Categories
a voice for men advocacy of violence antifeminism bullying drama kings evil women harassment hate hypocrisy irony alert johntheother men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA paul elam threats trigger warning video warren farrell

A Voice for Men’s Attempts to Find and Publicize the Personal Information of a Toronto Activist Could Threaten That Young Woman’s Safety

cropped-man-yelling-at-computer

[TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE THREATS]

The Men’s Rights movement has been described by some as “the abusers’ lobby.” I don’t think that’s fair, but there are certainly those within the movement that fit the bill – not necessarily because they themselves are abusers, but because, among other things, they lionize abusers and advocate on their behalf.

In the case of hate site A Voice for Men, there is another way in which the term applies: the “activism” of the site and its followers, insofar as it consists of anything more than self-promotion, often mirrors the actions of abusers – AVFM is known for harassing individuals, usually women, and exposing (or threatening to expose) personal information that could be used to stalk and harm them, in an attempt to intimidate them and other feminists and shut them up. Indeed, the site on several occasions has offered $1000 “bounties” on the personal information of its foes.

Now AVFM has another individual in its sights: a young woman, presumably a student, who participated in a recent demonstration against Men’s Rights author Warren Farrell at the University of Toronto. Men’s Rights activists have been promoting a video depicting the protest, in which a group of feminist activists blockaded the building at which Farrell was speaking, until they were forcibly removed by police. The carefully-edited video pays particular attention to one of the activists, the woman in question, as she confronts supporters of Farrell, calling one of them “fucking scum.” (See here for an even-more-manipulatively propagandistic video that focuses even more intently on the woman; and here for one that more clearly depicts the police pulling, shoving, and knocking non-violent protestors to the ground.)

I don’t personally support blocking speeches by opponents; I think it’s bad both in principle and as a political tactic. But Warren Farrell certainly deserves criticism; demonstrators certainly have the right to demonstrate; and as anyone who has ever been to a demonstration knows, sometimes people on opposite sides shout at another.

Apparently the politically inexperienced “activists” at AVFM are unaware of this. And so the site has responded to the demonstration with a campaign to uncover and publicize this woman’s personal information – for the “crime” of using angry language at a protest. In one of the several posts on the subject now up on AVFM, the MRA known as JohnTheOther describes her as, among other things

her own generation’s brown shirt, and she knows it. …

She is clearly sadistic, unable and unwilling to recognize the humanity of anyone who does not slavishly and blindly agree with her own religion of hate.

There is more, much more; if you have the stomach for it, I suggest you read the full post to see JtO’s extended attack on the woman. As is often the case with MRA writings, the full quotes in context are worse than the excerpts I quote here.

A later post from site founder and head Paul Elam includes a picture of the woman, with the caption “Seeking this undesirable’s identity.”

Elam warns that

We have her image and know her general location. We will identify her and profile her activity and name for public view.

We will not stop there, or just with her. And while we will not publish our complete intent, we are dogged in our efforts.

Again, this quote is if anything worse in context; see the entire post here, filled with vituperative, thuggish, threatening language and illustrated with a picture of a violent storm, evidently intended to represent what AVFM is threatening to rain down upon its opponents.

In still another post, with the inflammatory title “Yanking Off the Hood,” Elam defends his site’s “doxxing” policy, writing

AVfM is conducting outreach and investigation into the identities of the persons involved in the violent protest against the rights of men and boys orchestrated and conducted by the University of Toronto Student Union and other antisocial elements within that institution.

To that end, one individual has already been identified, and you will be seeing a story on her here in the near future. Our search for the woman highlighted in the video of the protest continues, with some leads. …

Gender ideologues absolutely hate the light of day. They hate it shining on their ideas and on their lies. Many of them also don’t want it shining on their identities. They seek anonymity for the same reason Klansmen wear hoods.

Even beyond the vicious nature of AVFM’s language and tactics, the hypocrisy here is off the charts: most of AVFM’s writers – gender ideologues all – hide their identities behind pseudonyms, including of course JohnTheOther, who launched AVFM’s campaign against the still-unknown protester.

JtO, who now wishes to conceal his identity, used to write under his own name, and has linked his name with his pseudonym on YouTube and on Men’s Rights sites he has written for. Though his real name is fairly widely known, and can be uncovered with the simplest of web searches, JtO has now decided to try to get that cat back in the bag, and at one point demanded that I remove all mentions of his real name on this site so that he would not – irony alert — face harassment. As much as I don’t respect John, I respected this wish of his, and did so; he may want to take this issue up with his friend Elam, as a post by the AVFM head still up on the site identifies JohnTheOther by both name and pseudonym.

There is no question that the student activist targeted by JtO and AVFM will face harassment when and if her personal information is exposed. Indeed, she is already being singled out for abuse now. On YouTube, videos featuring her have inspired numerous threatening comments. Here are a sampling of comments I’ve found there:

ytwf2ytwf5ytwf6ytwf7ytwf8

Here you can find even more, sent to me by someone who was at the protest.

If AVFM releases the personal information of the student now being attacked online they are giving a green light for this sort of harassment online and off. They are aiding and abetting those who wish this woman to come to real physical harm.

That’s why I think it is fair to call AVFM a hate site, and a member of the abusers’ lobby.

(Meanwhile, JohnTheOther seems to be undergoing some sort of meltdown on Reddit; more on this in my next post.)

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

207 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
emilygoddess
7 years ago

yes every single comment ever left anywhere is 100% totally serious. especially the threats. if somebody writes “this chick should be raped” in an article comment he WILL rape that chick on-sight should he ever see her.

But rape is a threat that hangs over women’s lives on a daily basis. We don’t have the luxury of assuming any given person isn’t serious when he threatens us with rape – and we definitely don’t have the luxury of assuming that no one out of thousands of threats is serious. And even if not a single one of them is serious, it’s still an attempt to put a woman “in her place” by invoking this all too prevalent and all too gendered fear.

The fact that threatening women with violence is the go-to response for so many men is a fucking problem, and the fact that you san say it’s feminist that’s the hateful element hear is mind-boggling.

pecunium
7 years ago

Wow… The Radical One, doesn’t even know what she’s quoting when she tries to make a point.

In, The Failed Philosophy of Male-Female Fungibility she lays out (to be generous) the claim that Statutory Rape Laws are unfair, because women can violate them (i.e. it can be a crime for a woman to have sex with a male who is below the age of consent).

She quotes from Justice William Rehnquist’s dissenting opinion on the matter in 1981 [Michael M. v. Superior Court (No. 79-1344)]. That, “Dissenting Opinion” was Justice Rhenquist affirming that Calif. was well within it’s rights to limit the crime of statutory rape to one only men could commit.

I think I see what she is trying to say (Rhenquist disagreed with feminists… shocking revelation that), but her use of language makes it seem that the courts were forcing people to accept “feminist dogma”.

Never mind that it wasn’t “feminists” who brought that case. Rather it was a guy who had been convicted of statutory rape saying it wasn’t fair.

In July, 1978, a complaint was filed in the Municipal Court of Sonoma County, Cal., alleging that petitioner, then a 17 1/2-year-old male, had had unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under the age of 18, in violation of § 261.5. The evidence adduced at a preliminary hearing showed that, at approximately midnight on June 3, 1978, petitioner and two friends approached Sharon, a 16 1/2-year-old female, and her sister as they waited at a bus stop. Petitioner and Sharon, [p467] who had already been drinking, moved away from the others and began to kiss. After being struck in the face for rebuffing petitioner’s initial advances, Sharon submitted to sexual intercourse with petitioner. Prior to trial, petitioner sought to set aside the information on both state and federal constitutional grounds, asserting that § 261.5 unlawfully discriminated on the basis of gender. The trial court and the California Court of Appeal denied petitioner’s request for relief, and petitioner sought review in the Supreme Court of California.

Why does all this matter? I don’t know. Something about everyone getting up, and cats and dogs living together and then it all turns into anarchy. See for yourself:

. You know, by all that’s holy how dare us force boys and girls into “stereotypes” regarding their sex! You know, it’s not like the girls will grow up to be mothers and need those nurturing home-making skills and it’s not like we should ever suggest that the boys grow up to be men who provide for and lead families! How dare us? Why a woman should march off to work big and pregnant while her dainty little house husband sits home knitting sweaters and painting his nails! What is wrong with society today? The entire point of marriage and bringing fathers into the family is for them to do their part providing for women and their children so that the mother does not have to both bear children and support the family on top of it. Intimacy and structure can be satisfied without marriage. There is no other point of marriage other than to be a safety net for women to bear and nurture children, which women are going to do no matter what. But the prime fact of life is that no man will bear the burden of pregnancy.

Got that… women who rape minor men should be allowed to get away with it because someday those women might want to get pregnant and have kids, which is what society is all about; and sex has nothing to do with marriage; even though teenage girls are still getting pregnant as they have since the beginning of time! Who would have thought? But, of course, let’s continue on with this failed philosophy.

Which makes me wonder… if teenaged girls are still getting pregnant as they have since the beginning of time!, what philosophy has had more time spent failing?

Oh yeah, the one she calls, “common sense”.

Let’s take a look at teenaged pregnancy rates. When was the peak? Was it 1984? Perhaps in the ’90s, when Clinton as in office (and all those feminists were around)? What about the ’60s, and all that, “Free Love”? Maybe the “Sexual Revolution of the ’70s?

And the winner is… 1957

Perhaps The Radical One is full of shit.

pecunium
7 years ago

And the Radical One can’t keep her story straight: Do MRAs Want to be Victims or Take Responsibility? she starts to detail some of the “helpful laws” we had in the past.

Or perhaps what she thinks would be, “good” laws for the future.

Yes, the husband should be the legal head of household. A woman has the choice who she wishes to marry. She should know when she says “I do” that she will become one with him. He has to pay the bills, therefore if he wants to move the family she should be under the obligation to live with him and take care of the home.Feminists were very bitter about this.

In New York, a pamphlet supporting ratification of the ERA read:

“DO YOU KNOW THAT RAPE IS LEGAL IN MARRIAGE?

Remember, up above, where sex and intimacy were fine and dandy; marriage was about making sure the man was obliged to provide for the wife and kids?

Yeah, not so much this time around, see when it’s a question of marital rape, then the song is,

Well, sex is kind of the point of marriage dear feminists.

This retort is in response to something from more than 30 years ago, when (as that pamphlet correctly stated, women were pretty much the property of the husband.

DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE YOUR HUSBAND’S PRISONER?

You have to live with him wherever he pleases. If he decides to move someplace else, either you go with him or he can charge you with desertion, get a divorce and, according to the law, you deserve nothing because you’re the guilty party. And that’s if he were the one who moved!”

.

Yep, those “protections” the law afforded were swell, things like, this: should I have to take my husband’s last name or obtain his consent to get a credit card or something like telephone service? Yes.

This is her idea of returning to, “the good old days”.

Howard Bannister
7 years ago

Yep, this is utterly bog-standard anti-feminist religious good-old-days ‘WOMEN ARE CHATTEL’ thinking.

That sure is radical, yes indeedie.

You keep on with that, oh radical one. We’ll keep on with the radical idea that women are actually people.

pecunium
7 years ago

Well Howard, she is so “edgy” She calls MRAs manginas.

Doug Fisher
Doug Fisher
7 years ago

This is Mind blowing…..As a recent viewer to this video clip, I am appalled how this women is talking to anyone. I don’t care about all the titles, or organisations you people are bantering about, The man is quietly walking in to a lecture and is faced with this?. Its information, information to all, Most of all Regardless of anything you should never talk to anyone like this…. especially if you do not know them. Those are some pretty harsh accusation to be calling someone.

I am interested in what Mr. Farrell has to say, as information whether right or wrong. and If I had known about this lecture I would have possibly wanted to go and listen. if I was approached like this and screamed at in my face like that I wouldn’t even know what to do..This women doesn’t know me, or my values. What if that Gent was there on behalf of her beliefs or organisation…however more civil about it? I guess she is a mind reader.

I just can’t stand people talking to anyone like this…just trying to cause a reaction, you can tell she woudl have LOVED for him to take any kind of action…even opening his mouth to say something, Imagine if he had, what else wodul she have called him?

Jeez… all of you people both “sides” nee dto get more positive hobbies, something to bring you all closer together, not fight and belittle each other with “what you know” and re-quoting Ad nauseam.

Reading all this..it seems no one really has any infomitive comments, just trashing each other…its f**kin boring…

-Doug

Byenia
Byenia
6 years ago

Damn. While I firmly believe the tactics of the feminist protestors were uncalled for and stepped over the line, Paul Elam’s call to “dox” people is certainly dangerous and will likely lead to real-life harassment and perhaps even abuse. That’s not acceptable either.

This shit has all gone too far. People should be able to disagree with one another without screaming in each other’s faces in person or suggesting online that they deserve to be victims of violence. Way too far.

1 3 4 5