next one, every day in the news…and this article is also interestinghttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.htmlThe Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks. The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction. …Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.
>TheVagrantsVoice:I see what you're driving at, here, but I think you're getting hung up on women being "guilty" of a "false accusation." That's not what really matters about "innocent before being proven guilty." What matters is that the burden of proof is on the person leveraging the accusation, and not on the person being accused, to prove that the person being accused deserves to go to jail.Furthermore, you've outlined a rather extreme and uncommon counter example that doesn't really apply in the majority of cases in order to defend the notion that we should somehow hold both the accuser as telling the truth and the accused as innocent (which, again, cannot logically be so). Most legal rapes are not stranger rapes.
>What matters is that the burden of proof is on the person leveraging the accusation, and not on the person being accused, to prove that the person being accused deserves to go to jail.I agree, and I also think that the whole "innocent before being proven guilty" thing mandates, justly and correctly, that the burden of proof *should* be on the accuser, but there's a difference between saying that the burden of proof should be on the accuser and saying that "since one can't simultaneously be falsely accused while one's accuser isn't making a false accusation, we should therefore believe anyone accusing anyone else of rape (or any other crime, really) is guilty of making a false accusation." No jury, so far as I am aware, is going to find an accused rapist, or thief, or murderer (again, the same concept applies to these "more serious" crimes as well) "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and then turn around and claim that whoever made the accusation is *therefore* now guilty of perjury, lying under oath, etc. The concept of laying the burden of proof on the accuser was justly and wisely intended to make it very difficult for innocent men to get put in jail, but its purpose is not to cast aspersions on people who accuse others of committing a crime.