A Voice for Men’s “social media director” Janet Bloomfield is proving to be quite the innovator in the world of public relations. You may recall her cheeky approach to publicizing the recent AVFM conference, which involved awarding herself “whore points” for calling critics of AVFM “whores.”
Now she’s moved on to straight-up libel, making up fake quotes in order to make feminist writer Jessica Valenti look bad, and then bragging about it on her blog.
This whole sordid episode began several days ago when Valenti, on vacation, decided to send a message to “all the misogynist whiners in my feed today” in the form of a photo of her on a beach wearing a t-shirt saying “I bathe in male tears.”
The AVFM social media attack squad seized on this at once, with Bloomfield telling her followers, wrongly, that the picture had been posted in response to a question about male suicide. When Valenti corrected her on this point, Bloomfield offered a half-assed apology (“My bad”).
Then Bloomfield, demonstrating just how insincere her apology had been, decided to up the ante, concocting four “quotes” from thin air and attributing them to Valenti.
[EDIT: JB’s Twitter account was suspended, so here’s a screenshot of the tweets; I’ll keep the original links up in case she’s ever unsuspended, though that seems unlikely.]
https://twitter.com/JudgyBitch1/status/495366752168329216
https://twitter.com/JudgyBitch1/status/495367262187302913
https://twitter.com/JudgyBitch1/status/495367996337295360
https://twitter.com/JudgyBitch1/status/495374177013346304
Naturally, as you’ll see if you follow any of these Tweets back to their original context on Twitter, many of Bloomfield’s fans assumed that these quotes were real.
Needless to say, some responded to Bloomfield’s dirty tricks with all-too predictable harassment of her target:
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/495559012449267713
https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/495559068841680896
After brazenly libeling Valenti, Bloomfield went on to boast about it on her blog. In a post with the smug title “Jessica Valenti is not having a good day,” she wrote:
Now, these fake quotes may have been “utterly plausible” only to those who are ignorant of Valenti’s work, but in the hothouse world of the Men’s Rights movement there are people who would probably believe that Valenti eats babies. As I noted, JB’s followers had no trouble believing them.
Later in the post Bloomfield added, with more than a hint of maliciousness:
It’s not clear how having made-up quotes attributed to you counts as “owning your shit,” but I guess I just don’t understand Bloomfield’s higher morality.
Needless to say, in the real world, deliberately publishing false information about someone in order to harm their reputation is libel.
When confronted with this on Twitter, Bloomfield offered some inventive excuses:
@JudgyBitch1 @JessicaValenti JB, "I didn't like her shirt so I lied about her maliciously to harm her" isn't an acceptable defense for libel
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) August 2, 2014
Later on she attempted to prove that her libelous fake Valenti quotes didn’t matter … by making up things about me:
https://twitter.com/JudgyBitch1/status/495684048237633536
As I noted,
@Alzael1 @virtuarat @JudgyBitch1 I'm pretty sure that "well, I lied about David Futrelle too" is not an acceptable libel defense either.
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) August 2, 2014
Of course, I’m no lawyer. I can only hope that some people who are lawyers are taking a good hard look at Bloomfield’s lies.
I would encourage you all to screenshot or otherwise archive Bloomfield’s self-incriminatory blog post, as well as her tweets, just in case she decides to talk to a lawyer and take them all down.
At this point, I think it’s probably safe to assume that anything and everything anyone from AVFM says should be taken not with a grain but with an entire shaker of salt.
Just wanna say… y’all are awesome.
Also, if liking cats is one of the requirements, count me in. I like dogs, too, but I’m determined that my first pet will be a Bombay Saffire kitty. I love them so much.
Erm… I meant Sapphire… stupid autocorrect…
@cassandrakitty
“The silliest bit of the troll’s attempt to use sexual dimorphism (physical) to explain behavior (heavily socialized) is that human brains are plastic, especially in infancy and childhood. If you socialize a child to believe that they’re supposed to have mechanical aptitude, give them mechanical toys to play with, teach them how to do mechanical stuff, and so on, and then take another child and discourage them from any interest in mechanical things, then by adulthood, shocker! Child A. will probably be better at mechanical stuff than child B. If you reward child A for socially dominant behavior, and punish child B for exactly the same behavior, guess what happens when they grow up?” – cassandrakitty
I doubt you endorse conducting such a horrid experiment on children. But, just for any shitty future parents out there who might take what you said seriously, rather than accepting it as you simply making a point:
I’m curious to see what happens when most people start treating their children like people, rather than trained dogs. It is a parent’s job to make sure their child is happy and healthy and behaving ethically. Unless detrimental to one of these three things, children’s natural preferences need to be accepted and supported. Determining what is best for a child’s happiness, health and moral character requires reason and evidence (i.e. science and philosophy). What is best for a child’s happiness and long-term well-being? Consult psychology and neuroscience. Health? Consult medical and nutrition science. Ethics? Don’t be a hypocrite. Start by not doing the very things that you instruct your child not to do. Don’t hit, don’t yell, don’t steal, and don’t lie. Teach your children ethical behavior and healthy human interactions by exhibiting them with your child and others – model it for them. Children have all the same inalienable rights as adults, a well as some additional rights arising from the implicit contract between parent and child. They have the right to be healthy and happy, and parents have the obligation to do everything in their power to make sure they are. The tools that should be used to teach children are reasoned discussion, win-win negotiation, rewards, and anything else that does not violate their rights to not be assaulted or abused. That means no spanking, no hitting of any kind and no verbal aggression.
@cassandrakitty Whoops my bad. I meant take you “literally” not “seriously”. I don’t mean to suggest people should take you seriously. Also, I wanted to add that part of being a good parent is limiting your child’s exposure to toxic social expectations, including gender roles. It’s hard to tell what a child’s natural preferences are if they are exposed to these sorts of influences.
@redpoppy: welcome also. 🙂
@Nathan: Bombay Sapphire kitty? I like the gin, mixed with tonic and preferably with a lemon slice, but not heard of the cat breed. Do you have a link?
@cassandrakitty *shouldn’t
I don’t mean to suggest that people shouldn’t…
I really shouldn’t post of forums where I am unable to edit my posts.
@Nathan: *squee* a cat t-shirt. 🙂
You know those old movies about witches and such that always feature black cats? The Bombay is the cat most often used… I think…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombay_(cat)
Sapphire may have just been an addition by my imagination…
The ‘male tears’ refers to the distress certain men feel when not literally everything is about them.
(I know everyone here knows this but I just can’t stop myself)
Pooh pretty kitty! And it’s okay, I prefer my cats to be catfish and no one seems to mind any.
Speaking of which, it’s morning, even according to the fishkins, and I should attempt sleep (apparently my sleeping pill decided to take the night off!) So goodnight Mammothers, try not to get troll on the rug, they can leave some nasty stains!
These days, about the only thing I agree with Dawkins about:
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/495672741543313409
How does one post pictures here? Or do I have to use a link?
http://www.cat-breeds-encyclopedia.com/image-files/bombay12.jpg
http://dims.vetstreet.com/dims3/MMAH/thumbnail/645×380/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fassets.prod.vetstreet.com%2Fb5%2F14a010a2ab11e087a80050568d634f%2Ffile%2FBombay-5-645mk062211.jpg
You know, now that I think about it, it’s kind of hard to believe that Bloomfield really cares about men at all. She keeps lying to them to get them riled up to harass people. She did this same thing with that teacher in Detroit. It’s almost as if she thinks of men as her own personal attack dogs. She sees them as subhumans, illogical and out of control of their emotional anger, so she manipulates them easily to go after women she doesn’t like. I’ll bet she gets quite the thrill out of the control she exerts over these men, too. What do the MRA’s call that? “Violence by proxy”?
The more I think about AVFM, the more I wonder how much the women at least believe that they are the ones in charge. Even Elam’s donations go to his behind-the-scenes girlfriend’s name. Maybe she’s the one who decides where the money goes, and the reason he won’t tell anybody how it’s divided, is that he genuinely doesn’t know. The guys seem to think that Bloomfield and GWW are better debaters than Elam, and probably better speakers. They practically worship these ladies, and apparently believe anything the women says without question. Maybe it’s not so much that they think the world is an oppressive matriarchy, as that they want it to be one.
Hi Nathan, you post on Feministe and Pharyngula, don’t you? I recognise your guitar-gravatar (yes I looked at Gravatar, I wanted to see that kitty tee shirt properly). 🙂
Reminds me.. when did “Matriarchy” become defined as “Same shit as Patriarchy, only with women on top”? From what I recently read, none of the researchers who proposed prehistoric matriarchies ever claimed that to be the case.
Sure, but if we went by actual research, we couldn’t use it to snidely try to be angry at everyone.
magnesium – could it be that Pauly really is a sockpuppet? 😯
@strivingally @Nathan
First, I like new people finding and commenting on this blog, so as far as I am concerned, Nathan is welcome. However, I think it is accidental, but there is something in this line that squicks me out:
The reason is that its focus is the person doing the trolling, not the people getting trolled. This article describes the same type of thing but with respect to harassment:
http://rosefox.dreamwidth.org/1824291.html
I am not grumpy or anything, but given that I was squicked out by that sentence, I thought you would like to know, and would like to know why.
Another troll with rapid-fire ”arguments”, misuse of data and terminology, a condescending attitude and a complete lack of empathy. Well, at least this one doesn’t try to pretend not being an MRA, so… kudos? No, not really.
About ”male tears”, since I was one of the people trying to give a definition of it: I never defined it as satire, since that’s not what it is. What is it with MRAs and their persistent misuse of that word?
As Sparky wrote above, ”male tears” describes accurately the tantrums men (who are either unaware of their male privilege, or who simply don’t care) often throw when confronted with realities and lived experiences that differ from theirs. This includes ignorant guys who whine about ”the friendzone”, as well as would-be harassers who whine about the horrors of being expected to treat women as fellow human beings. It’s an all-encompassing way of mocking entitled manchildren who confuse privileges with rights.
”Misogynist tears” would not have the same connotation. As our lovely JB so excellently demonstrates, women can be misogynists, too, but for slightly different reasons than men (though both probably feel they gain something extra from the current system that they would not gain from a more fair and equal system; a common feature in bigots and capitalists). Misogynistic women lack the male privilege that is a requirement for the privilege-born entitlement that channels male tears, and even non-misogynistic men with no understanding of gender dynamics may occasionally produce them (the difference being that non-misogynistic men actually have a chance to understand that the term is not actually offensive, and that it describes their ignorant attitude pretty well).
The fact that tears without a male prefix are seen as shameful, and, by extension, only fit for those lesser beings known as women, tells something about misogyny in our society. Pretty much all the backlash that gender-nonconforming men (like me) get in society are rooted in misogyny, not misandry*.
An MRA might see joking about ”male tears” as condescending, since their whole shtick is ignoring the reality of gender dynamics in our society, and trying to frame everything as a ploy to disadvantage men. Problem is, deep down they know reality doesn’t support their notions, so they have to rely on far-fetched conspiracy theories to justify their persecution complex.
Nobody is advocating for mocking male victims. All victims of violence should be treated with sympathy and understanding. However, there’s a world of difference between expressing sympathy for male victims of violence and claiming that their suffering is due to a made-up form of oppression that can only be fixed by limiting the rights of another group.
*In order for misandry to be a meaningful term, there would have to be an institutional bias against men (as a group, not as individuals suffering from various intersectional problems) in our society. Since there isn’t, arguing for the validity of the term in gender discussions is as pointless as bringing up ”reverse racism” in a racial dynamics debate. It just shows that nobody should take you seriously on the subject.
Hi Nathan! I recognize you from Pharyngula. You’re good people. It’s good to see you here.
How did Jessica Valenti stir up a shitstorm? It’s pretty telling that you think posting a piece about how women are still a marginalized group, sexism still exists and we still need feminism is stirring things up. If you think that we’re going to condemn her for that, you have another think coming.
What are you blathering on about? No, Cassandra was not advocating child abuse and nobody with any reading comprehension would think she was.
Unrelated, but of interest to my fellow “social justice warriors”: brain scans show concern for justice is based on reason, not emotion. I know for me personally, in addition to emotions like empathy, my concern for justice has a “but that doesn’t even make sense!” component to it. Most *isms are pretty illogical.
Even less related: Sunday was my sobriety date. I haven’t had a drink in seven years (and two days)!
Congratulations, Emily!
Well, such “horrid experiments” are already being conducted on children.
It’s how we raise boys vs girls. And yeah, individual parents can strive to raise children in a non-gendered way, but society insists, pretty damn early, on forcing that child into the “appropriate” binary gender role. Girls and boys get the message, pretty damn early, that certain things are for girls and certain things are for boys, and never the twain shall meet.
As I write this, my 3 year old daughter is tearing aroun the house, toy sword in one hand an toy broom in the other. We give her “boys” and “girls” toys, encourage her in all kinds of play and interests. But what’s going to happen when she gets to school and learns that trains and sharks (both of which she loves, at the moment) are “for boys?” What’s going to happen when the world rewards her for dressing up in a princess gown (“such a pretty little girl!”) but ignores her (or makes fun of, or discourages her) when she builds something elaborate with blocks?
We live in a world in which people still, seriously, argue that girls and women are inherently unsuited to STEM fields because biology. cassandrakitty was describing this world, not endorsing if.