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.
It’s that time again! Place your bets for today’s edition of “name that sock”.
Oh good, another troll that does not understand evolutionary biology.
The fact that todays feminists deny sexual selection and sexual dimorphism in humans is the reason the disciplines of women’s and gender studies are all laughed at and scoffed at by scientists in the natural sciences.
Said no feminist ever.
Also…
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf
And further…
INCORRECT! I’m taking a class on Evo-Psych this semester, as it’s likely Evo-Psych will have to be part of my studies on fanaticism.
Evo-Psych, or Evolutionary Psychology, is the synthesis of Evolutionary Biology and Psychology.
I don’t care whose sock it is, I just want to see it laundered. With lots of bleach.
And yeah, big brave men these guys are, hiding behind the skirts of women. Some of whom might just be female pseudonyms for themselves, by the smell of things.
Wow. Is Janet Bloomfield still under the impression that all publicity is good publicity?* It really, really, really isn’t. Taking a condescending attitude and claiming satire when called out on a horrible piece of writing is not working for Paul Elam, and it’s not working for her.
Again with the semantics. “Male tears” is not meant in earnest. Feminists are not against men crying; quite on the contrary, men bottling up their emotions (except rage) is part of the violent macho male image, which is not a feminist, but a conservative male ideal (see below).
As a pretty loose rule, “male tears” (or, sometimes, “man tears”) is used as a response to an entitled misogynist whining about his loss of privilege. One example of this could be “Men are not allowed to talk to women on the street without being called rapists or sexual harassers!” (translation: “My privilege to creep on and harass women and generally make them uncomfortable is more important than the right of women to feel safe in public spaces, and even though catcalling and the like are not illegal activities per se, you’re still being mean for pointing out that I’m acting like an asshole when I engage in said activities”).
Unlike “hysterical”, which is used in response to any emotion a woman may show at any given time, “male tears” is a counter to the entitled, ignorant rantings of misogynist asshats who take an unhealthy amount of pride in their male privilege.
Is the phrase provocative? I suppose. Should it be clearer? Not really. “Male” and “manly” are generally positive attributes in social discourse (just compare the blatantly positive “manly tears”), and assigning “male” as a prefix is not attacking the vulnerable. Men, as a group, are not belittled or silenced in our patriarchal society, so claiming it’s “just as bad” as MRAs talking about “female tears” is completely ignoring unequal social institutions, not to mention the implications of misogynists stating that they’re enjoying the misery of women.
Before any additional accusations of imagined institutional oppression (AKA misandry) are made: The macho ideal is not a form of institutional discrimination against men, but a result of the fucked-up social ideal of what a man is supposed to be. An ideal that, incidentally, seems to be what many MRAs embrace. Not that surprising, given that many of them identify as politically conservative. A man who does not fit into the traditional male role is not represented by the MRM. I’m always amused to read about MRAs conflicted about what to blame feminism for: the unhealthy, toxic macho male ideal, or the more modern, emotional, “wimpy” liberal male. It’s almost as if they can find a woman to blame for everything they think is wrong with society.
tl;dr: Assigning the “male” prefix to something is not belittling, since “male” is considered a positive quality in our patriarchal society.
*Here I would normally go off on a tangent about how the opportunistic and ego-centered qualities of the capitalist mindset destroys what little common sense an otherwise merely silly human being might have, but not today.
Lol, of course it does, Linda, and no one expects you to back up your ridonk assertions like an unwelcome pat on the back is sexual assault (it’s not – a slap on the ass or kiss or a grope of the breast or crotch and many far more overtly sexual acts that are unwanted do but great job dismissing the assaults of literally millions of people as unwelcome pats on the back – that’s EXACTLY what happened when I was fondled by my great uncle at eleven, you are so smart it kills me) with evidential support. That’s only the responsibility of those spoonfeeding you!
“Oh good, another troll that does not understand evolutionary biology.”
Well explain sexual dimorphism in humans for me then. Why are men larger and physically stronger than women. I’m eager to hear your explanation.
marinerachel
You are doing a disservice by conflating rape with sexual assault. those are not the same thing.
What the hell does sexual dimorphism have to do with JB libeling Jessica Valenti?
It’s fucking hilarious that here noone seems to be able to give an alternative explanation of sexual dimorphism in humans. I say it has to do with higher variance in reproductive succes and thus higher intrasexual competition in males. If you deny that, please offer me your scientific explanation? Is it because of socialized gender roles that men are more muscular?
You’d think it would be entertaining to watch someone having an argument with themselves, but sadly this does not appear to be the case,
The point is why does it fucking matter at all? We are humans. We have evolved to a point where we can ignore that shit. Because it has also been used to justify racism, thank you very much… and homophobia, and transphobia, and xenophobia, and so on.
The point is that maybe you should stop using evolutionary biology to justify inequality. You aren’t wrong about sexual dimorphism. You are wrong in your application of it and your insistence that it matters.
It doesn’t. Not for humans. Not anymore.
sparky
It hasn’t, but it sure as hell has a lot to do with whiny feminists whining about discrimination whenever there is any inequality of outcome. Equal outcome is not to be expected in a sexually dimorphic species.
that’s because we’re ignoring your unfounded claims, fool. Your ignorance of biology is so absurd that so far noone can be arsed to correct you.
Sexual assault, defined. You will notice that “unwelcomed pats on the back” do not figure ANYWHERE in that. Take all the time you need to read it closely, Linda.
Sexual dimorphism, partially explained. Although quite honestly, what this has to do with “sexism good, feminism eeeeeevil” is beyond me. Why so invested in it, Linda…do you have trouble opening pickle jars? Because if that’s all it is, then you should know that tapping the edge of the lid with the handle of a butter knife is usually enough to dislodge the seal.
Now fuck off, Linda. Or at least, invent a few fresh talking points instead of repeating the same old stale shit, eh?
@Linda:
Follow the links around in this forum. Not only do scientists in the natural sciences “not” scoff at the feminist conception of gender (notably not a denial of sexual selection or observed dimorphism), but they actually find evidence of a whole variety of weird and exciting things related to gender all across the animal kingdom.
There are butterflies that are half female, half male. Divided lengthwise. Left half male, right half female.
Non-scientists who assume the science agree with them scoff at feminists. Actual scientists continually find that gender is not simple, and continually find evidence justifying the feminist conception of gender, whether it is finding direct evidence of transsexual brain differences, or noting all the wacky and wonderful ways genotypes and phenotypes don’t simply down to “xx = female, xy = male.”
Do some dang research.
Dang, borked a link close. My commenting godhood has been removed. Maybe I shouldn’t have gotten that hair-cut.
Nathan,
I see that you have zero scientific arguments. So you do concede that scientifically I’m correct?
And no we haven’t evolved past that shit, it’s a ridiculous claim. Just open your eyes and look at the world and you will understand that we haven’t. The idea that we can socialize men into behaving like women and vice verse is as absurd as the idea that we can socialize homosexuals into becoming heterosexuals.
M
Well, then Linda, you’re wildly off-topic and talking your ass.
You sure are flailing around for anything to take the focus off of JB’s lying about someone to make them look bad and then admitting that on her blog.
All hail the blockquote mammoth
https://twitter.com/Xanthe_Cat/status/496313576315830272
I… don’t even know what this means…
Sorry, I want to go back to “I used Poe’s Law to attribute a few false but utterly plausible quotes to her.”
I mean, in a world full of really, really stupid statements, that one stands out as, well, really, really stupid.
Poe’s Law is an observation that satire is hard to distinguish from genuine hate. Making up things (that aren’t really all that plausible’ and attributing them falsely–notice, right there, she just outright admits to false attribution?
So she’s deliberately trying to create plausible quotes to convince people Valenti said it.
That’s the meaning of the words she just used.
The literal meaning of the words she just used.
And pretty well the definition of libel. Knowingly making false attributions? That you thought a reasonable person could construe as being true?
It’s beyond mind-boggling.