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.
Life’s not fair, Clint. Tough shit for you.
Clint: 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.
What’s fair?
Treating women like people, with equal rights, and treatments and privileges.
They are against it (and looking at what you say, you aren’t for it).
They don’t think that’s fair. They think treating women as things is fair.
Fuck that noise.
(or maybe we can teach psychopaths not to be psychopaths. The whole time, the problem was just lack of a class on that)
Pssst, Clint. Your ignorance is showing again. Why don’t you go away and fix that?
the way that you’re representing yourself, your relationship to the MRM, and your history with this site is completely dishonest? Yeah, that is what it seems like.
Clint: No, it’s not that you aren’t a “manly man”, it’s that you are a childish prat.
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?
One word.
Stuebenville.
These things are results of legitimate personality disorders like psychopathy, not as a result of testicles.
Nice, dodge, No true scotsman. Rapists are “normal”, therefore normal people don’t need to be told not to rape.
Guess what, kids take shit. They aren’t abnormal. So we teach them not to take shit.
Kids hit people. They aren’t abnormal. So we teach them not to hit people.
People (mostly men) rape people. They aren’t abnormal. So we teach them not to rape.
clinty: The reason we’re calling you an MRA is because if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck and swims like a duck, then we tend to assume that it is, in fact, a misogynistic bag of weaselshit.
Your blathering on about rape and how horrible it is to be thought of as a potential rapist is one of the top three talking-points of the MRM. As hyperfocused as you are on it, it’s clear that the only reason you would not be an MRA is because you’re too lazy to go to their sites–except, of course, that it’s already been mentioned that your own blog contains references to MRA writings, so you’re not quite as ignorant of them as you’d love us to believe.
If someone were to come into a site dedicated to mocking neo-Nazis, and started spouting off about how the Jews were secretly using their control of the banks to manipulate racial minorities to hate the Aryan race, then even if that particular individual had never been to a rally, never put up a swastika and never shouted a “Sieg Heil”, it’d still be fair for everyone else at that site to assume he was a neo-Nazi.
In short, taking you at your word (something I’m disinclined to do, personally, since we’ve already demonstrated on the other thread that you will flat-out lie if it suits your purposes), we still come to the conclusion that you are, in fact, an example of someone who has managed to re-invent the wheel, only your ‘wheel’ is misogynistic horseshit. You may not be a ‘card-carrying MRA’, but dude, the difference between you and them is non-existent.
@clint,
Actually from what I’ve seen the MRAs are totally inconsistent: They believe that *their* might is “right” (i.e., anything aggressive or awful they want to do to someone else is okay) but anyone else’s might is wrongful oppression and hate. They think the exact same actions from a man to a woman are justified, but a woman to a man are horribly unfair. How is that morally consistent in the slightest?
Nowhere in the original post does it say “Any sort of behavior that could in any way be considered harassing (i.e., disruptive, upsetting) is totally unacceptable at all times” or anything along that line. It’s clear that it’s specifically talking about the extreme (and *illegal*) harassment consisting of rape and death threats. Which are a crime. The line “her only crime” which you keep objecting to is completely accurate in this sense, because the activist did not commit any crimes. She was involved in a legal protest, doing things that were legal to do at a protest. (You have brought up the fire alarm issue, but it’s clear from the video, as has also been pointed out, that she didn’t pull the alarm, so that’s irrelevant.) Again, she did not commit any crimes. Therefore that statement is not inaccurate.
And anyway, if you’re right, and the MRAs attacking her really do consider her real crime not to be her impolite responses to interrupters, but her involvement in the protest, then why are they singling her out and not, oh, all the other people involved in the protest? If they are only harassing her, and the only thing she did differently from the other people was yell at those interrupting her, then yes, it is only logical to assume that the “crime” they are attacking her for is the yelling at those interrupting her.
Finally, I’m not in favor of “going to other sites”. I’m in favor of people practicing what they preach. If you actually thought what the MRAs are doing was wrong, and was far more wrong than anything their target could be accused of, then you would be more concerned with stopping them from doing it than with making sure there isn’t a tiny detail somewhere in a post trying to address their behavior that might be slightly inaccurate by some interpretation. There are these things called “priorities”. Your priority is apparently “make sure anything bad that could possibly be said about this woman is said”. Shockingly, most of us have the priority of, “make sure people realize how horrific it is to attack a person in this way.” I find your priority highly questionable, and find it very difficult to believe you actually think rape and death threats are as deplorable as you claim to when you place such a low priority on stopping them vs. pointing out negative things about their target.
But hey, that’s all just reason and logic. Far be it from me to interrupt your desire to rant about minor inaccuracies that don’t really make any difference to the larger issue!
well in fairness it seems most women aren’t in favor of treating women with equal rights either. There is a pervasive attitude that women should somehow get a playing field stacked in their advantage if they feel they are at a disadvantage. So no, I’m not for that. Privilege comes out of societal construct, not rule of law. That’s where the goofy zero sum bullshit gets involved on your end. For every privilege of men you take away and reverse under the law, a female societal privilege remains. I mean if it’s truly a game of equality why is everyone keeping score on both sides? That’s what zero sum is.
…
There is no such thing as female privilege. And you keep flip flopping between “unbiased reporting!!!!!” and “you can’t say teach men not to rape/female privilege!!!” in your points. It’d be much simpler if you’d stick to one.
And also, some women aren’t in favor of treating women with equal rights. Because they have internalized misogyny. it’s not like we’re going to start a matriarchy and say kill all men.
“Nowhere in the original post does it say “Any sort of behavior that could in any way be considered harassing (i.e., disruptive, upsetting) is totally unacceptable at all times” or anything along that line. “That was actually said. that was a thing that happened.
no, but that’s how this got started. Someone said there has to be a zero tolerance for harassment, and I pointed out that the OP from two days ago and now I am replying to replies of replies of replies of replies, mostly saying “WELL I’LL BASICALLY IGNORE EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND HEY LOOK AT THIS THING OVER HERE! WELL I MUST BE RIGHT, OK BYE BYE. ALSO YOU ARE A LOT OF BAD NAMES, CLINT”
“There is no such thing as female privilege.”
Yes there is. It’s a systematic valuation of the female over the male. It’s actually a construct of the patriarchy you hate so much.
@Clint
Citation needed.
Clint, female privilege is a myth. Right up there with misandry.
Clint, benevolent sexism is still sexism, not valuation.
I can’t help but note that clint, the libelous, lying, shit-spewing fuckweasel, still has yet to address the explicit accusation that he committed libel in the prior thread when he accused RHA of committing a felony without a shred of evidence of to that claim (and, in fact, his own evidence undermining it).
Citation needed
Citation needed
Citation needed
Citation needed
Citation needed
Citation needed
First one that came to mind after “Women and children first” which I don’t think has been a thing since people started traveling by plane instead of boats
Abstract
The Federal criminal sentencing guideline which was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005 required that males and females who commit the same crime and have the same prior criminal history be sentenced equally (Oaxaca, Sarnikar, & Sorensen, 2007). By using data obtained from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice records, we examine the existence of any gender-based bias in criminal sentencing decisions (Oaxaca, Sarnikar, & Sorensen, 2007). We treat the crime as the independent variable, and the time served as the dependent variable that will determine these truths. Additionally, we control the variables through examining random cases that were identical in offense type and prior criminal history. If time served is not equal amongst both male and female, stricter policies should be enforced in order to have fairness in sentencing.
http://www.studymode.com/essays/Gender-Equality-Women-Serving-Less-Time-621679.html
In other words, Clint, coming on and saying “I feel it’s not fair! My feelings tell me it’s not fair. My feelings” is not an argument of anything about how you personally feel.
Clint: go back a few million pages on the other thread (the one where you lied over and over), we’ve discussed sentencing.
You really gonna talk about shipwrecks? You are not to be taken seriously, and I think you know that, that’s why you keep coming back.
Wow, my brain is starting to hurt. How is someone who acts like he would want to understand so bad at reading comprehension?Is this deliberate? Misunderstanding everything they’re told and then repeating exactly the same thing they said before (as if saying it often enough would make us all go: ‘Oh, if you put it that way…’)
This could go on forever, Clint is caught in a loop.
‘No, not every man is a rapist, we’re saying they have the potential so we have to teach them anyway, and also that’ll teach them not to blame the victim which makes it easier to report the crime…’ ‘SO YOU’RE SAYING ALL MEN ARE RAPISTS WHY WON’T YOU LISTEN TO ME’…
And then fighting straw people. Not even straw feminist. All the people he can imagine are apparently made of straw.
And is probably to lazy to look the shit up that’s talked about.
I said the redhead committed incitement to felony fraud by enraging a group of people and storming a building with them brandishing a bullhorn. She did that and one of them pulled the fire alarm. I don’t see how that is libelous
Bummocks, ninja’d by Fade! But admire at my blockquote control, everyone! *Runs away before the bloackquote monster gets her*
So, whose sock do we think it is this time?
Manboobz – the place where all the foot-related garments that ones loses in the dryer end up.
Clint: you don’t see a lot of things.
Cassandra: I don’t think this one’s a sock. He’s genuinely not bright enough.