Men’s Rights Activists love to “warn” women that they may soon face a day of reckoning if they don’t shape up and start acting the way MRAs think they should. Don’t make men angry, they say; you wouldn’t like us when we’re angry!
Still, most MRAs making these “predictions” at least make a token effort to pretend to be horrified at the notion of men rising up to wreak vengeance upon uppity women. This isn’t what we want, they assure women; it’s just what will happen if you continue to “provoke” men with your bad behavior.
Other MRAs find it impossible to contain their glee; like doomsday preppers with well-stocked bunkers and enough ammo to kill every living thing within a 500 mile radius, they can’t wait for the end of the world.
Peter Andrew Nolan is one of these other MRAs. And he’s started to celebrate a little bit early.
In a series of recent blog posts and Tweets, Nolan has heralded a number of murders of women at the hands of their exes in his native Australia as portents of a new age of antifeminist retribution. (Click on screenshots below to see archived versions of these Tweets.)
I’m sure actress Denise Richards was delighted to find the above in her Twitter notifications, sent as a reply to a Tweet of hers wishing her father a happy Father’s Day.
Several feminists who ended up in a discussion with him on Twitter were treated to the following.
As Nolan sees it, the murder of women in Australia and Ireland is now perfectly legal, as he has officially declared war upon both countries.
Nolan thinks politicians and police officers are also legitimate targets in his “war.”
And he assures us this “war” will continue until he is properly compensated for whatever terrible injustices he thinks have been done to him.
Now, Nolan’s “legal” claims are of course ludicrous, and he is obviously in no position to “release” any murderers of women in either Ireland or Australia.
But as bizarre as his arguments are, Nolan is no troll; as longtime readers of this blog know all too well, he’s deadly serious about all of this.
The man who used to call himself Peter-Andrew: Nolan©, but who now prefers to call himself Joschua-Brandon: Boehm©, is a follower of the exceedingly strange and dangerous Sovereign Citizen movement. He thinks the odd punctuation he’s added to his various names actually means something important, and he does indeed believe that he is at war with Ireland and Australia, that murdering women is legal in both countries, and that he has the right to enforce these claims of his as best he can.
Happily, he is not actually in either of these countries — last I heard, he’s in Germany, and as I understand it, he is barred from entering Ireland and possibly Australia as well. At least according to the laws that the rest of the world follows.
This isn’t the first time Nolan has justified or indeed celebrated violence against women. His declarations of “war” are not new. He’s offered some (barely) qualified praise for far-right mass murderer Anders Breivik, and at one point he warned any women thinking of commenting on his laughable Facebook ripoff MAN-BOOK that he just might just kill them for it.
But these recent Tweets are pretty brazen, even by his standards. He is clearly a threat to women, as well as to politicians and government employees regardless of gender.
H/T — @TheFirstPaige
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: Please avoid describing Nolan as “crazy,” or attempting to diagnose his mental health. Mental illness doesn’t cause hate. And please refrain from violent language, even when it is clearly metaphorical.
@Bina
Not impressed by the wannabe sealion tamer there, and was happy to see the animal win. 😀
Yup, this is the one time I root for the sealion. When it’s the kind with a sleek coat and flippers.
@Bina
The guy with the sticks was an idiot. They should have called animal control and left the sea lion alone. The stick guy was thinking with his dick and mucking it up.
Well, according to the YouTuber, this was in New Zealand. Not sure what their animal control services are like. But yeah: hockey sticks stoopid.
How terribly scared he and his ilk must be. And justifiably so. Karma is SUCH a bitch 🙂
If this isn’t victim blaming, I don’t know what it is.
No, you don’t know what it is, and you just made that very obvious.
That statement didn’t imply that Warhol deserved it at all. There was nothing in that comment about “Well, he deserved it because [reason]”, or “If he hadn’t done [thing], he wouldn’t have gotten shot!”, or “Maybe he should have worn a bulletproof vest.
All it said was that Warhol forgave his shooter. How is this “blaming” him for getting shot? How is saying that he forgave her somehow holding him accountable for the act of getting shot?
I’ll take “Throwing Around Phrases I Don’t Understand the Definition of to Sound Like I’m Morally Correct and Winning” for 500, Alex.
To further avoid embarrassment, I’d learn what Google does. It’s a very handy tool.
Just some drive by brain bleach, since it sounds like you guys need some. Respect to you all for dealing with that sealion-cow.
@The Mad Cow
Oh god, man. You’re just a typical MRA, right? You love throwing around feminist terms like victim-blaming without having the faintest clue of what they actually mean. You really think social justice is about throwing accusations around and trying to make people feel shitty about themselves? You probably do, which is why this will be my last sincere, non-snarky reply to you.
Have you perhaps been trolling here before? I faintly recall banging my head against the wall due to some other boneheaded sealion who thought rephrasing their original point and repackaging their shit would yield different results. I’m not sure though, since after a while, all pseudo-intellectuals and their debating tactics start to look the same. Also, I think I had a concussion from all that banging my head against the wall.
———-
Let’s break this down:
1.1) Valerie Solanas was a feminist.
1.2) VS wrote the SCUM manifesto, an over-the-top violent fantasy about eradicating all men.
1.3) VS committed a violent act against three (technically two) men, the main target being a man she knew well.
and
2.1) Peter Nolan is an MRA.
2.2) PN tweets about the need to indiscriminately, violently attack women as a group.
2.3) Women are already being violently targeted as a group by men. Men are, statistically speaking, more likely to be perpetrators of violence than women. Women, on the other hand, are statistically more likely to be victims of violent crime.
Some statistics from USA and Australia:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf
http://www.anrows.org.au/sites/default/files/Key%20statistics%20-%20all.pdf
Most male victims of violence are targeted not by women, but by other men. All this shows that violence against men by women is a statistical anomaly, while violence against women by men is frequent (Note: male victims attacked by female perpetrators do deserve sympathy, help and protection. But this cannot happen at the expense of female victims attacked by male perpetrators).
This, somehow, leads you to conclude that the MRM is in a similar place as feminism was at the end of the 1960s. This is not only a sad attempt to lend legitimacy to a group of angry, willfully unempathetic men with massive entitlement issues, but is also ignoring both the history of feminism and that of the MRM, not to mention the actual gender dynamics at play.
When people don’t agree with your massive leap of logic, you accuse them of ignoring the victim or whatever bullshit you can spin in your head.
You have no argument.
——–
Warhol and Solanas had had a long and complex relationship. I’m more willing to bet that her problematic personality and her frustration with Warhol specifically played a bigger role than her anger at the unfair patriarchal system, justified as the anger in itself was. Again, notice that she didn’t attack men indiscriminately, but men she knew. Warhol wasn’t targeted simply because he was a man, but likely due to more personal reasons, while Elliot Rodger was perfectly happy to murder women she had never even talked to, simply for being women.
Since you love to throw Solanas quotes around, I have one for you (copy-pasted from here: http://www.warholstars.org/valerie_solanas_17.html):
There is applicability here somewhere, I just know it.
For the last fucking time: I am not saying that what Solanas did was right. Warhol did not deserve to be shot. I am not ignoring what happened to him, or saying that he had it coming. But it was not due to misandry. Misandry does not exist. It’s a fictional concept that ignores actual social hierarchies and pretends that men and women are treated equally in our society.
If you really wanted to have an honest discussion about any single topic touched upon here, about Solanas, Warhol and/or their complex relationship, about social gender dynamics and why a woman’s violent threats carry less weight than a man’s violent threats, the fundamentals of feminism and/or its social impact as compared to the MRM, I might have been willing to humor you, woefully new though I am to all this.
But clearly, that’s not what’s happening. None of your comments have been carrying the conversation forward. You have made no effort to actually engage the content of people’s arguments. You have either a) reiterated the exact same bullshit argument over and over again, or b) taken random phrases from commenters here and there in several sad attempts at a gotcha. You’re not here in good faith, you’re here to waste everyone’s time, including your own. Like a regular MRA troll with too much time on his hands.
——–
Let’s hear George Takei’s opinion of you:
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Go away. Or be banned. Either is fine with me.
——–
@All the non-ableist non-MRAs contributing to (and reading) this thread
Thanks for all of your input, snark, brain bleach, and for generally being great people miles above this sad sack of sealion.
Correction: *he* had never even talked to. Damn those gender pronouns.
Wow…I pray to god he does not reproduce…he sounds like these dudes from the middle east , answer me this..
If u kill women because they won’t lick the dirt off of the bottom of your feet when u come in the house…how will humanity survive? And this type of thinking will come to the united states as well there are already MRA groups that probably think like this, I think men have the lowest self esteem they have to be in control and have power or they will go crazy and this shiy is getting worse
@The Mad Cow:
By the 1960s, feminists have fought for and won the right to vote. They had identified a thing called “patriarchy” and were exploring gender identity and gender roles in ways that are still relevant today. Feminists of the time promoted “The SCUM manifesto” because they thought it contained accurate criticisms of the system at the time, and treated the violent parts as justifiable expressions of rage; a passion that might be admired but certainly not emulated. The idea that took hold among supporters was that the current system needed to be uprooted if it were going to change, there needed to be a revolutionary movement. Not that there needed to be a group of women going around stabbing men.
The supporters were supporters onliy because they could wave off the violence, or pick out more abstract and more useful things from it, and those things are concepts that are still seen as useful today. This is what I’ve been trying to get you to understand with my questions.
Contrast that with the MRM. You’ve got “bash a violent bitch month” from the leader of one of the bigger groups, AVFM. Nothing really to take from it except as a fantasy of violence against women who don’t know their place. No bigger or useful concepts to draw from it.
You’ve got “date rape” redefined to mean “goes on a date but doesn’t have sex afterward,” a concept so absurd and so off-base you can barely respond to it coherently. The same man brings you “the myth of male power,” where women’s asses are asserted to hold sway over the group with actual power, also patently absurd.
You’ve got a group that proclaims that “men are just as persecuted as women,” desperately grabbing at any sort of feminist language to show that men aren’t the privileged ones at all despite women having had to campagin to vote and work, and despite continuing inequalities disfavoring women.
And you’ve got the fringe violence fantasies, which picture a bunch of those in power finally beating (literally and figuratively) the rebelling property back into submission, as opposed to what you insist is the appropriate analogous situation of a disempowered group fantasizing about being in power through violence.
You may say violence is violence, but I see an enormous difference between a slave fantasizing about killing their master to be free and a slave-master fantasizing about brutalizing their slave to quell any rebellion.
The MRM has practically no legitimate points to make, the few it does have are made with no understanding of the true issue, the violence is paternalistic fantasies of regaining power against unruly children, and even in the violence there is nothing particularly noble or praiseworthy. It’s just violence to restore the status quo.
The MRM is nothing like Feminism in the 60s, beyond the extraordinarily superficial idea that there were people in both groups that promoted and commited violence, and some works containing that violent rhetoric was promoted.
Don’t forget their conspiracy theory-eque panic over false rape accusations, despite the fact that I’m pretty sure more women are raped every year (maybe even every month?) than men have been falsely accused ever.
@SFHC:
Yup.
@The Mad Cow:
Since my appeal will probably be unconvincing, there is one final question I have for you.
Are men today in a similar position that women were in the 1960s?
Answer “no,” and you’ve lost any hope of drawing accurate comparisons between activists for either gender. Context actually matters here, and right now the context is that you are claiming similarities between women fighting for social, political, and economic equality and a backlash movement trying to claim victimhood in order to regress that equality.
I don’t think generalising “the middle east” like that’s a very good idea…
Also, no, they won’t “go crazy” cause misogynistic ranting/violence isn’t a mental illness.
@SJ
I can only speak for the U.S., but…
part of the issue is that judges tend to be hesitant to go after Sovereign Citizens. Getting involved in a legal dispute with a SC typically involves the SC filling millions of dollars worth of fraudulent liens. While the law is pretty good about threatening judges, getting the situation with the liens straightened out can take years and absolutely ruin the victim’s credit. Because they are so difficult to deal with Sovereign Citizens frequently get away with a lot because people don’t want to touch them unless they can make damn sure there’s going to be a lengthy prison sentence involved.
A man rants that violence against women is necessary to keep them in line, but he takes no violent action himself. We can be sure that this man is a danger, and his comments should be considered a sincere proposal, not trolling or satire.
A woman rants that all men should be killed just for being men. Then she actually tries to kill three men. Following those acts of violence, and because of those acts of violence, she becomes a hero to many feminists, and her manifesto is no longer ignored but instead widely circulated and discussed. Still, despite the actual damage she inflicted, we should consider her rant about killing all men as harmless satire or trolling. And even though she was violent in both words and actions, it is ludicrous to suggest that her words and actions are at the same moral level as a man who only used words.
Violent words: Instant condemnation.
Violent words and actions: Hey, let’s try to understand what’s really going on her. It must be complex.
A defense lawyer would surely be impressed at the intellectual acrobatics on display here. A woman who said that all men should die and then tried to kill three men clearly was not motivated in any significant way by her hatred of men. She was obviously motivated by something else that we just “don’t know.” Like what? Well, did you know that one of her victims forgave her? Just think about that. Sounds to me like he knew something. Do completely innocent victims ever forgive their attackers?
And let’s put this in perspective. She didn’t commit three violent acts. It was “technically” just two, because putting a gun directly to someone’s head and pulling the trigger isn’t a “violent act” if the gun jams. No harm, no foul.
And those feminists who embraced her ideas only after she tried to kill people? They were really just focused on the other ideas in her work. She had some good ideas.
Fuck’s sake.
SOLANAS DIED 27 YEARS AGO. YOU ARE NOT AT RISK OF HER SPOOKY SCARY SKELETON JUMPING OUT OF YOUR CLOSET. NOLAN SAID THESE THINGS LAST WEEK. WE ARE AT RISK OF HIM GOING ON A MURDER SPREE, IF HE ISN’T SERIAL KILLING ALREADY (AND THAT’S A BIG IF).
Apologies for the capslock, but I don’t think font size tags work here and he won’t read regular text.
Mad Cow,
People have already addressed your arguments multiple times. Unless you have something new to add to your point, stop restating again and again. Not only have you been doing this for what, two days now? You’ve already been called out on doing this and yet, you keep doing it.
This obsession anti-feminists have with Solanas is tiresome as hell. If you have to go back several decades to find a violent feminist, it’s not a gotcha. Misogynist men are killing women in droves now. Somewhere in the world there is probably a woman being murdered by a misogynist right this second. Bringing up Solanas could not be more of a false equivalence.
So you have… Solanas as your violent feminist, which is 40 years outdated. You haven’t named another, if there was one. . The MRA has… Nolan. Elam. Rodgers. Esmay (recent spankafeminist hashtag). I’m sure there are others, besides plenty of commenters gleefully posting violent fantasies in agreement *right now*. But you think the two compare. That is… quite the fairytale you’ve spun for yourself.
http://media.giphy.com/media/MvMGmujBL2CTm/giphy.gif
That’s it. I’m done. The Mad Cow is officially the dumbest, most frustrating blockhead I’ve come across during my time on WHTM. Nothing gets through his thick skull. He is determined not to examine anything beyond “well, that random thing happened, now this random thing is happening, OMG TOTALLY THE SAME! EVERYTHING IS RANDOM AND NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED ON A SUPERFICIAL LEVEL ONLY, ALWAYS, ALL THE TIME! THERE ARE NO SOCIAL FORCES, ONLY EQUIVALENT RANDOMNESS HAPPENING AT ALL TIMES, WITH NO CAUSALITY WHATSOEVER! WHY AREN’T YOU AGREEING WITH ME WHEN THE RANDOMNESS IS SO OBVIOUS? GENDER DYNAMICS? WHAT ARE THEY? SOME KIND OF SEX EXPLOSIVES?”
He refuses to try to understand what others have said to him time and time again, yet he feigns to maintain an air of discourse.
This is beyond trolling and sealioning. I call for a permanent ban for this shitstain.
http://media1.giphy.com/media/NshsZXMuzcahG/giphy.gif
Does anybody have a GIF or YouTube vid of that bit in Temple Of Doom where a skeleton falls off the wall and lands on Willie Scott?
No. But I have this.
http://media0.giphy.com/media/h4ot8thGxKQFy/giphy.gif
You really did just ignore everything I wrote, huh? That statement right there is exactly what I, and everyone else, has been trying to tell you is completely wrong.
The proponents of the manifesto were supportive in spite of the acts of violence, as even Wikipedia can show you when you look up what the supporters had to say. Those unsupportive of the manifesto were unsupportive because of the violence.
Well, at least you finally answered my original question of why we should care. So there’s that.
Hey, anyone got any interesting folk bands? Or bands that do epics about elves, dragons and magic stuff? You guys look like you’re not doing anything over here but a bad Abbott and Costello skit, so I’d just thought I’d ask.