And so the MRAs have found yet another woman to hate.
Earlier this month, as many of you no doubt know, a Men’s Rights group sponsored a lecture at the University of Toronto. The event drew protesters, and the protesters drew MRAs with video cameras. One of the MRAs filmed a confrontation between a red-haired feminist activist and a number of MRAs who continually interrupted her as she tried to read a brief statement.
Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters. And so, after video of the confrontation was uploaded to YouTube, and linked to on the Men’s Rights subreddit and elsewhere, she became a virtual punching bag for the angry misogynists of the internet.
A Voice for Men, naturally, led the charge, running an article by Canadian MRA Dan Perrins labeling her “Little red frothing fornication mouth” and commenting on her breasts. The Amazing Atheist weighed in with a video I couldn’t bring myself to even watch.
Since being targeted by angry YouTube misogynists and MRAs, the red-haired activist has received death threats, rape threats and literally hundreds of other hateful and harassing messages. She’s also been “doxxed” — that is, she’s had her personal information plastered all over the internet, including on A Voice for Men’s forum. Ten days after being uploaded to YouTube, the video of her faceoff against the MRAs has garnered more than 300,000 views, and YouTubers are still leaving threats and insults and crude sexual comments.
This, apparently, is what “Men’s Human Rights Activism” consists of: the doxxing and harassment of individual women.
Several days ago, she contacted me to tell me about the harassment she’s endured. Here’s some of what she wrote:
I’m the red-head. I’m sure by now, you’re one of the 260,000 people who have seen the video of me … .
Because I had the audacity to tell a dude to stfu, an MRA no less, I have since been the target of not only just online misogyny (as if that’s a surprise) but cyber stalking, rape and death threats. They somehow found my facebook, they found my tumblr, they found a twitter acct that I don’t even use, they even found an old [dating site] profile of mine with outdated info …
I also got an anonymous message on tumblr that specifically said “[name deleted] would be disappointed”. [Name deleted] is my dog that died 1.5 years ago, I don’t talk about him on tumblr, nor fb, so they would have had to reaaaaalllly dig to find this info. …
In about 12-24hours, I got about400-500 new messages on my blog, most of them hate, which included rape and death threats, also people wishing death upon me or the typical troll “kill yourself” message. They made a meme of me.
I dunno how many haters I have, and I don’t know where they are. I can’t be sure at any given second, if I’m ever outside my house … if anyone is going to recognize me and try to hurt me.
With her permission, I am reposting screenshots she sent me documenting some of the harassment she’s endured. Even though her personal information has already been widely disseminated online, I don’t want to contribute to that, so I’ve whited out any information that might reveal her identity.
TRIGGER WARNING for what follows, for threatening language and crude sexual remarks.
Here’s a death threat she received from someone claiming to represent the “Islamic Brotherhood.”
Here are some sample comments from her Tumblr inbox. I’ve whited out comments and parts of comments that consist of her contact info, which being sent to her in an attempt to intimidate and frighten her by letting her know they “know where she lives.”
Here’s another threatening comment sent to her via Tumblr:
Here are some comments sent to her via her YouTube account. You’ll notice that the second comment comes from AVFM’s Dan Perrins, who is clearly relishing the attacks on her.
And another glimpse into her YouTube inbox:
Here’s a screenshot from a Men’s Rights forum revealing her personal information.
Meanwhile, over on YouTube, the hateful comments continue to pile up. Here are some of the nastiest ones I’ve collected. I am deliberately posting a lot of them in an attempt to convey something of the relentless nature of the attacks on teh red-haired activist — though I should note I’ve only gone through a small portion of the total comments there and this doesn’t even reflect all of the awful ones I found. These are not in any particular order. I threw in a few non-threatening ones that struck me as a tad ironic or otherwise revealing.
Again, this is only a small fraction of the abuse she’s gotten on YouTube.
This is what happens when MRAs and other misogynists target a woman online. The only thing that’s surprising here is the sheer amount of the hateful comments.
I’ve seen no serious attempts from any MRAs to rein in this sort of hatred. A Voice for Men has tried to distance itself in a superficial way from some of the harassment it has played a central role in unleashing, with an official announcement asking readers to refrain from posting the personal information of the red-haired activist in the comments. Meanwhile, in the AVFM forum, comments linking to her defunct dating profiles remain up.
This is what MRA “activism” looks like.
Coming tomorrow: A more detailed look at AVFM’s role in the harassment.
PE MRA:
Argnh… The Blockquote monster got me. 🙁
Fibinachi: Aw, shucks. I have to say I am impressed with your safe space explantion; and which I hadn’t been catching up on 11 pages; it’s a bit wall o’ texty, and I have no idea which (or the contantative whole) is being praised.
TomBCat: I know you asked Pecunium, but this is a topic I’ve done a fair bit of tussling with, so I’m gonna jump in:
When evaluating any form of protest or movement activity, you need to evaluate on multiple grounds The actual standards and outcomes of these evaluations vary from one another:
1: Motive. This is the ‘first and foremost’. Even if the protestors at abortion clinics were the most polite, civil and sweet-mouthed people on the planet, I’d still consider their protest reprehensible, because it’s in advocacy of a position I find disgusting–namely, that women are not entitled to bodily autonomy. I wouldn’t restrict their rights to protest, but I sure as hell can judge them for their position, and state my own opinion of them that forms as a result.
2: Method. Here’s where we lay down the rules about what’s an ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ method of protest. What’s important to note, though, is that the redress for an unacceptable method must, itself, be acceptable. If the redress oversteps that bound, however, then the condemnation must be, first and foremost, against those who have exceeded reasonable reaction.
Speaking loudly outside the lecture hall, to me, is an acceptable approach, so complaining about it is just so much whining. Unless they’re exceeding local noise ordinances, I don’t give a flock.
Pulling the fire alarm was NOT an acceptable approach. I would roundly condemn those who took that action (and, if their identity was known, encourage legal sanction against them–fines, possibly suspension or even expulsion from the school). However, the rape-and-death-threat retaliatory response to that action (even if it were shown to be against a legit target, which has yet to be done) so tremendously crosses the line as to render the initial offense moot.
A side-note on the issue of civil disobedience: Civil disobedience–the deliberate violation of a law in order to highlight injustice–is a valid and often necessary and laudable tactic. However, there’s a couple things that should be kept in mind regarding it:
1: You’ll probably get arrested. In fact, one of the goals of civil disobedience is to get arrested in order to highlight why it’s wrong that the action in question has that as a possible consequence. Complaining about getting arrested, beyond the broad, “This is not something that should be a jail-worthy offense,” is generally bad form. This brings us to the next point:
2: Civil disobedience MUST be targeted to violate the laws you consider unjust. Breaking other laws in the course of this usually loses you sympathy. Rosa Parks violated the bus segregation rules, and her supporters violated laws that attempted to abridge their right to peaceably assemble. These are both valid. Vandalism, as an example, would NOT be valid examples of civil disobedience, even if it might be understandable why African-Americans living in that era (or, really, any) might want to break some windows.
About ten years ago, I brought someone to a abortion clinic in Springfield, MO. It has since been shut down due to Bible Belt laws I won’t give too many more details, because even though I’m commenting anonymously, I don’t want there to be any chance someone could figure out who I’m talking about. This is a secret I’m keeping for her, and I’m carrying it to the grave.
Anyway, of course there were protestors outside the clinic, because Missouri. The protestors held up pictures of fetuses and were yelling, “You don’t have to do this! You can change your mind!”. I just clenched my friend’s hand and we walked past them, trying to ignore them. After it was over, we ran out of there like bats out of hell, but nobody said anything anyway.
Maybe it’s because I have a bit of a US centric view, but even though it was very uncomfortable, I still think they have the right to protest that way, as long as it doesn’t cross the line into physical confrontation.
And I’m torn on this, but I would even defend the right to that WBC protest in Joplin last year. Yes, it was traumatizing to us and very painful, but I would accept they have that right. I would never say other countries should have similar speech laws, though, and I understand the purpose and good behind hate speech laws. Um, sorry this all kind of complicated, so I hope this makes sense.
Thanks for the answers. I thought about this for a while now, because there’s just a slight dissonance between what I think should be legal and what I can find morally acceptable for myself. But I guess that problem mostly stems from the fact that while the possibility to protest should be there, judgment of when it is appropriate to do so can’t be counted on.
It’s like the Rosa Parks thing – history has proven her right, but I think it is wrong to break the law because of a perceived injustice. That opens so many other doors, and I think the law should be respected and followed while trying to change it. OTOH, if some great people had followed the laws, a lot of injustices would still exist.
But can I rely on my personal moral compass to be correct and put myself above the law?
Don’t laws just lose any meaning if we decide not to follow them because of our own beliefs?
As far as I know, that thought is basically one Socrates died for.
Freemage,
thank you too, you guys are really helpful with difficult topics I can’t discuss with the people in my life due to the reactions being eyerolling and a sort of ‘TomBcat has her moral moments again”
Some of the problems with what you said I addressed already, namely the problem with reliability (after all, MRAs and Pro-Choicers think of themselves as moral as well), and why I think this problem makes breaking the law generally the wrong approach.
Another problem I have is with protesting a discussion in a manner it can’t take place or gets more difficult. On one hand, I think certain opinions are not worth being heard simply because they are confusing fact and fiction, but I can’t assume that my opinions are superior and therefore the other side doesn’t deserve to be heard properly.
To me it seems like a good rule that what gives people freedom and equality is good, but how do I know I am right? How could humanity ever have changed when we decide which laws to break based on our own beliefs?
Welcome to the wonderful world of Existentialist Nasuea. Holy shit, nothing really has any significant meaning casual inference oh god. : (
Yes, laws lose meaning if we decide not to follow them. Then they’re no longer laws.
If we decide not to follow them because of our own beliefs, we must, as freemage up there very eloquently said, be prepared for the consequences of accepting the judgement of those who won’t accept “I do not believe in your laws” as good reason.
And that’s… that. The rest we hash out between us, bit by bit.
“Morality, when formal, devours”.
I like to think of it as the Lawfull Good Paladin conumdrum. D&D terminilogy, but Lawful Good implies a respect for the law and a respect for the dignity of people.
But it also means overturning and struggling against those laws percieved not bring about GOod, in whatever form your DM casually chooses to interpret that to be.
Do you know if you’re going to fall and lose your Paladin status when you try to change something you think is injust?
No, never for sure. So you’ve got to make a choice, but make it carefully.
(And don’t give me the “Communion” or “Phylactery of Faith” short-cut answer here, the metaphor works just fine if we don’t extend it and it makes me sound clever.” Man easy “Contact your deity” item is the bane of my campaign. Ooh! I know how to figure out this moral dilemma, I’ll call up my god on a hotline and ask him!” )
Or better yet, Roanoke.
*I meant Pro-Life, not Pro-Choice
@bionicmommy
thank you too for the great answer, and I personally think it is the best choice to make, the implications of not being able to protest what we believe is wrong are horrible to me.
Anyway, I admire your courage. You choose the right to voice your opinion over your personal feelings and would rather risk trauma than take this right away.
I’m with you, but also torn on this at the same time. That’s the difference between what I think should be the law and what I find morally unacceptable for myself(If I was Pro Choice, I would find it wrong to protest in front of a clinic, but I would still want the protest to be legal)
I get D&D terminology, though we play DSA over here 🙂
I just feel like I can not know whether I am actually good, and therefore have to obey the laws the people accept. Doesn’t mean I can’t struggle and fight them.
Begs the question if we can change anything if we don’t break a few laws.
But then MRA who want to burn things could argue the same. And that’s the point where I think I would rather die upholding the law I’m trying to change than to break it because I feel it is right.
But, I apologize, I was getting very very philosophical. Probably all I can do is hope that my moral compass is functioning and built upon reflection and reason.
TomBcat: It’s like the Rosa Parks thing – history has proven her right, but I think it is wrong to break the law because of a perceived injustice
No. It’s wrong to ignore the law.
I say ignore because I mean, “act as if the law didn’t matter”. People break laws all the time (speed limits come immediately to mind) because they find them inconvenient.
But, since they admit to the need for some sort of control of the roads, when there is a limit, and they get caught breaking it, they pay the fine.
They aren’t ignoring the law, they are violating it.
If they thought the law was, in fact, an immoral infringement of their rights, and they 1: broke it, and 2: paid the fine, and 3: complained it wasn’t fair, they would be ignoring the injustice they think exists.
What they need to do, to claim they broke the law, out of principle, is refuse to pay the fine; and take the punishment that comes of not paying it; in the hope that others will see the injustice and get the law changed.
But could you explain the phrase Morality, when formal devours to me? It’s a bit difficult to translate properly. (Is that Albert Camus? even with the name I can’t find a translation)
Please stop acting like you know what you’re talking about.
Clinty-gone-to-bed:
If you haven’t read the comments, the many, many comments, explaining to you that IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT SOMEONE DOES: DEATH AND RAPE THREATS AND STALKING ARE WRONG. ALWAYS. If we explained why she received those from MRAs, it only detracts from the fact that she is being terrorized based on gender. Gendered violence.
We aren’t all defending her response to not wanting to talk about male suicide at that moment, or choosing to respond sarcastically. We are defending her right to safety and bodily integrity. Also, you are the worst.
People have the right to speak. If others did not have the right to react, we’d quickly be living under tyranny.
I’m imagining the trolls are all tired and sleeping now. Or somehow convinced they are correct. But hurrah for everyone else. Glad Bostonites are safe.
I’m getting involved in an amazing girls empowerment program. I’m not going to provide details because it’s specific in a way that this group would love, but could leave me targeted. The more confident and empowered girls feel in early adolescence, the less likely they are to heed to sexual pressure. I want young women to recognize and fight off MRA-types and MRA-attitudes. I want them to be stronger and more sure of themselves than I was. This is keeping me going today.
Personally, I don’t think you can make a sweeping generalization about what forms of protest are moral. In the case where any form of protest is actually illegal, and the cause is just, then civil disobedience is necessary, not just moral. It’s very difficult to reason about whether a cause is just or not, though, so you wind up with having to judge cases in hindsight.
I do think you can make accurate assessments about whether it’s possible to legally protest effectively, though, and that’s what bothers me most about MRA type stuff. They’ve convinced themselves that there is a literal gender war, that no option is available, that they must take up weapons and fight to overthrow an unjust system.
That’s what bothers me most. It almost doesn’t even matter whether they have the right idea or not; in the US, there are oodles of outlets for protest that don’t involve violence. Grassroots campaigns, blogs, commercials, peaceful demonstrations out on the streets… There is no justification for any sort of violence in this system, especially for men. What they don’t seem to get is that the failure of their message to spread is not the same as a lack of ability to spread their message.
It’s sorta like how some people think that not being free to speak without criticism is the same as a lack of free speech…
TomBcat: The gist of it is that making Morality an absolute (formalising it) makes it a thing, and a touchstone; which is completely limited. At that point the formalism of it destroys (devours) the essence.
Morality, to function, must be a living thing. Each of us must live our own morality. The question of, “is it ethical” can be argued, but can’t, in a formal way, be resolved; outside ourselves.
Society is the effect of people agreeing to share aspects of what is moral.
Also, I’ve met Rosa Parks multiple times. I think we all know she would be extremely repulsed by the MRM. And have been really good at shaming them with her gentle, kind soul–not that they are worthy of her attention.
@kirby –
“It’s sorta like how some people think that not being free to speak without criticism is the same as a lack of free speech…”
Yes, as I wrote above, that’s the crux of all the trolling today. Well, the least hideous of the cruxes, I guess.
Pecunium
thank you, I have to think about it. It’s also very nice of everyone to take the time and give me new thoughts to help me reassess my opinions. I really appreciate it.
On your point: this only goes so far as I don’t threaten the rights of others by breaking the law, and I find it difficult to decide what does and doesn’t based on my own beliefs, especially in cases the harm I might do can’t be proven.(for example: By violating laws about smoking in public places I might defend the right to my own choices, but violate rights of others by subjecting their bodies to the smoke and robbing them of the opportunity to stay healthy – by ignoring speed limits I might find unfair I could risk the lives of others if these laws are justified(this assuming scenarios where I can’t know if I directly might harm others to an unacceptable extend, and where to draw the line that makes it unacceptable)
The patience I get treated with is really amazing.
I think your last comments (kirbywarp and pecunium) rendered the argument pretty much useless, and your right, it is impossible to find a general solution. Which makes dispute with MRAs all the more difficult when you can’t agree on ethics and sometimes might even have to contradict yourself. It is easier to stand a point that can be acted upon on principle.
TomBcat: I think one of the important things is to not contradict yourself. That’s where Clinty, and PE MRA fail. They pretend to be consistent, but they aren’t. PE MRA says it’s ok to hate people, not groups, but he hates SRS.
Clinty says, “It’s totes wrong to harass people”, but then says all harassment is the same, and ignores that what we are talking about is the wrongness of harassment, while he conflates protest with death threats.
TomBCat: The issue of ‘ignoring the law’ vs. ‘violating the law’ was the reason I included the bit about getting arrested being an active part of civil disobedience. You have to be willing to accept the consequence of the action, and not just in an “Well, if I get caught,” way. Ethical CD doesn’t entail the possibility of NOT getting caught–getting caught, standing before the authorities* and saying, “Yes, I did this, and it was the right thing to do, even if you choose to punish me for it” is the payoff, because it forces them (and those they claim to rule) to consider whether or not the law itself is just, and then to justify that claim with the rationales at their disposal.
This is one reason the actions of the typical MRA never rise to that level; they are cowards, spewing their hate and threats from the safety of anonymity. That’s not CD, that’s rebellion, and rebellion can only be evaluated by looking at the cause that it is in support of–it’s already a declaration that the society to which you are a part is not merely wrong, but has reached a level of catastrophic failure.
I was thinking the same thing earlier and thought about posting it, but I’m glad I postponed because you put it better.
Also Fibinachi’s post about safe spaces is going into my Save folder.
As someone who did clinic defense for years, I largely agree with freemage’s comment. I supported the right of anti-abortion protesters to be there; when they crossed the line into physical intimidation and violence, which happened frequently, we non-violently defended the clinic and patients and usually were able to keep the clinic open and functioning, even though the police usually just stood by and watched rather than arresting anyone. (In fact, over the course of about 4 years doing this work, the only time I saw the LAPD arrest an anti-abortion activist it was because after physically threatening a number of counter-protesters he finally lost his temper and swung at a cop.) What we didn’t do? Threaten our opponents with rape and death, even when they had no such compunction. Once again, MRAs are fragile little flowers who seem to wilt at the slightest opposition. I’m glad that the feminists I worked with on clinic defense were made of stronger stuff.
On a very practical level, doing civil disobedience has the unintended effect of making you generally ineligible for jury duty in the US, at least if they ask any questions covering the subject during voir dire. Source: Pretty much all of my activist friends. 😀
bahumbugi, that girls empowerment program sounds really great. Good for you. And I am very jealous that you’ve met Rosa Parks!
Manboobzers are awesome. These are my disjointed thoughts, posted to help this thread move up past #8 in the all-time longest Man Boobz threads.
Also, of course there was a post on r/mr saying that the people who went to help people in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing were men, which proved (a) male disposability and (b) men are better than women, who are cowardly beings.
I offer this as evidence that most people, male and female, are wonderful in the aftermath of disasters, and decent people don’t try to score points on that front. Nothing gory, but note that there are images of people in stretchers and discussions about the injuries, so if you’re feeling particularly fragile you might want to stay away.