A student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, says she was attacked and beaten by a strange man after receiving threatening messages about her opposition to a Men’s Rights group on campus. On Thursday, Danielle d’Entremont posted a picture of her bruised face to Facebook along with this explanation:
Just walked out of my house and got attacked by a stranger. I was punched in the face multiple times and lost half my tooth. This was after a few threatening emails regarding my support for feminist activities on campus. I can’t say for sure if the two are connected, however the attacker was a male who knew my name.
The campus Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS) – the group d’Entremont has been fighting – has condemned the attack, as has the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), which co-sponsored a talk the MIAS put on Thursday. The police are investigating.
Right now, this is pretty much all we know about the story. Not that it this has stopped MRAs from offering their very fervent opinions on the matter.
Before we get to them, here are a few of my own:
If it turns out that the attacker is, as seems likely, a Men’s Rights activist – or some freelance misogynist vaguely associated with that milieu – it will not exactly be a surprise. Feminist activists who challenge Men’s Rights activists – or indeed challenge sexism in any sufficiently public manner – often find themselves the recipients of angry, abusive and threatening messages, sometimes numbering in the hundreds.
While most prominent MRAs are smart enough to avoid making specific threats of physical violence in public, their “activist” campaigns often target individual women, often college students and individual activists rather than women with any real power in society, almost certainly because those with less power are easier to intimidate.
And for all their talk of being the “civil rights movement” of the 21st century, Men’s Rights activists rely on rhetoric steeped in violence and hatred. It wasn’t Martin Luther King who declared of his opponents that “the thought of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.” It was Paul Elam of A Voice for Men, probably the most influential Men’s Rights activist on the scene right now.
I don’t know who attacked d’Entremont. But given the number of threats being made towards feminist activists on a daily basis, it is inevitable that women (and perhaps some men) who’ve publicly opposed the Men’s Rights movement will be the targets of real violence. Inevitable.
And much of the responsibility for this violence will rest with Elam and other Men’s Rights leaders who have deliberately stoked the anger and hatred of their followers and directed much of it at individual female scapegoats. If your favorite slogan is “Fuck Their Shit Up” you can’t pretend you’re an innocent angel when someone inspired by your words actually does Fuck Someone’s Shit Up.
And it doesn’t help when MRAs like Elam try to make violence against women into a kind of joke. Here, at left, is a screenshot from a notorious post by Elam promoting his supposedly “satirical” notion of turning Domestic Violence Awareness Month into Bash a Violent Bitch Month; yes, that picture ran, with that caption, on Elam’s original post. At right, the picture of herself that d’Entremont posted to her Facebook page.
[TRIGGER WARNING for images of violence against women. Post continues after picture.]
.
.
.
Of course, this isn’t how Elam and his friends see the issue. The moment the story of the attack broke, a special A Voice for Men Flying Squad of commenters descended upon the website of the student newspaper of Queens University to set forth all the reasons they thought d’Entremont was a lying liar. Attila Vinczer, AVFM’s offical “Activism Director,” was especially active:
Yeah, Attila, I’m pretty sure criminal investigations don’t work like that.
Meanwhile, AVFM Contributing Editor Karen “Girl Writes What” Straughan attempted to minimize d’Entremont’s injuries in a rather inventive way:
Other commenters (evidently not affiliated with AVFM) offered variations on “she had it coming to her.”
(These aren’t consecutive comments; they’re separate image files smushed together. I edited out some less interesting bits of the second one.)
But it was Elam himself who launched the most vociferous attack on d’Entremont; indeed, in a long and rage-filled post titled “A whiff of bullshit at Queen’s University,” he declared that the very notion that MRAs might pose a threat to feminist activists to be a “scummy, Futrellian fantasy fiction spin game.”
Huh. I’m pretty sure I didn’t make up the hundreds of abusive and/or threatening messages that a certain red-haired feminist activist received for the crime of yelling at a couple of A Voice for Men dudes on camera once. Or those received by Rebecca Watson for the crime of suggesting that maybe dudes shouldn’t hit on gals who are riding a hotel elevator alone at 4 AM. Or those received by any of countless other women who have found themselves labeled enemy-of-the-week by MRAs, antifeminists, and other misogynistic creeps online.
Oh, and there was that creepy threatening phone message I got at 1:38 AM one December from one of AVFM’s own activists who was too dumb to hide his own identity properly.
But in any case, Elam for some reason has decided that the best way to convince the world that MRAs are reasonable people who would never resort to violence is to declare that he is overcome by his own anger. No, really:
[N]ow I am angry. I am 100% completely, undeniably pissed off bordering on rage. It won’t last, but for the moment it is pulsing through my veins like molten lava.
And what makes him angry? The very thought that someone might assume that a woman who was an active opponent of an Men’s Rights organization might have been targeted because of her activism — and assaulted by an MRA who, like Elam, might have had anger “pulsing through [his] veins like molten lava.”
There’s really not much more to Elam’s post than that. He makes a joke about d’Entremont trolling for “likes” on Facebook for the picture of her beaten face. He demands “proof” and predicts there will be none:
There will never be any evidence that she was attacked by an MHRA. They will probably not catch her supposed “attacker,” and the incident will wind up unresolved because there is no evidence to make a case against anyone, or at the very least not against any MHRA. The story will still get major traction with feminist ideologues, though, who will use it to mischaracterize MHRAs as violent so they can continue to attack the formation of new men’s issues groups.
And then he starts his rant in earnest:
I want to hear a police official say they have reason to believe it was men’s activists, and then share the identity of the person of interest with the public. I want them to make inquiries to this website to look for leads. With all the victim posturing over the years from feminists about AVFM, I have never heard from a single police official. Not once.
I want to know for sure that this woman, who posts this shit to her Facebook page but does not want to be identified, and her friend, who also does not want to be identified, are not both liars.
I want to see, with all the wolf crying that feminists have done about MHRAs, one tiny, even microscopic shred of fucking proof of anything they say.
I want to know if they are more credible than the zombie apocalypse. Rather I should say I would like to see them prove they are for a change.
And if my hunch, check that, experience, is right, and there are lies involved in this case, I want to see those responsible go to jail just as much as I want to see her attacker, if he actually exists, do the same.
Huh. That’s a lot of demands, Paul. I’m pretty sure the police have more pressing priorities in their investigation than mollifying the narcissistic rage of an internet ranter.
But I think we can see what is happening here: Unless the police are able to quickly identify and arrest a man who is clearly associated with a Men’s Rights group for this crime, and unless he is quickly convicted of this crime, MRAs – led by Elam and his followers – are going to declare d’Entremont a “false accuser” if not an outright hoaxer, and target her for further harassment and abuse. All while loudly proclaiming that they are the real victims here. (Never mind that they never apply even a fraction of such skepticism towards the tall tales of feminist oppression told by serial fabricators like John Hembling.)
Elam ends his post with these inspiring words:
Please note: AVfM is in the middle of its Spring Fundraiser. Please help us continue to spread the message. Click here to contribute.
Because A Voice for Men LLC, after all, is a business – albeit one that’s apparently forbidden from conducting business in the state of Texas – and its business is hate.
EDITED TO ADD: John Hembling — AVFM’s “Director, Public Policy” and “Editor at Large” — has weighed in with his own take on the attack, which he has puzzlingly titled “Don’t Bash a Violent Bitch,” helpfully illustrated with a picture of a nerdy fellow brandishing a fist. (Classy!) In it he loudly proclaims to be shocked — shocked! — that anyone could imagine any MRA could be responsible for such a crime, which is totally opposed to everything that the peace-loving Men’s Human Rights Movement stands for.
Then he goes on to argue that “Slugger d’Entremont” (!?) is an “asshole” who probably brought this upon herself by being such an asshole:
I expect that whoever bashed Danielle d’Entremont in the face is somebody she knows, who has been dealing with her for years. Maybe her attempt to silence Professor Fiamengo was what did it, maybe it was something else. The timing of the incident, thus far, does not indicate a connection.
Really? The attack happened the night before Fiamengo’s lecture.
An individual attempting to censor and silence somebody speaking on human rights concerns of any group, men or otherwise, is likely an individual that’s an asshole with a past.
How exactly she is a “violent bitch” he never exactly explains. Perhaps someone else wrote the headline. It’s not like there’s a shortage of “editors” at AVFM eager to blame the victim of this particular crime.
Never mind, I don’t see it now. The deletion must have happened before I refreshed the page.
This is a reply to Lili Fugit:
I guess, to me anyway, that it depends on what ones means by an act being about sex. Fair warning: The following is a description of one of my rapes. Please do not read if anyone finds it too distressing.
When I was 19-20 years old, I did a road trip by myself, on horseback, riding from Mahopac, New York to the border of Ohio and Indiana. I camped along the way and worked in stables and on farms.
I was riding outside Fleischmanns, New York, which is a small town in the Catskill Mountains. I was working on a dairy farm there for a while and had the afternoon off, so I went riding. Suddenly, several guys pulled over in their car, in front of me, and got out. One asked me where I was going and I made the mistake of answering him. When I realized that they were running for me, I tried to back up and get away, but they were able to grab me and pull me off my horse. One of them slammed my head into the ground and started to hit me, saying I must be one of those “women’s libber bitches” for being out on a horse by myself. I was dazed from the blow to my head and trying to fight them off, but it did not end until I was bloody and had been raped by three of them. I laid there crying while they joked about my fat ass and got in their cars and left. It took awhile, but I pulled myself together, found my horse and went back to the farm. I told the woman of the family I was working for, but she told me to pray for forgiveness and wash up.
Yes, the weapons used to hurt me were sex and fists, so, technically, it was about sex. But there was no intimacy, no recognition of me as a human being and a participant – only the violent punishment of me for my gender and for the insult my independence gave to their manly pride. I do not deny that it is sexuality that is used as the weapon, but I do not feel that it was sexual, in the sense of the mutuality and intimacy that is what we want sex to be about. There was no pleasure for me. In fact, *I* was not even there or real, as far as they were concerned.
It did impact my ability to be intimate and my ability to go anywhere by myself. 43 years later, I still get the horrors and start shaking when I have to be alone anywhere where men gather, and it should not be that way.
I do not deny that the weapon is sexuality. It is the most intimate kind of violent violation of a person. But is it sex that the rapist is looking for? I do not know, but it feels like it is not. Perhaps I am wrong, but it has always felt to me that it was about power-over, punishment for existing, degradation, putting a woman, when the victim is a woman, “in her place,” asserting physical superiority, terrrorizing…anything BUT real sexuality. I have even heard that some men feel that they should have the right to plant their seed wherever they choose, with or without the consent of the recipient. Maybe that, too, is a motive.
Okay. Thanks for the heads-up.
I love that Dunbe kept writing comments and hitting “submit” after he was supposed to be banned. I wonder how many more angry missives he’s sent into the ether since David finished the process? Maybe he’s still commenting right now!
I don’t think campus cops here are cop-cops, at least they weren’t. They were peace officers, which involves training & grants certain legal authority, but not all the way to “cop”. Now, it’s been a while since I noticed the campus cops.
You’d go to them even if it ends up with the real cops, they are part of the system.
You’re not the only one. It was like correcting something that was already horrible and making it worse.
In my Canadian experience, campus security is security guards, but there are protocols for calling in the cops (or firefighters or EMTs) if required.
Samantha, thank you for sharing that – and all the hugs, if you want them.
🙁
@kitteh and others,
When I proposed Dunbe could be Esmay I preceeding it by saying ‘Let’s play MRA identity paranoia’ which is exactly what they do to others who comment to them by calling them David or myself or anyone they don’t like.
It was just supposed to be silly. Hope I’m making sense. I took some pain medication a few hours ago.
Much support for Sam. I feel the same way about men b/c of my experiences with them.
Oh and for a little humour, you know how the MRA’s are having conniptions over the #killallmen thing?
I tweeted Valar Morghulis All men must die #killallmen and wondered if the MRA’s would take that up with HBO or GoT
Hugs are always welcome. 🙂 One of the good things about a place like this is that, in sharing thoughts, feelings and experiences, I think we help each other to look at our lives from different perspectives. I am truly amazed at the general level of supportiveness David and everyone have been able to create.
House Mouse Queen – darn, I missed the bit about it being for fun!
Still, it would have been good seeing Esmay get kicked off here. 😛
I hope your pain meds are working, and yes, you’re making sense!
Samantha – that’s among the things I love about this site. Lots of new perspectives and lots of support.
And kitties, of couse.
Oh, I did a “chill out Pauly” aka Jack Torrance pic before – it’s here on the manboobzers group at Deviantart.
I know that this is off topic, but I have a question for anyone who can answer it. First, back in 1973 or 1974, I was living in Boston. I was also reading MS. Magazine. In one of those issues, there was an article re-printed from a British journal. It was by a physician, and he proposed what he thought was the perfect idea for peace in the world. He wrote that, since women were the cause of war, the ideal society would have 20% or less of the number of women now living. He proposed that 80% or more of women be eliminated, leaving the rest to live in cloisters and be used for egg harvesting. They would never be allowed out of the cloisters nor would they be educated. This would leave a perfect and peaceful world of only men. This, of course, could not happen until a viable artificial womb could be developed.
My question is: Does anyone here have access to MS magazines from 1973-1974? I went to MS and found that they only archive back to 1987. ARGH! I am looking for this article because I am writing a fictional story based, sort of, on it. I read it. I know it exists SOMEWHERE!!!
Samantha, have you checked if a library near you has MS. on microflm? I am going to be at a library that does later this week and I might be able to look for you. (I’m a librarian so questions like this are irresistible to me).
Samantha, have some virtual hugs. I can’t even imagine that. Just, ack.
That article also sounds pretty disturbing. Plans to wipe out (as a conservative estimate) 40% of the population in order to prevent war just sounds scary.
(Hugs Samantha and Bina)
Both of you have more courage and character in your little fingers than every member of the MRM rolled into a ball.
(A ball of impotent rage.)
@Samantha – It wasn’t specifically to solve war but as a population measure. It was called the “manchild” pill and here’s a link to an archive on it. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2206&dat=19730410&id=57slAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UvMFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4025,4108372. It was published in Psychology Today in 1973, and in a lot of other places too.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/27/where_have_all_the_girls_gone?page=full
A log of google books cite him. The urls are very long, but just search on postgate manchild pill
I meant a LOT of google books.
OMG, Samantha…you really HAVE been through hell. Makes my little episode with the old perv in the car look pale by comparison, since nothing anywhere near to rape happened there.
But you’re right, it’s not about sexual intimacy at all in your case, is it? It’s about punishment for being female, alone, and independent. The “women’s libber bitches” bit was a dead giveaway. Those bastards were basically penis-whipping you for having the gumption to set out on your own. And on horseback, too, no less! (Whatsamatter, boys…jealous? I wouldn’t be surprised. I can’t ride that well myself…last time I was on a horse, I got thrown.)
And the expressions of disdain for your body…another dead giveaway that this is not about “unfulfilled desires”, as we keep getting told. It’s about “putting women in their place”, period. These guys were asserting their “God-given right” to “punish” a woman who was clearly “out of line”. (Note all the quotes; there for a reason. The reason being that such ideas are, of course, complete bullshit.)
But for me, the worst part of all was the internalized misogyny of that clueless farmwife, who told you to “pray for forgiveness”. Um, WHAT? You did nothing wrong! You don’t need to be forgiven! If anyone should be praying, it’s those bastards who did that to you. They deserved to be stricken impotent for the rest of their unnatural lives. (May Artemis hear…)
Hugs, all you want. You definitely deserve them!
PS: That British “scientist” (note the quotes) you talked about sounds like he’s been reading Brave New World too much. Either that, or his piece must be bad satire and a joke on guys who really do think that way. But I do believe I’ve seen something similar here before, where a bunch of MRAs were salivating over the prospect of an artificial womb so they didn’t have to bother with uppity wimmin anymore. The fact that it hasn’t happened yet makes me think they’ve got a long, lonely wait ahead of them…ha, ha. Anybody remember that link?
PPS: Frozen Paulie is hilarious. He looks more dorky and surprised than sinister, though.
Yeah, forgiveness for what? Did she say? Perhaps she met those three herself and was told something similar.
:: hugs samantha and Bina ::
Once they realize that an artificial womb also means women can’t be punished with pregnancy anymore, they’ll change opinion right back.
The Illiad is fiction!
All cowardly bigots do that. They live under the dilemma of sounding reasonable and being entirely based on hatred.