So the Men’s Rights subreddit has temporarily relaxed its policy of not allowing links to the terrible cesspool of lies that is Man Boobz to allow this post attacking me for detailing the disgusting threats and harassment a certain Canadian feminist activist has faced in recent days.
Most of the commenters flatly ignored the evidence of doxing and harassment that I included in my post — if they even bothered to read it — and simply invented their own story of what had happened. Instead of denouncing those who left death threats, they attacked me and the activist in question. And blamed all the ugliness on “trolls.”
Men’s Rights regular Sigil1, who used to post awful comments on Man Boobz as Eoghan (and using countless other sockpuppet accounts) responded in an all-too-predictable fashion, by falsely accusing me of making “false accusations” against MRAs.
You may recall that in my post I offered two pieces of evidence that showed that MRAs were involved in posting this woman’s personal information on the internet — that is, doxing her. One was a large screenshot from a Men’s Rights forum containing a wide array of her personal information including phone numbers and her home address. I also noted that the A Voice for Men forum featured links to several of her dating profiles.
In other words, these are clearly MRAs, and they have been disseminating her personal information — that is, doxing — her. To repeat, and I’m sorry that I have to repeat such an utterly simpleminded point: THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE (WHO ARE MRAS) ARE DOXING HER MEANS THAT MRAS HAVE BEEN DOXING HER. Other people who are probably not MRAs have also been doxing her.
In the Reddit thread, giegerwasright complains that “they” — meaning me –“are also moving the goalposts on doxxing to suit their needs.” Well, no. I’d say that a post on a Men’s Rights forum that includes her picture, links to her Facebook page, her Tumblr blog, her YouTube account, her old Twitter account, a dating profile, her home address and two phone numbers is “doxing” by pretty much everyone’s definition of the term.
As anyone who looks at the large screenshot I posted earlier would see, its author — a famous MRA spammer who goes by the name John Rambo — urged men to “contact her through one of the below methods and ask her why she hates men so much.”
In my earlier post I showed you the sort of horrific stuff many of those who have been contacting her have been saying.
Did I provide proof that any of these threatening and harassing comments were from MRAs? Well, aside from one message from A Voice for Men’s Dan Perrins, which was more of a gloating message than a threatening one, no. Part of the reason for this is that most of the direct threats sent to the activist were sent — wait for it — anonymously. That’s how threat-makers generally do things. Cuts down the possibility of getting in trouble.
As for the YouTube comments, I didn’t check. Why? Because, given that the video in question was titled “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event,” and that the video was linked to on assorted Men’s Rights sites including the Men’s Rights subreddit and A Voice for Men, I figured that the odds were pretty good that a lot of them were MRAs; certainly the odds that none of them were MRAs were pretty much zero. (And of course I never claimed they were all MRAs.)
But as I sat down to write this post I found I was curious about these nasty YouTube people. So I did a little experiment. I went through the list of awful YouTube comments that I posted on Monday, and took at look at the YouTube feeds of the various commenters who left them to see if I could determine whether or not they were MRAs. I included only those who made threatening and/or misogynist comments, and left out a few that didn’t provide enough information for me to make an educated guess.
Here are the results. But first, a TRIGGER WARNING, because I quote liberally from their nasty, violent and often crudely sexual comments. (You can skim down to my summary of what I found if you wish to avoid the gruesome details.)
.
.
.
YouTuber Kilz Bryce, who wished a gruesome “death by cheese grater” to the red-haired activist (henceforth RHA), is an otherwise unassuming Japanese fan of Taylor Swift and Carly Rae Jepsen. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA.
Slurpos, who suggested shooting the RHA, is a racist conspiracy-monger who recently called MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry a “slut.” VERDICT: Misogynist, but not a confirmed MRA.
Joris667, who suggested a “cock up the arse,” recently “liked” an antifeminist video by Mykeru, who just happens to be a contributor to A Voice for Men. VERDICT: Possibly an MRA.
Damndisplace07, who suggested punching the RHA, has posted a bunch of rambling, ranty misogynistic videos on YouTube, some of which rely heavily on Manosphere ideology and jargon. VERDICT: Probably an MRA.
BusinessmanBandit is a young entrepreneur and goldbug who likes referring to women as “bitches.” VERDICT: Misogynist, but not a confirmed MRA.
Lazywhiteb0y, who “would love to punch this annoying cunt directly in the face,” is a fan of rap, country music, guns and beer. VERDICT: Misogynist, but not a confirmed MRA.
Akranejames, who also favors punching “this type of feminist,” is mostly obsessed with video games. But he also made a recent comment suggesting that we should abandon feminism and “machism” for “equalism,” and the only people I’ve ever heard use that ridiculous term have been hopeless MRA types. VERDICT: Probably an MRA, or at least a sometime reader of Mens’ Rights sites.
Leinster4life13, who wanted to ship her to Saudi Arabia, is a soccer enthusiast who also recently “liked” a video by the notoriously misogynistic Manhood Academy. VERDICT: Probably an MRA, or at least an MRA-in-training.
Chocolateking1, who made a joke about keeping “bitches” in the kitchen, seems to be, well, the sort of trolly asshole who thinks jokes about keeping “bitches” in the kitchen. VERDICT: Misogynist, probably not an MRA.
MadDogFritz, who railed about “feminazi propaganda” and made three separate comments on three different videos demanding to know “who is the the red headed pig monster with the attitude,” has recently commented on a number of MRA videos and is also a big fan of TheAmazingAtheist and his antifeminist rants. Also has complained about “women’s lib.” VERDICT: Seems pretty damn MRAish to me.
Robert alakaka, who declared that the RHA is “one of the most unlikable cunts in his [?] existence,” and that he “sincerely hopes she dies,” is a raging misogynist and homophobe who recently “liked” a video featuring the MRA-ish “Dick Masterson” explaining how “men are better than women.” Aaaaand he’s a fan of TheAmazingAtheist. VERDICT: Definitely MRA-ish.
TheTrueValkyrie66, who compared the RHA unfavorably to goatse, is also a fan of TheAmazingAtheist and — wait for it — MyLittlePony. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA, but seems to have stepped straight out of the Big Book of Redditor Stereotypes.
HUEHEUHE HEUHEUEH, who made a generic misogynist remark, seems to be a Brony. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA.
EndlessCycleofPride, who declared “I hope you get raped,” is way into bodybuilding. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA, but a terrible person nonetheless.
Dominic Galvin, who declared “I want to punch her,” is a vintage car enthusiast and yet another fan of TheAmazingAtheist, especially his antifeminist rants. VERDICT: Possible MRA.
Corbbin Goldsmith, who suggested oral rape, is a software synth enthusiast and bedroom musician. VERDICT: An awful person, but there’s no indication he’s an MRA.
Amaurypenseur, who thinks that “feminists deserve rape as punishment,” is a weird Belgian who hates American culture, “hanker[s for] a society based on war, inequality and irrationally,” and is a sort-of fan of, um, Hitler. Verdict: Antifeminist (obviously) but probably not an MRA as such.
Theninja36, who wanted to “punch her in the face,” is a American gamer who seems a tad obsessed with Japan. VERDICT: Clearly hates feminists, as several of his comments attest, but there’s no indication he’s an MRA.
About all I can tell about Jack Ofalltrades, who made a crude, racist sexual suggestion, is that he’s a fan of the XFactor. VERDICT: Probably not an MRA.
So what have we learned here, aside from the sad fact that going through the histories of a whole bunch of YouTubers takes a fuck of a lot longer than I thought it would when I started out? Well, a number of things.
Out of the nineteen horrible commenters I was able to determine anything about, only one, Chocolateking1, seems to even vaguely fit the stereotype of the amoral, lulz-seeking troll that our friend Sigil1 wants to blame for all this.
Most of the commenters have been on YouTube for some time, with most of them using the site as an outlet for their various obsessions, which may or may not include hating on feminism. In a few cases they seem to be posting under their real names, which makes it all the more amazing that they’re perfectly willing to post violent and/or sexual comments as if no one except the nasty feminists would find any of this at all objectionable. Virtually all of them seem to be genuinely and unashamedly misogynistic.
Eight of the nineteen commenters are explicitly antifeminist, which puts them more than halfway along the route to possible MRAhood. Six — roughly a third of the total — are probably MRAs, or at the very least consumers of Men’s Rights and/or Manosphere media. Four are fans of TheAmazingAtheist. (NOTE TO SELF: TheAmazingAtheist has some really, really shitty fans.)
So congratulations, fellas: only perhaps a third of the many hundreds of terrible people who have been harassing and threatening the activist in question on YouTube seem to be MRAs or MRA-adjacent. Given that the total number of MRAs in the world is probably less than the number of people who watched that one video, that’s pretty impressive.
The comments I looked at here, nonetheless, are only a small fraction of the total number of threatening and/or harassing comments about the red-haired activist that have been posted to YouTube, and that are still being posted as you read this. She also received hundreds of messages directly, most of them anonymous.
Even if most of these messages weren’t sent by people who identify explicitly as MRAs, a signficant proportion clearly were, so we’re still talking about many dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of MRAs and fellow travelers who decided that the appropriate response to the video of the red-haired activist was to fire off comments and messages calling her a “bitch” or a “cunt” or something equally odious — and/or suggesting that she should be punched, or raped or even killed.
This whole exercise has helped to make even clearer to me why so many MRAs have made their names posting videos on YouTube: Because YouTube is filled to overflowing with the sort of terrible people who think rape threats are hilarious and that GirlWritesWhat is a genius.
MRAs, these people are your audience. Your peeps. Your most likely source of future converts. (Well, maybe not that Belgian Hitler fan. He’s got some ideas about statutory rape of teen boys that are as likely to offend MRAs as they are to offend feminists.)
And you wonder why so many see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement. (Hint: It’s the hate.)
NOTE: My promised post reflecting a bit more on A Voice for Men’s role in this all should go up tomorrow.
Minter: I am telling you, stay your course, continue to humiliate and ignore the real grievances of the men, greviences that whether you agree or not, are very real to them, keep telling them to “shut the fuck up” and this shit will not end well.
Yep, because if your people start killing people, they will lose.
You are (hopelessly) outnumbered. Between the women of the world, and the men who don’t think of them in the twisted and pathetic way you do, you can’t win.
The power of The State, which you think is lined up against you now, will actually start to pay focused attention to you.
When you look at the absolute lack of capability to organisation, planning, logistics and the like, The Order or Shawna Ford
You don’t know how to package a message. Look at the Republican Party. They have the access to the press, and the levers of power and they can’t keep from stepping on their dicks about women. It’s costing them, and they have a much wider focus of interest. Even with that they aren’t managing to get the votes.
And you, preaching, “women are shit” are going to do better?
Nope.
p.s. I see some more recipes have come in, so thanks for those.
TTF: Can anyone else articulate this weird quality in this disproportionate outrage at some dude being told to ‘stfu’.
Privilege.
These guys don’t want to admit they have to treat women as people (much less as equals). They think the world ought to have a giant, “No Girlz aloud” sign on it. Speak when spoken to, do what you’re told and the back of their hand if you don’t.
Being told to STFU, in a tone that says the speaker expects them to listen undercuts their (already fragile) sense of place in the world.
Then (OMG WTF! THIS IS SERIOUS!!!!!!!) other dudes are telling them they are full of shit, and need to calm down… just as if they were girls (which is wrong we are telling them to take a chill-pill because women are people, decent human beings don’t treat other human beings like that).
Which further undercuts their sense of place in the world. For them (which is sad) this is an existential crisis. The world they want to exist in is already gone (it never really was), and they are fighting (a losing fight) to bring into being.
Situations like this make it plain to them just how far out of the mainstream/power they are. If any woman can show up and (even temporarily) shut down an event. If they need the police to keep women from beig abele to act like real people, with rights and everything, then their movement is pretty much doomed.
And that makes them angry.
@ Pecunium- Wow. That makes absolute perfect sense. How do you do that?
TTF: Years spend crawling around in peoples heads.
Combine that with just how much MRM/MRA/MGTOW there is to read, and I have a fair bit of (fairly broadly based) material to analyse.
They want a world where they have power. They don’t live in one. There is a vision of a world where they might have had power; in the Golden Age of the past. They want that world.
Being shown they can’t have it, well it’s pretty much the worst thing that can happen, it attacks their dreams. It’s why this is the hill they are willing to die on. It’s one of the few ways they can show they have some power. If that’s wrong, they don’t want to be right.
It’s a young toddler’s approach to conflict. Unhappy? Throw a tantrum! Throw your toys! Hit your mom! Shriek meaninglessly until you literally run out of breath in the middle of the grocery store floor!
@pecunium
Combined with the sad and contemplative song in the background your post seems almost poetic to me. (It’s only funny in my head, but I’m gonna post it anyway because for some reason I wasn’t told to shut up yet).
@baglesan
there was a little girl on my bus today that wouldn’t stop screaming. She laughed while doing it, she wasn’t sad, she just wanted attention. There’s one difference though: I thought it was cute.
And city tv does a piece on the protests without saying why the feminist protestors OR the U of T Student Union is afraid they will be targeted by harassment. You know, it isn’t that hard to find documentation of actual harassment, not just MRA delusions:
@TomBcat: oh sure! At least with a little kid it can be cute, and they’ll likely grow out of it.
The other thing is that, on the net one can, with a small amount of patience, one can have l’espirit de l’escalier. Which makes it easier to get a handle on someone, sense one can (with some safety) assume that what they took the time to write, they had to process at least a bit. Even if they (as I do) are mostly writing on the fly, the work of composing a sentence/thought to put it in order on the page is more than to just blurt something from one’s mouth.
And things which matter (blogposts, responsorial comments, etc.) are more likely to be pondered, even polished. That’s more insight.
So when someone goes, “I was taken out of context”, ok: once. When it’s steady, then the speaker has something s/he isn’t paying attention to the undertones and subtext. MRAs, are lousy about that. They have so internalised the oddities of the MRM ideations that they see things which aren’t true; e.g. that “RHA started it” and one has to take that into account when condemning the people who are attacking her. The implication is this is, at some level, a legitimate response [yes Clint I am talking about you]. That implies (to me) that some of them see this as self-defense.
So what are they defending?
To see that one has to look at what they are attacking, and how.
A single woman. They didn’t crowdsource identifying everyone who was there. They took an easy target. That tells me a few things. They need a single person to, “make an example of”. That tells me they don’t feel all that strong. They aren’t really attacking what she said/did [No Clint</b< they aren't. It's not about the noise in the hall (don't bring that weak-shit fire alarm; nor try to pretend she {much less she alone} stopped the lecture).
They are attacking her. They are saying, "we are going to get you!". That's terrorising. Again, terroristic attacks are done from a place of, relative weakness (see my reply to Minter about why they have a structural weakness).
What is the point of the attack? To make her shut up. Why? So other people (in particular women) will also shut up.
What motivates that?
And so you get what I said above.
1) If “talking the talk” and “apologizing for rape threats” are equal to disagreeing with the factual account of what lead up to them, I suppose? I mean I think John Wayne Bobbitt was horrible to his wife. The fact that she sexually mutilated him doesn’t erase that. It doesn’t change the history that happened as in this case, “Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters.” and acting like that video was the only video when in fact there were three more. In your world admitting that factual thing = rape apology. The out of context quote the other person was using was a quote from an article I wrote AGAINST MRAs, you stupid ass.
2) You’re still missing the point. Yes (for all intents and purposes) rapists are men. You’re taking that fact and using it to say men are rapists, which isn’t true, and in fact is sexism at its worst. You can’t condemn an entire group for the crimes of a minority within that group. You’d know that was the issue if you bothered to read the article she was commenting on instead of assuming you knew what was going on because a man was saying it or whatever diseased stereotyping system you used to get you to to the point where I am a MRA rape apologist and you aren’t an idiot
You are terrorists. You are a hate group.
Aw, Clint’s all upset again. Clint, you should take a nap or something, you’re getting frothy again.
Shorter Clint:
“A woman protesting an event on a public sidewalk is EXACTLY THE SAME as cutting off dicks!!”
I’m bored and have a couple free minutes,so I’m going to respond to trollboy.
This is just showing how much privilege you have. Sexism at its worst for women is getting devalued, treated as a disembodied vagina, treated as just for sex. Sexism at its worst* for men is being treated as if you’d treat a woman that way.
I’d much rather be accused of being a bully than be bullied, is all. But since you haven’t been on the receiving end of that kind of behavior, you assume that what you get is the worst.
*I don’t actually think this is sexism at its worst for men, but Clint seems to.
Clint’s not very bright, I wish he’d stop proving it over and over.
As least Clint’s thorough!
Completely OT but Clint says boring shit so I might as well…
I don’t remember who it was, but a few days ago there was talk about Louis CK and a joke about women and dating, I wonder if it was this?
http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/04/louis-ck-told-a-feminist-rape-joke.html
According to the article he learned something, which is nice. People can listen! That happens!Clint? Clint?
Also, still no one said all men are rapists. Clint?
Meh. So much for listening.
Okay Clint. So, we want to get away from being suspicous of any particular man possibly being a rapist.
Can you explain to me how to positively identify a rapist before he attacks? How will I know which men I can safely look at with suspicion or be cautious to avoid in the general population?
Because as soon as we figure out the answer to this question, the faster society will say teach rapists not to rape. Which is the more targeted response you want.
Clint has his fee-fees hurt again
You admit that most rapists are men. But you get upset if people deal with that in a reasonable way.
Me, I deal with the entire world that way. I, as a man, have as much risk of being raped, but I treat everyone I see on the street a potential threat. Men, Women, kids; it’s not a function of who they are (I don’t know them) but of the potential for harm they have.
I see a cop/soldier I look to see if they are right/left handed. I do that so I can know which way to dive (and for what sort of cover) if they decide to bring a weapon to the ready. It’s not that I expect them to shoot my way, but they might.
Same with rape. It’s not about you. No woman is going to walk up to you, for no reason, and say, “You might rape me”. Mostly, she’s not even going to consisder it. It’s not going to keep her from talking to you in a club/at a party. It’s not going to keep her from sleeping with you (not directly, the attitudes I can assume go with your being so defensive on the subject might put her off). If you aren’t a rapist there is no harm done.
If you are, and she doesn’t treat you like that, she is putting herself at risk.
Now, to RHA. What was her crime? You were all over the legalistic shit. So let’s go there.’
What was her Crime. What was she arrested for? What was she charged with? What was she convicted of?
Nothing, you libelous piece of weasel dung. So this isn’t “justice” it’s a lynch mob. Why should we take, “context” into account for vigilantes? Esp. when I can’t see anyone who was “harmed” (the lecture took place) standing up to say, “I’ve been harassing her”. No, this is anonymous people from we don’t know where.
What did she do which merits this level of response? All I see her doing is telling someone to shut the fuck up.
But, lets look at another case. A case where there were arrests, charges, convictions Not just any crime. But the one the MRM tells us the mere accusations of (even when false, and completely unfounded) will totally destroy a man’s life.
Let’s look at how severely the Stuebenville Rapists have been treated. How they are being hounded, and harried (the way she has been). Oh, wait. They aren’t.
We get told “those poor boys, their lives are ruined; because they made a mistake.” So what’s the context again?
Disrupt a meeting, have your life torn apart; never mind there was no crime. Commit a crime (a rape) and get the national media whining about how hard it is, and how terrible that you should have to go to jail, maybe even for three years.
The MRM even even more upset. They think there never should have been a trial, and that even an arrest was a travesty of justice. But this, this terrorism, that’s justified. They don’t even think it’s justice. It’s just a start. What she really needs isn’t jail (which the poor boys should never have needed to fear), but to be raped and mutliated and killed.
That’s why your, “moral high ground” of, “context” is actually a bucket of fermented pig shit.
What I don’t understand is why you like swimming in it.
@clint, more specifically, since apparently you missed it:
Have you also been going to the MRA blogs and challenging the inaccuracies in the way *they’re* reporting on this situation? Like, say, the inaccuracy of them saying no MRAs are involved in the harassment and threats? No? Then you might want to ask yourself why it’s more important to you to make sure the “crimes” of a woman who’s receiving incredibly vicious harassment and threats are not theoretically downplayed, than to make sure the crimes of the people encouraging her harassment aren’t downplayed.
because this site was recommended to me by a friend a week ago. I don’t read their sites. Again, I AM NOT AN MRA MEMBER, READER, FOLLOWER, and had you been paying attention I reject MRAs in their basic premise. Also this whole thing got started because someone was claiming was that any kind of harassment was intolerable, and then denying that Chanty was in any way harassing anyone. You can’t have 0 tolerance for harassment except when it’s someone who “totally deserves it” because that isn’t morally consistent. From what I gather about these MRAs they believe in the might that makes right. They are at least morally consistent. They’re going off the playbook of “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue.”
The real question here, is if you are so in favor of going to other sites, why don’t you go there and try to recruit these disenfranchised men to feminism?
I mean to an outside observer it seems like both sides here are playing some ridiculous zero sum game instead of actually worrying about what’s fair.
Clint: The real question here, is if you are so in favor of going to other sites, why don’t you go there and try to recruit these disenfranchised men to feminism?
Three words.
Red
Headed
Activist.
‘Nuff said.
And I’m off to work, you can take your time in composing a reply, if you think that will help.
pecunium Oh for fuck’s sake you start out with my “fee fees being hurt” you’re right. I must not be a manly man, huh? I see how this game works, call me a representative of your patriarchal conspiracy and when that doesn’t work call me the opposite of that. Good work. Gold stars all around, dipshit.
Most men aren’t rapists and that’s why “teach men not to rape” is moronic. No one has ever been charged with rape and afterwards said, OH SHIT, I WASN’T SUPPOSED TO DO THAT? These things are results of legitimate personality disorders like psychopathy, not as a result of testicles.
Psychopathy (/saɪˈkɒpəθi/[1]) is a personality construct identified by characteristics such as a lack of empathy and remorse, criminality, antisocial behavior, egocentricity, superficial charm, manipulativeness, irresponsibility, impulsivity, and a parasitic lifestyle. As a diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, psychopathy has been replaced by antisocial personality disorder (ASPD).[2]