On the ironically named Happy Bachelors forum, the regular poster who calls himself khankrumthebulgar – and whose real name is Randall Joseph Shake — has been complaining about those of us who’ve pointed out that much MRA and MGTOW rhetoric sounds all too similar to the rhetoric of Norwegian terrorist murderer Anders Breivik. In response to Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the topic at the Good Men Project, he wrote:
This smacks to me of extreme desperation. As they are trying to draw us into a response. They should hear Crickets chirping. … they are in need of traffic, controversy some off the wall unhinged response. When they receive none, it simply means we will not waste the oxygen to answer these absurd and insane accusations. No evidence exists that the MRA or MRM is in any way connected to the Norwegian gunman. IF we were there would be dozens of dead Feminists by now. There is none, hence this is a weak and pathetic attempt to incite violence and is irresponsible on their part. …
If such violence were to happen. After such outrageous accusations, it is Hugo Schwyzer and the Good Menz Project who is financially liable for stoking and promoting extremism in the hopes of generating a violent response. The blood will be on their hands not ours.
You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off. Taken to its logical extreme, this specious argument would mean blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; after all, they’re the ones who got Hitler so worked up in the first place.
It seems to me that if you don’t want people to associate you with terrorists, you should probably stop talking like terrorists, referring casually to “dozens of dead feminists” and trying to blame the enemy in advance for any violence that comes from your side.
Also, you should probably stop making comments like the following, which were posted in response to Amanda Marcotte’s recent post on Misogyny and Terrorism. The first one, from spocksdisciple, a board moderator, fantasized about a violent backlash that would put women in general and feminists in particular in their supposed place:
[T]he backlash against feminism and it’s misandry will be both awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time.
Modern radical feminism is doomed, any woman sprouting these kinds of statements after the backlash won’t last very long, people and especially men are growing angrier everyday and all these whining losers in the feminist movement is doing to kicking a sleeping bear even harder.
Feminism is so done that women will be lucky if any man bothers to even look at them other then as a piece of meat, the days of the 19th century are going to come back where women either know their place or they’ll suffer the consequences of their actions and arrogance, big daddy gov’t isn’t going to be around to protect the rights of women to act like bitches.
And you probably shouldn’t talk about burning down buildings with people inside them, as khankrumthebulgar (that is, Randall Joseph Shake) does in this comment:
Feminists will be treated like the French Nobility was during the French Revolution. There will be a payback to these Evil Bitches. … As to the Good Mangina Project, they are our enemies. Burn the building to the ground with them in it.
Is he literally talking about burning down a building, or is he speaking metaphorically? In the wake of a tragedy that involved a man literally gunning down the children of his leftist and feminist enemies, khankrumthebulgar’s comments are indefensible either way.
Let me reiterate: these are posts from men who are angry that people have linked them in any way to the Norwegian terrorist. Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?
I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish that those in the MRA and MGTOW movements who are bothered by this kind of talk – and I know there are some who are – would actually step up and declare this sort of shit out of bounds. I’m not holding my breath.
Note: The Happy Bachelors forum is members-only, so the links to the forum won’t work if you’re not a member. Here are screen shots of all the forum comments mentioned in this post, in order. Click to see the full-sized image. I edited several of the comments, but indicated all removed material with ellipses. As you will see the edits did not change the meaning of what was said.
khankrumthebulgar gives his real name
khankrumthebulgar on Hugo Schwyzer (just the portion of the comment that is from him; the rest quotes Schwyzer’s post).
spocksdisciple comment
khankrumthebulgar’s “burn the building” comment
“You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off.”
Inaccurate libel.
I have no knowledge of Amanda Marcotte’s opinion of the catholic church, but if she IS anti-catholic, then what the fuck is the problem with that? It’s an organization that’s a haven for misogyny, abuse, and child molestation, and it’s headed by a man who actively sought to protect and conceal perpetrators of child rape. I’m having a hard time thinking of a better reason to be against an organization.
I see Clarence has pulled the Mary Daly gambit (a variation on the more popular “Andrea Dworkin approach”). Clarie, my dear, we’ve been over this before. Many, many, many times. You are not the first to find something nutty about a radical separatist feminist from the 70s and drag it in to some unrelated thread like a cat bringing home a disembowelled robin. It’s irrelevant, off-topic, and most importantly boring.
The obsession with Amanda Marcotte is hardly novel, either. Can’t you find something original to troll about?
li•bel
defamation: a false and malicious published statement that damages somebody’s reputation.
1.attacking of somebody’s reputation: the making of false and damaging statements about somebody
2.written statement: the plaintiff’s written statement in a case under admiralty law or in an ecclesiastical court
Synonyms: defamation, vilification, slander, smear, denigration, character assassination
“But if you look more closely at the evidence, it is quite clear that, if anything, it was the various machinations and rhetoric engaged in by the deceitful LEFT that infuriated this man. …
Quite simply, it is the Left, not the Right, who are the more to blame for this incident.”
-Angry Harry
I am imagining a conversation between Jeff Lebowski and Clarence.
Lebowski: I don’t see any connection to Duke lacrosse players, Clarence.
Clarence: Well, there isn’t a literal connection, Dude.
Lebowski: Face it, Clarence, there isn’t any connection.
Clarence –
Sarah said at 11:52, “Actually, we do hold Amanda Marcotte responsible…”
Holly said at 12:27, “I think Amanda Marcotte was wrong…”
Debbie said at 12:52, “I agree with that her (Amanda Marcotte) response to the Duke LAcrosse case was just plain wrong…”
yet you say, ” I hope my official and important condemnation (which is more than Amanda Marcotte has ever gotten on here) eases the pain of those who hang on his every word…”
Either you don’t read what you are responding to, or you are choosing to be dishonest.
*pops head back in*
Kristinmh:
Mary Daley died last year. She was writing books in the past decade, and was forced out of Boston College in the year 1999 for not admitting men to her classes , thus violating Title IX.
I am to understand that 1999 is not “the seventies”. She was also a speaker at various colleges over the past 10 years. You don’t really seem to know very much about your own movement do you?
Rachel:
Has anyone here excommunicated Amanda Marcotte as a Feminist spokesperson, or merely acted as if her libelous hate campaign was just a small little misstep, that she just happens to have never apologized for? In other words public-ally lying (for Amanda made newspapers and I think more than one television show) about rape case defendants is apparently a small little misstep that means nothing.
Who forced Mary Daley out of Boston College? We know from Clarence it couldn’t have been feminists, because feminists hate men and totally support Mary Daley’s policies. And it couldn’t have been men because men are completely powerless in our society, which is actually run by feminists. It’s a mystery, I guess.
Wait, wait, wait – A woman violated Title IX and was removed from her position as a result of that violation? How can this be? Title IX exists for the sole purpose of persecuting men seeking higher education.
Also, Clare, Daly rose to prominence (relatively speaking as a radical feminist in the 1970s despite the fact that she would continue to speak, publish and teach well into the 90s. She is described as from the “70s” because that is when she was most influential and most prolific.
Quick: What decade(s) do you associate with the Rolling Stones? They’re still alive and they still tour.
BlackBloc:
Here you go. I suggest you educate yourself about the evidence in the case, as it’s obvious you know next to nothing , and I am not saying that in a snarky manner, but as someone who could almost write a book on it due to the amount of time I spent looking into it.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/final-duke-rape-report-issued
Nifong, the guy who brought the charges , was disbarred for misconduct. This was a set up for political purposes to get Nifong elected to a position he had been appointed to. Many “progressives” jumped on the bandwagon early because it fit a narrative they wanted to hear. Most of them did end up jumping off, a few even offered apologies. Not our beloved Mandy!
A right wing organization brought suit. I forget which one.
It wasn’t feminists and it wasn’t MRA’s.
Clarie, honey, you need to work a little on how you take criticism. You see, we’re not discussing Mary Daly or Amanda Marcotte. We were talking about the weirdos from the Happy Bachelor’s forum.
Now, if you want to start your own blog you can rail against Amanda’s “libelous hate campaign” to your heart’s content, but as long as you keep bringing it up here, I’m going to continue to call you a complete bore.
Seriously, David, one of PZ Myer’s grounds for banning is “insipidity”, defined as:
“Being tedious, repetitive, and completely boring; putting the blogger to sleep by going on and on about the same thing all the time”.
May I respectfully suggest an addition to the commenting policy?
Nob:
Please don’t get me confused with NWOslave, and don’t call me “Clare” If you can avoid that sin, we might be able to talk and I should be able to spell your whole nick without abbreviating it. Right now, I can’t stop chuckling about how Nob sorta sounds like “knob”. But don’t worry – it doesn’t sound like “noob”.
Clare, I guess you’re just going to skip over the post that points out all the people who’ve said that they disagree with Marcotte. Makes it easier to keep your rhythm on this drum, right?
Also what Nobinayamu said. Mary Daly is “from the 70s” the same way macrame is. Sure, people still do macrame, but its heyday has passed.
In 30 years, will you be correcting people when they refer to scrapbooking as “from the 00s”?
Kristinmh:
If you can’t make good arguments or argue facts, simply petition the moderator to make sure that you never see good arguments or any facts. Brilliant move!
“Amanda Marcotte libelled REAL PEOPLE”, hm? And thus we should all leap to criticize her immediately, and any failure to do so constitutes a complete lack of integrity?
Breivik murdered about 4 times as many. What happens when you fail to criticize that?
Rutee:
I criticized that. Not that it made much difference. They are dead, and he is in jail. Meanwhile Amanda is still speaking hither and yon bringing the light and love of feminism to the world, I guess.
A statement of opinion, no matter how negative or how objectionable, is not libel. Statements that are clearly hyperbole are also not libel. The term “libel” is applied extremely narrowly, and if we were to go by your definition, Clarence, that wouldn’t bode well for the MRA commentators on this site.
As for the Duke Lacrosse case — two things. First, as I remember, Amanda Marcotte mostly discussed the culture of misogyny that pervades college sports (which is true), and her treatment of the defendants in that case was at worst no different than the way MRA’s treat women accused (but not convicted) of making a false rape claim. Second, let’s take the standard MRA and misogynist practice of blaming rape victims for causing their own rape and apply it to the Duke Lacrosse players. We often hear that a woman who acts like a “slut” shouldn’t be surprised to find herself used like one, so I say what’s good for the goose is good for the gander: a man who plays at being a rapist shouldn’t be surprised to find himself treated as a rapist. Let’s not forget: it’s not like these lacrosse players were choir boys who stopped at the side of a road to help a woman only to find themselves accused of rape. They hired strippers, met those strippers with a barrage of verbal abuse and demanded that the women fuck themselves with broom handles. And they circulated an e-mail “joke” about masturbating while torturing a woman to death (by slicing her skin off with a razor). The fact that these are the men that are invariably held up as the epitome of the male martyr-slash-saint doesn’t exactly flatter your movement.
Please, Clare. You should be as entertaining as NWO. He maybe a disgusting, unrepetant liar and complete hypocrite with the reading comprehension of a five year old — but at least he’s not a sanctimonious cry baby.
Clarence: If libel of real people did indeed take place, those people can go ahead and sue Amanda Marcotte. Of course, they’d have to overcome that whole pesky First Amendment issue.
Nob:
I’m standing up to multiple people who don’t hesitate to get personal and call names , while doing most of their fact-checking for them. You should be thanking me. I think I’ve even taught Kristen something about Mary Daly, since she seemed to think that Daly’s influence in feminism and misandry ended doing the 70’s.
Yeah, NWO should run a troll school.
Breivik murdered 80 people, Marcotte said things that were probably inaccurate about a lacrosse team. Pretty sure there’s a reason for the disparity there. You’ve also seen Marcotte criticized right here, yet you continue to behave as though A: we all defend every thing she’s ever done and B: The MRM as a whole is not more or less fine with these hateful asshats.
I also find it illuminating that whenever morons like you MRAs try to find problems with feminism, you can’t seem to find the gaping ones. The movement has much bigger things to criticize over than one case of libel against dudes who didn’t even go to trial. But that would require you to care about the poor, or people of color, the genderqueer, the disabled…