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.
It occurred to me that given the latest terrorist attack in Sweden, they might be inclined to take this very seriously if it’s brought to their attention.
“I don’t condone the talk about violent retrubition at all, its very foolish but I think the fact that noone here is commenting on a state promoting hate propaganda in the form of SCUM to school children is much more disturbing than the anger experssed about it in the comments section of AVfM.”
Nice to know you’re not condoning violence, even you’re more than ready to had the name and address and personal data of the “targets” to every angry loon that do condone violence.
I don’t believe this play was chosen by the State – any State – and I don’t believe you believe that either.
I should clarify, just so nobody gets too much of a hateboner, that Eoghan’s specific threat doesn’t have me exactly quaking in my boxers. Sounds like a traffic source to me. I have ads; if you come over to Internet Tough Guy me, I get *paid*.
Ah, Wormtongue! Do you ever get tired of serving your master?
The play’s website invites high school classes to come watch. That is not state sponsorship of the play, nor does it indicate how many school classes have even come.
NWO’s posts here used to piss me off, but I can’t muster up the energy to be offended by him lately because he’s so pathetic.
NWO, is the reason you lash out so violently and hatefully to any post here directed at you because you know deep down that your entire “movement” is a sham and won’t amount to anything more than an embarrassing footnote in the annals of history? The MRM will never, ever gain any substantial power, not just because of your collective inability to get off your asses and do something or because of feminism, but because of men. Ordinary, sane men that make up the majority of the male population. Normal men don’t want all women to be made into rape slaves. Normal men don’t want to rape eight year old girls, no matter how “sexualized” their swimwear is. Normal men don’t want to be associated with you, which is why your “movement” is nothing more than some loud misogynists trolling Internet comments. Sure, the MRM and its witch hunts might hurt someone, but the response to that violence isn’t going to be hundreds flocking to your cause. It’s going to be the men you claim to fight for shaking their heads and saying, “Damn, that’s fucked up.”
Of course, it’s clear from your posts here that you don’t really care about other men at all. If you did, you’d get away from your computer and start volunteering. The only person whose needs you care about serving is yourself. For all your talk about feminists running to “Big Daddy,” what you want more than anything is for the rest of the world to coddle and serve you and say “Yes, you’re right, those girls are a bunch of big mean bitches.” You’re a middle-aged man who has wasted his entire life being so warped with hatred and bigotry that you’ve passed up every opportunity to do something meaningful. And when you’re gone, all that you will have left as a legacy are some milk machines and the Big Book of Larnin’. That’s how you’ll be remembered: by feminists on the Internet as a clown.
Can someone recreate the Total Perspective Vortex from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and shove Brandon in there? It be nice for him to gain a sense of just how unimportant he is.
On the day that NWO posted the video, the views were less than 2k – and that was over the course of a year.
Goddammit, what do I have to do to get the misogynistic asshats to dislike me already?
Also, everyone, my pronoun is zie. Thanks. 🙂
Doyle, Shakesville and so on will likely be included for gendering abuse
Both of those bloggers do say that men are victims of domestic violence, and that all domestic violence is wrong. In what way is it gendering violence when they say that both men and women should be safe from ipv? They only argue against the MRA claim that domestic violence is 50/50. Are you saying that if someone critiques the studies that rely on the conflict tactics scale and ignores the severity of violence as well as violence that occurs after a break up or divorce, that the person making such a critique deserves to be put on a phony bolonga hate wiki? You just showed the true meaning of the site. RH.com is a beatstick meant to intimidate anyone who dares to disagree with MRM dogma. Oh, and since people can be “registered” for not citing their source, you can go ahead and read about how the MRM distorts the information on domestic violence.
Oops, I meant to blockquote cat san day’s comment that “Doyle, Shakesville and so on will likely be included for gendering abuse”. I’m a newbie with html.
I think it’s important not to lose site of the fact that *no* speech justifies these tactics. There is NOTHING a person can say–not “Hitler was right,” not “Burn baby boys alive,” not “we should set puppies on fire,” not “My gender should own your gender as sex slaves”–that makes this okay. Talking about whether this video or a particular blog is really misandrist misses the point, because what if it really was?
That still doesn’t justify threatening someone’s job, privacy, and physical safety. There are NO words, no matter how genuinely hateful, that make it okay. That’s simply not how you respond to speech–ANY speech.
Thank you for that link, thebionicmommy.
*slow clap for Lauralot*
Holly: Yes. Free speech, people, it is a thing. You have the right to say whatever you like, and other people have the right to call you an asshole– not to light your car on fire, or beat you up, or stalk you.
Damn, Lauralot.
A way with words: you have it. Thank you.
I agree with most of the commenters here that it’s important to respect the privacy of others on the internet, but is it really unacceptable to out anybody, no matter WHAT they say? Like, if some jerk is saying things, directed at a specific person, that would be considered an unambiguous threat if they were said in person or on the phone (that this happens was evident from #mencallmethings), is it still crossing a line to out them? Yeah, that behavior is rampant, and certainly most of the people who do it aren’t actually ever going to be violent, but does everyone else have to give them the benefit of the doubt until violence does occur?
I guess my reasoning is this: if somebody is directing graphically violent threats at a specific person (as in, I’m not talking about this video), there’s no way for anybody else to actually know that it’s all in good fun. If outing that person is a way to make certain that they won’t follow through on it for fear of actually being implicated, I don’t see why it should be completely off limits.
You’re welcome. I think that some of the MRA’s know there are flaws with their studies showing ipv to be 50/50, and that’s why they made RH. They want to intimidate anyone who brings up those flaws. At AVfM, they have an article titled “Where is the Counterargument?”. They obviously don’t want to hear a counterargument, though, because they intend to register anyone who dares give one. Neither Sady Doyle or Shakesville denied that men can be victims of violence from women. Their only “crime” was daring to challenge MRA claims about dv being 50/50. Their goal is to dominate the discourse on dv, and other issues like rape, child support, and child custody battles by silencing their critics. If they had the truth on their side, they wouldn’t resort to such bullying tactics.
So lets say the same thing happens irl.
Would you hand flyer’s in all the neighborhood with the name and address of this jerk? Even while knowing your neighbors are angry and violent people? (and since it is the internet, you know some are)
Or would you go to the police, file a complaint, get a restraining order, try to get him arrested,… I don’t know anything about the laws that apply here of the best way to act, but that’s not it.
You still can ‘out’ the threats by showing them, or ‘out’ a troll by linking him to his others persona, though. Both of these thing make the person just a bit less anonymous while respecting his right.
PZ Myers makes it absolutely clear on the front page of his blog that he will publish identifying details (IP addresses, email headers, etc.) of any communication sent to him that contains threats of violence.
Which seems fair enough to me – especially as advance warning has been given.
On the other hand, if I wasn’t the actual recipient of said threat, I wouldn’t get involved unless explicitly asked. There’s rather too much third-party vigilantism online for my taste – as is amply demonstrated by the AVfM thread.
A threat against a specific person is a different thing from speech threatening a general group of people. If someone threatened “women,” well, I’d just think they were a jerk and laugh at them and move on with my life. (As we do every day here.)
But even in that case, if I got their personal information, I’d go to the cops with it or use it to send them lawyer-threats. I wouldn’t post it up with a wink-wink “sure would be a shame if anything happened to them!” for the general public.
Er.
“Even in that case” means the case of a threat specifically against me. That was not clear.
In the case of a threat against women in general, I’d say “must be Tuesday!”
…Also, if the MRAs put everyone who disagrees with them on any issue on register-her, they could save some time and just copy the phonebook.
Uhm, wait. So, on one side we have a few people who made a distasteful and distgusting video (where none of the people involved actually got hurt), and that also got one of the worst Youtube ratings I’ve ever seen.
On the other side we have some guys who think this somehow justifies trying to dig up and publish the personal data of the specific people involved in the video that can actually put them in danger.
Did I get this right so far?
And I agree with Holly. While threatening certain groups of people is still shitty and not okay, it’s still very different from threatening a person/persons specifically and publish their personal information.
A direct threat of harm is indeed where I stop caring about your anonymity. I don’t care if you post identifying information of people who threaten you. Or, I suppose, another poster.
Kyrie: If you’re talking about outing somebody in a way that is designed to incite violence against them, then I agree with you. But the problem is that in order to treat an online threat the same way that a reasonable person would treat one IRL, you would need to out the person to some degree. I doubt the police really bother much with email threats unless they have some identifying information. And I feel like saying that recipients of online threats/harassment must respect the privacy of their harassers and not out them is kind of like saying that harassers’ rights to happily continue harassing anonymously is more important than recipients’ rights to make themselves safe.
Out of curiousity, what would you say if the harasser in question were posting personal information about somebody online? I know a few bloggers have received threats/harassment that included their addresses and phone numbers. I don’t generally subscribe to an eye for an eye, but a person who does that must either actually intend to threaten violence, or think that privacy just isn’t that big of a deal. In either case, I don’t see the problem with returning the favor.