Jack Barnes, a volatile American Men’s Rights activist known for his harassment of feminists on Twitter, is now threatening to unleash a new offensive designed “to strike fear in the hearts of feminists.” In a post on Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men bristling with violent language, Barnes declares that
we have our hands on the throat of feminism. This isn’t the time to ease up. This is the time to squeeze harder.
The ostensible subject of Barnes’ post is a several-weeks-old piece on News.Com.Au by Australian writer Kerri Sackville about a road-raging, red-Jag-driving man who shouted “slut” at her when she honked at him for blocking the road. Barnes adds to the abuse, declaring her a crazy, misogynist (!) “cunt.”
The real source of Barnes’ fury at Sackville is a campaign she launched last December to “name and shame” men who sent abusive and threatening messages to women online using their real names.
And that’s what leads Barnes to what he says is the real “point of this article,” a declaration of virtual war against “Sackville and her fellow feminazis.” He writes:
Here is what we do. We make it hurt. If they want to continue to do this then we make them regret it. They need to learn that their are consequences for doing this. They need to learn that we will extract a pound of flesh, figuratively speaking. They need to learn to fear retribution from us.
Barnes claims that this “retribution” won’t include physical violence, but he doesn’t specify exactly what it will include, merely suggesting that he will soon have the “tools” necessary “to strike fear in the hearts of feminists.” And by soon he means next month.
We won’t use violence. We don’t need to use violence. How do we make these feminists think twice before going all Gestapo on any guy who has the balls to call out feminism or individual feminists on their FemKKK behavior? Well I can’t tell you that right now. Lets just say a plan is in place and being brought into fruition as we speak. Expect it to be revealed before the end of February provided that everything goes according to plan.
Barnes then launches a preemptive strike on any even slightly ethical MRAs who might be “wringing their hand” [sic] over his mysterious threats, bluntly informing them that “this fight is about to get dirty. Deal with it.”
Barnes — using a rhetorical switcheroo common amongst MRAs — frames his threatened offensive as a defensive move. Feminism is dying, he asserts, and like many dying beasts it is lashing out against its enemies in a desperate frenzy. He predicts that
feminists will become increasingly more vicious. … MHRAs with lives ruined, imprisoned and dead is not outside the realm of possibility.
As he sees it, not just Sackville and her fellow Australian ally, writer Clementine Ford, but all “public faces of feminism” are fair game for “retribution” for whatever offenses he’s decided they’re guilty of.
You don’t get a warning. You all have engaged in this despicable behavior. You will receive consequences. Go ahead and whine and cry about the horrible MRAs threatening you. We don’t care. This isn’t a threat. This is a statement of fact. We will not use violence. But we will make you hesitate to ever do these things again.
Barnes apparently believes in some sort of collective guilt, making clear that he will hold prominent feminists “responsible” not only for their own alleged crimes, as he defines them, but for the behavior of what he calls their “mindless minions.”
This is not the first time Barnes has announced his desire to harass feminists into silence. Usually he remembers to put the word “harass” in quotes, as if this will be enough to transform harassment into something that doesn’t sound quite so bad.
Usually, but not always:
Nor is this the first time that Barnes has issued threats that he insists aren’t really threats.
Indeed, I myself have been the recipient of some of these non-threat threats. Last November, after someone doxxed him and his family, Barnes decided that I needed to be held “responsible” for the doxxer’s actions, even though I had nothing to do with that person or persons, didn’t know who they were, and didn’t even know about the doxxing until I learned about it from a video by AVFM head honcho Paul Elam a day or two later.
I made it clear I knew nothing about the doxxing or the doxxer (who later ended up doxxing me). I condemned the doxxing, publicly and repeatedly. It didn’t matter: Barnes declared the doxxer to be a “cult follower” of mine, so anything they did was somehow my fault.
“I promise you David,” he wrote in an AVFM post, “that for the rest of your life there will be nights you cry yourself to sleep in anger and frustration over me.”
Indeed, he wrote, if anything happened to his family as a result of the doxxing, he would literally show up on my doorstep for
a face to face in person discussion … No cops. No lawyers or prosecutors. No judges. No jury. No hiding behind a computer. Just me and you. …
I don’t know of any parent that would blame me for stomping a mud hole in your fucking ass and walking that motherfucker dry for what you have done!
What I’ve “done” is to condemn the doxxing that Barnes blames for putting his family at risk.
Barnes is hardly the only AVFMer who believes in this sort of guilt-by-non-association; assorted others rallied behind him on Twitter, repeating his accusations and defending his threats. The title of Elam’s video on the doxxing declared bluntly that I was “Trying to Get MHRAs Killed.” How? By writing critically about AVFM.
Elam’s bizarre inflation of my carefully documented criticism of MRAs into an attempt to literally “get MHRAs killed” is not only jarring; it’s ominous. By pretending that the writings of feminists leave MRAs, quite literally, in mortal peril, Elam, Barnes and others associated with AVFM can justify almost any actions they might take against feminists, no matter how sleazy or underhanded or even violent, as a form of self-defense.
Abusers who think — or simply pretend — that they are the victims are some of the most dangerous people in the world.
A Godwin and a comparison to the KKK all in one paragraph? That’s almost impressive!* I’m guessing the plan is some sort of Register Her 2.0? After all, somebody doxxed him. Therefore, all feminists deserve to be doxxed. That’s just science.
Well gee, I thought getting fat and expecting affirmative consent was the worst oppression any man could ever face. What horrors are we going to visit upon them next? Finally get Twitter and Facebook to do something about harassment on their sites? So vicious!
Seriously, though. He’s claiming not to advocate violence here, but the only way MRAs are going to be imprisoned and killed on a mass scale is if they start murdering feminists or going on mass shooting sprees. It’s the height of projection to accuse of being vicious while in the middle of a rant that’s this full of rage and implicit threats of violence. What the fuck is this guy’s problem?
* Not really
What a tiny, insecure, frightened little man. Pounding his fists in impotent fury.
It would be hilarious and pathetic if these kinds of abusers, as you say, David, didn’t turn out to be dangerous more often than not. So I guess it’s just pathetic.
Funny thing about the “pound of flesh” metaphor…when you strip away the antisemitic imagery, The Merchant of Venice is ultimately about the angry man being denied his pound of flesh, changing his ways, and everyone living happily ever after. In the end, everyone’s better off (from an Elizabethan Christian’s point of view) that Shylock didn’t get his pound of flesh.
Somehow, I’m guessing this guy doesn’t get that.
Also, I’m completely mystified by this whole, “we’ve got our hands on the throat of feminism” thing. So every student in Sweden is getting, “We Should All Be Feminists,” Canada’s PM is openly and proactively feminist, a woman is running for US president (with a better-than-even shot at winning) PUA sleazeballs are being banned from Australia… Where are these victories I’m supposed to be frightened of? More people screaming on Twitter? Angry dudes making veiled threats on the internet at large? Or was it that conference they cancelled?
Seriously, where are these “victories”?
I’m not going to lie: This kind of talk always sparks some sort of fear in me. Not just for myself, but for other people as well. It’s a toxic slurry of masculinity and what it means to be a “real man”, and unfortunately, that almost always includes violence in some fashion.
This kind of talk, the talk about “consequences” and “actions” and “revenge” is always fucking violent in itself. Jack can try to sugar coat it all he wants, but he’s advocating for violence against “feminists”, which could mean to his fevered readers “anyone who looks like a woman and doesn’t bow to my whims”.
I know, Jack, you’re not advocating for physical violence, which is most likely what you were referring to, but you’re still advocating for violence against people you perceive to be feminist and/or who you have percieved to have somehow slighted you or another manospherian, whether you intend to or not.
Harassment is violence. Slurs are violent words. Doxxing is violence. Violence is intent to do harm, and Jack’s got plenty of fucking intent to do harm.
And even if he does insist that it’s not physical violence, what’s to stop one of his readers from going out and committing physical violence against a feminist, or just a woman in general, spurred on by talk like this?
This call for “consequences” to percieved sleights is a push for other people to do his fucking dirty work, is what it is. It’s incitement.
Worst Bond villain ever.
Impotent angry white dude rages about how feeeeeeemales on the Internet make his life inconvenient , next at six. This guys entire life is a slow news day. He looks and sounds like a giant loser
For brain bleach, may I present a kitty greedalizing an entire pet store’s worth of catnip toys?
https://youtu.be/_YudzneyjzM
@ judas
I know this is a serious topic; but that really made me giggle.
Me too.
Is it possible to get restraining orders on people you’ve never met?
@ pandapool
Actually, yes. In England anyway. Unfortunately you have to show evidence of a potential threat against you personally (or as part of a specific group) rather than just as a feminist or (based on this guy’s rhetoric) a woman.
ETA: you can even get restraining orders against unknown people. There are quite a few restraining “any person associated with or inspired by the Animal Liberation Front” in favour of lab researchers.
@Alan
Wait, so does that mean, for instance, a black person can or cannot get a restraining order against the KKK or a neo-Nazi organization or any white supremacist group or not? And if they can, why can’t people of certain genders get restraining orders against people who are threatening to hurt their gender? That makes no sense.
Yeeeeeah, this would be your first clue that what you’re planning to do there is not smart. How not-smart? Oh…how about flying-a-plane-into-a-building not-smart?
Oh Jack, you are so unclear on concepts! This IS a threat, and we can get your ass kicked off the internet for it if you dare to make good on it. A concerted campaign of harassment is still an illegal act. If you phone in a threat, we can report you for that. And if you come to our doors in person, we can call police and get you escorted off the premises. And if you don’t go quietly, you go in cuffs, as a violent offender. See how that works?
So, in other words, THREAT FAIL.
@ pandapool
In England if someone presents a threat against society generally, or a class of people within society, the Attorney General can apply for a “control order”. That’s a kind of general restraint order. The threat has to amount to terrorism though, whereas you can get a personal restraining order for conduct that amounts to harassment.
Control orders are quite controversial, not least because they can be obtained on so called closed evidence i.e. evidence that isn’t revealed to the subject of the order.
@Alan
You know, I have to say, even if they are a small group, the MRA are still…”terrifying”, in the sense that they are threatening to hurt people if they don’t get their way. Wouldn’t this stuff constitute as terrorism or would they have to be more organized and actually do shit against women on a mass scale to be considered terrorists?
Is it any wonder that I’m constantly mixing up Barnes, Esmay and Forney even after all this time? They’re fucking dime-a-dozen headlines-in-the-making.
What kind of shitty cowardice does it take to be 30-something and still making dumb, spineless threats over the Internet? Seriously, I remember being a tween and growing up with things like Battle.net for Starcraft and Warcraft II and seeing endless reams of kids making idiotic “Oh yea? Give me your address and I’ll come kick your ass” kind of threats over totally anonymous net chat.
It’s so boring that these guys think that aping this kind of hollow violence is a sign of power or a life well-lived. I wish that instead of breaking their arms to pat themselves on the backs, MRAs would make good on their claims that men have advanced society so much via scientific discovery, statecraft, etc. etc. and they’d go get real jobs, make some discoveries, and get shit done instead of whining on hate-forums like a hot mess. Goodness!
Also, Scented Fucking Hard Chairs: you’re so cool. Anytime (every time!) I see that rainbow GLaDOS pic I know that something fun is about to be said. Thanks for being your snarky, wonderful self. You rock my socks 🙂
Oh and @Alan Robertshaw, your comment re: control orders reminded me that the British Parliament had a serious discussion a couple days ago about whether or not to bar Donald Trump from entering the UK indefinitely for his multiple acts of hate speech re: no Muslim immigrants, building walls across international borders, calling Mexicans rapists, etc.
@ Pandapool
I think we’ve discussed before how a lot of the MRA stuff would fall within the ambit of England’s anti terrorism legislation. Doesn’t matter about the size of the group. You can be a “lone wolf” and still be a terrorist here; no need for membership of any group.
If you want some background about control orders, the link is to a case in the European Court of Human Rights which examined whether they were lawful (short answer: yes)
http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/634.html
I’m seriously giving consideration to using MRAs as the subject of my M.Litt dissertation.
Not much to comment on besides the dissonance in his rant. Saying “This is not a threat” does not make his declaration not a threat. Just like saying, “I’m not racist, but…” does not make you not a racist. In fact, making that disclaimer in the first place shows that he is at least somewhat aware of just what he’s saying.
I prefer “On a scale of one to Invading Russia in the Winter, how bad is your idea?”
So the hateful misogynist is afraid that feminists and women in general will treat him the way he treats women and feminists, so he’s lashing out in exactly the same manner he thinks feminists will. Hey Jack Barnes, FUCK YOU!
That would be interesting. :O
I wouldn’t blame them. If only America would do the same.
@ DS
Indeed they did. You may enjoy this:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/shortcuts/2016/jan/19/why-wazzock-may-be-ideal-term-abuse-donald-trump
ETA: contrary to popular belief abroad we have pretty robust laws protecting free speech in England. We do draw a line at hate speech that amounts to incitement though.
Threats and facts are not mutually exclusive. If you threaten someone and plan to carry out that threat, it doesn’t become not a threat.