Categories
a voice for men advocacy of violence antifeminism atheism minus creepy harassment hate lying liars men who should not ever be with ponies ever men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA rape culture rape jokes reddit threats YouTube

So who exactly has been harassing that red-haired Canadian feminist? A not-quite-scientific survey

MRAs rarely let facts get in the way of their tantrums
MRAs rarely let facts get in the way of their tantrums

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.

siggle

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.

479 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
clintiskeen
11 years ago

Actually it appears it may have been a link to livejournal that was being caught in the filter, not the length of the post:

“How can you possibly claim that you aren’t MRA-affiliated? Your blog and Facebook (which is linked to from your blog) indicate you identify with Anti-Feminist groups.”

There is an anti fem freq facebook community I made myself. I made it because I was annoyed by a friend who kept saying how great he was for contributing to Anita Sarkeesian’s shitty kickstarter. I made that community for fun. See how it works is I claimed the community was unmoderated, but secretly it is. In the administrator panel you can ban certain words or terms. I (think I) banned “rape culture” and “Patriarchy”. The thing is on facebook you don’t get a “some words you’ve used are inappropriate” you get a message that says “This message can not be posted at this time. Try again later”

The plan was to advertise the community on antifeminist channels to get things going, then once it was ripe with choice comments sure to enrage the mentally unbalanced people on SF DRAMA AT LIVEJOURNAL then post the link there as one of the puppet accounts I have there. The plan was to watch them all go apeshit and freak out because they can’t post for some reason. It’s one of those ideas I came up with, put a small amount of effort into and gave up on when it seemed that antifeminists didn’t actually have anything to say about Sarkeesian. It would have been funnier if I had been willing to put more work into it.

“And, what if I said you were mean to us, calling us idiots and more, and then I went and posted all your personal information here, then hundreds of people starting threatening you with rape? Would you like that? Would we be misrepresenting the situation if instead of saying how horrible that response was, we made sure to point out that you called us names and were rude and dismissive in a forum that was not made for your voice?”

I have called a few of you idiots, so I guess that would be fair. Any information that I have on my facebook is public information. Post away. I don’t say things I won’t stand behind.

clintiskeen
11 years ago

Now the first half is awaiting moderation and the second half isn’t. I think the system is mistaking me with a computer program :/

clintiskeen
11 years ago

freemage if you were half the internet lawyer you thought you were, you would know that libel is only when you can prove that the intent was to characterise someone in a manner inconsistent with the truth. Painting Chanty (which let’s face it is probably an alias anyway) as someone who thinks her message is more important than the law, is like painting a grass as green

CassandraSays
11 years ago

Seems like it’s about time for the banhammer to land on our drama-seeking little buddy.

Briznecko
Briznecko
11 years ago

Wow. I think a box of rocks can outsmart Clinty.

Be so ignorant that you’ve managed to shove your head up your ass so hard that it’s come back out of your own mouth and gone around for a second time, like some sort of Ouroboros of Asshattery.

freemage, this is hilaroiusly awesome and apt. Please accept one misandrous gift-wrapped internet.

bahumbugi
bahumbugi
11 years ago

So in theory — full name, state you reside in, profession and professional accolades, and pictures of yourself — that would be fair game?

Don’t worry, though. I’m just letting you know the reality of the situation.

And I repeat again

Clint, so, you would be happy and satisfied if we said yes, she was rude, made a sarcastic response when someone yelled out about suicide, drowned out a soft speaker at a public event, and was a rowdy protestor–that’s what you want?

You’ve demonstrated you’re a sadist.

qocheedy
qocheedy
11 years ago

@ clintiskeen:

Did you just attempt to support your argument (whatever the hell it may be; I’m not even sure at this point) by linking to an undergraduate essay posted online for other undergraduates plagiarize? Really?

qocheedy
qocheedy
11 years ago

*for other undergraduates to plagiarize.

clintiskeen
11 years ago

“So in theory — full name, state you reside in, profession and professional accolades, and pictures of yourself — that would be fair game?”

only if, in a similar situation to this one where I linked the information. I mean that information is there because I put it there. I am against doxxing in general, but in this one isolated incident where its you and me and I linked to that information by using my facebook, sure that’s fair.

If you say went beyond that and say took geolocation data from the photographs there, then went to my neigborhood with a GPS to figure out which particular condo I live in, then posted the address from that so that people could send pizzas and taxis to my house at all hours of the night, that would be wrong, and more in line with what people were doing to Chanty. (and really let’s face it, who hasn’t to some degree gotten online death threats? the only difference here was people had the realistic ability to find her because of the doxxing)

I mean there is to some degree fair use of linked information. If you want to tell everyone my real name, go for it. I mean everyone ascertained that my name was Clint from my name.

I mean if you are trying to convince me that doxxing is wrong, you’re wasting your time as I have said over and over doxxing is wrong, online threats are wrong, etc. The point is that I also don’t think it’s fair for a blog that is about “mocking misogyny” to reverse engineer history to make this woman into a holy blameless martyr. I mean it’s one thing to leave out what she did because it’s not important to the narrative what happened to her is bad, but to change history and say “Her crime? She wasn’t exactly polite in responding to the interrupters.” is disingenuous. I mean it’s probably true if she hadn’t done the interview and acted like the most unpleasant human being in recorded history, there wouldn’t have been the LULZ generated to make the rest of the story come out, but it doesn’t mean that was her crime. Her crime wasn’t being a comically insane angry loon like Papa Slaughter, her crime was other things that came out because she was willing to make a side show out of herself. I mean have you SEEN any of the videos? Even the one where she isn’t marginalizing or harassing anyone she’s acting like someone who should be medicated in some way.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Yawn. TL;DR, fuck off Clint.

pillowinhell
11 years ago

Ermm…did Clinty just accuse her of felony fraud?

*rereads post

How the hell do you get from a perfectly legal protest to fraud?

Oh boy, I gotta catch up on my reading because his reasoning has GOT to be amusing!!

thebewilderness
thebewilderness
11 years ago

I stir up shit for fun and lulz pretty much tells us everything we need to know about the clintster.

Briznecko
Briznecko
11 years ago

Yup. A box of rocks could run intellectual circles around Clinty.

bahumbugi
bahumbugi
11 years ago

okay, i’m finally satisfied that i get him completely.

pillowinhell
11 years ago

Clint, she’s not getting pizza and beer delivered to her house at all hours. She’s getting death and rape threats along with posts giving enough credible information to make her believe someone could be waiting for her there. Pizza and beer is annoying mischief, and easily sorted out. Death and rape threats are a serious existential concerns.

But it really says something about your world view that you are trying to equate the two.

cloudiah
11 years ago

Oh boy, I gotta catch up on my reading because his reasoning has GOT to be amusing!!

One would think that, but it’s not. It’s really really boring, full of circular logic, assumptions, and goalpost shifting.

Molly Moon
Molly Moon
11 years ago

Clint, we get it. You think women should be seen and not heard. This is a personal problem that you should work out on your own and not on the Internet where everyone can see you.

You guys, how can someone be as dumb as Clint and still be alive? He keeps remembering to breathe somehow. It’s almost impressive!

freemage
freemage
11 years ago

freemage if you were half the internet lawyer you thought you were, you would know that libel is only when you can prove that the intent was to characterise someone in a manner inconsistent with the truth. Painting Chanty (which let’s face it is probably an alias anyway) as someone who thinks her message is more important than the law, is like painting a grass as green

You attempted to characterize her as someone who had committed a felony. You presented no evidence of this; the evidence you did present was directly contrary to your characterization, in fact. Ergo, yes, you libelous, lying, shit-spewing fuckweasel, you libeled her.

freemage
freemage
11 years ago

Cloudiah: And lies. Don’t forget the lies. He makes several of them.

pillowinhell
11 years ago

Why am I not surprised that clint is refusing to respond to anyone other than Pecunium?

Pecunium, what’s your secret with the troll love?

clintiskeen
11 years ago

“Clint, we get it. You think women should be seen and not heard. ”

Clearly. Clearly that is what I said.

“Clint, she’s not getting pizza and beer delivered to her house at all hours.”

No, but we weren’t talking about her, we’re talking about me. Also I said Taxis, because pizza and taxis are common attacks after an internet doxx. Also again we’re talking about me. Any Doxxing would probably include my love for my 180 pound dog and the picture of the “I support the second amendment” sticker over the peephole in my front door. Someone would have to be a special mix of dumb and psychotic to respond to me with death and rape threats.

This is how the “argument” has been going so far. I say a thing and people either say why it doesn’t apply to something I wasn’t talking about, or how it really means something I didn’t say. I mean next someone is going to reply WELL MAYBE YOU LIKE BEER BEING DELIVERED TO YOUR HOUSE BUT MAYBE SHE DOESN’T. I mean most of the replies to things I have said have been non sequiturs.

clintiskeen
11 years ago

pillowinhell, perhaps not just ranting about things I never said and name calling is more likely to get responses from me. Just a thought.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

No, but we weren’t talking about her, we’re talking about me.

How’s the different from any other post of yours? This whole thing is turning into the Clint show. You have a pathetic need for attention.

clintiskeen
11 years ago

“You attempted to characterize her as someone who had committed a felony.”

And she did.

hellkell
hellkell
11 years ago

Did not.