Not-so-nice white lady Andrea Hardie — perhaps better known on the internet as Janet Bloomfield and/or JudgyBitch — is still ostensibly the Social Media Director of the fading Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men.
But with AVFM no longer grabbing the headlines it once, if briefly, did, the attention-seeking Canadian has apparently decided to hitch herself to the hate movement that’s really going places these days — the so-called alt-right, a loose collection of white supremacists, anime Nazis, and cuck-clucking Trump fans who enjoy trolling Twitter with hateful garbage as much as Hardie herself does.
Her latest publicity stunt? An almost gleefully racist Twitter tirade against Beyoncé and her fans as “feral animals” and “thugs.” As the singer’s fans took to Twitter to celebrate the premiere of Bey’s “visual album” LEMONADE, Hardie jumped into the fray with Tweets designed to offend:
UPDATE: Hardie’s Twitter account has evidently been suspended; I will replace the missing tweets with screenshots when I get a minute. Luckily the text remains:
https://twitter.com/andreahardie/status/724329005671915522
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724324980088049668
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724334061645340672
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724375495152939008
When one Puerto Rican woman took offense at her not-very-well-disguised racist language, Hardie cranked the racism up further:
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724340834825605120
Hardie followed up her Twitter tirade with a blog post titled, with her characteristic subtlety, “Beyoncé fans are feral thugs, like her.” In it, Hardie managed to find an excuse to use the word “feral” five times, “thugs” and “thuggish” six times, and “animals” four times. Here she manages to use all three in once sentence:
What I am saying is that #BlackLivesMatter thugs can scream to high heaven they are just frustrated victims of racism, but their actions are those of feral, wild animals.
Beyoncé’s recent, Black-Panther-referencing, Super Bowl performance was “an attack on the police officers of America,” Hardie sniffs. LEMONADE is worse, a sign that Beyoncé has fully “embrace[d] the violent thuggery of #BlackLivesMatter.” And while Beyoncé’s music and music videos won’t
cause anyone to go out and shoot an officer … these thugs are already so inclined, and it sure does provide a nice musical background!
In her blog post, Hardie makes much of the fact that that some women responded to her racist Tweets with threatening language. “When I tweeted to the hashtag #Lemonade asking why Beyoncé was embracing such ugly stereotypes about Black women as feral,” Hardie writes, “a legion of her fans showed up to prove they weren’t feral at all! Good job, ladies!”
Hardie posts screenshots of Tweets in which women offended by her Tweets tell her to “shut up, bitch” and “die slow.” One women, whose account seems to have since been banned, threatens to “slice [her] like a f**ing cheesecake” as well as to do some exceptionally disturbing things to, and with, the penis of Hardie’s father.
While acknowledging that when people on Twitter threaten her, she “threaten[s] them right back,” Hardie for some reason neglects to post screenshots of any of her responses. Here are several of them, which may strike you as a tad feral, animalistic and thuggish themselves.
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724361512337477632
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724360995364323328
As it turns out, Hardie is something of an old hand at threatening Twitter foes with gruesome violence. Apparently she regularly fantasizes about flaying off the skin of her enemies, gouging out their eyes, and/or bolting their heads to cars and doors. Among other things.
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/704798765140434945
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/722851057701941248
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/721528401941671938
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724351278596370433
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724062581242126337
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/720640534520471554
In the interest of keeping this a SFW blog, I will refrain from posting a Tweet in which Hardie pulls out the c-word before threatening to “gouge out [the] eyes” of a woman before stuffing them up her posterior.
I will also refrain from posting a Tweet in which Hardie told another Twitter foe how much she would enjoy “bolting your head to the roof of my car” because Hardie, who regularly affects great concern over being doxxed, included what I presume is her home address in the Tweet.
There are more examples, many more. And she is not shy about threatening people off of Twitter either.
But I think the point is fairly clear. If we were to judge all white women by the Twitter timeline of Andrea Hardie, we would have to conclude that they are feral, animalistic thugs — with a rather vivid imagination when it comes to imagining how they might torture, kill and dismember their foes.
Despite her penchant for floridly violent threats, Hardie — the wife of a Canadian academic — has so far refrained from explicit racial slurs, at least on Twitter.
And while she has occasionally dropped the alt-right buzzword “cuck” — once when referring to me — she hasn’t taken up another alt-right favorite, the racist slur “dindu.” She seems content, at least for now, to stick with racial-slur-substitutes like “feral” and “thug.”
She feels no such compunction about using the word “faggot,” which she trollishly pretends is not the slur that it is.
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/725002783624183810
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724980252338995200
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724974614141612032
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724779983906963457
And these are just from the past 24 hours. I left out the worst one, a crudely sexual bag of insults directed at the excellent @TakedownMRAs
Hardie, while perhaps not the credit to her race that she evidently thinks she is, continues to celebrate (as she has been doing for some time) what she sees as the superiority of “white culture,” or at least the more traditionalist aspects of it.
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724936997530427393
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/720230125896404992
As that last Tweet suggests, Hardie not only apes the rhetoric and the obsessions of the alt-right; she has begun to embrace the label as well.
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/720341351557046279
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/720371775650074625
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/721874795642626048
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/724424450897268737
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/720368776580087808
And then today, this rather inept attempt at blackface.
https://twitter.com/AndreaHardie/status/725026765815615489
I suppose it’s only a matter of time before she starts dressing up as Hitler.
—
For more on Hardie’s Twitter meltdown, see Janet Bloomfield Has Racist Twitter Meltdown; Says She Wants to Tweet a Photo of Herself in Blackface on Hail to the Gynocracy, which helped point me to some of the Tweets I used in this post.
If you do check out that post, do some poking around in Hail to the Gynocracy’s archives. The site, which tracks the alt-right and other reactionary doofuses, deserves a lot more attention that it gets.
@Amy Housewine
I tend to agree with you that the reputation of the man that Andrea Hardie married isn’t immune from her online racist and sexist rants, threats, and spewing of bile.
I’m neither an academic nor a Canadian. But students these days are usually extremely savvy about social media, so I think they must know what Andrea Hardie’s up to. I’d bet that the entire college–and the entire community–knows.
I can’t know in specific how her behavior threatens his career or reputation. But I have to believe that it doesn’t add anything positive.
As for their social life–I’m glad that I’m not Andrea Hardie. I can only imagine the dirty looks, cold shoulders, and frigid greetings she gets from her neighbors. I can only imagine how the parents of her children’s friends pity those kids. I can only imagine how people cross the street to avoid her. I can only imagine the teachers of those kids, steeling themselves for a parent-teacher conference with Andrea effing Hardie.
I’m sure that this social injustice warrior (SIW) considers herself a hero, not a jerk. Keep telling yourself that, Andrea Hardie! And by all means, keep shoveling that SIW shit.
Kat – well, I’m glad you’re not her too, but these problems are totally of her own making! I feel bad for her kids, and the teachers, parents, other soccer moms etc who have to interact with her. It must be surreal. I’m sure she’s sweet as pie to their faces, but how does one respond to someone superficially well socialized but actually this awful?
Re: Professor Hardie – I think it’s inevitable that there will be consequences, even if they’re not immediate or formal. For sure everyone knows. When I was a grad student, I’d have avoided taking a class with a prof like this, much less having him as a supervisor, because marrying someone like JB is a sign of spectacularly poor judgment (at best) and nobody needs that in their lives as a teacher/supervisor. As an academic, even if I liked his work, I’d be exceptionally leery of collaborating on anything with him, for the same reason, and so my name doesn’t come up in Google searches of him as her husband. At a certain point, if you can’t attract good students, research assistants and collaborators, you’re not doing your job as an academic. With tenure, that won’t get you fired – although that system is evolving – but it will slow you down, and get you a reputation that inhibits making full professor, being hired somewhere that isn’t Thunder Bay (which everyone teaching there dearly wants), and so on.
Either he will come to really, really resent her for what she’s doing to his image as a competent, intelligent professional (ie demolishing it) or he shares her views and doesn’t mind. ‘Twill be interesting to watch.
True that.
I’m sure she’s sweet as pie to their faces, but how does one respond to someone superficially well socialized but actually this awful?
It appears that some people are shocked that a certain right-winger chooses to hammer back when verbal abuse gets thrown her way. Everyone knows that conservatives are supposed to react to threats of violence with grace and humility. Everyone knows that conservatives are supposed to mumble apologies when gossiping prigs like David Futrelle dispense social justice by calling them names and cherry-picking their comments.
You’ve created a nice little toxic corner of the internet for yourself, Mr. Futrelle. I would urge you to come up for air once in a while, lest you choke on the fumes of your own dishonesty.
What specific verbal abuse was Beyonce throwing at Andrea Hardie?
Also, if you’re going to make accusations of dishonesty it’s a good idea to cite at least one example.
Lol
We can read twitter timelines too, you know. If he’s cherry-picking, it’s because it’s the only kind of tree around and it’s a whole damn orchard.
Everyone knows that minorities are supposed to react to threats of violence and humiliation with grace and humility, too, right?
Take your medicine, child. We know it’s bitter. We’re familiar with the taste.
If he’s cherry-picking, it’s because it’s the only kind of tree around and it’s a whole damn orchard.
Cherry picking, as in somehow failing to show any of the tweets that she was responding to, as in making it appear that she was lashing out, when in fact she was responding in kind to hateful tweets sent her way.
Everyone knows that minorities are supposed to react to threats of violence and humiliation with grace and humility, too, right?
If someone says that they will “cut you like a New York cheesecake”, is your first reaction to quickly check their skin color and decide whether or not they are a valid target for retaliation? Because if you do, you are a racist.
Take your medicine, child. We know it’s bitter. We’re familiar with the taste.
I don’t need to be medicated into a blissful stupor with hypocritical moral relativism and uniformity of thought. I prefer difficult facts over comfortable self-deceptions. Truth is the antidote to your simpering self-congratulations.
How long before he calls us “sheeple”? :p
I was subverting the metaphor, sir.
Read the article. He talks about that.
You don’t know the definition of the word. Nor are you the arbiter of how it applies.
I’ll take my education on what racism is from the actual literature on the subject, not some turkey clucking by a random internet forum. Thanks.
You prefer facts only when they agree with your preconceptions. That’s the opposite of difficult. You recognize truth by how much it hurts, not by how right you think it feels.
You prefer moral absolutism, because you get to define what is and is not absolute. Surprise surprise, it concludes that you’re right! Shocking.
I can provide chains of logical inference on this shit that would make your head spin. I can refer to bodies of work representing hundreds of thousands of hours of devoted efforts, with the statistical and DoE punch to knock you out of the park.
You wouldn’t know truth if it knocked on your door and asked if it could borrow a cup of sugar.
Get outta here with your weak sauce. You say you have truth? Get out your pencil and show your fucking work.
(In retrospect, I should have said “One recognizes truth by how much it hurts, not by how right you think it feels” and not”You recognize truth by how much it hurts, not by how right you think it feels”. Mea culpa.)
http://media.giphy.com/media/amZfgEVrf84Xm/giphy.gif
One recognizes truth by how much it hurts, not by how right you think it feels.
I have a somewhat more objective standard than feelings. Truth is revealed by its universality and its falsifiability. If you claim that all white males are angry and bigoted, it takes only one example of a calm, rational white male to disprove it. We arrive at truth by testing each case until we run out of possible alternatives. Even then, our truth may turn out to be falsehood if a new counterexample appears. Pain is no barometer of truth.
I’ll take my education on what racism is from the actual literature on the subject, not some turkey clucking by a random internet forum. Thanks.
Ah, yes the literature. No, don’t tell me, I’ve read this one before. It is impossible to be racist if you are not of the dominant cultural or ethnic group in a society. So when the Hutus decided to kill all of the Tutsis, there was no racism involved. It was just the nice poor people giving all of the horrible, racist elites their just due.
Racism is either nearly nonexistent in the Western world, or it is everywhere, depending upon your definition. Which one it is depends on the whims of the moment and whom you might wish to hurt with your baseless accusations.
You prefer facts only when they agree with your preconceptions.
And you are a model of impartiality, clearly. That’s why you’ve already started in on attacking my character.
You prefer moral absolutism, because you get to define what is and is not absolute. Surprise surprise, it concludes that you’re right!
I “prefer” universalizable moral principles. Moral relativism, by definition, models one set of standards for one group and another set of standards for another group. Universalizable morality comes out of a process of discovery in which those moral principles which lead to a peaceful, just society for everyone are chosen over those principles that elevate some to the denigration of others. Moral relativism is the justification for tyranny and enslavement.
I can provide chains of logical inference on this shit that would make your head spin. I can refer to bodies of work representing hundreds of thousands of hours of devoted efforts, with the statistical and DoE punch to knock you out of the park.
Oh, please, bring it on. Why not start with the wage gap? I’m sure you’ve got a whole library full of top-notch research showing that women earn 77 cents on the toxic male dollar for doing the exact same type, quality, and quantity of work. Let’s do this.
Oooh, someone read one book about morality once.
Or at least skimmed a reddit post to pick up some talking points.
Oh, and lest I be accused of cherry picking:
I was subverting the metaphor, sir.
Read the article. He talks about that.
And I ignored your attempt at linguistic sorcery because it was pointless. Futrelle spins the story to his own ends. Hardie originally criticized Beyonce for perpetrating black stereotypes. Then people started tweeting abuse at her as though she had used those stereotypes herself. After one person essentially dared her to put on blackface, that’s exactly what she did. The abuse that followed escalated, and she did not back down, returning it in kind.
This is where we are now. We, the well-adjusted and rational, have been subject to the abuse of intersectional feminists such as yourself for long enough. We won’t submit and we won’t back down any longer. Call us racist, sexist, mysogynist whatever-phobes and it will slide off us because we simply do not care anymore. Truth matters. Your anger at our lack of capitulation does not.
“No no, you don’t understand! She’s only being racist because people THINK she’s a racist! So she just had to prove them right!”
When describing Andrea Hardie, “well-adjusted and rational” aren’t the first words that come to mind.
Why are you so angry anyway? Didn’t she say she got suspended on purpose?
No no, you don’t understand! She’s only being racist because people THINK she’s a racist! So she just had to prove them right!
I’m not making excuses for her. I am setting the record straight. She doesn’t need my excuses. She’s just calling out the empty threats and the endless bullying.
Why are you so angry anyway? Didn’t she say she got suspended on purpose?
Describing someone as angry so that you can discredit their argument is child’s play. What else do you have in your playbook?
Your argument is discredited through being factually incorrect. Your weird anger is irrelevant, but hilarious.
Dude, nobody’s buying this shtick. Bullies have always whined about their victims being the real bullies. That’s the entire point of GamerGate, and social conservatism as a whole. Update your game.
http://i.imgur.com/NRUB8fI.jpg
F Harper: “I prefer facts to feelings and am therefore superior to all you SJWs!”
F Harper: *whines about judgybitch’s hurt feefees without presenting any facts*
Ah, me. Emotions do catch up with me sometimes, you’re right. I’ll check that in my replies. You’ve touched on my favourite topic, rationality, so I’ll even be congenial!
http://kucykimylittlepony.blog.pl/files/2013/03/143216-animated-fluttershy.gif
I’m afraid you read like a starry-eyed first year student, sir. Sure, yes, falsifiability, universality, etc. Lots of criteria are useful. All proper indicators of truth.
Problem is, we as humans have to judge whether something meets those criteria or not.
Problem is, we aren’t rationality machines.
(That includes you.)
Our ability to think logically is a thin smear across our prefrontal lobes, combined with a smattering of meaty globules of limbic system, all stretched like a skein over emotion and impulse. We’re very bad at rationality, and very, very good at rationalization.
This leaves us vulnerable to thinking our conclusions are universal when they are specific, and that they are true when false conditions occur.
All of the talk of “universality” and “falsifiability” and the like starts sounding paper thin once you actually start doing some DoE. You realize that you need more heuristics for determining truth in a universe of emotional uncertainty.
Thus the assumption of discomfort. Truth hurts. There are a billion ways to be wrong and only one way to be right. Odds are, you’re wrong about the thing you hold dear. That applies to everything. You’re probably wrong.
Einstein wasn’t able to accept quantum mechanics. Newton couldn’t believe that gravity was a force that governed the heavens. Science eventually corrected itself, but that doesn’t work for individuals.
Discussions of racism, as anything else involving social interactions, must be context-sensitive. Your sarcastic depiction of genocide does not apply. I’d say more, but this whole line is a straw-man.
(And frankly, I don’t want to hurt anyone at all, which is why I don’t got to forums and insult the people there just because they don’t agree with me.
Welcome, by the way!)
I didn’t claim to be impartial; I’m human, and you came in here and started insulting my friends and their judgement. You got what you came for. Why else would you come in here guns blazing like that, but to get yourself some hostility?
I prefer universalizable moral principles too! We agree on that, hooray. I don’t believe that they’re mandated by god or the universe, mind you – they’re an outcome of us being social creatures with evolved patterns of cooperation. Nor are they simple. Ethics is hard. But we seem to agree on this at least.
Please.
Sir, you’re the one challenging published and accepted findings by reputable institutions. Which you’re allowed to do! Please, do!
But you have to actually do it.
Not just demand that I provide more evidence. You have to shoot that down first. Then I can either show the flaw in your refutation, or drop the finding.
That’s how science works, sir. Someone makes a claim and provides evidence – that’s the “77% wage gap!” statement. If you don’t like it, you have to refute it.
Feel free to! I could use the cognitive exercise. And you don’t have to quote specifics if you don’t want to. I’m familiar with the methods used to generate those results and can wing it if you prefer.
“I had to steal the diamonds, Your Honour. It was a triple dog dare.”
“Wow, a real triple dog dare?!”
“Well, I mean, it was essentially a triple dog dare.”
“Hmm. Well, in that case, you’re free to go. Enjoy your new diamonds!”
@Viscaria
Isn’t it ironic how Hardie’s tagline for her blog is “the radical notion that women are adults”, referencing the old manosphere talking point about how women need to “take responsibility for their actions”.
Yet when she gets herself suspended from Twitter (again), it’s eeeeverybody else’s fault.
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view4/3384908/the-tickets-are-now-diamonds-o.gif