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.
Sometime with the lights *ON*!!!!
Now I have this stuck in my head…
I get the feeling Brandon would not want to meet George Michael. I totally would.
Death threats against the theatre in question have been reported to the Swedish police, so there is an investigation taking place in Sweden. Don’t know if these sites and blogs would be of interest for that, though.
Are you implying he’ll be able to meet up with his girlfriend at the family renunion? Maybe he does need someone “sexually open” for that shit. XD
Brandon: @Kirby: No one thing (video, article, news piece, etc…) can properly label a trend or accurately shape a belief. But from all the years of seeing articles pertaining to gender from Sweden, more often that not they are taking a very pro-feminine, anti-masculine approach to gender equality. They are working off the “woman are good, men are bad” trope.
And we know that you have made a broad survey of reportage on gender issues in Sweden; from a wide variety of sources; taking the political biases of the reporting individuals; their awareness of actual gender politics in Sweden and considering the difficulties of translation.
And you’ve kept track of this, so as to avoid confirmation biases in your recall of events from another country on subjects which have no direct effect on you.
Of course you have.
Here’s a Swedish blog’s reaction to the bounty:
http://fivastragotaland.se/2011/11/24/antifeministisk-hatvag-och-kvallens-svt-debatt/
Here is the blogger’s Google-translated (and oddly poetic) reaction to wandering into the AVfM comments section:
Cassandra: You’re also arguing that an agency that agrees with you shouldn’t be regarded as legitimate, which is just stupid.
Well, yes, and he has too. If the SBC is credible, than Brandon has to admit to being wrong. Since we know that Brandon is incapable of error, the SBC must not have any real authority, nor any standing; if it did, the world, as we know it, would probably end.
Ullere: Again I’m an ‘idiot’ who says ‘moronic’ things and ‘manage to be so ignorant as to be completely unaware that sex-based selection of male over female babies is a major issue worldwide?’, ad hominen attacks are hardly condussive to a discussion
Good thing people aren’t making any against you (though that was, on your part, a form of ad hominem in that you are using it to discredit someone because they characterised you in a way you don’t like).
Polliwog: – let’s just focus on the bit where hundreds of thousands of little girls are left to die because of bias against female children. Are
Don’t forget, this is the person who says rape is a lesser problem than murder… unless, it seems, the victims are female.
Brandon: @Laura and Kirby: It’s called we can have our opinions and leave it at that. Some people love Massachusetts, I personally want to leave the state soon. Hence, there is no “correct” opinion. Both are valid because everyone has different values and priorities The same is true of our viewpoints of sweden.
Nope. You didn’t say, “I don’t like Sweden.” You made a claim of fact. You said Sweden is actively misandrist, as a culture.
That’s testable. But you refuse to put it to any test more stringent than, “Brandon says so,” as per your usual style of argument.
^_^
I love Google Translate.
Brandon: @Kyrie: Oh, I forgot…all men have a direct line to the men that have ruled us. Because of this, it makes men into one monolithic group so we can all be blamed for the actions of a few.
I am beginning to think you are more stupid than you appear. Becuase you not noticing that you were the one who brought up the past, now disavowing the people who were in charge of that very past you used as evidence… comes close to a ne plus ultra of dumb.
Ullere: 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.
More wilful stupidity.
Women are by law (passed by men) denied the right to the Combat specialties (Infantry/Armor/Artillery), which reduces their risk of being injured.
Also, your use of casualty is incorrect. Female personell make up 2.5 percent of fatalities, not casualties. Casualties includes all wounds suffered at the hands of the enemy, as well all DNBI (Disease/Non-battle injury), which that report does not breakout by number.
Brandon: @Lauralot: That female entitlement of yours is showing. How nice is it that women actually GET a choice in having a career. How nice indeed!
Men’s choice = work or be homeless.
That’s women’s choice too, unless their partner is comfortable with them being stay a home.
I’ve been a stay at home. I’m male. So, Q.E.D., you are wrong, the option exists. That it’s not more commonly done/entertained is not the fault of feminism; quite the opposite, actually.
Lauralot: I note he didn’t challenge the notion that Ashley would be the one doing all the child-rearing.
What, you expect him to share a domicile with the kiddies?
Rutee: Let’s put aside that barring financial crises, soldiers got paid well for their status, and given free board…
The latter, yes, the former, not so much.
Pay for a private in 1972 was 288.00 a month. A sergeant, with 6 years time in service was getting 457.50 a month.
That was taxable income.
Average househild income in 1972 was about 11,419, with 9,731 after taxes.
So the draftee (1092 being the last year of the draft) was making 3,456 a year, before taxes. He had to pay for the maintenance of his uniform, though he was able to eat in the mess hall, and had living quarters provided.
The sergeant, with 6 years in, was getting 5,490, before taxes, and had the same expenses. He was entitled to quarters, but if he was married he had to pay for his own food (sort of, he got an allowance for food, equal to what the mess hall would have spent to feed him. In 1993, when I enlisted, that was $2.83 per day, I didn’t find a pay table which included “separate rations). If he was on maneuvers, or ate in the mess hall, he had to pay for his meals.
“For their status”. A soldier is a 0 education job,
I’ll also take exception to this. Being a soldier requires, for most, two doses of specialisation. Being, even a minimally, trained member of the infantry (which all soldiers do) takes training. The basics aren’t all that obvious, nor basic.
For most soldiers (even in a drafted army) that’s not their job, so you have to add specialty training in it. Financial clerks have to know how to do basic accountig, as well as the arcane aspects of military accouting, payroll etc.
Medics, mechanics, radio/signal operators, etc., all have skillsets.
My job took almost 18 months of training, after I finished Basic.. It required learning a second language. No language, no job, and I’d get taught a third job. In 1972, draftees got assigned to my job, just as they got assigned to all jobs.
No, it’s not a master’s degree, but a machinist doesn’t get 13 weeks training on how to run a lathe, or a mill, either.
Brandon: @Laura: You are the queen of circular reasoning and “begging the question”. Good job! Do you also want to attack a strawman too?
The first hasn’t happened, and it seems you don’t know the meaning of the second.
At least you aren’t pretending the last happened.
It has? I had no idea. That’s awful.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
@Pecunium: At least we can both be offended by Rutee’s terrible misrepresentation of being a soldier.
I have yet to see any relevant evidence offered for the claim that there is consensus among feminists on the goal of personal elimination of men.
I’m all for gender freedom, and you could make the case that a victory for gender freedom would include the elimination of “male” as a meaningful category (ditto “female”), but no one has to be killed/confined/reprogrammed for that. I’m not for individual men being removed from society.
So how about it? Not a Scandinavian theater company going for shock value. Not a record producer extemporizing on television for an audience not considered to be interested in thought. Not a criminal with a grudge against a prominent man over 40 years ago. Current consensus.
I’m a man. If there are meetings where non-male feminists plot against men, or female feminists plot against non-women, or female feminists plot against men, I’m obviously not going to be invited. So I can’t say definitively that it doesn’t happen. But people seem pretty sure it does, so they must be privy to information I’m not.
So please, share. If I’ve been co-opted, un-co-opt me. Give me the information I need to save myself. If you’re really fighting for men, well, I’m a man, help me fight.
thrown up against a wall
Well, throwing up against a wall is a reasonable response to a sexual advance by Brandon…
lol katz!!!
Hey guys, I’ve found footage from Brandon’s secret sex tapes!
That’s why they call them business socks, ohhh!!!
Modern Era. Not talking about it. Seriously, I said historically. That means “More than living memory”. It includes things in living memory but is substantially larger. Also, you’re USian, as long as you’re going to look at the US military you’re not permitted to just deduct medical care from this. I’m quite sharply aware that medical care takes a substantial hit when you’re not actually a soldier (Going by the horror stories, anyway, if not official policy), but it is /nonzero/.
As near as I’ve seen, every job that is beyond the level of “Burger flipping” requires at least some training. That doesn’t mean the job requires that much education. IIRC, also, you start going up paygrades at 18 week training courses. This I don’t remember too well though, so I may not RC.