A Voice for Men, one of the most influential and popular Men’s Rights websites, is now offering a $1000 “bounty” for anyone able to track down the personal information of several Swedish women involved in a tasteless video advertising a theater production based on Valarie Solanas’ SCUM manifesto. As the anonymous poster calling himself John the Other – the second-in-command at AVfM – put it in a posting yesterday (emphasis in original):
We are asking for the full legal names, home addresses, places of employment, email addresses and contact phone numbers of the women and man who produced and starred in the video described above. We will pay 1000 dollars to any individual who provides and confirms this information, to be paid either directly to themselves or to a charity of their choice.
John explains that this information will be posted on the AVfM-affiliated site Register-Her.com, an “offenders database” that is being used to vilify individual feminists and “Fuck Their Shit Up,” as AVfM head honcho Paul Elam likes to put it. John notes that Regsiter-Her.com also intends to post the “government identification numbers [and] drivers licences” of the women they are able to identify.
John admits plainly that posting such information may put the physical safety of these women at risk from vigilante violence. As he puts it (emphasis mine):
Some individuals may criticize the intent to publish not only names, but also addresses, phone numbers, employers and other personal information – on the grounds that such exposure create a risk of retributive violence against individuals who openly advocate murder based on sex. It is the considered position of the editorial board of AVfM that any such risks are out-weighed by the ongoing hazard to the public of these individuals continuing to operate in anonymity.
The comments posted on the article at AVfM suggest that such “retributive” violence is a real possibility. Indeed, here’s the very first comment (which currently has 17 upvotes from readers of the site):
A commenter called Xnomolos, in another upvoted comment, adds:
i would love to hunt down these women myself.
JinnBottle responds to this comment by advising “all men to start carrying guns.”
The commenters on AVfM have already uncovered the identities of all of the women involved in the video. The blogger Fidelbogen has been the most active internet detective so far.
There is no question that the video itself is offensive, and designed to provoke. You can see it here; I’m not going to embed it on this site. If you don’t want to watch it: it depicts a young woman shooting a man in the head for no reason. Afterwards the woman and her gleeful, giggling accomplices do a victory dance, then lick the blood from the dead man’s head. A message at the end urges viewers to “Do Your Part.”
Every feminist I know who has seen the video has been appalled by it. I’m appalled by it. It’s hateful, and it’s wrong.
But John the Other, and the other commenters on AVfM, claim that it is more than this: that that the video of the staged murder, intended to provide publicity for a theater production based on Solanas’ notorious SCUM manifesto, is quite literally an open call for the murder of men. As John the Other puts it:
Open advocation of murder cannot be allowed in a civil society, without that society devolving into a culture of brutal violence.
Evidently he has no problem with, or has somehow not noticed, the comments on AVfM fantasizing about shooting and killing the women involved in the video.
Is the video a literal call to murder? Is it, as one AVfM commenter puts it, evidence of a “conspiracy to commit mass murder?” No. Violence and murder have been dramatized in the theater since its beginnings. No one accuses Sophocles of advocating fratricide and incest, though both are dealt with in his play Oedipus Rex. No one accuses Shakespeare of advocating mass murder, though many of his most famous plays have body counts that put many horror films to shame.
Does the tag line at the end of the video – “do your part” – transform the video from a depiction of murder into an open call for it? No. The “threat,” such as it is, is vague; it’s not aimed at any specific individuals. It might be seen as akin to someone wearing a t-shirt that says “kill ‘em all, let God sort them out” – tasteless and offensive, but not a literal threat. “Kill ‘Em All” is actually the name of Metallica’s first album. While a lot of people see James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich et al as pompous idiots, they have not been jailed for conspiracy to commit mass murder. That would be ridiculous.
Someone claiming to have been involved in the SCUM-inspired theatrical production in question has posted several detailed comments on AVfM, explaining that those involved in the production are “not out to get you” and that the video itself was “meant as a viral “wtf?!” to give attention to both the questions that it raises and the play itself.”
By contrast, AVfM is targeting specific individuals, and intends to offer information that would allow anyone intent on doing them harm to quite literally track them to their homes and workplaces. Those fantasizing about killing these woman are not simply making a joke along the lines of “women, can’t live with ‘em; can’t kill ‘em.” They are fantasizing about killing real people, and providing would-be evil-doers maps to their doors.
AVfM is an American site, in English; these specific women live in Sweden. While it is a real possibility, it seems unlikely that anyone reading the site will literally find and murder any of those involved in the SCUM production. At least I hope that this does not come to pass.
I don’t believe that either Paul Elam or John the Other literally wants any feminist to be killed. The real intent behind AVfM’s publishing people’s personal information, it seems clear, is to intimidate feminist writers and activists into shutting up, to make clear that if they post something that offends the internet vigilantes at AVfM they will face the possibility of some deranged individual quite literally showing up at their door intent on doing them harm.
Paul Elam and John the Other claim that they’re not advocating violence. But they are playing a dangerous game here. If some deranged individual, inspired by the hyperbolic anti-feminist rhetoric on AVfM, and armed with information provided by “Register-Her.com,” murders or otherwise harms a feminist blogger or activist or video maker, Elam and his enablers will have blood on their hands. As will those MRAs who continue to publicly support and/or link to AVfM and/or Register-Her.com.
This is not the way a legitimate rights group deals with those who disagree with them. This is what hate groups do.
As for military personel
http://www.slideshare.net/pastinson/us-military-active-duty-demographic-profile-presentation
has the % of female fighters in the US at 14%
and yet women only account for 2.5% of the total military casualties of the US.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf
“@Molly: Clearly you aren’t a man. Because if you were, you would be able to see the very subtle difference in how men treat other men compared to how they treat women. You might be able to “see” all the bad crap men do, but you don’t get that men often go above and beyond for women.”
All right, Brandon, give me some examples. What is this “above and beyond”? Is it men buying things for women in hopes they’ll get some sex?
And, again, do men never risk their lives *for other men*? Weren’t you in the armed forces at one point?
It really is not subtle at all. And yet, men are not automatically smegheads to one another-even in dudebro culture they occasionally treat each other with respect and dignity.
You can thank the men in black robes for that-they agreed women should be kept out of combat the last time the issue of the draft and combat landed before the SCOTUS.
@Rutee: Umm…World War 2. Millions of men all around the world basically went around killing one another. So you had a few hundred thousand women fighting as snipers or in supporting roles…the point was that men were dragged away from their home to go die for “god and country” while women basically stayed home, safe and away from the bullets whizzing around men’s heads.
So, if men have anything even remotely similar to what feminists call “male privilege” (they don’t)…well men have earned it through blood, sweat and sacrifice.
Oh, women are so oppressed, they got to be safe at home, being around their children and only waiting for news that their wallet (aka husband) died on the battlefield.
What I’m trying to say here, Brandon, is “Wait til men treat you like they treat each other!” isn’t much of a threat when 1.) I’ve seen men perform acts of compassion and trust *for other men*, and 2.) even if all men treated each other as if they weren’t worth shit, that’s a pretty damn good reason to have the rules of what makes someone “masculine” changed, because they aren’t doing anyone any good.
Yeah, it’s not subtle. You get an increase in competitiveness and a vast decrease in jackassery. and I am *counting* male/male jackassery, because I’m well aware that it is a thing, it’s just.. not anywhere on the level of the jackassery given to women. Again, I do in fact know what I am talking about; I passed as male for years in MMOs because I am aware, first hand, of what the difference in treatment is.
Again, you’d have a point if you weren’t Brandon and had some clue of what you were talking about. Class oppression is real, but it isn’t proof against gender oppression. Women have it worse within their class. This isnt’ rocket science.
It’s kinda starting to sound like Brandon just has crappy friends.
“the point was that men were dragged away from their home to go die for “god and country” while women basically stayed home, safe and away from the bullets whizzing around men’s heads.”
‘Cuz the London Blitz was a total picnic for all the women and children left in London, wasn’t it?
“It’s kinda starting to sound like Brandon just has crappy friends.”
If he’s half as smug and narcissistic with his friends as he is here, I can’t say I’m surprised.
Not actually a high percentage of the population. You’re the one who wanted a percentage. The number of men in the military was not a very large percent of them. That you’re stupid isn’t my problem.
It’s funny how close you can get to a point, really. You’re arriving at this backwards, in terms of how things went. Men got the power, so men got the violence risks.
FYI, I’m pretty sure more women have died in childbirth than men have died as soldiers.
You know, some of the owmen around here have relatives who were in WWII and actually paid attention, I’ll let them tell you how stupid you are on this point.
Or maybe it’s a tree-falls-in-the-forest kind of thing. If a woman isn’t present, are men always dicks to each other?
“Wallet (aka husband)”?
You do know that WWII was responsible for a huge number of women joining the workforce, right?
@Rutee: You are an idiot.
The percentages are high when you look at “qualified” individuals. But you want to include seniors and children into the mix so the number is lower.
Just come out and admit it: You just hate men. And you feel the need to diminish everything they do. From building businesses to inventing something to dying to protect their families.
Also, I am still waiting for you to provide ways that men are leaving women to rot?
@Holly: So the women got jobs and men got bodybags. How lovely!
“Just come out and admit it: You just hate men. And you feel the need to diminish everything they do. From building businesses to inventing something to dying to protect their families.”
If men only treat each other in a cold, unfeeling way that makes it clear that they don’t give a shit about you, why are you in such a hurry to defend them? It doesn’t sound like *you* have had a great experience with them either!
Who is this Ullere, and why is he so tedious? Between him and he-who-shall-not-be-named, I’m getting a jackassery induced headache.
Let’s ban ’em all and let god sort ’em out.
“Let’s ban ‘em all and let god sort ‘em out.”
But then we’d have nothing to argue about!
So you’re going to blame me that you’re not a good communicator and can’t remember your own qualifiers? That’s nice!
I don’t, I just know that power has a downside or two.
I clearly overestimated your intelligence. MRAs want women not to work, and they don’t want to provide for them. That doesn’t leave a lot of options.
Yes, we totally hate men. You caught us, you towering intellect, you!
/sarcasm, because you need the fucking help.
@ Holly pervocracy
‘You do know that WWII was responsible for a huge number of women joining the workforce, right?’
Yes and indeed many of the men from ww1 also joined / remained in the work force. I not really certain what point your making. Women joining the workforce thanks to ww2 was great for everyone and helped to contribute towards the war effort, not the in same way that the men that fought and sacrificed their lives did though. To contrast working with the ultimate sacrifice willingly made by men in ww2 is to diminish that sacrifice.
“Just come out and admit it: You just hate men. And you feel the need to diminish everything they do. From building businesses to inventing something to dying to protect their families.”
Funny, if you change “men” to “women” you have Brandon’s view on women exactly.
Brandon:
You’ve said that before. I still fail to see how it’s supposed to be a criticism, even if true.
@hellkell Sorry I’m boring you, simply replying to posts here. If you’d prefer an echo chamber I’ll try to ignore the less inaccurate and unsource things you say, after all evidence and knowledge are tedious.
So if women want to join the military, we can’t handle it because it’s a man’s job. If women don’t join the military, we’re letting the men die in our name and should be grateful.
If women don’t work, we’re using men as wallets. If we do work, we’re taking the cushy jobs from men.
I think it’s time for y’all to start laying out what women could actually do right here. NWO suggested sex slavery, but you’re slightly closer to Earth orbit so I’m guessing you wouldn’t go that far. What should we do?