Men’s Rights provocateur and bow-hunting enthusiast Janet Bloomfield — a.k.a. JudgyBitch — has not been shy about sharing her fantasies of violent retribution against feminists.
Several months ago, you may recall, she begged her Patreon supporters to send her $800 so she could buy a “beautiful angel of death crossbow with which she could, as she giddily explained, “shoot … feminists in the face” if they showed up at her door.
Today, inspired by her colleague Jack Barnes’ threats against me, Bloomfield has reiterated her desire to shoot her enemies dead. In a post on her blog, archived here, she writes
I will kill anyone threatening me or my family. There are no ‘ifs’. …
Show up on my doorstep, and … I will take you down with lethal intent. If you survive it will only be because my aim was off, and we have excellent medical care. Think it through, brave warriors.
In this and in her other comments, Bloomfield — a Canadian stay-at-home mother whose real name is Andrea Hardie, as she noted in a recent fundraising appeal — is careful to frame her murderous fantasies as acts she would take in self-defense. Whether or not it is legal for her to shoot someone who rings her doorbell in the face with a crossbow I will leave up to experts in Canadian law.
But she also seems to imply that she would be justified in targeting anyone she thinks is threatening her, whether or not they pose an actual physical threat.
At one point, she appears to imply that doxing itself would be enough to justify murder.
Doxing Jack’s daughter is crossing a line, but rest assured that line is there, and I am willing to defend it, with every ounce of my being.
I suspect this will get worse before it gets better, and I promise every brave SJW I can make it far worse than they can even imagine.
And I will.
Threaten me, or my family, and you’re dead.
She also seems to think that whoever launched an alleged letter-writing campaign against her family might deserve death as well. Immediately after one of her announcements of her murderous intentions, Hardie/Bloomfield writes this:
This is perhaps a good time to remind Futrelle and his various psychotic minions, who have recently been engaged in a campaign against me and my family, that the FBI has taken notice, and a process is in motion that has absolutely nothing to do with me. … I cannot discuss any specifics of what went down (at this point in time), and indeed, there are aspects of the case that I don’t even know about, but I will assure Futrelle and his minions that the involvement of the FBI in this matter permits me to easily meet the ‘reasonable person’ standard of self-defence in Canada to justify the use of lethal force.
I’m pretty sure the fact that the FBI is (allegedly) investigating someone does not mean that you have the right to murder that someone with a crossbow. I’m also pretty sure I don’t have any “psychotic minions” or indeed any minions at all.
It’s not quite clear what the alleged “campaign” against her or her family allegedly consisted of, though somehow she thinks I am in the thick of it.
Using private email, I informed Futrelle about the campaign against me and my family, the involvement of the FBI and the use of his name. Should Futrelle be foolish enough to deny that, I will publish those emails.
Really? I’ll save you the trouble. Here are two of the three emails in question:
I have redacted the name of the person Hardie/Bloomfield thinks was responsible for the letter-writing campaign, as well as the name of Hardie/Bloomfield’s husband.
She sent a followup note with a few more details about the alleged letter-writing campaign; since she says now that she “cannot discuss any specifics of what went down” I won’t post that email.
I did not respond to that followup note, as I generally try to keep my interactions with bow-hunting enthusiasts who hate me to a minimum.
In case there is any doubt: if someone wrote threatening letters to Hardie/Bloomfield and/or her family, that’s sleazy and disgusting and wrong. But I have no idea what happened, if anything actually did, much less who might have been involved.
Given Hardie/Bloomfield’s long track record of deliberate deception, I don’t exactly put much stock in any of her claims about anything. At this point, if she told me the sky was blue I would have to get confirmation of that from someone else before I believed it.
I should add that Hardie/Bloomfield’s alleged outrage about the doxing of her A Voice for Men colleague Jack Barnes rings a bit hollow, given that she has been an enthusiastic doxer herself, at one point proudly revealing the identities of several until-then-unknown women vaguely connected to a woman AVFM was targeting for harassment. She has also posted childhood photos of me and my siblings on her blog, apparently pilfered from one of my family members’ Facebook pages, a weird bit of boundary crossing presumably intended to unsettle me.
I can only hope for everyone’s sake that Hardie/Bloomfield’s murderous fantasies remain just that, fantasies.
You know, here in Canada we just had an election in which one party was headed by a self-described feminist who pledged to have gender parity in his cabinet if elected. He won, and followed through on that pledge.
Now, in elections, candidates normally canvass door-to-door. And all of Trudeau’s candidates had to be in favor of his feminist policies. (Trudeau actually got into some controversy a few years back by insisting that any MPs in his party would have to support abortion rights, no matter their personal views.)
So at some point in the past couple of months, there is a strong chance that a self-described feminist, or probably two since candidates tend to have an aide with them, knocked on JB’s door and asked her to vote for him/her. Since there were probably two of them, I’m sure that counts as intimidation in JB’s mind. Which means that by her standards she was probably threatened by a feminist at her door recently.
And yet I recall no news stories whatsoever about a Liberal candidate getting shot through the face with a crossbow.
Pfft, those MRAs. No follow-through at all. I trust AVFM will be excommunicating her for wimping out when the cards were down. Women, amirite?
Note: this post contains sarcasm. It also contains facts. A reasonable person will probably be able to work out which is which.
You usually only find someone with keen legal mind like JudgyB on Reddit, we’re clearly not worthy.
JudgyB sent a super official private email to David telling him things. He better not deny receiving those emails because if he did he’d be lying about receiving those emails. Ok, I can sort of follow that I guess.
Uhh… What? These sentences trip the light fantastic while leaving all worldly logic behind. David has to grasp a concept and get a “handle” on others by specifically doing what exactly? No one else works on this blog, so does are all it’s readers his “minions”? That’s a lot of minions. I’m not sure how he gets a handle on that many people’s activities which have nothing to do with him.
Plausible deniability refers to the accountability of people with positions of power within an existing hierarchy, like a government or corporation. If these people don’t work with or for David, if he has no way of knowing what they’re doing and isn’t involved in any way, I think he’s not going to be held legal responsible. IANAL, of course.
It’s ironic that JudgyB is the PR person for AVFM since I never can figure out what the hell she’s talking about.
David doesn’t have minions. If I see any, I will let Gru know immediately and he can come round them up.
@WWTH:
Because there were no people POC and Jewish soldiers in WWII.
If there’s anything I’ve learned from War Movies, it’s that your typical U.S. squad in Europe included one each of an African-American, an Hispanic dude, a Native American, and a Jewish guy. The white guys were from New York, Tennessee or Texas.
Cuss you, blockquote mammoth!
Letting JudgyBitch comment in this thread, as a couple have suggested, would be a disaster. She and this Jack Barnes character are obviously deeply damaged individuals. I don’t mean that in a sympathetic way, and I don’t mean to imply mental illness of any sort. I mean they’ve chosen to deal with the world in the twisted, authoritarian, vindictive and childish ways that they do. Their arguments are along the exact same lines as those you’d hear in elementary schoolyards during recess — i.e. they are not able (or willing?) to dialogue or reason on an adult level. Engaging with them will only lead to frustration and vitriol, possibly making the good guys look stained. That’s the whole point, isn’t it? To drag people down to their greasy level.
Do not engage! The tragic thing about these people is that, despite thinking and behaving like children, they are fully realized adults, capable of actually harming others if they can justify it to themselves. I sincerely hope these people’s hissy fits are all over and done with, and this simply goes away.
Well and truly spoken like a woman who has seen Home Alone at least 10 too many times. (Bet she sends her kids out of the room when the good parts come up so they won’t get pesky ideas.)
Oh, for fuck’s sake, yeah, meanie feminists everywhere need compassion lessons from self-aggrandizing AVFM cranks.
Her claims about film funding are bullshit, she keeps referring to these mythical feminist grants and investors who would gladly fund a “hit piece” on MRAs and are working to suppress a film they don’t agree with. Every small time doc director has to struggle for any funding, a frothing anti-MRA would have been equally hard to fund.
If she wants to vilify feminist filmmakers in order to shake the anti-feminist tree, no one will stop her. She has to be aware how anyone who is familiar with the long hard road of documentary filmmaking knows she’s full of shit with the “the film feminists don’t want you to see!” hokum.
Crap, wrong thread. Whoops. Never mind.
And one of them is always named Kowalski.
@ Alan Robertshaw:
“Having said that, JBs comments, whilst certainly outlandish, would lay a good groundwork for a self defence case under English law, and probably Canadian as well. You only need suggest an honest belief in the threat, not a reasonable one. Sometimes the wilder the rhetoric the easier it is to believe someone. Can we be sure she doesn’t think feminists might try to kill her? That’s the test for any jury.”
I’m not a Canadian lawyer, and we’re a good ways down the rabbit hole here, but I do not think this is the case; Canadian self-defense law is an “objective reasonable (and actual) belief” standard, and I’m pretty sure it’s even stronger than that if lethal force is involved (something like objective necessity.) (This is more or less the norm in American law, although less so these days.) Your belief that you’re in danger may be mistaken, but it had better be a reasonable mistake; loony mistakes aren’t a defense. (Insanity might be, but that’s another story entirely.)
If I understand English law right, which I probably don’t, there’s more deference to subjective belief, but the putative crossbow-firer would still have to answer some difficult questions about objective proportionality and avoidance, unless you figure she didn’t merely think that feminists at the door were dangerous but that they were announcing their imminent murder plans by ringing the bell. (R. v. Owino.)
@karak “Also, am I the only one ever baffled by how MRA fantasies of violence always assume the other person is totally clueless? It’s not exactly quick or subtle to load a crossbow and it wouldn’t be my weapon of choice in a conflict with someone 3 feet from me.”
I know, right? It’s a lot like how the NRA tries to convince women that carrying around a pistol in their purse will protect against date rape. Unless a rapist is announcing that he’s going to rape them from many feet away, he’s not going to give them time to get their purse, pull the gun, and point it at him.
@mockingbird
‘From what I’ve seen, to them (and to JB, I’d imagine), the response to “look for help, call in authorities” flies in the face of their often (but not exclusively) libertarian ideals. “Looking for help, calling in authorities” = “not taking care of oneself, acting like a child”.’
Libertarian JudgeyBitch could respond to threats by bragging (hopefully vaguely) about the awesome security measures that’s she’s taking to prevent an attacker from gaining access to her house or family, but I guess that just doesn’t have the same badass ring to it as threatening to shoot people with crossbows.
@ A Rose for Emily
‘Note that this isn’t just verbiage: a young man once saved the live of himself and his girlfriend from a jealous ex using a shotgun. Unfortunately for him he fired TWICE. When asked on the stand why he fired the second time, he said “because the man was still moving.” ‘
Obviously I don’t know the specifics, but it’s not impossible for someone to still be a threat after being shot, right?
I would offer my unworthy sacrifice to the blockquote monster, but I managed that one with italics tabs, so worry not, my fellow mammothers.
As someone who DOES know something about Canadian Criminal law being an upper-year law student at an elite Canadian law school – which means I know almost, but not quite, as little as actual nothing, and a great deal more than JB – I can tell you that JB’s assessment of the relevance of an FBI investigation of a person not-in-Canada is related very little (read: as close to zero as to make no nevermind) to the Canadian standards for justification/self-defense, and even less to provocation.
You can find interesting details here:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Defences/Self-Defence_and_Defence_of_Another
I would like to start a petition as well. If anyone posts a comment that breaks the comment policy (Ex. Ableism) then the comment will be removed. (Or banned depending on the situation) I always read the comment policy whenever I go to a blog so there really is no excuse to not read the rules.
They’re really grasping at straws now:
https://twitter.com/Oneiorosgrip/status/664652201466404864
Hannah Wallen also posted something about this post on Reddit, suggesting that I had “tweeted out, without context save for his own yellow journalism, that she’s threatening to kill people.”
https://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3ses6e/feminist_blogger_portrays_himself_as_the_victim/cwxbwni
Er, wat? The “context” is that Judgy wrote a post about how she’ll kill anyone she thinks is “threatening” her, however she defines that.
Also I guess by Wallen’s logic I’m not allowed to write about MRAs ever again, lest one of my “minions” do … something. The “minions” I don’t even know about. Meanwhile, Elam actually HAS minions, or something close to them, as anyone who gets dogpiled by them on Twitter or elsewhere can attest. Wallen is one of them.
Whether or not JB is actually justified under Canadian law (and I’m 99.9% sure she’s not), she appears to believe that she is, and that’s worrying. If she does shoot someone and the law lands on her with both feet, it’s not going to help the person who got shot. I hope she either is just talking a big game or pulls out of this line of thinking before she hurts/kills someone.
The most terrifying part of this is that Barnes and JB both are raising children! Dear Merciful Jesus watch out for those poor little souls around such broken and awful parents.
You know, I’ve been here what, four years? Not fucking once have I been sic’ed on anything. I am beginning to question why you’re inviting MRAs to these secret meetings where orders are given when I’m not invited!
Fruitloopsie — Idk about removed, too many people say otherwise good stuff and then drop in how “they’re loony”, or similar. I’d go for using [ableism redacted] since I’m pretty sure that’s feasible, yeah? If not, then yeah, delete it. This isn’t obvious blatant slurs mind, those can go straight to a bin of legos.
I mean, trolls don’t usually get banned flat out, so I’m hesitant to say delete and ban when it may be ignorance not malice. Malice though? Delete, ban, lego.
“Even when men were suffering, like falling behind at school”
School is school; if you don’t study, you don’t prevail. When girls don’t study and don’t prevail, it’s because bitchez is dizzy and math class is hard. When boys don’t study and don’t prevail, there may be other reasons for it, but why should the rules be different for boys? Why? Wanna nail me for a lack of compassion? Feel free. If it’s non-compassionate to get disgusted when girls are groomed to clean up male messes at the age of eight or nine years old, or earlier, I plead guilty as charged, with pride.
I know whereof I speak. When I was a schoolgirl of about that age (prepubescent, eight or nine) girls who tested high in English and related subjects were routinely expected to step in and help out when boys were struggling with them, even if we were busy ourselves, for no recognition and no thanks. We were expected to do this because coming to the aid of little boys and massaging the feelings of little boys were what little girls existed for. The little boys were not expected to return the favor and help the girls master the subjects in which the boys had the edge. That was because it was recognized that the boys had their own priorities and their own lives and that they didn’t owe the little girls a dang thing.
This was not in just one school district or section of the country…when I was growing up my Dad was in a business which caused the family to move a lot. I was moved around about once a year until I hit the age of about 14. (Then the family settled down and my Dad went overseas.) I attended school in just about every part of the country and the assumptions were the same everywhere, though I will admit they differed in intensity.
“I heard a lot of talk about ‘toxic masculinity’”
Not from me. I know what is meant by that phrase, but I think it’s an awkward one — it makes it sound as though toxicity is a property of men rather than being something they’re exposed to at rates which would make women go spang bats. So, moderate agreement here (I hope).
“ – that it was somehow the fault of the patriarchy, that men caused their own problems.”
Men are adults, right? Last time I heard, they were. Ergo, I expect they cause their problems as much as anybody else does. I’m not a huge fan of the notion that all the problems people have can be traced to their own individual actions, but if that’s what you think, I don’t understand why you’d make an exception which would result in the infantilization of half the human race. JMO.
@Argenti Aertheri
I feel your pain. I’m never invited to these secret meetings where Mammoth commenters (sorry, David’s minions) are instructed how to harass MRAs and their families. Nor can I find any evidence of said harassment. That’s how super secret it is!
Sad face.
@Argenti Aertheri – If that was directed at me, please let me apologize. I did not intend ‘loony’ to be a reference to actual mental illness, just a stand-in for ‘so plainly unreasonable that no rational person could come to such a belief’. I can certainly see how it could be read otherwise, and I’m sorry.
Actual mental illness might be a defense in a case like this (though probably not, usually); merely being violent, angry misogynists weak on logic like that lot is not. Again, my apologies.
Argenti Aertheri
Just throwing out ideas but whatever works for everyone.
puppyreader — it wasn’t directed at anyone in particular, the spate of such comments over the last few days has left me throwing my hands in the air and groaning. Your apology is much appreciated however.
fruitloopsie — I figured as much 🙂
Kat! I figured it out! It’s the cats! They’ve been quietly controlling us for years, get us to do their bidding without realizing it wasn’t our own idea, and have conversations with each other that we can’t understand! Which is why we don’t see the evidence, we weren’t there when the foreign cat showed up and took control of his daughter.
What’s particularly funny? You know how pregnant people aren’t supposed to change litter boxes? The reason being a parasite in some cats’ poop? Last I heard research in humans was in its infancy, but the parasite basically overrides mice and rats innate “cat! Run!” behavior. Cats literally, albeit indirectly, can control brains!
I’m Canadian, and I’m pretty sure that reasonable force is justified based on imminent danger… not whether or not someone has stepped onto your property, or the FBI are supposedly investigating them (which I highly doubt). We don’t have strange, controversial laws which permit excessive violence like parts of the USA do. If she killed someone for showing up on her doorstep, she’d probably get charged with murder, and I’m betting in the first degree, because of the evidence of premeditation to shoot SOMEONE at her door, even if it’s not a specific person. I’m no lawyer, but that’s my take.
@Argenti Aertheri
You might be onto something. My cats have intense psychic conversations with each other during which they glare a lot. But with me, they’re all, “Good morning, Mom! Don’t you look lovely today. I do believe you’re wearing new socks. Might I inquire when breakfast will be served?”
Even works in Penguins!
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/krF4Iq8hGT4/maxresdefault.jpg
ALL HAIL TOXOPLASM!
Mrex: ‘I know, right? It’s a lot like how the NRA tries to convince women that carrying around a pistol in their purse will protect against date rape. Unless a rapist is announcing that he’s going to rape them from many feet away, he’s not going to give them time to get their purse, pull the gun, and point it at him.’
You have to remember that, according to these people, date rape doesn’t happen and rapists look obviously rapey.
@Heinz & mrex
And of course they totally won’t blame the woman if she has a gun and does not get to use it to defend herself, right?
… right?
@Heinz
Yup. Also marital rape doesn’t exist, nor rape in the case of agreeing to have sex, but not agreeing to a particular sex act that is forced upon her. The kind of rapey douche that says ” asking for consent ruins the mood!” doesn’t seem to consider that having a Glock under the pillow (you know, in case he tries something he doesn’t have permission for) would be a much more effective “mood killer” than him making sure she’s into it in the first place. Fucking douchebags.
@sunny
I love the way you think.
This woman has something wrong with her. Pathological liar, fantasising about killing people (in detail), being a hypocrite to such an extent that “blatant” would be an understatement…..seriously, no one should give her the time of day (apart from her AVFM buddies perhaps). She clearly likes the attention, even if it’s negative.
I don’t think the FBI has any jurisdiction here in Canada.
@ Ian
Cheers for that
Yeah here in England it’s completely subjective. So the belief doesn’t have to be reasonable.
Although that’s now changed for the civil law position.
So you can’t be prosecuted for letting loose with your crossbow but you can now be sued.
“Show up on my doorstep, and … I will take you down with lethal intent. If you survive it will only be because my aim was off, and we have excellent medical care. ”
– I’m confused. What does her having excellent medicare have to do with it?
“In this and in her other comments, Bloomfield — a Canadian stay-at-home mother whose real name is Andrea Hardie”
– Interesting. She does look like a “Janet” though. And she claimed to be an American living in the UK, right?
Heinz D | November 13, 2015 at 8:51 am
Mrex: ‘I know, right? It’s a lot like how the NRA tries to convince women that carrying around a pistol in their purse will protect against date rape. Unless a rapist is announcing that he’s going to rape them from many feet away, he’s not going to give them time to get their purse, pull the gun, and point it at him.’
You have to remember that, according to these people, date rape doesn’t happen and rapists look obviously rapey.
Luzbelitx | November 13, 2015 at 9:57 am
@Heinz & mrex
And of course they totally won’t blame the woman if she has a gun and does not get to use it to defend herself, right?
… right?
sunnysombrera | November 13, 2015 at 10:07 am
@Heinz
Yup. Also marital rape doesn’t exist, nor rape in the case of agreeing to have sex, but not agreeing to a particular sex act that is forced upon her. The kind of rapey douche that says ” asking for consent ruins the mood!” doesn’t seem to consider that having a Glock under the pillow (you know, in case he tries something he doesn’t have permission for) would be a much more effective “mood killer” than him making sure she’s into it in the first place. Fucking douchebags.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
The “game” sect of the Manosphere constantly talks about “choking”. I almost to troll-date one of these guys so I can get him booked on “attempted murder”.
“I can only hope for everyone’s sake that Hardie/Bloomfield’s murderous fantasies remain just that, fantasies.”
She admitted on her own site that she blogs drunk half the time.
Half the time? How often does she post on her blog? That’s an awful lot of the time to be drunk, isn’t it? Especially with young children to look after. :-/
Definitely hope that’s an exaggeration! Or that she doesn’t blog as often as I think.
This whole blog is awesome, that [stuff deleted] and I love your writing. Seriously. Plus, cats.
you’re both idiots and should just piss each other in the eye…
Please pardon the lateness of this post. I am not familiar with the back and forth between you and this woman. However, from reading your column, a person would ascertain that Janet feels threatened and unsafe because of something written or spoken to her. Either by you or others with whom you have professional/political/personal involvement. As such, Janet feels the need to issue a warning to all parties.
It is easy to understand why she would make such statements. Especially if written out verbal threats have been made or are being made.
Allegedly – this woman is a self-confessed liar.
So she thinks, but proof of David’s involvement isn’t offered.