In this, the inaugural episode of an occasional series I’m calling Just Another Day on Twitter, we will meet a very concerned Twitterer who showed up in my mentions today.
Jemoi1, you see, is unhappy that I suggested the other day that Richard Dawkins’ recent tweets about Chanty Binx, the red-haired Canadian feminist who’s become a favorite target of MRAs and others of their ilk, would almost certainly worsen the harassment that she’s been facing on a daily basis for nearly three years.
“[B]y accusing people you disagree with of harrasing you are pissing on the experience of real harrasment victims,” Jemoi1 tweeted at me, claiming to be a harassment victim himself. In a followup tweet, he accused me of chasing page views “while ignoring victims of harrassment.”
As I pondered whether or not to bother to respond, I clicked over to Jemoi1’s Twitter feed. And this is what I saw.
As you no doubt noted, I blanked out the names of those he was targeting as well as some of the more obscene language.
There are literally hundreds of tweets like these — angry, obscene, scatological, abusive.
Jemoi1 is a little bit obsessed with horses.
And with other people’s mothers.
Oh, in case you’re wondering, when Jemoi1 refers to “racism,” he (naturally) means racism against white people. This is the main theme of perhaps a third of his tweets.
Despite his obsession with racism (against white people), he is happy to drop the n-word into his own Tweets. Here’s one lovely example:
While most of his tweets target feminists and those he deems anti-white racists, Jemoi1 also has some strong feelings about e-sports, spamming a number of professional e-sporters with the same vicious, vaguely threatening message:
In a couple of cases, he moved past mere threatening language and simply sent his targets death threats.
It seems to me that if Jemoi1 were truly concerned about the victims of harassment, he would have long ago DELETED HIS ACCOUNT.
Dhag, yes, for serious. Who needs self reflection? I can’t believe he’s the same guy who wrote about “rolling waves of moral zeitgeist” or whatever it was.
Ahhh, Dawkins.
Someone I met online once gave me a really good quote”…Unless that intelligence is accompanied by a proportional amount of compassion and empathy…you end up being an asshole and your intelligence is a liability, not a blessing.”
I think that fits Dawkins to the letter. An otherwise intelligent man completely lacking in empathy, to the point where his intelligence becomes a shield to justify his irrational beliefs.
dhag85:
My bet is on him convincing himself it was sent as bait from his “enemies” to trick him into retweeting it, rather than being made and sent by racists who are cheering him right now.
Re: MacGyver Test
I agree that taken without context, the criteria are quite alright. However, the “dysfunctional dad” trope, e.g., is usually solved by a) the father actually becoming a competent dad, or b) the mum rolling her eyes, smiling and taking over. The fact that in this trope, two sexist stereotypes come together (one for men, the other for women), is omitted from the analysis.
I also find it problematic that this is billed as some kind of gotcha for the Bechdel test, as if they wouldn’t both ultimately point to the same problem, only in the case of the Bechdel test much, much broader and more insidious.
Of course, feminists would probably agree that these are all fine points (especially the one about violence), but it seems that not only the MRAs, but also the original book itself put this problem in the context of “Misandry!” instead of integrating it into a general analysis of patriarchal structures.
@ Bernardo Soares:
“Complementary”, ha ha ha ha!!!
Bechdel Test: Are there any female characters in this movie who are even briefly portrayed as even marginally independent human beings?
MacGyver Test: Are the super important and central male characters who it goes without saying are the main focus of the movie’s plot and character development portrayed as uniformly competent, heroic and admired throughout the movie?
It’s par for the course that MRAs would consider those “complementary” assessments for the portrayal of gender in movies, but I’d be rather surprised (and shocked) if any non-MRAs buy into it.
The summary page for the meetup reads like it was written by a survivalist. Valizadeh mentions societal collapse, vague threats, and government infiltration. It sounds like these gatherings are basically a group of men congregating to fraternise, and yet Roosh has somehow turned this into a game of pretend spy. This would be bizarre if it weren’t so pretentious and divorced from reality.
@TitianBlue: I had just signed the petition and was coming here to promote it. Hopefully the government will take it seriously
An honest, hard working man can be unsuccessful and/or be chump in real life. I have yet to see a woman incapable of speaking of something else than men.
Part of why this test is horseshit, while his individual part aren’t bad, is that a woman who fail Bechdel is at best extremely mentally ill, while a man who fail one individual part of that test, or even all of them, can still be a sane human.
Paradoxical Intention,
Deacon is doing that same thing with the code in my game as well. I got his perk so I thought I could romance him, but he won’t ever talk about anything different. Now I just hope it isn’t permanent as I haven’t finished the main quest line. 🙁
Personally, I’m expecting him to go full Trump voter just so he doesn’t have to admit that he made a mistake.
Seriously, there were pharaohs with less of a God complex than that guy.
Tempted to pay a visit to the Ottawa locale. I can have the relevant Monty Python episode playing on my iPad as I wait. Performance art, if you will.
Although, I might find it creepier if I met any actual MRAs there than any supposed spookiness next door…
Very proud that this is being picked up by the news in Scotland and reported in such accurate terms 🙂 The whole treehouse-spies thing is amazing – wear a red carnation, walk with a limp and carry the plans across the Edinburgh/Glasgow border concealed in a knockwurst with a fuse coming out of it.
Has he MET Scottish people before? Women from where I grew up subjected to his attitude are… not going to be happy.
Do any of you guys think that Rooshes seemingly innocuous excuse for these meetups is actually a front for something more sinister? I just had a light-bulb moment and realised that everybody might be thinking this and I was the only one who hadn’t caught on.
@ dreadnought
I suspect it’s nothing more than a desperate attempt to show he’s still relevant.
When no-one actually turns up he’ll say it was a piece of performance art or a prank or something.
If the MacGyver test was conceived as a gotcha for the Bechdel test, then it seems to me to fall into the “A Good Cartoon” type of mockery.
I think EJ’s analysis is spot-on — each of the four points, rather than being in conflict with the Bechdel test, are instead complementary in pointing out sexism within movies. (Of course, it’s also worth noting that these complaints don’t rise to the level of “a man has a major role” or “two men talk to each other, and not about a woman”.) (Ninja’d by Kimstu, who made the point much better.)
Men are capable of being competent fathers, including when the mother is present. A good cartoon.
Men who are honest and hard-working are quite likely to be successful and/or in a leadership position, especially if they are straight, cis, and white. A good cartoon.
Women generally like men for who they are, rather than what recognition society gives them. A good cartoon.
Men are just as capable as women of solving problems without using violence. A good cartoon.
Seriously, if the point is that men suffer from sexism in movies, too…well, like, no shit! Sexism, being sexism, isn’t really good for anyone, except sexists. But it’s also important to note that men being normalized to solve their problems with violence means that both men and women tend to be victims at the hands of men. (There’s something a bit whiny about men complaining about being socialized to dish out violence, as if we are the primary victims, when the other gender is being socialized only to receive it.)
If you don’t like those four movie tropes, because instead of representing reality, they represent a caricature of it that makes men angrier than they would otherwise be, upset with a world that doesn’t actually exist; then, um — that feminism thing? It might be for you.
I really, really hope at least one of you here does do the Roosh thing and report back. (None of them are near enough to me that I could easily make it, and I could never disguise myself as a Rooshite anyway.)
@Ohlmann:
What’s your understanding of the Bechdel test? Because I thought it was about stories. Yes, it concerns women characters but it doesn’t measure them.
Littleknown:
Sadly, that isn’t what the MRAs want. They want the stuff on the list WHILE still expecting women to be the primary caregivers (unless the man wants to be, then he should get to no matter what), men get favored in job choice, women have to defer to men, etc. They basically want every negative men face under patriarchy gone while keeping the privilege fully intact.
Richard Smith: It’d be pretty funny if someone staged another meetup (preferably right next to Rooshie’s) where the folks were giving the Monty Python sign/countersign: “I’d like to see the dog kennels, please”/”Second floor, pets department” in loud stage whispers. Then, when the PUA’s start looking over, start singing “Jerusalem” (tea chest optional.)
Actually, as much as I like the buying a bed sketch, my favorite (for a sign/countersign, Monty Python style) has always been:
“Oh, Mr. Belpit your legs are so swollen!”
“Is this where I inquire about flying lessons?”
@guest
What would be even better than one of us infiltrating the meet up is if an actual journalist did it (double points if the journalist is Jeff Sharlet or Reggie Yates. TRIPLE points if they go unrecognised!).
The Macgyver Test doesn’t work as a complement because the Bechdel test was meant to be profound for how simple the requirements were and how many movies still failed it. It wasn’t about one movie, it was about the set of existing movies.
The Macgyver Test seems to be defined in a way that applies to individual movies, with the implication that a movie is bad if it doesn’t meet the reqs. Mainly because this is MRAs we’re talking about; they think shows like The Simpsons are stand-alone pieces of evidence that society is sexist against men.
If not, then the test is useless; plenty of movies and shows fulfill it.
In Dawkinsland apparently, feminists are free speech destroyers who are just as bad as terrorists. But Nazi propaganda is merely obnoxious.
Okay sealioning trolls, are we finally allowed to label Dawkins an anti-feminist and reactionary now?
If someone is more upset by feminists asking men not to harass women and not to say bigoted things than he is by Nazi propaganda, what does that tell you?
Feminists: “Can we have female representation in more than just a few films where they are not merely tied in with what the male characters are doing? Like they’re independent autonomous people?”
MRAs: “We want men to look super duper good at all times in all things! Why is this not happening in every single film? Sexism!”
The only Roosh meet up in my state is Duluth. I’m comforted that their aren’t enough fans in the entire Twin Cities to arrange a get together.
@Alan
You’re probably right.