So the self-described “human rights activists” at A Voice for Men have found three more women to harass. Here’s the story, which for many of you will have a depressingly familiar ring:
Members of Men’s Rights Edmonton, a small group that is for all intents and purposes a local chapter of A Voice for Men, has been putting up pictures targeting Lise Gotell, the chair of women’s and gender studies at the University of Alberta. The pictures, which seem inspired by “Wanted” posters of yore, feature a large portrait of Gotell and the caption:
Theft isn’t black. Bank fraud isn’t Jewish. And rape isn’t male.
“Just because you’re paid to demonize men doesn’t mean rape is gendered. Don’t be that bigot.
Gotell’s crime? She was involved in what appears to have been a remarkably effective rape awareness campaign focusing on date rape and featuring the slogan “Don’t Be That Guy.”
A Voice for Men took exception to the campaign because, even thought it did deal with the male victims of rape, it didn’t devote equal time to the problem of evil, false-accusing “girls.” No, really. Men’s Rights Edmonton Activists put up “satirical” versions of the campaign’s posters with the slogan “Don’t Be that Girl.” Now, MR-E and AVFM, at least according to the “argument” advanced on their new poster, seem to be upset that the campaign didn’t devote equal time to the problem of female rapists. [Note: this paragraph has been corrected; see note at end of piece.]
Gotell spoke out against the posters, and now Men’s Rights Edmonton and AVFM are doing their best to smear her as a “bigot.” Because she doesn’t believe that women are responsible for half of all rapes.
Since this is not actually true — more on this in a later post — it’s hard to see how this makes her a bigot.
As a rule, I don’t support tearing down the posters of one’s ideological enemies. Free speech and all that. But these posters are different: they’re slanderous personal attacks designed to harass an individual. Were they posted in my neighborhood I would tear them down.
And evidently that’s what some people in Edmonton have been doing.
Indeed, one recent night, several members of Men’s Rights Edmonton claim to have caught two women doing just that. While they don’t seem to have video footage of the women tearing down the posters, the MRAs filmed themselves following the women down the street and angrily confronting them for this alleged crime.
They posted the video to YouTube, and AVFM posted it as well, under the typically overheated title “Men’s Rights Edmonton confronts fascists.” They screencapped images of both women from the video and announced their intention to uncover their personal information:
MR-E would like to know the names of these two women so that charges of destruction of property can be laid against them. Also, the world should know the identities of those who seek to silence and censor messages advocating for human rights.
Of course, this is ridiculous. Tearing down a poster that was almost certainly posted illegally in the first place isn’t “destruction of property.” No one is going to be prosecuted for this. The police have better things to do.
But of course that’s not the real intent here. The real intent here is to scare the shit out of these women and other feminists by exposing them to harassment online — like the woman labeled “Big Red” and countless other women who have been targeted by AVFM and other MRAs (sometimes completely erroneously).
AVFM’s Paul Elam gave the game away with an “editor’s note” added to the post:
[A] woman who vandalizes man’s property and then flips him off when he confronts her about it on a dark street at night only acts in this manner because she is certain she has absolutely nothing to fear. Feminists terrified of MHRAs? My ass.
Elam could not have made it any clearer: the main point of this kind of “activism” — which has become AVFM’s bread and butter — is all about intimidating women, not helping men.
AVFM, where terrifying individual women is “human rights activism.”
Here’s the appropriate response to that:
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: I rewrote the paragraph starting with “A Voice for Men took exception,” which confused AVRM/MR-E’s current objection to Gotell’s views with its original “argument” against the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Women are so stupid and weak
But they totally oppress men and won’t fuck me
Roses are red
Violets are blue
Women run all the governments
We know this because there are so few female world leaders
haiku: Tom Martin
men on hard chairs
silent manly tears
whores laugh
Dudebro poetry part [number]:
Vaginas are gross.
I really hate women now!
I am so lonely…
MGTOW the poem
Women are mean
So I’m going my own way
I really am! But later, after I’ve told them again that I’m going
Roses are expensive
Violets are mocked
Men are disposable
Women are stuck up, that’s why HB10s won’t fuck me
(Well, this one isn’t so sensible, but it rhymes!)
Mammoth blood is red
My balls are blue
Give me head
And get a clue
Fibinachi come play!
Wait…Blackbloc thinks destroying art is a good idea and the only problem is it was destroyed for the wrong reason?
Shall we follow it up with a nice book burning?
There once was a man from Nantucket
Women like him or something
Manginas can suck it.
Only if they’re books BlackBloc disapproves of, presumably. Like, I dunno, the Gutenberg Bible, maybe?
PUA poem:
Roses are red, chicks who like them are sluts
Violets are blue, chicks who like them play hard to get
I am the hottest alpha dude
I learned my moves from a book
I’m shagging every night
Which is why I have time to write endless internet screeds on how horrible women are
Your poetry is all lovely (I quite like the Nantucket one) but I am much too discomfited with the art defacing thing. I take it rather personally because I worked in a conservation lab. When you’ve seen the work that goes into nursing these things back to life, it’s just unthinkable that people would wantonly destroy them because they disagreed with the message.
But then, destruction is the easy path, isn’t it?
@ katz
Yeah, I’m still rather horrified by that too. Historical artwork is part of our shared heritage – destroying it in an attempt to make a political point leaves all of us poorer, from a cultural perspective. Plus, honestly, I feel like the jump from justifying the destruction of artwork for political purposes to hurting people for political purposes isn’t a big one, and historically speaking people who’re enthusiastic about the former usually can’t be trusted not to resort to the latter too.
Seconding the above, katz, Cassandra.
Plus, it gets personal: wtf have the Queen or the artist ever done to BlackBloc? That’s just petty mean-spiritedness, wanting to see her portrait defaced.
“AVFM, where terrifying individual women is “human rights activism.””
Funny how you’re applying to an emotional state to them that’s not apparent at all from the video. It’s almost as if you’re lying about your opponents to make them look bad.
*applying an emotional state
LOL nobody needs to do anything to make AVfM look bad. They do it all by themselves.
The only think needed to make AVFM look bad is a link. Any link to their site will do, really.
A few haiku style poems, powered by the neverending flow of tears from the covered eyes of privileged, entitled jackasses.
Tearing down posters
Threats of violence, rape and pain
It’s truly the same
Fine, I don’t need you
I’m a fox and I hate grapes
My own way I go
Harassing women
A great social activist
Oops, I mean females
And one specifically to Alex Reynard:
The fact that they failed
Attempted terrorism
It’s still disgusting
(No, seriously: just because the women weren’t actually terrified does not mean the original aim was not to terrify them. Failing to terrify people =/= Not intending to terrify people in the first place. But you keep telling yourself that only the outcome matters, not what you were intending to do.)
Alex, are you really this obtuse or just pretending? Elam was complaining that they weren’t terrified. That’s the point of digging up their personal info and putting it online: to terrify/intimidate them.
Defacing art, no. How do you even determine which art gets defaced?
I was asleep, after a weird night. Waking up to this is amusing and pleasant.
—
My critical thinking skills
are no match for these shills
they use logic! And arguments
all day
So I’ve packed all my bags
Gonna hit the road, jack
off somewhere else far away
—
“Fighting men with fighting ken
are fighting on the internet!
Again
They’ve got anger and rage and feel stuck in this cage
fury and power and manifestos hammered out by the hour
The electrons shake, with all that rage
Blogosphere is all alight in grimacing and pain
and one day these fine fighting folk
will
fuck your shit up your whorebe the greatest movement of the 21st century! NO JOKE
—
There once was a man named Pierre,
Who wished his life were free-er,
Of MRA fucks,
Who quack like sick ducks,
And still make us retch in the sea air.
Well… somebody clearly has no ability to read emotions. And also doesn’t seem to understand what “we want these women identified” means.
@Alex,
Just because someone shows hostility, doesn’t mean they aren’t afraid. Hostility is a common way to react to fear, like a fight or flight response. So I think those women were afraid, and that’s why they flipped him off.
Now I want to make MRA poetry!
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
My ex wife took the kids,
correctlyfalsely accused me of domestic violence, it’s all the feminist lawyer’s fault, and my kids won’t talk to me even though I took them to Disney Land once, and my ex wife replaced the tires on her car so I know she squanders the child support money, only the guys at the Spearhead understand my oppression.Sorry to jump in, I just caught up with all these posts (been at work) and how in the bloody blue blazes did a conversation about people tearing down posters turn into all that ugliness? That was horrible.
You folks are awesome. Not the two vile twits, obviously; but, yeah. Way to take down appalling idiocy!
And belated cheers and Internet hugs and good vibes to anyone who would want them.
And, no, seriously, why on earth would anyone videotape someone tearing down a poster, follow them down a street, then post it on the Internet with the exhortation to publicly identify them? What the hell do you think that is going to accomplish?
In Davenport,
There was a court
That said the child must go,
To the mother (conniving ho),
And far away from me.
All I did
Was blind the kid,
And kill the bitch’s dog!
I’ll shout and cry upon this blog:
“This injustice cannot be!”