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my tumblr, they found a twitter acct that I don’t even use, they even found an old [dating site] profile of mine with outdated info …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.
This, as their hill.
It makes total sense. We were commenting in another thread where I was being ruder and more abusive to one of the trolls, but he was only interesting in screaming and frothing at people who identified as women.
They really are that utterly transparent.
They really are the abusers’ lobby.
Only interested, dammit.
It’s related to their love of obsessing over the minutiae of these events–who was blocking a door, who pulled a fire alarm–and of arguing about how they’re treated on these sites. In their actual practice, there’s almost a complete disconnect from actual issues; they are almost completely focused on their and others’ reactions to things. They’re more interested in how they, personally, are treated than how their “issues” are treated.
Yep, that about sums it up right there. They think women are easier, weaker targets and so they direct their worst shit at us. When someone like Redhead from OP doesn’t meekly acquiesce to them, then all hell breaks loose. That’s why they have a site, Register Her, because they enjoy targeting women.
Just to be clear, I don’t think it’s just because they think women are easier targets; I think it’s because they hate women.
Misogyny. It’s the entirety of their movement.
No, I don’t think you thought that, Howard. No worries. That’s what I think. They think women are weak and therefore an easy target. Because they are bullies, and bullies like to target people whom they consider weak.
@Pecunium
Yes, you’re right, and it wasn’t what I meant, I got caught up in thoughts there a bit.
The thought was that if a standpoint can’t hold under all circumstances, this will often be used against an argument as being a contradiction, when it sometimes is hard to explain how the circumstances differ. I can’t think of a great example right now though, but it’s the difference between something being considered moral in itself vs. the right thing under certain circumstances. The difference is sometimes hard to explain and can undermine conversation. I can contradict my own statement with the same moral guidelines in mind, was basically my thought, when I think about different circumstances. Be it that I can for myself decide to always obey the law and that I think this is important and right, but can’t justify it when other people suffer because of my decision.
That’s…confusing. Like I said, got caught up in thoughts and everything got stupid, but it got very philosophical anyway which gets tiring, so I’ll leave it at that with kirbywarps comment in mind that justice is not something I can generalize.
@Freemage
I still have my difficulties with ethical CD, as it often can often only be decided in hindsight whether it was ethical or not. And to disrespect authority upholding unjust laws would be the goal, not disrespecting laws we as a society decided upon to protect us. It is difficult for me as the argument is misused to justify even murder, I couldn’t decide on a general guideline, deciding rules on when CD would be justifiable seems impossible to me.
I feel like my statements are getting more confusing as the day is progressing, but I should try and get some real sleep anyway, so I’m going to stop and sorry if this is just a confusing mess. And again, I cannot thank you enough. It’s a courtesy to take the time and explain your own opinions to me.
@bionicmommy:
“Misogynist bullies.”
Best and most concise description of the MRM? You be the judge.
They also perceive women as ‘vulnerable’, and in a sense, they’re right about that–really, that’s what we’re fighting against, after all, the fact that women are not given the same treatment by the law and society in so many cases, leaving them without the support structure and defenses afforded to men (and, of course, under the kyriarchy, the same can be said of white/POC, straight/gay, cis-/trans-, etc).
So they’re using the advantage they’ve got (the lack of support for women who are targeted) to try and retain that advantage (by targeting women fighting against the status quo). They can’t do that to other men, even those of us who identify as feminists/allies, so they just try to pretend we don’t exist for the most part.
@TomBCat:
DSA as in Dark Eye in English? That’s a lovely system and an interesting world. Rock on.
—
On point: No worries, thank you for asking your questions and being a nice presence. Everyone learns something! Especially me.
But it’s one of those funny things, right? I think most systems prefer their convictions and their morals in terms of absolutes – “It’s always wrong to” or “It’s always right to”, because at least that point you have something concrete and your explanatory power is going to give you all the answers you need.
If you end up with an understanding of morality, ethics, justice and life that ends up along the lines of “It depends”, you have to invest a lot of hindsight, effort and analysis into digesting every little minutia of every little decision… and that takes effort.
But I think it works. I don’t like the trap of “Your system doesn’t hold under circumstance X, your system is wrong!”
That ethical imperative, do only what you think should be a law for all cases doesn’t hold water because all cases never apply on a case by case basis.
(Flurish, grin, bow)
It gets confusing and muddled and difficult doing that though, so it’s far easier to decide, at the onset, that all women are sluts who are out to get you (ah, so that’s the tie in)
Then that becomes your basic tenet, and everything you do following is justified.
Redhead Activist says something? She’s specifically out to get you, the slut.
Any woman says anything? She’s doing it just to spite you, because spite is better than a thousand orgasms to a woman. It’s evolution, baby (da-da-da-da-pearl-jam)
That’s the MRA for you, Misogynist bullies (I decided: yeah. Concise!). They know Women Are Sluts Out To Get You ahead of time, so any situation becomes a race to figure out the specific details of how, when and where:
Who pulled the fire alarm? When did they? What were they planning to do afterwards? What was she wearing? How did she led him on? What did she do? WHo is she sleeping with? How much is she getting paid?
It’s… a case of I guess “Can I believe it” versus “Must I believe it”. They’ve already decided that women suck, so any evidence to the contrary falls under “Sure, I *can* believe this bitch hasn’t done something slutty yet, but she must” and any evidence that they do is instant validation of the core tenet.
If you’re waiting to be betrayed, any betrayal proves you were right to expect betrayal. It’s a perfect circular fortress of Anti-Logic.
Look at Mark Minter, who pops in, and uses a *specific quote* where a guy literally writes women can get laid any time, and men can’t, so women suck and uses it toto launch into a triade about how all women expect manly thug men. The first thing he wrote here was that he slept with tons of females, to pre-empt the strike of “You’re just sad cuz you can’t get laid” he knew must be coming. Because women are spiteful, right?
MRA’s *know* that women suck, that they’re out to get them and that they’re [whatever niche belief they subscribe to] and then everything just kind of becomes a spiral of confirmation, truth and proving them right. And they get to be angry! And hateful! And call for people to literally be splashed along the pavement WHILE still being in the right, because women suck and they’re out to get us man, I’m only giving just payback. Don’t’cha know men are villified and ostracized in this society?
It’s terrifying in its complete and utter… monomanaical focus.
It’s sort of the same with the constant refrain of “Mangina! Why are you a male feminist, don’t you know feminists hate men?!”. Women suck, they’re out to get you – they’re the enemy, and the only reason anyone would support would be to trick them into sleeping with you.
Complete inability to percieve of a world different than the one in their thoughts.
( I’d only support feminists to get laid, so everyone thinks that way!
I’d rape someone who was unconscious, so everyone would!
I really think women suck, so everyone does! )
“They pretend to be consistent, but they aren’t. PE MRA says it’s ok to hate people, not groups, but he hates SRS.”
This is not, in fact, what I said. Reading comprehension is a valuable skill.
One that you do not have, PEMRA.
P-EMRA, you have said so many bizarre and even contradictory things in your short time here. You make no sense. About the only thing we can reasonably conclude about you is that you want to make sure that women who are politically active suffer for it.
First off, don’t sweat it, you’re being perfectly coherent. And honestly, my ego enjoys these chances to trot out my thinking (probably my last privileged holdover was the danger of mansplaining, so now I try to wait until my opinion is invited, and THEN I pounce).
Now, to the first paragraph:
I think you may be conflating two terms.
I’ve been talking about “ethical civil disobedience”, yes. But beyond ethics, there’s also the issue of justification. Ethics is about how you do it; justification is about why (obviously, ethics will play a role in making the case for justification, but that’s different than evaluating whether the CD itself was performed in an ethical fashion). As you note, justification is invariably a matter of hindsight; you can either make your case in the long run, or you can’t. This is something you have to decide for yourself, using whatever means you have available to you. (One thing to note–just because your performance of CD meets the standards for ethics, doesn’t make you a ‘good’ person; obviously, if your cause is morally bankrupt, then no good will come of advocating for it, no matter how ethically you do so.)
The matter of whether or not it’s being done ethically, however, is usually much easier to settle at the outset, because there are certain rules you have to go with:
1: You must do perform the action with the anticipation, expectation, and ultimately the desire to be taken before the authorities; you should not resist arrest, but rather force the authorities to choose between arresting you or backing down.
2: The laws violated must be those you are protesting against. This is why peaceful CD is the only acceptable variety–generally, people committing acts of assault or worse are not advocating against those laws.
3: You must take care to make certain you are, in fact, justified in opposing the law, and that there is no better way to force a change of it.
If you violate the first rule, you’re not engaging in ethical CD, you’re a criminal hoping to get away with your crime. If you violate the second, you’re not engaging in CD at all, but rather, revolt, attempting to force the change you want. The rules for ethical revolt are far, far different, and the standards for justification much higher. Violating the third rule means that you’re being a lazy thinker, and thus a bad actor. All three rules are necessary for ethical CD to occur.
I’m going to close with one of my favorite examples of ethical CD:
In the state of Illinois, many municipalities put up STOP signs pretty helter-skelter. While there’s rules in the state laws about what criteria are supposed to be met, often as not the municipality is just responding to a local request to slow traffic through the area, or looking to create a situation where violations (and thus, fines) rack up. Heck, sometimes, no one knows WHY a particular sign was put up at all–the only reason they remain is inertia.
Several years ago, a driver fed up with a particular stop sign that he felt was extraneous and pointless, started a campaign to have it removed. First he tried appealing to the local government, demonstrating that the intersection was far outside the guidelines set down by the state. Then he went to the state, appealing to them to tell the city to take down the sign. All to no avail–and so, he resorted to the most ethical display of civil disobedience I’ve ever encountered. He sent a letter to the media and to both the local and state authorities, announcing his intent to drive through the sign without stopping, including the date and time of his anticipated violation; he also stated that he would refuse to pay any fine levied, but rather challenge the fine in court.
This contains all the elements I outlined above, even though the issue itself was obviously fairly minor. He won, too–the police declined to issue a citation, and eventually, the sign was taken down.
Lots to catch up with, but first:
Fibinachi, I don’t know whether high fives or offered internet hugs of appreciation are more suitable, but THANK YOU for that comment (the one that went through moderation) explaining exactly what’s wrong with Brz’s garbage, and doing it so eloquently.
Please accept a misandrist bon-bon and gift-wrapped internet.
Cassandra – “I wonder if eating someone with a toxic personality would give a zombie food poisoning. Maybe that’s a new marketing opportunity, zombie antacids.”
Thank Ceiling Cat I wasn’t drinking when I read that!
I haven’t manage to make it through all 600 or so comments that were posted since I went to work last night, but oh fuck, clintiskeen found Manboobz.
All his comments are so saturated with irony. It’s a compelling argument for why you should be very careful about taking a snidely superior tone: Because if you’re not actually as clever as you think, then you’ll look even more like a moron.
Does that mean clintiskeen has a blog or trolls other comment sections? Because this is the first time I’ve seen them
::tries to catch up::
@cloudiah
Best goonight wish ever! 😀
@not pro equality mra
I am so glad the straight white men I know aren’t like you. Maybe they are secretly gay or something, because they don’t seem to be particularly hateful.
See, some of us have read your links (I looked at some). The problem isn’t people not reading them, it’s that they don’t show what you think they show.
“as my links have clearly demonstrated”
haha.
no.
D’awww. It looks like somebody needs to find their citation
@clinty
Um, yes people also have a right to protest assembly (assuming that is a right in canada, but I wouldn’t know.)
@kittehs
Somehow missed that first time reading O_o ::judging ‘pro equality’::
@sidestinkappleeye
Hi and welcome 🙂
That comment is long enough so I don’t bore to many people. Some day I will catch up with this thread. Some day! ::shakes hand up in air angrily::
This means we can trap you in a ManBoobz Loop, if we post fast enough. You’ll be perpetually reading comments as long as we can maintain commentariet momentum.
Quick! Everyone! Cats are lovely but I sometimes like seals too this is a conundrum, how do I solve it?
Leopard Seals!
No, wait, they’re not really leopards, are they?
@Fade, he used to peddle his edgy anti-SJ shit all over LiveJournal, before he got banned. He was featured on SF_D a number of times (IIRC it was his evasion of the community ban, under the clever handle “neeksitnilc”, that finally got him banned from LJ).
Ah. Well, I barely ever go to live journal so I guessthat’s why I haven’t heard of him.
Well since this thread is a million pages long and we are maintaining a momentum, what’s up with that New Hampshire legislator referring to women as vaginas in that email?
Washington Post
@Fade I’m looking for links, but it’s hard because LJ (1) is hard to search and (2) automatically deletes every comment ever made by a banned journal.