Categories
a woman is always to blame advocacy of violence antifeminism crackpottery men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) threats your time will come

MRA Peter Nolan: “Killing women is the only path to justice for men now.”

Peter Andrew Nolan: At war with women
Peter Andrew Nolan: At war with women

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.)

pn2denise

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.

pn1

pn3

pn4pn5

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.

pn9pn10pn11pn12pn13

Nolan thinks politicians and police officers are also legitimate targets in his “war.”

pn14

And he assures us this “war” will continue until he is properly compensated for whatever terrible injustices he thinks have been done to him.

pn15

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

391 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Kerlyssa:

As for why I am posting, I get annoyed when people try to coopt science, be it medical science or statistics in general, into their ideological dogpile.

I have not seen you dispute one statistical claim actually made by anybody in this thread. The only argument I’ve seen you make is that the claim “mentally ill folks are much more likely to be the victims of abuse than the perpetrators” does not imply that a specific violent criminal couldn’t possibly be mentally ill. This is an argument nobody here has made.

What I’ve seen from you in your replies to me has been a burning desire to point out that the correlation between mental illness and violence is not zero, nevermind how low that correlation is, how it comes to be, or what it means. I’ve seen you try to use numbers from the sources I linked without demonstrating an understanding of what those numbers actually mean, because you didn’t actually read them at first and relied on my vague summaries as if they were exact quotes.

So hey, I think you’re completely wasting your time here with an argument that, while not technically wrong, is so pedantic and unnecessary that it become insulting. But go ahead an show me wrong; point out the comment containing the statistical argument you’re upset with. Maybe then we can get this whole mess over and done with.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

If you can’t diagnose over the internet, which is what we were saying to start off, then why are you supporting the people who are dismissing misogynists as crazy? You’re so eager to disagree with us that you’re twisting yourself in knots to do it.

I’ve already explained why the statistic I posted was relevant to the discussion. Something you’ve ignored because it doesn’t fit your argument. That we’re scientifically ignorant idealogues.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

As for why I am posting, I get annoyed when people try to coopt science, be it medical science or statistics in general, into their ideological dogpile.

So, uh, why does “Mentally ill people are still people who deserve to be treated and respected like people” count as “Ideological” to you?

(The answer is “You’re a bigoted puddle of gooey goanna shit in the loose shape of a troll.”)

Kerlyssa
Kerlyssa
5 years ago

weirwood: I am not supporting ‘those people’. I simply saw that statistic about more victims being mentally ill for the nth time and was finally annoyed enough at it to post. I think there are perfectly valid reasons for not discussing the possible mental illness of the hatemongers this site covers, without implying that it shouldn’t be discussed because the mentally ill are less likely to be violent than their non mentally ill counterparts. If I agree with a stance, it doesn’t mean I am going to agree with every argument made in favor of that stance.

SFHC: because it IS an ideology. So is Feminism, or Democracy, or Atheism, or the civil rights movement (of the US), or what have you. Just because it is correct, or righteous, or ‘good’, or whatever doesn’t change it from being an ideology.

What is a goanna?

kirby: I commented on your links several pages ago, in a post addressed to you. My comments were based on my reading the articles you linked to. As I did read them, and did respond to what I read, and did post my response with your name at the front, I’m satisfied that that is a sufficient good faith effort on my part to investigate your claim.

Vickie Dillon
Vickie Dillon
5 years ago

Sorry but this guy is bat shit crazy!

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Kerlyssa:

kirby: I commented on your links several pages ago, in a post addressed to you. My comments were based on my reading the articles you linked to. As I did read them, and did respond to what I read, and did post my response with your name at the front, I’m satisfied that that is a sufficient good faith effort on my part to investigate your claim.

Hey, remember when you said, in your comment talking about crimes that are predominantly associated with mental illness, that you were referring to mass shootings? And remember when my source said that only a minority of the mass shooters had any psychiatric history? That was fun.

The main problem here is that you’ve been arguing for something absurdly specific; that mental illness is correlated with a non-zero increase in the chance of violent behavior. Doesn’t matter how that comes about, or how big the increase is, just that it’s nonzero.

Meanwhile, my point in introducing those sources was in the titles and summaries:

“Mental Illness Not Usually Linked to Crime, Research Finds”

“Multiple interacting factors contribute to violent behavior.

Public opinion surveys suggest that many people think mental illness and violence go hand in hand. A 2006 national survey found, for example, that 60% of Americans thought that people with schizophrenia were likely to act violently toward someone else, while 32% thought that people with major depression were likely to do so.

In fact, research suggests that this public perception does not reflect reality. Most individuals with psychiatric disorders are not violent. Although a subset of people with psychiatric disorders commit assaults and violent crimes, findings have been inconsistent about how much mental illness contributes to this behavior and how much substance abuse and other factors do.”

Note the “not usually” and the “not as much as” in there. That was my purpose in linking to them, because I assumed you wanted to be able to say that it was reasonable to assume that a particular violent criminal was mentally ill.

One of my sources even has this:

People with serious mental illness are 3 to 4 times more likely to be violent than those who aren’t. But the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent and never will be.

Most violence in society is caused by other things.

Oh no, 3 to 4 times more likely! My worldview is shattered, some sever mental illnesses do cause violence!

Oh wait, no it isn’t. That right there is a hint that you’ve been arguing against a phantom.

In fact, here’s another thing I wrote:

But never mind all that, let’s talk about lying (or eliding) with statistics. People with mental illnesses are a small percentage of the population. Violent criminals are also a small percentage. Let’s pretend that people with mental illnesses are twice as likely to commit a violent crime as someone without. Now you have a violent criminal in front of you; what’s the likelihood that they are mentally ill?

Small. That’s how statistics, and basic Bayesian reasoning, actually works.

And another:

Even in the highly selected world of mass shooters, mental illness is a bad bet. There are much better potential indicators of violence that span across the entire mental health spectrum.

And what was your response?

Or you could just skip to the end and realize that ‘not the best’ is not the same as ‘not’, and realize that you just said that mental illness correlate positively with mass shootings.

All because of the 20%-ish of mass shooters that had any sort of psychiatric history prior to the shooting (which of course does not mean that 20% committed their crimes due to mental illness).

And yet you go on to claim that your reason for posting here was because of our dreadful misuse of statistics, comparable to anti-vaxers. Sorry, I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith here.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Nobody ever said mentally ill people are less likely to commit crimes than anyone else. Why get all indignant and annoyed at a claim that never happened anywhere but in your head? All we’re arguing is that people shouldn’t be assumed to be mentally ill simply because they’re hateful or violent.

mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

In most cases they were cries of desperation from women who were frustrated and exhausted by an uphill climb.

And all the other comments about 2nd wave feminism engaging in, accepting or promoting violent talk.

What modern readers and writers overlook when discussing this is the context in which feminists were working and the very real oppression of women at the time.

Marriage.
Divorce was difficult and expensive. No fault divorce didn’t start in Australia until 1975, California in 1969 but the rest of the US took a while, it wasn’t universal in all 50 states until after 2000. The UK still doesn’t have universal no fault divorce. There were no refuges available for women and children to escape violence in their home until the 1970s. I don’t know how they went elsewhere but here in Australia, the staff at Elsie had no protection by government or the police. Their only defence was a cricket bat.

Sex and rape.
Rape in marriage was legal. It was first criminalised in an English speaking country in South Australia in 1976. It only became illegal in all 50 US states in 1993. Only 52 UN countries explicitly criminalise marital rape even now. Rape in other circumstances only counted, if at all, when it met the definition of “forcible” rape. Other violence in marriage was often dismissed or discounted as being the natural “right” of husbands to enforce the obedience they were entitled to expect. (Especially seeing as marriage vows consistently involved women literally promising to obey their husbands.) Many countries have now changed the general laws against rape so that the forcible portion of the definition is excluded.

For feminists in the 60s, these changes in the following decades to laws on rape and other violence against women were more or less unimaginable. If some, or many, women concluded that marriage was inherently violent as well as disadvantageous to women it’s hardly surprising. Especially given that it was difficult, if not impossible, for many women to get out of violent marriages. For women in these circumstances, talk of reciprocal violence or of getting men out of any position where they would have any power over women sounded like A Very Good Thing.

Kerlyssa
Kerlyssa
5 years ago

Kirby: Nope, didn’t say it was comparable to antivaxxers. If it was, I’d post here a hell of a lot more often. Most of my posting across the interwebs is about antivaxxers and various types of medical fraud, with the occasional foray into religion if it comes up somewhere. This blog is one I just read, because I haven’t had anything in particular I wanted to add before.

So, really, I’m just arguing that responding to every mention of insanity with ‘the mentally ill are more often victims’ is deceptive, and I disagree with deceptive rhetoric.

Probably going to stop posting here. Don’t think anyone in this thread is really interested in whether or not a popular rhetorical tactic is misdirection or not, and I’ve run out of things to say about it. Peace.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

@The Mad Cow

I just woke up and am getting ready for work so I won’t have time to read your links and give a longer reply right now, but some things jumped out:

No. Please don’t try the painfully white “good and bad activist” bullshit with MKL and Malcolm X. One, neither were fully pacifist (fighting an oppressive system cannot, in reality, be effectively done with utter pacifism, as power structures must be torn down in order for equality to happen. That won’t happen by kowtowing to the majority and asking them nicely to not, maybe, oppress others?) Two, again, small radicals simply don’t have the institutional backing of those protecting the status quo to cause massive damage. Considering the Black Panthers ever only targeted police officers, not an unreasonable stance in light of recent events, they are nothing like, say, the KKK, who murdered large numbers of unarmed civilians.

You claim to be a feminist, yet you ignore the reality of privilege-based violence in favor of concern-trolling that one feminist from half a century ago who is the only example MRAs can ever think of when warning us of radical feminists. The MRA are not like feminism in any shape or form. Feminists focus on social change, MRAs focus on opposing social change, like all right-wing “movements”. Not to say how other people should do their feminism, but are you seriously denying the dynamics of gender-based violence and oppression?

GrumpyOldSocialJusticeMangina

The fact that the debate about Valerie fractured the National Organization for Women [NOW] seems incredibly important. The liberal wing of NOW position is saying, “Get away from Valerie,” and then the radical wing of NOW is saying, “No. She’s a woman, she needs our help. She’s finally done something about the rage we all feel, why shouldn’t we consider this a feminist act?” That creates such a rift in the National Organization for Women in 1968 that it splits them in two. All of these women leave and form radical feminist groups, and that happens because of the fight over Valerie. Radical feminism is sort of born in the shadow of Valerie’s actions and writings.

Oh, shit, another argument portraying Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifest as more than a small footnote in feminist history.. Solanas was a brilliant person who suffered from mental illness throughout her life. The Scum Manifesto was never regarded as “Plan” by anyone — it was regarded as a valid expression of the rage many women felt at the constant mistreatment they suffered in society at the time. Ti-Grace Atkinson’s support of Solanas was only one of many factors that caused her to leave NOW; mainly she was a radical who thought that NOW was far too timid, while NOW was trying desperately to stay in the mainstream of American life and found Solanas’s manifesto far too incendiary. And I suppose there was some person somewhere who argued for the mass murder of men, but no serious feminist — and certainly not Atkinson — ever proposed putting this “Plan” into action.
You are trying to promote a baseless misrepresentation of early feminism to justify people like Paul Elam and Nolan who propose beating or killing women who aren’t willing to be traditionally submissive to men. I’m calling bullshit. Begone, MRAsshole.

Linda Aguilar
5 years ago

You’re such a sad excuse for a human let alone a decent man- NOT!!!

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Can we just start getting bans on ableism after the third comment that doubles down?
I’m sick to death of knowing that every single time I read the comments sections after some white dude murders or promotes murder that his bigotry will be blamed on mental illness.
It’s bigotry in itself. Why is it allowed to continue?

Kerlyssa,
You ignorant smarmy ableist fuck, you can go any time. You are breaking the rules. You are being an asshole. Just leave.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Might feel good to flex those outrage muscles.
You know, that is exactly what racists say to people of color and misogynists say top women. You think maaaaybe you’re being the baddie? Hmmmm? Maybe when you accuse people of just loving to feel shitty about the bigoted-ass things you say you might need to take a mo to shut up and consider that you might be engaging in assholery?

The demonization of the mentally ill makes the world harder and less safe for them while pretending that “normal” people cannot be violent and hateful for irrational reasons only make the world safer for violent bigots. Wars, genocides and slavery are things perfectly sane persons take part in. Othering to make yourself feel better about humanity and by extension yourself isn’t helping anyone. It only makes dealing with the actual causes of human hate and violence more difficult. What you are experiencing right now is a kind of denial. Let it go.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Lemme try that again.

Might feel good to flex those outrage muscles.

You know, that is exactly what racists say to people of color and misogynists say top women. You think maaaaybe you’re being the baddie? Hmmmm? Maybe when you accuse people of just loving to feel shitty about the bigoted-ass things you say you might need to take a mo to shut up and consider that you might be engaging in assholery?

The demonization of the mentally ill makes the world harder and less safe for them while pretending that “normal” people cannot be violent and hateful for irrational reasons only make the world safer for violent bigots. Wars, genocides and slavery are things perfectly sane persons take part in. Othering to make yourself feel better about humanity and by extension yourself isn’t helping anyone. It only makes dealing with the actual causes of human hate and violence more difficult. What you are experiencing right now is a kind of denial. Let it go.

nancy
nancy
5 years ago

At best this guy is a delusional, and certainly a sociopath. More like he is psychotic. He believes at least one flat out lie to be true and his manifesto is moronic. Anyone who believes him or debates with him is borderline intelligent or does not understand this disorder. And no he should not be threatening women or inciting violence against wimmin. the police and FBI should be informed and tracking his behavior. Lithium would help. The mans brain is not okay. I bet if a cat scan were done you would see a big piece missing or underdeveloped, possible a head injury. Wonder what kind of substances he has used or is using, that could be a major contributing factor to his problem. His poor mother…..

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Somewhat off topic,
I’m more and more convinced that all horror is based on the fear of the evil or at least the fatal flaws within. Sometimes that evil is projected outward, but people are at their core most afraid of themselves. Werewolves, aliens, vampires, wicked witches, ghosts and zombies are humanoid for a reason.

I gave a friend my copy of Willow Creek today. We ended up talking about Psycho and other movies we liked. Got me thinking about why certain films stick with ya and others never register as scary. Watching people do mental gymnastics to explain away plain ‘ol human ignorance and wickedness makes me want to continue that conversation. Hopefully, my buddy will be back soon.

ian martinez
ian martinez
5 years ago

Whatever feminist hatemongering you write, MRAs are not going away, we are growing and pushing back feminist hate now, men and women.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

Can we just start getting bans on ableism after the third comment that doubles down?

All in favour, raise your virtual hand.

*raises virtual hand*

Sorry David, I know this is your site, but like Lea said, this happens every time; we’re never able to have a real discussion in the aftermath of yet another threat or assault or murder spree. This thread derailed only 11 posts in. And that’s what the right-wingers and the trolls who work for them want. They want, need, to keep everybody distracted with roundabout arguments on mental illness (but not improving mental health care, ever, because that would be communism!) so that no members of the general public scratch the surface deeply enough to notice the real culprits – cishet white male entitlement, misogyny, racism, violent right-wing rhetoric of all kinds – and none of us who already know have the time or energy to do anything about it.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

It’s not just harmful to our discussions here, or to those of us with mental illnesses, or to other people with mental illnesses; it’s harmful to the entire world’s chances at finally stemming the tide. And they’re counting on it.

Ugh.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Can we just start getting bans on ableism after the third comment that doubles down?

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/raises-hand.gif

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Can we just start getting bans on ableism after the third comment that doubles down?

All in favour, raise your virtual hand.

http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls7beqqYGb1qhwhzt.gif

http://33.media.tumblr.com/a59ff8ee13a63eaf3e3bc729ea42e900/tumblr_inline_myv3dyrN7J1ruzo1y.gif
comment image

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

*raises virtual hand*

Because damn, I’m sick of these derails.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

comment image

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

And now, a possibly futile attempt to re-rail the discussion:

Has anyone ever noticed that The Colon sure likes to use the word “LAWFUL” a lot, but is totally clueless as to what it actually means?

http://www.louisaheinrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/inigo-montoya_that-word.jpg

Because, as has been pointed out above, both Ireland AND Australia have gender-neutral laws saying that you can’t get away with murder there for any reason.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

And, really: “Killing women to get your attention”? What’s wrong with a polite “excuse me, plese”?

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

*PLEASE, even.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Another word The Colon doesn’t know the meaning of: war. Also, “enemy”. Who died and gave this fucker the authority to declare “war” upon an entire gender?

Kelli Wren Crackel
Kelli Wren Crackel
5 years ago

Germany can have him. I hope they keep him. I wonder how outspoken he’d be if someone could kill women and implicate him in the process. I can’t decide if he’d turn tail and run or if he’s just crazy enough to own his culpability in the crime.

Candace Garside
5 years ago

You never heard of the #KillAllWhiteMen campaign? This tool has done the same thing, just flipped it on women. Notice the hysteria and rage, but notice the defense of the #KillAllWhiteMen campaign?

It shows clear sexism, in a movement that is supposedly about equality. it shows a clear gender bias and gender hatred… It’s irony at it’s best

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Huh?

Shaenon
5 years ago

Mad Cow:

But the feminist division of opinion on Solanas was over whether to support her as a woman and fellow activist after her attempted murder of Warhol, not over whether to follow her manifesto. There were never any feminists seriously plotting to kill all men and institute a robot-butler-driven female utopia, as awesome as that might have been.

I personally think the SCUM Manifesto is funny, but I don’t take it seriously as a blueprint for society. Yes, there was a lot of experimental radicalism floating around in the 60s and 70s, but your concept of the SCUM Manifesto as a major feminist document is completely off. Solanas was almost unknown until the Warhol shooting, and the SCUM Manifesto wasn’t widely read until it got reprinted in a feminist anthology some years later. I do think it reflects some of the emotion of the time, but not ideas people were seriously considering.

Incidentally, while fact-checking my posts, I noticed that all your information seems to come from Wikipedia. The only line from the Scum Manifesto that you quoted here is also the only line quoted in its Wikipedia entry, and your quote from Ti-Grace Atkinson is also from Wikipedia. (I was curious why you chose it, as it doesn’t seem to have anything to do with your argument.) It’s a bit rich to accuse other people of being ignorant if you can’t even be bothered to look outside Wikipedia for information.

Pat Lisenbee
5 years ago

It is so sad to see in our day and age such hate built up in people and the excuses they use to act on it.I can only hope the man is unattached and has no children to pass this hate onto, although there are more men out there willing to follow his particular brand of hatred. Women are just as worthy as men are in every way and deserve every right they have and can get. Females evolved along side of males; in fact, without females, the male race would have died out eons ago. We are all equally important in this life and this man and his cronies need to realize this.

gilshalos
5 years ago

I suffer from mental illness. I have an appointment for rediagnosis on Friday to see if I am in fact bi-polar rather than Unipolar. I have never hurt anyone else, but I do have razor scars

misseb47
5 years ago

Really?! Does this misogynistic, cowardly arsewhipe really have to use my initials for his twitter account? I don’t want anything in common with that low life. He is such a bastard. I am 100% sure he believes EVERY single word of that hate speech. That blatant incitement there. And how dare he blame those women for being murdered by their abusive husbands!! Excuse me while I vomit. THAT is disgusting. No Colon, these women are not to blame, these men are. Trying to flee an obviously dangerously abusive situation is a woman’s right, not a criminal offense punishable by death. Women are people and people have the right to be treated with respect and to not have the shit beaten out of them simply for being women. Also, haven’t you heard, people have DIED. Precisely how soulless are you? I hope the German authorities are on to you.

“Can we just start getting bans on ableism after the third comment that doubles down?

All in favour, raise your virtual hand.”

That is an awesome idea!! I am so sick of this ableist shit.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lanuo7DxKh1qbciwh.gif

http://33.media.tumblr.com/a59ff8ee13a63eaf3e3bc729ea42e900/tumblr_inline_myv3dyrN7J1ruzo1y.gif

AltoFronto
AltoFronto
5 years ago

It’s for THIS EXACT REASON that Law Enforcement in every nation needs to treat Twitter threats as real crimes. This Colon sounds like a very real danger to women, and everyone would be safer if he were in some kind of custody.
I don’t think we should be giving these threat-making lone-gunman-wannabes any benefit of the doubt.

Also raising my hand on the proposed ban on ableism after the third double-down. It’s not hard to read the blog rules, and also not hard to pause and reflect after someone explicitly asks you to stop using certain words.

@Candace – there’s a huuuge difference between #KillAllWhiteMen – a gallows-humour subversion of racialised misogynist violence that is currently oppressing all women and PoC… and Some Guy with a totally self-manufactured Grievance threatening to take it out on specific targets, justifying why it would be totally acceptable and consequence-free, and backing it up with further blog posts on the subject.

Like, nobody expects to be able to KillAllWhiteMen so it becomes a joke, an expression of frustration; but this Colon seems to think he could murder a whole bunch of women and get away with it/ have all his demands met.
That’s not a joke, that’s terrorism.

Spindrift
Spindrift
5 years ago

“Can we just start getting bans on ableism after the third comment that doubles down?

All in favour, raise your virtual hand.”

http://www.forevergeek.com/wp-content/media/2012/11/thing_addamsfamily_tv.jpg

gilshalos
5 years ago

@spindrift – access denied on your photo

Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

Here’s a fun comment that was lost in the shuffle

ian martinez | July 7, 2015 at 9:48 pm
Whatever feminist hatemongering you write, MRAs are not going away, we are growing and pushing back feminist hate now, men and women.

berdache from a previous life

Not sure if I get a vote about the ban on ableism after the third comment and I’m conflicted about it. Certainly understand the frustration, would vote for the ban, and…as a newcomer to the site, I learned a lot in the discussion.

Would it be possible to say, link to a thread like this in the FAQs about ableism so that people who are just ignorant can learn?

It also seems to me that someone can just log in with another account, take another 3 shots at it, then, log in with another account, take another three shots at it, repeat until bored. Got a troll on my favorite sports messageboard who has had 100’s of identities over last few years. He’s got a program that masks his IP address, only thing to do is to ban him as soon as he appears. If someone is determined to derail, they will.

Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

Sorry, my mobile keyboard was bugging out and I guess I managed to hit “Post Comment” while I was struggling with it.

I was just going to comment on the irony of leaving a message about “feminist hate” on a post about an MRA advocating the murder of women.

Viscaria
Viscaria
5 years ago

@berdache (is it cool to shorten your name?) I don’t think anybody would mind that you’re voicing your opinion :).

Would it be possible to say, link to a thread like this in the FAQs about ableism so that people who are just ignorant can learn?

There are a number of links in the welcome package in the ableism section that you and others are welcome to check out.

It also seems to me that someone can just log in with another account, take another 3 shots at it, then, log in with another account, take another three shots at it, repeat until bored. Got a troll on my favorite sports messageboard who has had 100’s of identities over last few years. He’s got a program that masks his IP address, only thing to do is to ban him as soon as he appears. If someone is determined to derail, they will.

I have never understood this argument, which seems to boil down to “if we have x rule, people will break x rule, and so we might as well not have x rule in the first place.” This is true of all rules, isn’t it? So should we have no rules at all, and if not, why should this specific one be skipped?

katz
5 years ago

Berdache: I’m generally on the less banny side of things, but we already have a detailed discussion of ableism in the Welcome Package. For that matter, a lot of the threads ableist trolls pop into already contain prior explanations of ableism. For that matter, as seen here, people usually explain it to said trolls patiently and repeatedly to no avail.

In our experience, as much as we wish it would, simply making an explanation of our policy clearly available won’t make people knock it off, hence the desire for a ban.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

Paul Elam’s expressed hatred of women would certainly be relevant if Elam someday kills a woman.

Not funny, dude. Type ”Paul Elam” in the search bar on the right and read some of the things David has reported on scumstain Elam. That man is an abuser, through and through.

But that Solanas’s ideological hatred for men had something to do with her willingness to kill a man is, at least, I think, reasonably arguable.

I’d think Solanas’s complex personality and her obsession with being noticed were bigger factors than any imaginary ”misandry” (which, by the way, is still a non-issue). A central reason for the shooting was Warhol’s continued refusal to read Solanas’s script. This was, as I think no one denies, an unacceptable violent action, but it was not a tip of any iceberg. Feminism has been, as was pointed out before, one of the most peaceful movements in history, despite the violent opposition by reactionary assholes like the MRAs.

Of course feminism in 1968 is not identical to Men’s Rights in 2015. But I didn’t argue that. I argued that there are similarities worth investigating. Both are gender-based rights movements, for one. That’s a pretty strong base of similarity.

And that’s all there is, literally. Feminism was born from the desire to challenge the patriarchal status quo and to get women the same rights to vote and own property, the right to bodily autonomy, equal pay, etc, things that men always held for granted. Some of these have been accomplished, others have not, but that is why feminism is still needed today. One of the main issues facing feminism today is how to change perceptions of traditional gender roles. This is something that helps men, too! Feminism was never about attacking men as a group, only privilege.

The MRM, on the other hand, has none of these things to combat. The MRM was always about attacking those ”uppity” women. Feminism was born as a reaction against an unjust society by a less privileged group, the MRM was born as an angry reaction to the loss of privilege sensed by a more privileged group. They are nowhere near the same.

In that they are comparable as social movements trying to achieve goals.

Oh, wow. And I’m comparable to Superman because I know how to move in a threedimensional space. Seriously, this is the most ridiculous non sequitur I’ve seen in a while.

As for your ignorance regarding the civil rights movement…

http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1339426725154_9146065.png

So far the reactions here to my bringing up Valerie Solanas are three for three: All responses seem to imply that Peter Nolan’s words deserve condemnation because he purports to speak for men, while Valerie Solanas’s actions are excusable because she was on the side of women.

I don’t see any ”defending Solanas because she’s a woman” going on. But you seem to be under the impression that we either have to agree with Solanas or accept the phony belief that misandry is a thing in society. This is a false dichotomy and you know it.

Personally, from my very privileged place, I’m a rather hardcore pacifist and do not advocate for violence towards anyone, with the exception of self-defense. I realize that members of oppressed groups often have no choice, and I support them over hand-wringing concern trolling any day of the week, despite my personal stance. HOWEVER, just because I disagree with Solanas’s actions doesn’t mean I believe misandry is real, or that feminism is uniformly violent or has ever had big issues with violent members.

If the thread hadn’t been hijacked by ableist douchenozzles, you’d have seen our discussion on that what Nolan is doing is the same old, same old ”older men tell young, impressionable men that violence against another group is acceptable, even desired, and feign to be shocked when some violent individual takes action”. This is so different from the over-the-top SCUM manifesto that it’s not even funny. Seriously, have you read Solanas’s manifesto? It’s hilarious! Of course, there was actual frustration and disillusionment regarding the patriarchy that spawned those words, but how is anyone supposed to take that seriously?

But they are just as angry as 1968 feminists, and just as eager to take action.

No, no, a thousand times no. Misogynist men like the MRAs are more eager to take violent action. Are you really trying to deny the reality that the majority of all violence is perpetuated by men, especially by the type that thinks “feminism has gone too far?” Precisely because men are taught that reacting violently over perceived slights is a-okay?

You cannot enter a gender discourse without realizing that the playing field is not level. A feminist writing over-the-top violent fantasies and shooting a man for selfish reasons does not make up for centuries, even millenia of mostly one-sided, gender-based violence.

weirwoodtreehugger,

You seriously don’t recognize the MRM as meeting the minimum definition of a social movement?

Thanks for that. It explains a lot.

She’s right, you know. The MRM is a movement about as much as I’m catholic. I have some rudimentary understanding of the rites, the sacraments and the beliefs, mostly as shaped by popular culture, but I do not practice it, preach it or believe in any value it could have on my personal life, and I do, in fact, oppose the very idea, to some degree at least.

The difference being, I don’t shame people who care about catholicism, as many MRAs like to use ”social justice warrior” as an insult, apparently forgetting that they should consider themselves ones as well.

I’m going to make a pause here, and rant some more.

Solanas continues to be an exceptional character in feminist discourse because there has literally been no one else like her. As Shaenon (amongst others) pointed out, there was never a serious debate about following her manifesto, as you claim, only a disagreement over whether to support her or not. There is a middle ground between defending a person and committing genocide, you know.

The MRM is all about provocative (at best) and violent (par for the course) rhetoric. They cry satire every time their violent thoughts are caught by outsiders, but we are still waiting for that magical ”moderate MRA” who cares about actual human rights and not just their hate-boner. It is rather telling that most organizations that actually do something about men in need routinely distance themselves from the MRM.

Feminism is for human rights. As the MRM was born as an opposed reaction to the social progress made by feminism and not from a desire to change society in a more equal direction, the MRM cannot, by its very nature, be for human rights. Their main focus is battling feminism, not making a difference in the lives of the unfortunate. Such a ”movement” does not deserve consideration.

There are a lot of problems facing even white heterosexual cis men in our society, but they are largely due to capitalism and toxic masculinity, both of which are patriarchal constructs that cause much bigger problems to other groups anyway. We cannot combat those problems without acknowledging the reality of patriarchal beliefs. In other words, we can’t change society without feminism, but things will be easier once all MRA-minded shitgolems are gone.

Okay, done for now. I have other things to take care of at the moment. Thankfully, the wonderful and talented Shaenon has been busy while I’ve been offline.

@Lea

Can we just start getting bans on ableism after the third comment that doubles down?

Yes, please. I know the bullshit The Mad Cow has been pulling isn’t much more interesting, but at least it’s somewhat relevant to the topic at hand. I’m fed up with the ableism as well, and I’ve only really been back commenting here starting, like, yesterday.

@ian martinez

Whatever feminist hatemongering you write, MRAs are not going away, we are growing and pushing back feminist hate now, men and women.

That’s cute, dear. Now run along and play, daddy will have to start making dinner.

@myself

Or MLK, even. What was that about ”painfully white”?

berdache from a previous life

@viViscaria,

re: my opinion: You may not have seen my first post. Still embarrassed by it.

Yeah looked through the FAQs, forgot about the welcome package.

My objection to banning someone after their 3rd double down was that it puts additional strain on the mods, who have quite a lot to do already. It’s a thankless job and I wouldn’t want it to be any harder.

But, after re-reading the FAQs, someone who doubles down 3 times qualifies for a ban under the rules anyway. It’s not adding to his job so much as clarifying the rules. Plus the ability to moderate all first comments prevents much of the trolling I was thinking of.

So, I withdraw my objections to the plan and endorse it wholeheartedly. Think that a 3 strike rule is a good rule of thumb for all trolls.

For the subject matter discussed in this site, think the place is amazingly well moderated. I think David does a really good job of balancing between letting people talk things out and shutting down trolls. Part of that is David and part of that is the regular posters keeping things in check.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

You never heard of the #KillAllWhiteMen campaign? This tool has done the same thing, just flipped it on women. Notice the hysteria and rage, but notice the defense of the #KillAllWhiteMen campaign?

It shows clear sexism, in a movement that is supposedly about equality. it shows a clear gender bias and gender hatred… It’s irony at it’s best

No…Irony at ITS best (no apostrophe) is you failing to get a Twitter joke (NOT a “campaign”. A JOKE, dear). And defending this turd, albeit backhandedly, by referencing that.

Also: WHAT “defense”? Nobody here has even referenced that joke except you.

Could you possibly do the patriarchy’s work for it a bit better?

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Whatever feminist hatemongering you write, MRAs are not going away, we are growing and pushing back feminist hate now, men and women.

Cry moar, emo kid.