Today I’d like to share with you two quotations. One is from Martin Luther King Jr., the civil rights leader whose legacy we honor today. The other is from someone who considers himself the leader of a human rights movement that follows in the footsteps of King.
The first quote:
Sooner or later all the people of the world will have to discover a way to live together in peace, and thereby transform this pending cosmic elegy into a creative psalm of brotherhood. If this is to be achieved, man must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.
The second:
[Name redacted], I hope you are looking forward to our date. I certainly am. … [I]t is clear that you have gone to great lengths to keep your image off the internet.
Nice try.
Is that a threat? No, it is a promise. Big difference.
As we have been saying here for years, the time for collegial, polite discussion and negotiation with these piles of refuse is over. …
We have people working on securing her image. Meantime, $100.00 to the first person who gets us a clear image of her which we can verify. Something large and clear enough to be used as a feature image is preferred.
As you have probably gathered, the first quote comes from Dr. King. It’s from his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, in which he sets forth a powerful argument for the transformative power of nonviolence, which, as he notes, “nonviolence is not sterile passivity, but a powerful moral force which makes for social transformation.”
The second quote comes from Paul Elam of A Voice for Men. I’ve taken the liberty of redacting the name of his target.
Yes, this self-described “humanitarian” is launching yet another campaign of doxxing and intimidation aimed at an ideological enemy who just happens to be female. And once again, as he so notoriously did several years ago, Elam is offering a bounty for the personal information of one of his targets – in this case a clear photograph of her face.
It’s a strategy that draws not on the tactics of Martin Luther King but on those of his enemies – in particular the Ku Klux Klan, which in the 1960s posted “wanted posters” featuring the faces of civil rights activists, including King himself. Some of those whose faces appeared on these “wanted posters,” most famously King himself, were later murdered.
In more recent years, anti-abortion activists have posted similar “wanted posters” featuring the pictures and addresses of doctors who perform abortions – some of whom were themselves later murdered.
Now AVFM has taken up this classic technique of intimidation.
Last year, AVFM activists – including the site’s “activism director” Attila Vinczer — posted hundreds of wanted-style posters of feminist philosophy professor Adele Mercier on and around the campus of Queen’s University in Kingston Ontario. The year before, a Men’s Rights group in Edmonton closely associated with A Voice for Men put up similar posters targeting Lise Gotell, the chair of women’s and gender studies at the University of Alberta.
We can only assume that Elam has a similar campaign in mind for his latest target.
So what are Elam’s charges against this new woman to hate?
According to him, the woman, a professor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, accused AVFM activist Sage Gerard (aka Victor Zen) of “demonstrat[ing] a desire to kill women” in a complaint she filed with the KSU administration.
Elam has posted the complaint on his website. Her name appears nowhere in the complaint, nor does anything about Gerard wanting to kill women.
[ Clarification: Elam has now posted a separate campus police report about an incident in which Gerard came to the office of the Interdisciplinary Studies department requesting to see the professor; the police report contains her name as well as notes from the officer saying that “she has seen the cartoons, videos and blogs online and believes Gerard demonstrates having violent fantasies about hurting and murdering women.” ]
This anonymous complaint, along with another complaint about Gerard, were evidently triggered by a video Gerard posted last year of a late-night “sticker run” he made on the KSU campus.
The video, which Gerard filmed and narrated on the fly, is more than a little creepy. In it, Gerard describes his preparations for his “activism” as if he were launching some sort of covert operation; at one point he talks about hiding his stickers in the sleeves of his jacket. As he heads out the door to start his stickering, he announces “let’s go fuck with people.”
Gerard clearly sees what he’s doing as a deliberately provocative act. He talks about putting AVFM stickers in places “where they cannot be ignored” and about his desires to “push the boundaries” by plastering them in places they’re really not supposed to be put – most notably in a women’s bathroom where, thankfully, no women were present.
Weirdly, given that he later posted the video on his YouTube channel, Gerard also took steps in the video to conceal his identity and cover his tracks, wiping his fingerprints off of some of the stickers after pasting them in a bathroom. Later, apparently wanting to look as much like a serial killer as possible, he dons latex gloves.
At one point, Gerard jokes about how he’d like to paste one of the stickers over the mouth of a feminist to shut her up.
His behavior in the video and in his interactions with others on campus, as well as his affiliation with AVFM, clearly rattled some on the KSU campus. The anonymous complainant to the KSU administration suggested that Gerard’s actions were creating a “hostile work environment” for some faculty and staff and making students fear for their safety.
Elam has posted the actual complaints, which, in what seems to be a pretty clear violation of privacy, were sent to Gerard with the identity of one of the accusers laid bare. Here’s the anonymous complaint that Elam has attributed to his current target:
Among other similar offenses by the same individual, a KSU student (Sage Gerard) posed as a custodian and entered the women’s bathrooms on campus, placing stickers intended to intimidate women. … Gerard’s behavior indicates contemplation of violence against women (he posts art depicting guns pointed at women’s symbols, as well as other violently anti-feminist themes). His behavior has created a hostile work environment for multiple KSU employees who do not only fear intimidation and harassment, but actual physical violence against themselves and their families. KSU students have also expressed real fears for their own physical safety on campus . . . I do not feel safe on this campus. As an advocate of women, I feel strongly that I am at real risk of becoming the target of violent retaliatory actions perpetrated by Sage Gerard and the organization sponsoring him, A Voice For Men.
Emphasis mine.
The KSU administration investigated these complaints, and concluded that Gerard was not responsible for creating a hostile work environment, and that his speech was protected under the first amendment. The complaints were dismissed; no charges against Gerard were even filed.
He was asked to stay out of women’s bathrooms in the future. And the KSU counsel who prepared the report also had this suggestion:
We do recommend that Mr. Gerard continue to refrain from further contact with the persons who made the hotline reports (or those who Mr. Gerard believes may have made them), to avoid any real or perceived retaliation. In addition, we recommend that Mr. Gerard refrain from further contact with the members of the Interdisciplinary Studies Department to avoid escalating the situation to the point that it becomes a hostile environment in the legal sense.
That’s right. Gerard wasn’t charged with anything. He faced no sanctions. He was simply asked not to contact those on campus he was making uncomfortable.
But apparently this “no contact” request is so offensive to Gerard and his AVFM comrades that they have decided to launch the very retaliation campaign that the KSU complainants were afraid of. Thus, once again, proving their critics have been right to label them a hate group in the first place.
AVFM’s new target joins a long list of women (and a few men) who have been doxxed and/or harassed in retaliation for their “crimes” against Paul Elam’s delicate sensibilities.
Elam started off this parade of harassment shortly after this site started by attempting to get a woman fired from her job at a women’s shelter for a comment she made here in which she wondered aloud if Elam had a criminal record.
Since then, Elam and his AVFM cronies have:
Started Register-Her, a fake “Offenders Registry” designed to vilify and intimidate women. (The site is now in the hands of AVFM defector John Hembling.)
Gleefully participated in the unending harassment of a Canadian feminist that one AVFM author dubbed “little red frothing fornication mouth,” for her crime of … arguing with some AVFM activists at a demonstration once. Unflattering images of “Big Red” at that demonstration have since been plastered all over the internet; she even has a page devoted to her on KnowYourMeme.
Launched a years-long harassment campaign against feminist writer Jessica Valenti. Starting with a 2011 post in which Elam himself attacked her as a “stupid, hateful bitch,” the hate campaign has moved on to labeling her a “child abuser,” posting her personal photos on AVFM without permission, putting her on Register-Her.com, and libeling her by making up inflammatory quotations and attributing them to her. (AVFM’s “social media director” and serial quote-fabricator Janet Bloomfield was evidently permabanned from Twitter for her persistent harassment of Valenti.)
Supported GamerGate’s harassment of cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, with AVFM’s PR whiz Bloomfield doing her part by blatantly libeling her on Twitter.
Launched a campaign of vilification against a Chicago-area “mommy blogger” for writing that she felt uncomfortable with the idea of a male day care staffer taking young girls to the bathroom.
Along with an assortment of white supremacists and online assholes, joined in a hate campaign against a young woman wrongly accused of trashing applications from white guys as a staffer at a college admissions office. Elam declared the woman, by name, to be a “warped by ideology” with “deep seated prejudices that guided her unscrupulous actions.” The blog was a hoax, and the woman Elam so eagerly vilified had nothing to do with it.
Published an article falsely accusing a male feminist blogger of being a “confessed rapist,” because, as Elam puts it, “karma is a BITCH.” (AVFM’s defense? It was being “satirical.”)
Accused a former AVFM staffer, with no evidence, of absconding with money donated for a men’s shelter.
Attacked feminist and skeptic Rebecca Watson on numerous occasions, including a post from Elam in which he used the term “whore” several dozen times.
And of course AVFM has accused me of everything from starting Reddit’s terrible BeatingWomen subreddit to somehow faking my site’s traffic stats on Alexa. (AVFM has never even bothered to provide “evidence” for any of their various accusations against me, perhaps because none of them are even remotely true.) Elam has posted bizarre sexual fantasies involving me, called me a pervert, and publicly suggested that I kill myself. One of AVFMs most, er, enthusiastic activists once left me a creepy, threatening voicemail at 1:38 AM. And AVFM “activism director” Attila L. Vinczer has tried to dox me, with somewhat comic results.
This isn’t even close to an exhaustive list of AVFM’s assorted retaliatory campaigns against feminists and other critics.
AVFM has made it very clear to the world – through its actions and its rhetoric – that if someone starts putting up AVFM posters or stickers on your campus or in your neighborhood, you have every reason to worry.
AVFM is not a civil or human rights group by any stretch of the imagination. It is a hate group, plain and simple, less akin to Martin Luther King Jr. than it is to those who so stubbornly fought against him.
NOTE: Here is Sage Gerard’s (aka Victor Zen’s) video of his sticker “activism.” You can probably see why people found it a little unsettling.
Dawn Incognito:
Thx!
After a long weekend of lots and lots of last minute packig and moving and bbblah, I AM MOVED OUT OF MY APARTMENT! Yayyyyy!
And now, about all this mess.
Everyone has made really great points that I echo–yes, this is horrible, no, it probably won’t be stopped, and that the law really needs to catch up with the Internet when it comes to harassment campaigns like this.
I wish there was a “severe and pervasive” kind of deal–no, AVFM/Elam has not lead directly to a catostrophic event (yet), but his encouragement and facilitation of online harassment has enough of a pattern that it obviously needs to be addesses.
Also, Gerard had a direct hand in this. He was the one who handed the documents over to AVFM. KSU Men/Zen Men has posted links to both articles on the associated twitter account. His comments are present at least on the first article (I haven’t read the comments on the second).
So. Gerard is alllllll over this–he has directly contributed to and promoted AVFM’s call-to-arms against KSU faculty.
With that in mind, if the doxxed individual does receive harassment, could Gerard be held accountable on the campus level, since he directly contributed to it? I know AVFM as an organization will probs not (grrrr!), but could a student who directly contributed like this be held accountable for any harassment that happens on his campus?
Could AVFM’s tactics to “help” blow up in their faces and have the opposite result?
Aww man I just did something similar on MLK and Paul Elam.
It’s fun to contrast the two. It’s like when that charlatan Glenn Beck gave a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in an effort to ride King’s coattails. It’s beyond pathetic.
Part of the issue is that we seem to have reached a moment in internet culture where everyone thinks that doxxing is just fine and dandy as long as the people being doxxed are really bad people, by which they mean people whose politics or interests are opposed to theirs. This is why I’ve been uncomfortable for years with people arguing that it’s justifiable to doxx people if they’re not our kind of people, because once that becomes an accepted norm nobody is safe, and it escalates.
@nicknamenick
“grief-thievery” – this is the official thread of useful new expressions!
@cassandrakitty
Oh yeah. I was forgetting they don’t do reality. Silly of me!
Vanir, be warned that hitting the space bar anywhere in your string will loose the blockquote monster pon you.
@Cassandrakitty
Yes to this too! Though I don’t think it’s always a general consensus so much as a bunch of very loud very obnoxious freeze peach “defenders” jumping to say “this doxxing is OK because”, and I honestly believe they’re also testing the tolerances of communities and how much they can get away with when they do it. It’s like predator theory applied to locating viable online victims.
I’ve seen people who I had previously considered allies advocating doxxing, and it’s always made me deeply wary.
Yes, because doxxing can’t legitimately be claimed to be about “accountability”. It’s a threat, and a threat of the most invasive and personal kind.
Cassandrakitty, so very yes on the doxxing issue–it’s never ok, period, as far as I am concerned.
I think part of the problem re:that is that, like we’ve said, the law hasn’t caught up with the interwebs, and it has been self-governing, pretty much, and the interwebs has some pretty skewed views on what is acceptable across the board.
Look at 4chan and the culture it’s spawned. People who haven’t been heavily involved in the net for the past 10+ years can’t even begin to understand what’s seen as normal within that subculture, and if you can’t understand it you can’t push back against it when it gets out of hand.
I doubt it would have that effect, Cyberwulf. In fact if someone acted outside the law in response to MRAssment, they’d have a field day pointing at how loathsome and unprincipled their opponents are.
I believe the best that can be done until the laws catch up to their modes of harassment is to refuse to grant them the fear and silence they want from us while keeping their reprehensible words and behavior on display for all to see.
Or, to put it another way, the infrastructure of the internet was built by young nerdy, techie guys. Now look at gamergate. Do you see the connection?
This is also why you can post naked selfies on Facebook and get away with it most of the time, but breastfeeding pics are removed.
Heh, thanks! 🙂
Though, to be honest, I actually heard it from elsewhere – specifically from Peep Show featuring comedic duo Mitchell and Webb. It is a great expression and pretty useful, given how often people do that and unaware of how much hubris comes into it.
…I knew about the latter, but not the former. WTF, Facebook? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I had to post a link to very graphic photo of a dead, gutted baby girl up on a large group in order to get it taken down. I’d reported it twice, and both times it was left up. Not until a whole lot of people reported it was it taken down.
WTF? Breastfeeding is obscene but mutilated corpses are OK?
Breastfeeding is misandry, naturally. Showing non-sexual bewb shotz oppresses men!
At least Charlie Hebdo is actually satire. I don’t mean that they can’t be criticized but I think they’re different from reactionaries who say things that are sexist, racist etc in complete seriousness and claim it was satire only after being called out.
Okay, first, I’m creeped out by the “hand acting” there, which reminds me of Thing from the Addams family movies crossed with a video short I saw as a kid when I was home sick with the flu or something, where a pair of disembodied hands make and then eat a sandwich. The hands eat the sandwich, some how, it’s not that someone filmed themselves eating the sandwich. I was already sick with a fever and it gave me nightmares for WEEKS. Even now I get the shivers thinking about it.
Second, I love how he’s all “this is so dangerous for me because there’s a professor who knows I’m affiliated with AVfTHMNRWMWDASaWNLPOANLTIF* and I’m going to need to say that AVfTHMNRWMWDASaWNLPOANLTIF is actually a HUGE organization and you can’t prove anything even though I totally made this bad hand puppet video it was totally someone else who did it, so stop being so meeeeeeeeeeean to me, I’m gonna go tell
my mommyPaul Elam!”Also “clandesteen” lol
*A Voice for Totally Human Men, No Really, We’re Men Who Do Activisty Stuff and We’re Not Lizard People Or Anything, Not Like Those Icky Feminininininininies.
I think at some point it simply becomes hate mongering. The fact that they direct hate everyone doesn’t change the fact that they are in the business of fomenting hatred.
This reminds me of that one tweet that led to the #CancelColbert campaign. The argument seemed to break down to either “it was racist” or “it was satire,” with no recognition that it could be (and was) both. There was also a minor meltdown when the Onion made a tasteless tweet about Quvenzhane Wallis during the (IIRC) Academy Awards, which also broke along the same “it’s racist vs. it’s satire” lines.
The Onion incident was especially instructive, given that the tweet carried an important message that needed to be conveyed, but it nevertheless tripped over its racial blindness and absolutely fell on its face.
WRT doxxing:
I’m struggling to figure out the difference here between doxxing and naming names, when someone had done something terrible and we don’t want silence to shelter the perpetrator. Is there a difference? If so, what is it? If not, doesn’t this “no doxxing ever under any circumstances” rule function to enable bad actors to continue acting badly? Would anyone mind helping me out here?
“I have dreamed about slapping a feminist that shouts at me and I find it hilarious ”
Is he even a normal person?
Policy of Madness–
I think the major difference is the intent–doxxing usually has a malicious intent, broadcasted to a large audience with intent to cause harm.
Another useful phrase I’ve discovered recently: Schrodinger’s Douchebag.
n. “A person who does something, then decides if they were joking or if the action(s) was (were) satire based on the reactions of those around them.”
PoM
I think the difference is in the definition. Doxxing implies that ALL personal information is dropped. Name, living address, work address, phone number, etc., while “Naming Names” is exactly that. You give a name, and that’s it.
What Elam and Gerard are after is most likely doxxing. They want a picture of this person, they want her name, and they’d most likely get all the information they can on her to make her life a living hell for daring to speak out about Gerard acting like he has. They’d most likely sic their fanbase on the poor thing for simply reporting someone for doing something that is illegal.
As for the “no doxxing ever under any circumstances”, I’m a bit torn. I can see releasing someone’s name just so we have a name to pin to something IF something bad had been done, but I’m not sure if I’m down for releasing other forms of personal information so that person can be harassed. On the one hand, no one deserves harassment, period. On the other, opening up a dialogue between someone who has done something wrong and other people might be a good thing?
In this case, I’m perfectly fine with not releasing a name or photo because this person did nothing wrong, and because the information would very much be abused knowing Elam and Gerard.