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
Lea
Lea
5 years ago

ian martinez,comment image
Sure, dude.

berdache from a previous life,
You can go find info on ableism on your own. Your edification at our expense may be nice for you, but it is costing the people the ableism is aimed at quite alot. You may learn more about why racism is wrong by seeing people defend themselves and others against racism. That does not mean they should have to do that.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

berdache,
You don’t give a shit about “mods”. You also came in being ableist as fuck and you want to be able to keep it up. Who do you think you’re fooling? Our memories are not that short.

berdache from a previous life

@Lea,

How long do I have to be here without using ableist language before you believe me? If the answer is “Never”, I understand. That would make me sad, but I understand.

I’m not going anywhere, unless David bans me. I don’t intend to give him any reason to. I may very well slip up and use ableist language simply because I’m not practiced at avoiding it like I am with racist and sexist terms. But I will be, over time.

I’m so sorry I made such a mess of my first post. I hurt and offended people whom I respect, including you.

I apologized when I realized what I had done. I have not repeated the behavior. I’m not going to repeat it. If there is anything else I can do to make amends to you and to the board,let me know.

Cheryl Kerkin
5 years ago

In the 2nd tweet above he’s given himself away. He wants our attention. He. Wants. Our. Attention. This is what it always boils down to doesn’t it? Elliot Rodgers etc. They want attention from women and they want it NOW. But they stink of dysfunction and wierdness so, who would? No-one.
Yet because they were born into a world that promised them ‘kingship’ and privilege and they have no insight or problem solving capabilities they are in a bubbleheaded funk about why mummy isn’t giving them milk and toys and a cleaned up backside and nappy (diaper) on demand.
We all know that MGTOW is a big fat sulkfest of grown babymen throwing their rattles out of their pram.
Will all MGTOW please do just that. Right now. And STFU once and for all.

freemage
5 years ago

By the standards of the bovine pitching a tantrum, a group of guys wanting to establish a colony on Earth’s fifth moon, who choose to work towards this goal by playing games of hopscotch, counts as a movement, as well.

To the ableist fuckheads:

Consider, just for a moment, that even if you are right and Nolon is mentally ill, that it may be the mental illness that’s keeping him from actual violence.

Consider his most blatantly contrafactual statements–“legal murder” and “state of war”–the ones that are most commonly used to support the claim that he’s actually mentally ill. If we accept that he believes these sincerely, and that they rise to the level of some sort of clinical delusion, then the fact that he believes that there are a swarm of men out there prepared to rise up and wage that war may be the only thing preventing him from acting on his very does-not-require-mental-illness misogyny. If he were to realize that he is, by and large, on his own with no teeming masses supporting him, he might instead act out of desperation to try and hurt those whom he hates personally.

My point is not that he is or is not mentally ill; it’s that mental illness does not determine his attitude. We cannot know how his rancid, vile positions are influenced by any mental health issues he may or may not have, so speculation on that front is unhelpful, even if it were totally harmless–which it most definitely is not.

Anna Gregory
5 years ago

Bahhhhhhh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I love satire!

The Mad Cow
The Mad Cow
5 years ago

Shaenon,

I’d suggest you read what I actually posted. I quoted from a wide variety of sources, none of which were Wikipedia. I provided links. You can use your mouse to click on those. Clicking on provided links is a good way to tell if someone can be “bothered to look outside Wikipedia for information.”

Also, if someone accuses you of not being “bothered to look outside Wikipedia for information,” even though you provided links to sources exclusively outside Wikipedia, that’s a good way to tell that they didn’t read what you wrote. At least not with any significant comprehension.

The manifesto quote is the most famous quote from the work and also happens to be the opening paragraph. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t on Wikipedia. The Atkinson quote has been famous for ages (there are feminist books and essays with titles that play off of it); I didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me about it. If you want to know why I quoted Atkinson in that parenthetical, you should read what I wrote and use the context to get the meaning. It’s fairly clear.

To my knowledge, no feminists started building robots after reading the SCUM Manifesto. You are correct about that.

Shaenon
5 years ago

Wasn’t the #killallmen hashtag created by antifeminist dudes on 4chan? Not only is it a joke, it’s not even a feminist joke.

Shaenon
5 years ago

The Atkinson quote has been famous for ages (there are feminist books and essays with titles that play off of it); I didn’t need Wikipedia to tell me about it. If you want to know why I quoted Atkinson in that parenthetical, you should read what I wrote and use the context to get the meaning. It’s fairly clear.

I’m sorry, you’ll have to help me. I don’t know what you’re trying to say with that quote.

I did look at your links, as you know since I mentioned reading one of them in a previous post. They didn’t seem to provide strong support for your arguments that a) the SCUM Manifesto was a major feminist document or b) feminists took it seriously. For example, the interview with Solanas’s biographer opens with her saying that she’d never read the SCUM Manifesto until she started researching Solanas, and that when she did read it for the first time she laughed because it was so absurd.

The Mad Cow
The Mad Cow
5 years ago

Anarchonist,

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.

If you’re saying that Elam has written things just as hateful as Valerie Solanas did, I don’t disagree. That was actually my point. If you write that you hate men and they all should die, and then you attempt to murder three men, and then you tell people to read your manifesto to learn why you tried to murder the men, it is reasonable for people to see a connection between your words and your actions.

I’d think Solanas’s complex personality and her obsession with being noticed were bigger factors than any imaginary “misandry.”

This sounds a lot like the apologetics we always hear following other ideologically motivated violent actions. The connection between Elliot Rodgers’ violent actions and his previously stated ideas about women is fairly obvious. But when it comes to Valerie Solanas, all of a sudden nuance is discovered as a concept. We need to look at her “complex personality” and her “obsession with being noticed.” Anything but her prior expressed hatred for men and her own confirmation after her arrest that the ideas in the manifesto motivated her.

Feminism was never about attacking men as a group, only privilege.

You are dead wrong about this. TODAY, feminism is not about attacking men. It was not always thus. In the 1960s, feminists were not nearly as clear as they are today about goals, process, methods or even basic ideology. They had to figure this stuff out. And rage was, of course, part of the mix. Feminism had to figure out the right path, and that process was extremely messy a lot of the time. In the 1960s, a lot of the confusion was just part of being in the 1960s. But a lot of it also had to do with feminism being so young. Young movements are messy, and there is usually a lot of infighting (much of it good).

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?

And yet many did. NOW’s Ti-Grace Atkinson read it and personally re-typed it, copied it and distributed those copies. She was determined that it should be part of the conversation. Betty Friedan was just as determined that it should not be.

I included a link to letters between Atkinson and Solanas in a previous comment. I assume that you didn’t read anything there. And I suppose that if you continue to avoid looking at facts, you can continue to believe that your own personal reaction to SCUM must also have been the reaction at the time.

The Mad Cow
The Mad Cow
5 years ago

Shaenon,

They didn’t seem to provide strong support for your arguments that a) the SCUM Manifesto was a major feminist document or b) feminists took it seriously.

I only asserted b), which is beyond reasonable dispute. Although I would modify what you wrote to say that SOME feminists took it seriously. As I said above,

NOW’s Ti-Grace Atkinson read it and personally re-typed it, copied it and distributed those copies. She was determined that it should be part of the conversation.

There is ample evidence that Solanas had a rapt audience at NOW. And there is plenty of documentation about the fights over Solanas elsewhere. They wouldn’t have been fighting if there weren’t at least two sides.

Some feminists try to Memory-Hole this fact, some do not:

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.

I personally feel that it is just plain dumb to try to ignore history at all, but I also feel there’s no strategic reason to Memory-Hole this particular history. The result is as good as it gets in the real world of social movements and group dynamics. Nobody should reasonably expect the history of a movement to recognize women as fully human and full citizens would be neat and tidy all the way through, especially considering where we started.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@The Mad Cow:

Now, granted, I haven’t been following this thread since yesterday, but you keep repeating that “some feminists took [the scum manifesto] seriously,” and bring up evidence that it was part of the feminist discussion.

I asked you if you knew why it was discussed, and what bits the people who liked it actually liked. You evaded the question.

So I’ll ask a different, but related question. Why should we care if the SCUM manifesto was an important feminist document? Is that fact supposed to indict feminism in some way? If so, how? Be as explicit as possible, please.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I’ve been skimming Mad Cow’s posts – can someone fill me in on whether there is something worthwhile in there, or if it’s just pointless tl:dr sealioning?

SJ
SJ
5 years ago

I had never heard of this man until now. Wow. Can he not get pulled up on this, legally? Or at least investigated?

katz
katz
5 years ago

I’m just now quite sure why modern feminists should care about the SCUM manifesto, which was written before most of us were born as part of a movement with very little resemblance to modern feminism. If second-wavers really liked it, that would still not make it particularly relevant to us.

All in all, this conversation is not changing my impression that it’s nothing but a stick antifeminists pull out to try and beat us with because they literally can’t find anything else remotely questionable that feminists have done.

The Mad Cow
The Mad Cow
5 years ago

kirbywarp,

The correspondence between Solanas and Atkinson is available to you. I have linked to it twice. Just scroll up a little bit and use your mouse to click on it. You could also read Betty Friedan for the perspective from the other (winning) side. Or you could investigate any of the other links. Or you could read Breanne Fahs. Or you could even do your own research. Your question is answerable. But since the question is “Why?” it is going to have a lot of different answers, because people are different. Why Friedan was discussing Solanas (she correctly perceived a threat) is different than why Atkinson was (she saw a potential ally and media star).

No, the Solanas/SCUM disputes do not indict feminism. The result was a good one. As I said, it’s the best result that you can really get in the real world. Please let me know if you require more explicitness.

The parallels between the beginning of second-wave feminism and the current state of the MRM are obvious to me. But then, I am intimately familiar with the innerworkings of a wide variety of groups (I’m old). From direct experience, I know that many of the challenges faced by groups with different aims are nonetheless the same. Same-sex marriage advocates face many of the same problems that Focus on the Family does. Anti-nuke groups had the same kinds of internal fights as free-speech groups. It really only takes about one step back to get this perspective.

Peter Nolan, the subject of David’s post, presents the same problem to the MRM that Solanas did to NOW: Is this where we want to go? I am very interested to see where this trend goes. It is not obvious to me that the MRM has to continue down the current path of blaming women and feminism for everything, and reaching for violent language (or worse) as a matter of habit. But they could.

Unlike (apparently) most here, I do not see the MRM primarily as a source of entertainment. Admittedly, they are darkly entertaining. But they are also growing, and pretty soon they’re going to figure out that they can do things. I’m worried about what they will do.

freemage
5 years ago

PoM: Generally, the tantrum-throwing bovine’s posts are worthless, except as a prelude to reading Shaenon’s take-downs, really. Those, as always, are good stuff. Though it does amuse that he’s now quoting himself, in blockquotes, even, to help substantiate his implication that there was a faction of 1960s feminism that was ready to launch the Man-o-caust and replace all the doods with robo-butlers (as opposed to a disagreement over whether the tone of the satirie was too strident, or whether her assassination attempt was sufficient reason to disqualify her as a member of the movement entirely).

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

@PoM

I wouldn’t even call it sealioning anymore, he dropped any pretense of “Just asking questions” as soon as he first mentioned Solanas. Now he’s just screaming about her like Republicans scream about Obama (angrily and full of conspiracy theories).

So yeah, you’d be able to find more worthwhile stuff in a clogged toilet.

freemage
5 years ago

katz | July 8, 2015 at 5:32 pm

I’m just now quite sure why modern feminists should care about the SCUM manifesto, which was written before most of us were born as part of a movement with very little resemblance to modern feminism. If second-wavers really liked it, that would still not make it particularly relevant to us.

All in all, this conversation is not changing my impression that it’s nothing but a stick antifeminists pull out to try and beat us with because they literally can’t find anything else remotely questionable that feminists have done.

I’m good at jumping down rabbit-holes, so I see what Sad Boner–I mean, Mad Cow–is going for, here.

He’s attempting to establish the legitimacy of the MRM as a social movement by comparing Elam, et al to Solanos. He wants to establish the idea that the ‘extremists’ should not be used to judge ‘the movement’.

Of course, he can’t quite state this comparison directly, because it falls apart like cheap tissue in a hurricane upon closer examination:

1: The MRM consists of nothing but ‘fringe’. There’s no mainstream for radicals to break off from; they are solely comprised of extremists. They occasionally glom onto convenient issues (such as cosmetic male infant circumcision), but no actual group taking action to fight those battles identifies as an MRM group–compare to NOW or other groups that take action to expand abortion rights, fair pay and so forth, and which are explicitly feminist.

2: The MRM does not seek to improve the status of men’s lives, but rather solely exists to make a case why women’s lives should not be improved in any way, shape or form. Even most radical feminists don’t really object if some men–usually those who act counter to normative toxic masculinity standards–benefit in some way from advancing women’s rights.

3: The Nolon-Solanos comparison, of course, also falls apart when comparing intent–the SCUM Manifesto is a dark, fantastic satire, whereas Nolon is dead serious and literally wants women to die at the hands of violent men.

There’s more, but seriously, those three should be enough.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Mad Cow is a sealion for sure. I’m definitely through engaging.

The Mad Cow
The Mad Cow
5 years ago

freemage,

3: The Nolon-Solanos comparison, of course, also falls apart when comparing intent–the SCUM Manifesto is a dark, fantastic satire, whereas Nolon is dead serious and literally wants women to die at the hands of violent men.

This one absolutely must win the prize for murder apologetics.

When looking to draw a contrast between Valerie Solanas and Peter Nolan, you heroically manage to find the neural pathways to this: It is Nolon who we can be sure has true murderous intent.

Not the person who actually tried to kill three people.

Andy Warhol would surely have been relieved to hear that his lifelong wounds were merely satirical.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Thanks, all. Your sacrifices (reading this nonsense so I don’t have to) are deeply appreciated.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

I’ve been skimming Mad Cow’s posts – can someone fill me in on whether there is something worthwhile in there, or if it’s just pointless tl:dr sealioning?

(Granted, THIS sea lion is more amusing by far.)

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

@The Mad Cow

Once again, my time is short, but anyway:

I did read your links, but there was nothing in there that supports your nonsense. We have pointed out time and again that even if everything you’ve written so far was true (and boy, is it not), you’re presenting a false equivalency based on an inability to tell apart ridiculous fantasy from actual threats. Go and read Nolan’s tweets, then read the SCUM manifesto again. Can’t you see a difference in tone right there? Not even a little bit? Actually, I can understand if you don’t, MRAs are famously incapable of understanding what constitutes as satire and what does not.

Yes, I’m calling you an MRA. I really don’t know why you would continue trying to lend credibility to such a joke of a movement if you didn’t have a stake in this. The MRAs are not in a similar place as feminism because the MRM is not a social movement. Never has been, never will be. Capiche?

Andy Warhol would surely have been relieved to hear that his lifelong wounds were merely satirical.

No, you insufferably tedious sealion, no. I repeat: Not agreeing with Solanas’s actions does not mean there has ever been a reason for anybody to take her manifesto seriously.

Not that it’s either here or there, but Warhol forgave Solanas for the shooting. So it stands to reason he knew something you do not.

And Rodger’s manifesto is nothing but 100+ pages of an incredibly privileged young man whining how haaaard his life has been, with trips to Disneyland and tons of toys and whatnot. No manospherian has ever reached Solanas’s wit. You cannot draw a comparison by any stretch of logic.

I’ll see if I’ll bother to write anything else after coming home from work. You’re tedious, you’re wrong, and you have no leg to stand on.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@Bina

Not impressed by the wannabe sealion tamer there, and was happy to see the animal win. 😀

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Yup, this is the one time I root for the sealion. When it’s the kind with a sleek coat and flippers.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@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.

Bina
Bina
5 years ago

Well, according to the YouTuber, this was in New Zealand. Not sure what their animal control services are like. But yeah: hockey sticks stoopid.

phoenixfire75
5 years ago

How terribly scared he and his ilk must be. And justifiably so. Karma is SUCH a bitch 🙂

The Mad Cow
The Mad Cow
5 years ago

Not that it’s either here or there, but Warhol forgave Solanas for the shooting. So it stands to reason he knew something you do not.

If this isn’t victim blaming, I don’t know what it is.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

The Mad Cow | July 9, 2015 at 12:38 am

Not that it’s either here or there, but Warhol forgave Solanas for the shooting. So it stands to reason he knew something you do not.

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.

Victim blaming occurs when the victim of a crime or any wrongful act is held entirely or partially responsible for the harm that befell them.

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.

sunnysombrera
5 years ago

Just some drive by brain bleach, since it sounds like you guys need some. Respect to you all for dealing with that sealion-cow.comment image

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

@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):

Later, when questioned as to why she did it, she replied “I just wanted him to pay attention to me. Talking to him was like talking to a chair.”

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.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

Correction: *he* had never even talked to. Damn those gender pronouns.

corkymak
corkymak
5 years ago

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

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@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.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

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.

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.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@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.

Spindrift
Spindrift
5 years ago

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

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.

maistrechat
5 years ago
Reply to  Spindrift

@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.

The Mad Cow
The Mad Cow
5 years ago

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.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

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.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

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.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

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.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
5 years ago

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

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
5 years ago

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?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

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.

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.

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

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.