As I finished up my last post about Men’s Rights Redditors attempting to dox a so-called “conservative feminist” blogger who had confessed to trashing male applications when working in a university admissions office, I saw that A Voice for Men has run a post by Paul Elam identifying someone they’ve convinced themselves is the blogger, apparently using the information dug up by the Reddit doxers.
Their alleged culprit? “Arianna Pattek, a Georgetown grad student.” Other Men’s Rightsers have taken up the case, and the Conspiracy Subreddit is all aflutter about a post identifying her by name.
They’ve got the wrong person.
AVFM “proof” backing up their claims is that they have found a paper by Pattek that bears some vague resemblances to the blogger’s description of her thesis. But it’s clearly not a match.
Discussing her (then upcoming) thesis defense on her blog, the blogger refers to a number of topics, including men’s rights and paleoconservatism, that aren’t referenced at all in Pattek’s thesis. And roughly half the of her thesis deals with a topic — Holocaust Denial — that the blogger doesn’t mention. The blogger says her thesis is 120 pages; Pattek’s thesis is 95 pages.
But there’s an even bigger reason I know these two women are not one and the same:
The pseudonymous blogger claims to have gotten a doctorate in the spring of 2012.
Pattek got her bachelors degree from Georgetown in the spring of 2012. She’s not now, and has never been, a grad student.
Her thesis wasn’t a PhD. thesis, but a Senior Thesis that was a requirement for her minor in Justice and Peace, a program for undergraduates.
It even says so on the title page of the thesis itself: “A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Certificate in Justice and Peace, Georgetown University, Spring 2012.” A news article linked to in the comments on A Voice for Men notes that she was “the winner of the 2012 Peace and Justice Studies Association (PJSA) Undergraduate Thesis Award.”
UNDERgraduate. UNDERgraduate.
They’re not the same woman.
All of this is clear from simply reading the “evidence” that AVFM has assembled.
Even without this smoking gun, even a cursory skimming of the blog and the thesis show that they were written by different people. The blogger, assuming she is even a real person and not the creation of a hoaxer, claims to be a “conservative feminist” and constantly bashes Muslims. Pattek, concerned about “marginalized groups,” seems to be anything but a conservative. The blogger’s writing style is crude and dogmatic, so much so that the blog reeks of hoax. Pattek, by contrast, writes smoothly and intelligently.
It’s almost as if we are talking about two different people.
Oh, wait.
A Voice for Men: not only shitty people, but shitty doxers as well.
Amazingly, someone who says he’s a friend of Pattek has gone over to AVFM to point out in the comments that she is clearly not the “conservative feminist” blogger — and has been dismissed by Wrong-Way Elam and the gang as a liar and “white knight.”
EDITED TO ADD: MarkyMark and The Elusive Wapiti have both climbed aboard the anti-Pattek bandwagon.
And Georgetown has officially clarified that 1) Pattek was an UNDERgraduate and that 2) she never worked in admissions.
Meanwhile, over on AVFM, someone called Disorderly Conduct has posted an appropriately critical comment:
I’m disconcerted by the certainty of other commenters that everything is true considering the amount and plausibility of evidence that currently exists. There’s nothing wrong with prodding the university for answers about Arianna and the website edits, but at the very least wait until more evidence comes in before you run off with your verdict.
It should be noted the credibility of the entire controversy is based on anecdotes taken from an extremely dubious and over-the-top blog. Anecdotes are NOT valid evidence of anything unless they are substantiated by additional solid evidence, and this anecdote has none. Evidence connecting the blog to Arianna suggests she might be writing the blog, not that what is being written is true. Additionally, there are serious discrepancies between the information provided about Adrianna on the cached Georgetown pages and the beliefs stated in the blog. Some commenters suggest this is to cover her identity, but there is no reason to believe this information was distorted or fabricated but the admissions blog post itself is not.
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ckvgo/woman_who_works_at_college_admissions_rejects/
Mensrights reddit is not on board with this. One commenter who says they know about the Georgetown admissions process asserts that there is major gaps between their knowledge of it and how the blogger portrayed the process. This includes discrepancies between dates and the fact that admissions isn’t even run by a single person. Another commenter says there’s a committee involved in judging admissions. Putting this much effort into portraying your post as containing faulty information just so you can brag about seriously incriminating and illegal evidence is extremely implausible to me.To recap:
– There’s no evidence the post about trashing admissions is factual, and other evidence indicates it wasn’t
– There is insubstantial evidence the blogger was Arianna
– It is advisable to wait until there is substantial evidence before you declare it as trueAdditionally:
– I haven’t seen evidence Arianna was ever in charge of admissions (feel free to correct)
– The consequences of the conspiracy would have to be public or fabricated: the university publishes statistics about their admissions, and any number of people would have to cover it up or there’d be a suspicious spike in certain demographics
– The total number of people in the U involved in the conspiracy if all of it were true would be implausibly high
– Presumption of innocence has apparently gone to hell, and of all people to do it
Elam responds with this feeble bit of hand-waving:
I agree with much of what you post here, which is exactly why an affirmative response to the NCFM letter from GU is in order, vs the removal of information about Pattek from their website.
It is in the light of day where the lingering questions about this can be answered.
No, Paul, that’s not how journalism works. You get your facts straight BEFORE you publish. You don’t publish dubious — and in this case demonstrably false — information and wait for others to prove it wrong in the “light of day.”
This whole incident is shining a lot of daylight onto AVFM, and what it reveals is none too pretty — albeit not suprising in the least.
Thanks, Cloudiah, for bringing the Georgetown response and these comments to our attention.
EDITED AGAIN: The same Men’s Rights forum that thoroughly doxed the red-haired Canadian activst I wrote about earlier this week has also doxed Pattek, albeit less thoroughly; I’m not going to link to it. Some other sites that have wrongly trashed Pettek: ReyekoMRA, a conspiracy-mongering site ironically called What Really Happened, and Stormfront. Yes, THAT Stormfront, the hangout for white supremecists.
What’s amazing to me is that the discussion on Stormfront, despite being racist as fuck, actually shows more evidence of critical thought than the discussions of the AVFM regulars. Posting in the Stormfront thread, David Duke — yes, THAT David Duke — is critical enough to think that “feminist conservative’s” blog is bogus. Others are similarly skeptical. Meanwhile, another commenter there is able to figure out that whether or not the blog is bogus, there’s no way Pattek wrote it.
So it’s official: Paul Elam is dumber, and more blinded by hate, than David Duke.
I’m going to write Pattek a supportive email. (If you can’t find her email account, I can send you the email of hers I’m using.)
I’ve lived in Quebec, Canada all my life, where I’m a pharmacy technician. Provinces seem to differ on a lot of health care accessibility issues, but I can describe Quebec’s a bit.
A) there is a shortage of family doctors, although the issue is not as bad as a couple of years ago. There is a good network of walk-in clinics (you’ll be in the waiting room a while though) and most family doctors are being reorganized into group clinics, where you are a patient of the clinic rather than of an individual doctor.
B) most home care is organized through CLSCs, which are community-based health and leisure organizations. I’ve observed this being quite efficient and I’ve heard plenty of appreciation from patients.
C) there are many barriers to accessing mental health services. Psychiatrists are specialists that are hard to be referred to (you usually cannot make an appointment with a specialist directly, you must be referred from a GP or emergency room or such), and there are long wait times to access psychologists and counselors through the CLSC for free care.
D) hospital care seems to be very hit or miss. The exact hospital you end up in can mean a world of difference as to your care and your experience.
E) prescription coverage is available in two flavors, the public plan or various private plans, usually available through workplaces. The public plan currently caps patient contributions for non-student adults at 82.66$ a month, on fully covered drugs (meaning generic only if generic is available), and the yearly fee comes out of your taxes depending on your income. Children of adult contributors and full-time students up to 25 are not charged, and there are various possible contributor schemes for the elderly. There are treatments the public plan does not cover: some acne treatments, no ED drugs, off the top of my head. Sometimes for some treatments to be covered there is paperwork and delay. I’m simplifying a bit.
F) wait times for tests, surgeries and specialists can vary greatly depending on your region. The wait times are sometimes arranged in order of urgency, which means, yes, you may be low priority and wait a long time.
Frankly, although I frequently hear patients complain about wait times, I have RARELY heard them complain about quality of care, and the recent introduction of nurse clinicians (nurses with far vaster powers concerning prescriptions and patient follow-up) a lot of problems may clear up.
TL;DR: when I need to see a doctor, I go to a clinic, present my health care card, and see a doctor sometime that day. Afterwards I go to the pharmacy and pay some money, but not more money than I will ever make, for a prescription.
@Podkayne
Thanks for info 🙂 Don’t know much about US’s exact stuff cuz I’m not paying for it yet though.
OT: OMIGOD PIERRE HAS A GUINEA PIG!
@katz
D’awwww!
That is an adorable guinea pig for Pierre.
Back on topic, even anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists think this is fake.
@Marie Yeah, that was a bit of info-dump, I went overboard ^_^; It’s just that I’m always interested in health care access in other places, but sometimes it’s hard to get solid info. I mean I understand a lot of people ‘don’t have health insurance’ in the US, for example, but how does that translate in terms of their actual access? How much do things cost? Are there charities or tax writeoffs for hospitals encouraging free treatment, for example? What does it mean in financial terms when you HAVE health insurance?
Podkayne, I think most of the problems people cite with Canadian healthcare are also a problem in America. Like long wait times; I can never get an appointment with my GP that’s sooner than 6 weeks unless someone cancels, so I’m constantly having to go to the urgent care center for rashes and sore throats, and there’s a very long wait time there as well. And our mental health care can also be hard to get (HMOs are notorious for being stingy about it, like 6 counseling appointments a year, that sort of thing) and our hospitals also vary greatly in quality.
The difference being that you’re also paying through the nose for your long wait times and potentially subpar care.
That’s the hilarious thing about conspiracy theorists: They never believe each others’ conspiracy theories, even when they’re equally (or more) plausible. Feminists denying men college admissions? No! It’s JEWS denying CHRISTIANS college admissions! Jeez, get it right!
Re Canada is cold discussion: SE Ontario and the maritimes have a comparable climate to the northeast US. If you can handle NYC you can totally do Toronto. If you can handle Seattle then you can handle Vancouver… Now, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary and Edmonton…. Different story. I live in rural western Canada now and I still have 2 ft of snow in places in my yard and it snowed yesterday… This is a super late spring here and unseasonably cold but still not that much of an outlier. But ya all I’m trying to say is parts of Canada are quite habitable 🙂 Other parts well… We deal with it as it comes.
@Podkayne
You didn’t go overboard, I actually did like the info. (Wondering if I sounded sarcastic? I blame the smilie: 🙂 <- It has creepy eyebrows.) um, yes. Though I can't help you w/ US much, I know that our chiropractor told us about a store to go where they sold cheaper prescriptions, but it was just for one. Maybe our insurance didn't cover it? I don't remember, I don't use it much anymore, so kinda forgot.
@ Podkanye
I’ve lived in Quebec most of my life, then Manitoba and B.C., and from my experience, Quebec is by far the worst system. Although health care is provincial jurisdiction, the RAMQ is more “independent” than the other provinces (as far as I know, it’s the only card I cannot use interprovince).
From what I know, the US medication pricing is awful, leading to Republican congressmen suggesting old people cross the border to buy their meds a decade ago.
While in my experience, healthcare wait in Quebec was pretty bad, it’s still way better and cost efficient than a privatized system, obviously.
@Maude LL
O_o wow. I suppose that shouldn’t surprise me. Gah. USian Republicans can really get on my nerves :/
Yes, that is true. If the drug is available generic, then it might be reasonable, but if not, it will cost a fortune. Some healthcare plans come with drug coverage and some don’t, so even if someone has health insurance, they might be able to go to the doctor but not get the medicine afterwards. My parents are on the Medicare part D drug plan and it is a pretty good deal because it’s run by the government. They are also really happy that the Affordable Care Act will get rid of the doughnut hole, a gap in coverage after someone gets so many drugs that ends after you buy a certain amount. It’s basically like a second deductible. Sorry if I’m not explaining it well, because it’s kind of complicated.
I don’t know if this counts as a prescription or not, but Medicare does not pay for my mom’s hearing aids. She has to pay out of pocket for them and they cost a fortune. So that and the doughnut hole are the only complaints they have about Medicare.
@ Marie
Yeah, that was a minor diplomatic issue here. But since angry Canadians aren’t exactly the most threatening thing, nobody noticed. 🙂
@Maude LL I recently had a patient return from Manitoba after many years who was surprised to discover he had to pay any amount whatsoever for drugs. Is this how Manitoba rx coverage usually operates?
@katz I’ve had few complaints about my healthcare over the years but maybe I’d have more if I was ALSO paying through the nose for it o.0
That’s what happens when you don’t have a good grip on reality.
Re heath care: Resistance to health care reform in the US infuriates me. I lived in the US for about 4 years (Bush’s first term), so I got to experience US healthcare first hand when I severely twisted my ankle. I’d lost my insurance along with my full time job, and despite working part time in retail and balancing my employment insurance payments, I was too wealthy for any sort of Medicaid. Without insurance, it cost me $1000, which damn near bankrupted me.
While I eventually paid that off, The insurance at my new job was $150 a month for a $1000 deductible, so it wouldn’t have covered me at all. It also had a limited network of coverage.
When I moved back to Canada, I took a job at the same salary. Company benefits now included vision and dental, massage, and even alt-med provisions (Which I disagree with, but I’ll take them). o more co-pays or deductables.
And the real kicker: I had more take-home pay in Canada than I did after the US: Higher taxes were less than California tax + HMO bullshit.
My only issue right now is that the only available GPs where I live now are a 20 minute drive from here, and I don’t have a car. On the plus side, the local after hours clinic was completely free, with only a short wait, and was able to give me the proper prescription.
@thebionicmommy
The ACA is definitely an improvement, glad your mom’s hearing aid will be covered (it should be considered prescription IMO).
Still, the US linking health insurance to employment is bizarre and just seems inefficient to me.
Yay for distractions from MRA idiocy!
Speaking of which, MRA commenters are pretty silent today. Could it be that they are growing self-awareness? (I know, silly delusional me, believing that an MRA can be persuaded by logical arguments and empirical evidence)
I’m wondering if this is libel and slander in the legal sense. Technically Georgetown could
look into certain individuals on legal ground.
> I’m wondering if this is libel and slander in the legal sense.
It is, but not necessarily against Georgetown. Arianna, though…
Healthcare here is hella expensive. The most affordable plans tend to run about $1,200 US per month, and come with significant deductibles, and co-payments. My ex had a plan which was about that for price. She had to pay full price for the first $600 of meds in a year, and a $20 co-pay for meds after that. She also had a $25 co-pay for appointments.
Non-schedule drugs were full-price.
Buntzums: I don’t think it’s libelous, against Georgetown. One, they are a “public figure” so the burden is higher, and two they have to show harm.
I don’t think they could do this. On the other hand it would be relatively cheap for them to send a cease and desist letter.
The same MRAs at AVFM did the same thing to women when they went after the Hub. Wrong people were identified as contributors and harassed at work in an effort to get them fired. It went on until Elam got a visit from law enforcement.
A bit of good news on this story: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/17/1883121/west-virginia-abstinence-assembly/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_content=katelyncampbell&utm_campaign=ppactionfb
Wellesley is looking forward to welcoming her next year.
MaudeLL Still, the US linking health insurance to employment is bizarre and just seems inefficient to me.
That is a function of the automobile companies wanting to prevent employee mobility/union strength. Back in the fifties (and to a different degree today) a lot of the things “Detroit” needed were made by independent companies,which contracted to meet the specs (which is why, e.g. DelCo can offer, “OEM” parts. They are the Original Equipment Manufacturer). A bright guy (he was, whomever he was) got the idea to establish a co-operative health insurance plan. Anyone, who worked in any aspect of the automotive industry could buy in.
The auto makers didn’t like it. Why? It made it easier for someone to job shop. If they could get a better wage they could go. So they got together to offer a, “better” deal. They would pick up part of the cost of the insurance; but it would be married to the job; and counted as a “benefit”, which meant it was included in the collective bargaining agreements of the unions, and would be counted as if it were wages (in the negotiation, but not in terms of taxes).
That killed the wider plan, because even with a larger pool, the auto-companies could afford to undercut them. Other (esp. unionised) companies picked up on the trick; and lo the present mess was born.
Proof #10,879 that MRAs should be officially considered a hate group. They probably don’t even care about the “misandric” topic on the blog, it’s just to them another opportunity to harass and threaten a woman.
As a nursing school graduate, health care is a big deal to me. Which is why it hurts to hear again and again why my country’s health care system is so awful, and it’s infuriating to hear of people so fervently resisting any attempts to change it for the better. The Affordable Care Act is not even that big of a change. It’s an incremental (“baby steps”) approach to changing the system, much gentler than a total overhaul that (correct me if I’m wrong, but I heard) Canada went through in reforming its health care. And politicians are still getting their nappies in a wad.
It can be a little hard not to take the remarks about America’s healthcare personally, especially with the way my Canadian cousins would look at me when they talk about it. I try not to think it’s accusatory or smug because it probably isn’t, but…