Canadian feminist activist receives death threats and other abuse after being targeted by Men’s Rights Activists

That… was… Weird.

Essentially correct, though? I guess? I mean, I don’t disagree with most of the points raised, although… I have… I have a small quibble?

On the one hand, doing a lot of research on a societal problem and getting deeply involved with a movement (trying to fix that problem) will surely makes the problem a very personal one, and every signal, point of view, that is going against yours, will be perceived as a threat, a direct “attack” at an important of yourself.

But on the other hand, another effort is demanded to activists : they have to control and hold back their “gut” feelings, they have to endure and resist to the attacks and keep being friendly, listening and open-minded people – or they might miss something vital to their Cause, when they’re busy “defending” themselves against all these “attacks” (*1).

To participate to a movement, you have to give away some of your time (and money), but mostly, a lot of your emotional capacity, to the point of binding your ego to the cause, to co-exist with it : every attack on it hurts you like a personal attack, every victory for the movement makes you so happy – the success of the movement greatly influences your self-esteem.

Since when? What?

You can have standpoints and principles without directly tying those into your ego structure, that’s neither an impossibility nor particular rare. This is a weird and somewhat curious view of psychology, and while I don’t disagree that sometimes, people do substitute their personal ego for a cause at large, those are the kind of people who would that with anything.

Why would you… How… what? What? My confusion! It is paramount to my inability to comprehend!

But there’s another price to pay, another burden to carry : you have to suffer for the Cause, to not make the Cause suffer for you instead. Your ego will take all the hits, the movement will take all the glory. That’s disgustingly unfair (for your ego), but that’s how it works.

When you *feel* like punching that bastard in the face, don’t, and focus on staying a friendly, open-minded person, because that bastard isn’t going to change EVER, you don’t even need to interact with him at all. Meanwhile, you truly need to convince people, and punching the bastard in the face isn’t going to work.

That’s not how that works. That’s never how that works. Why do you think people keep quoting specific leaders for movements, and why someone wins awards for accomplishments within movements?

My quibble! Freudian substantation does not explain some kind of movement of political aims! It doesn’t write it down as a note that you can’t believe in anything without also making that part of your identity. If you hold things so tightly, you’re doing it wrong.

And of course, you can get meta here, you can use the same argument to point out I wouldn’t argue against it if it didn’t “damage” my ego structure. It’s a catch-22, there’s no other outcome than your bliase statement that people can’t have causes without those causes becoming their entire lives.

What a weird view of moral psychology. I disagree.

but thank you for taking the time to write out what you view as the actually interesting questions to ask. That’s nice of you.

You didn’t have to qualify it with the speak-speak about how it wouldn’t have worked if you didn’t point out the current consensus and context. Again, people can differentiate. But with your view of psychology being what it is, I guess you felt you had to point all that out?

Uh… Okay? Try again? Assume we have brains and minds and sapiences that can actually think? That’d be nice.

Gods this was strange.

There was literally nothing new or valuable in that comment.

Aw… Solis has a sad that we aren’t saying she was evil. Cry me a river.

@Solis

Ah, ah – nope. You can’t just say that and then assume that there’s no reason to change how the internet works in this respect. It’s a REAL PROBLEM, you see, so whether that is “how it works” currently is irrelevant.

Oh, and the problem we have with this incident is not that she’s a feminist being threatened with rape and murder, but rather that she’s receiving threats. You seem to be too stupid to get the nuance, though – either that or you’re a dishonest sack of shit, because it’s quite obvious that our stance against these threats have nothing to do with whether the target is a feminist.

And please blame the victim and spew your misogynistic garbage – it’s a great way of highlighting how much of an asshole you are. Now go away.

Many of you may not have noticed, but MRAs, like true Feminists, fight for equality.
This woman, on the other hand, spends the majority of the day screaming at people. The MRAs were actually quite respectful, whereas she was being rude, loud, crass, and wasted the governments time by inciting a riot and having her people pull a freaking fire alarm. She used bully tactics and was quite proud of herself for doing so. I’m all for equality, but this woman is rude, disrespectful, and all around disagreeable as a person. Her ideology is flawed and her methods of spreading it are crass and do more irreparable harm to the movement than anything else in the past 40 or so years. She has single-handedly set the movement back, because her own actions have made her the face most people connect with feminism. Not that HER brand of feminism is any good anyway, she’s one of those new-age tumblr feminists who want men to be subservient to women rather than acheiving actual equality.
And before anyone replies with ”’oh you don’t get it because you’re a blah blah this and that”, i actually happen to be well versed in this subject and i am of the opinion that we women have lost our way in recent years, especially inj regards to the fight for equality.

1) let’s pretend she is a horrible insufferable person, that still doesn’t merit threats. Well that was simple.

2) any redheads want to weigh in on whether she’s an insult to y’all?

Could you be a fair person instead of a man so demasculated he beleives anything a loud angry women says? you focus on the threats against her to somehow justify her actions.
But she intterupted a mens seminar. However you also proclaim it is not ok for men to interupt her when she is talking? Im happy with gender equality. But lets be honest instead of being pathetic sheep. What you advocate is anything women say is EQUAL but men speaking up? No no no. bad men bad. ( how do you even call yourself a male? oh wait i bet your partner tells you what to think so you dont have too )

Wow, that was some incoherent word salad from Steve, who is so happy with gender equality that his idea of an insult is to call someone a woman.

I LOVE GENDER EQUALITY, YOU TERRIBLE FEMALES!!!

@Steve,

Could you be a fair person instead of a man so demasculated he beleives anything a loud angry women says?

I’m not surprised you have a problem with loud, angry women. I bet most women you talk to become loud and angry after hearing what you have to say. You’ve said only a few sentences, and I’m already annoyed.

What you advocate is anything women say is EQUAL but men speaking up? No no no. bad men bad.

Those men weren’t “speaking up”. They were making rape and death threats against her. And yes, they were “bad men bad” when they made those threats.

Bren has hit the nail right on the head.

For at least the fourth time this thread…oh fuck it. Just scroll up.

“Go read the thread. Or at least this page of comments. You’re about the 8th person to say some variation on “the threats justify her actions”, “well she had it coming for what she did”, “the threats are reprehensible but look at what she did”.

So for the billionth time, threats are never the answer.“

So new troll thinks people are accountable for the “sins” of their “ancestors”. Revolutionary. :]