Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Two "manosphere" blogs have now posted the contact information of Assange's accusers

Two influential blogs in the "manosphere" -- there may be more, I don't know -- have now posted the names and contact information of Julian Assange's accusers; I won't link to the posts. Clearly the purpose of doing this is to encourage harassment of these women. Disgraceful.

EDIT: Some asshole keeps posting the contact info here so I am moderating comments for now.

71 comments:

  1. And no doubt your little 'manosphere' friends will be along to accuse this post of somehow justifying/trivialising false rape claims based on nothing at all.

    Ugh. Innocent until proven guilty? The MRA are very fond of yelling about this in one breath (and rightly so - false rape claims are disgraceful) but then doing the exact same thing to any rape claimant while attacking straw-feminists for hypocrisy.

    It has to work both ways, or not at all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry for double-posting - but I do feel sorry for Julian Assange. Whatever you feel about Wikileaks it just goes to show that whether you're male or female, being high-profile in the media blows your chances of a fair trial out of the window.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I noticed it earlier on one site - very detailed information. Not a surprise coming from that particular person. There's a great possibilty that their actions will be used to justify a need to keep accuser's identities confidential.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh noes, now their names will be as well-known as that of the man they accused, and they might get...*gasp*...some snarky letters mailed to them! Oh the humanity!!! But don't worry David, if YOU are ever falsely accused of rape and I have information about your accuser, I won't release it to anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  5. they might get...*gasp*...some snarky letters mailed to them!

    A few months ago I might've believed this was all that was going to happen. Nowadays, though, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody somewhere took it on himself to give them something a bit more fatal than a letter. Even if you want to argue that falsely accusing someone of rape is a crime for which you should be imprisoned/raped/whatever yourself, it's not quite as easy to argue it merits the death penalty. As much as I hate those two women (and I think their charges against Assange are bunk, with apologies to our host), I don't want to see their brains get blown out by some overzealous 4channer or misguided wanna-be MRA either.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Assange is not known as a friend of the MRAs, he was actively co-operating with feminist organizations. He never did anything for men, as far as I know. More the opposite.

    I do not feel really sorry for him, and if you play with fire you will get burnt.

    Mr. Assange is a political case and has nothing to do with rape. USA wants him and they will do everything they can to get him.

    False rape allegations, sexual harassment etc. are ideal feminist tools to attack legally any man out of any reason, as the accuser enjoys usually anonymity for life and gets away unpunished.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Nowadays, though, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody somewhere took it on himself to give them something a bit more fatal than a letter."

    There are several people who hate my guts and who know where I live, yet none of them have ever used that information to kill me. You know why that is? See, there's this thing called a criminal code, and murder is one of the most serious crimes in it, usually carrying a penalty of life imprisonment or death. That massive deterrent, combined with the crime being a top priority among both law enforcement and civilian witnesses, makes it quite safe to have your address known even by your worst enemies. Furthermore, there is absolutely no record of any MRA ever murdering or attempting to murder anyone, while the same cannot be said of feminists, lest we forget Valerie Solanas.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Assange is not known as a friend of the MRAs

    As the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." You're right, you people wouldn't care about him much if he'd been accused of any other crime besides rape. The fact that he was, however, makes him a cause celebre for you folks, even if he may have been a rabid feminist/man-hater/misandrist/mangina/whatever in the past. As a result, it wouldn't surprise me--at all--if some loon on what you consider to be the "fringe" of your movement (or to be fair, some 'tarded 4channer, like I mentioned aboe) takes it on himself to strike a blow against feminism by enacting a bit of vigilante justice on a pair of false accusers.

    And who knows, maybe even more people than that. Ferdinand Bardamu, who may not be an MRA but certainly isn't a 'hater' of your movement either, has posted a picture of one of the liars' ex-boyfriends based on...an allegation that he *might* have helped her scrub her past off the Internet. From an MRA's perspective, the fight against feminism isn't so bad so long as you're only hurting women, but you might want to think about what you're doing when one of your colleagues begins to target a fellow man simply because he once had something to do with a false accuser God knows how many years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  9. (forgive the double post, Cold posted this just as I did the previous comment).

    That massive deterrent, combined with the crime being a top priority among both law enforcement and civilian witnesses, makes it quite safe to have your address known even by your worst enemies. Furthermore, there is absolutely no record of any MRA ever murdering or attempting to murder anyone, while the same cannot be said of feminists, lest we forget Valerie Solanas.

    Far be it from me to tell you how to keep yourself secure, but considering how many people have been murdered or survived murder attempts by folks they pissed off at some point or another who managed to track them down. Andy Warhol probably regretted the fact that Valerie Solanas knew where to find him, and giving anyone's address to Franz Fuchs would have been a very bad idea, regardless of how much of a deterrent the laws against murder are. If nobody who hates you has attempted to do more than "send you snarky letters" yet, I congratulate you on your luck and hope it continues. I also hope, however, you're smart enough not to bet on it.

    there is absolutely no record of any MRA ever murdering or attempting to murder anyone,

    To say this is debatable is an understatement, but for the purposes of argument I'll go along with it. In that case, there's a first time for everything--maybe these two accusers will end up being the first victim of the very first overzealous MRA murderer. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not setting my hopes very high.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 'You're right, you people wouldn't care about him much if he'd been accused of any other crime besides rape."

    That's pure speculation. In case you didn't know, MRAs are diverse in their opinions. Some might have cared about him if he had been accused of a different crime, others might not have, but only an ignoramus like you would speculate and then extrapolate that speculation to MRAs as a group. MRAs tend to be advocates of bringing the truth to light, which is exactly what Assange did, so if any speculation is in order it is to speculate that MRAs would, in fact, care quite a bit about him.

    "but you might want to think about what you're doing when one of your colleagues begins to target a fellow man simply because he once had something to do with a false accuser God knows how many years ago."

    It's a fucking PICTURE! It's not like it was a covert photo either, he POSED for it! So now we know his name, what he looks like, and the fact that he was involved with this woman, all pieces of information that he clearly went to no effort to keep private. If that's what constitutes being a "target" then all my friends on Facebook are targeting me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "To say this is debatable is an understatement, but for the purposes of argument I'll go along with it."
    How is it debatable? If you have some record of someone who identified as an MRA murdering or attempting to murder someone, then spill it. Otherwise, it is not at all debatable.

    "In that case, there's a first time for everything--maybe these two accusers will end up being the first victim of the very first overzealous MRA murderer. I hope that's not the case, but I'm not setting my hopes very high."

    More wild speculation on your part.

    Oh yeah, Paul Elam and W.F. Price both revealed their addresses many months ago, and they are both hated with a passion by feminists, who, unlike MRAs, actually have some track record of violence, and yet nothing has happened to either of them.

    ReplyDelete
  12. MRAs tend to be advocates of bringing the truth to light,

    Are they? I thought they were a diverse group. How can you say they "tend" to be advocates of anything?

    If that's what constitutes being a "target" then all my friends on Facebook are targeting me.

    There's a difference, of course, between a few friends keeping pictures of you around and having yours posted by someone you don't know on a blog which gets...well, suffice it to say several times more traffic (to say the least) by a rather more "varied" group of people than would even happen across whatever facebook groups you're probably a part of. Ferdinand's not exactly a nobody, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. How is it debatable? If you have some record of someone who identified as an MRA murdering or attempting to murder someone, then spill it. Otherwise, it is not at all debatable.

    George Sodini comes to mind. Ah, I know what you'll say--"he didn't explicitly self-identify as MRAs!!!" Perhaps so. But considering how he's been called an "MRA hero" (look at Arpagus' comment), I'm not entirely certain that suspicions about the beneficent and non-violent nature of the MRM are entirely unwarranted.

    More wild speculation on your part.

    It is wild speculation, and I hope to god it stays wild speculation that's completely off base. I have a sinking feeling, though, I may end up being more correct than I ever wanted to.

    Paul Elam and W.F. Price both revealed their addresses many months ago, and they are both hated with a passion by feminists, who, unlike MRAs, actually have some track record of violence, and yet nothing has happened to either of them.

    Aside from the fact that "something" may happen to them in the future, there's also the fact that as much as feminists hate them, neither of these guys is that famous. Your typical feminist won't know who either of them are, and it's even less likely a feminist outside of the US would know about them. Anna and Sofia, however, are literally world-famous at this point, and as a result, there are considerably more people gunning for them at the moment (as I mentioned, it's not merely you MRAs who wouldn't mind watching them "get what they deserve," the 4channers hate them too). It would hardly be surprising if they met with an unfortunate fate much sooner than either Mr. Elam or Mr. Price.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As I said before, Mr. Assange is a political case, and he is in danger because of his politically not correct activity against the US-government.

    MRAs have nothing to do with that.

    His problems with women are his personal problems and MRAs never recommend his life-style.

    Read back in our forums.

    Sleeping around with various women in Sweden and similar feminist countries as a rich and infamous man is the best recipe asking for troubles.

    About false rape allegations, I do not know about any case which was instigated by MRAs nor do I know about women attacked by MRAs for false rape allegations.

    Why should we do that?

    We strongly demand however laws to be changed considering deliberate false rape allegations as a severe crime, as a felony which carries long jail terms as punishment.

    thevagrantsvoice: maybe these two accusers will end up being the first victim of the very first overzealous MRA murderer

    Your fantasy is amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Like I said above, Yohan, I hope to God it remains a fantasy--nothing would make me happier than to find out my fears really are groundless. At this point in my life, though, I'm just too jaded to bet on such a happy outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  16. LOL, George Sodini can be associated with MRAs because one person called him an "MRA hero"? Well let's see, I'm a person, and I could declare that Adolf Hitler was a feminist, and by your logic that would be a solid association between Hitler and feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Considering how more than a few MRAs I've seen would argue that Hitler was indeed a feminist of some sort or at least a "female supremacist," I guess so. I hate feminism (apologies to our host, I'm just being honest), so if my logic can associate Hitler with it, that's a good thing in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Er, your faulty logic could associate anyone with anything, Hitler was just an example. My point, which I obviously must make completely explicit, is that if you want to call Sodini an MRA then you need something a bit better than one person calling him an "MRA Hero" posthumously. Really, you need something said or written by Sodini himself in order associate him with any ideology.

    Oh, and as far as I know there is no record of 4channers murdering or attempting to murder anyone either. Ultimately, however, it is up to each individual to decide how much attention they want to draw to themselves. If you value your privacy, then think twice before trying to destroy a man's life with a blatantly false rape accusation.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Really, you need something said or written by Sodini himself in order associate him with any ideology.

    The excerpts of Sodini's diary I've read sound like they could come right out of an MRA site bemoaning how women only like thugs and badboys (or in Sodini's case, black guys). And that's not even going into the other mass-murderer I can think of, Marc Lepine, whose manifesto, particularly with its excoriations of radical feminists and feminism in general, sounds like something, again, which wouldn't be out of place on an MRA site. Again, you'd claim he "didn't call himself an MRA," but, of course, that was in 1989, when it wasn't as easy to find MRA communities online as it is now. If he were living today rather than back then, I think it's more than likely he'd consider himself a proud MRA.

    there is no record of 4channers murdering or attempting to murder anyone either.

    Didn't the Party Van pay Jake Brahms a visit for rather inadvisedly posting plans to bomb a football stadium on /b/ or something? That's at least close to an attempt at some violence. Well, I sure know better than to mess with football, at least.

    ReplyDelete
  20. vagrant, one of your comments got caught by the spam filter, and it's up now. It's a substantive post and anyone participating in this discussion who missed it should scroll up and read it. It starts off "(forgive the double post,..."

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Furthermore, there is absolutely no record of any MRA ever murdering or attempting to murder anyone"

    There have actually been numerous cases involving father's rights activists harassing, threatening, plotting to or using violence against people who opposed or otherwise angered them:

    http://www.xyonline.net/content/use-violence-fathers%E2%80%99-rights-activists-compilation-news-reports

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-11985446

    As for Sodini and Lepine having no connection to MRAs and MGTOW, their writings were virtually indistinguishable from stuff I've found on MRA and/or MGTOW forums, and, yep, some MRAs and MGTOWs have defended them. If you're going to hold feminism responsible for Solanas' attempted murder of Warhol, though I've never seen a single feminist ever justify that act ever, then it's only fair to hold the MRA responsible for Sodini and/or Lepine.

    Heck, Cold, you may recall someone basically defending Lepine on the "NiceGuy" forum the other day, and no one criticizing him for it until after some blog quoted it. Does any of that sound familiar to you?

    ReplyDelete
  22. thevagrantsvoice said...
    Like I said above, Yohan, I hope to God it remains a fantasy ...


    About rants from men, well, some are very angry out of various reasons. We - MRAs - are listen to them.

    We do not delete their postings, we try to talk with them, asking them to calm down, to move away to another city, to start again a new life.

    What else can we do? Any advice?

    ReplyDelete
  23. That's a good question, Yohan. As someone with an aversion to the MRM partially due to the affection for violence some elements display at its fringes, it would please me greatly to see those elements reduced or at least de-fanged.

    What else can you do? Well, I'm no expert, so you should obviously take what I say with a grain of salt, but one suggestion that I've been banging around since that "Great Debate" a while ago is, why not offer those sorts of men--along with those disturbed elements who seem like they might lash out violently--IRL support as well? Talking them down and trying to convince them to calm down is good, sure, but setting up some sort of IRL charity or group for men to get counseling from male-friendly therapists if they feel themselves on the verge of violence, or some money and a place to stay if they absolutely need to get away from an oppressive environment, or something like that might be very effective.

    Now, as I believe another commenter back in the Debate thing mentioned, that could run into problems, such as being a target for feminists (the case of Erin Pizzey came up, for instance), fairness because the laws themselves weren't being changed, etc. but then again, it also brings us to one of the advantages of the MRM, in your view--its decentralized nature. No, a foundation dedicated to helping male victims of abuse or reining in disturbed men might attract unwanted feminist attention, but what about a more loose coalition of men online? A list of email addresses guys who were feeling completely overwhelmed, for whatever reason, could send an email and ask for help, either for just a shoulder to lean on or, if they feel like they just can't take anymore, links to male-friendly therapists who could help them work through their feelings of anger, guys who might be able to paypal them some cash or set them up with a place to stay for a few days while they try to pick up and GTFO of an abusive relationship or an environment when they're being harassed by feminists or whatever. Such a loose, "grass-roots" organization would be much harder for feminists or haters of any sort to target, for instance. Now, I wouldn't be much help in setting up such a thing--like I said, I'm no expert, and such a suggestion might be wrong for one reason or another. However, you asked for advice, so I gave a lil' suggestion. Perhaps it can inspire you or somebody else to come up with something better.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DAVID: There have actually been numerous cases involving father's rights activists harassing, threatening, plotting to or using violence against people who opposed or otherwise angered them:


    Most of such confrontation could be avoided, but law execution is very biased against men, especially fathers.


    You refer to the link to Flood and his hoax website XY (similar to your website)

    He is collecting articles, but so far he collected only data about a few violent fathers

    (last article is dated 2004, a bit outdated, do you agree?)
    ...

    Some sentences out of these articles shows that something is wrong.

    THE publicity stunts pulled off by campaiging fathers might make us smile...

    (so you find it funny, when fathers have problems?)

    ...lawyers who act for the women also tend to refuse media requests for interviews 

    (just unwilling and arrogant to try to find a solution? To ask for money without respecting visitation rights in return?)

    ..... fathers 4 Justice and other fathers’ rights groups have in the past year adopted similar tactics to animal rights militants where staff have been “named and shamed” on websites.

    (Why are fathers considered to be bad and animal protectors to be good? Despite it seems they are protesting in a similar way...)

    Speaking to the Evening Press, he claimed that, despite court orders granting him contact, he had been denied access to his three children for three years and three months. It was, he said, a “living bereavement”.
    He lived just 75 feet away from the home where his children lived with their mother, he said, and could watch the children walking to school every day, but did not dare approach them for fear of being served with a ‘molestation order’.
    “I just feel desperate,” he said. “At least when they see me on TV, they know that’s their dad, and that I’m not giving up fighting.”


    (3 years and 3 months waiting for justice and nothing happens?)

    David, do you have some better references than XY-Flood the male feminist dated 2004?

    It's soon 2011!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Uh, one of the pieces I linked to was from December 13, 1910. As in, a few days ago.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There are many MRA's who say violence against women is inevitable, understandable, justifiable, etc. on MRM websites - because they leave them, because they get child support, alimony, because they are disobedient, disrespectful, and other reasons. Whenever the topic is discussed, I never see MRA's say it's wrong, I just see them say things to the effect of 'tone it down, this is a public forum'. Criminal law is no deterrent for some people as there are murders every day in the U.S. for those reasons. There are even MRA's that follow the domestic homicide stories and post their propaganda in the comments below about how it is inevitable that men kill women due to divorce for the grieving families to see basically blaming the victim. I've seen videos of MRA's at sentencings justify the murders of their wives and girlfriends spewing MRM propaganda about how what they did was justified to the judge and family - also blaming the victim. There is no other group that I have ever seen that identifies with these killers and some even openly applaud men for killing women and even cops and judges. Some examples of this have been posted on this blog. There's no doubt in my mind that some MRA's have killed and none that some will in the future. It would not surprise me at all if an MRA harmed these women, while of course, blaming them. And, if it does happen, inevitably we will read in the MRM community all the justifications and applause - just as we did with Rauol Moat after he shot his ex-girlfriend, her boyfriend and a cop; with Darren Mack who killed his estranged wife and shot a judge sniper style; Gerardo Regalado who rampaged a restaraunt his estranged wife worked at and shot only women; and of course, George Sodini and Marc Lepine. The MRM is full of dangerous people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Eoghan,

    Your post will be deleted of course, but why don't you start reading stories posted online by television stations of sentencings in domestic homicide cases, you'll find those videos here and there. Anyway, it's not important that you believe it, those who need to know see them and some of them are used in trainings for criminal justice professionals, etc..

    ReplyDelete
  28. "It would not surprise me at all if an MRA harmed these women, while of course, blaming them. And, if it does happen, inevitably we will read in the MRM community all the justifications and applause... The MRM is full of dangerous people."

    If the MRM is "full of dangerous people," are any of them billionaires with their own weekly televised talk show, onto which they invite spouse murderers? Internationally known feminist Oprah Winfrey has invited women who had mutilated or murdered their partners onto her show, which in my opinion was an attempt to legitimize their violence:

    Mary Winkler (husband murderer):
    http://www.oprah.com/oprahshow/Mary-Winklers-First-Interview

    Clara Harris (husband murderer):
    http://www.oprah.com/showinfo/Exclusive-Clara-Harris-The-Woman-Who-Ran-Over-Her-Husband

    Lorena Bobbitt (husband batterer/mutilator):
    http://www.oprah.com/world/Lorena-Bobbitts-Unforgettable-Story

    ReplyDelete
  29. "There have actually been numerous cases involving father's rights activists harassing, threatening, plotting to or using violence against people who opposed or otherwise angered them:"

    I still have yet to see any case of an MRA/FRA actually engaging in any kind of physical violence. If you have an actual, verified case from a CREDIBLE source, then by all means share it.

    "Heck, Cold, you may recall someone basically defending Lepine on the "NiceGuy" forum the other day, and no one criticizing him for it until after some blog quoted it. Does any of that sound familiar to you?"

    That someone has a history of talking about shooting people which goes back at least a full year, and I complained about it back then along with many others. A lot of metadiscussion takes place in the form of private messages which you can't see.

    ReplyDelete
  30. There are many MRA's who say violence against women is inevitable, understandable, justifiable, etc. on MRM websites - because they leave them, because they get child support, alimony, because they are disobedient, disrespectful, and other reasons.

    Many men have had their lives completely destroyed by women via both legal means like financially raping them in the courts, and illegal means like falsely accusing them of domestic violence which they can do with impunity because the government refuses to address the problem. That leads to...

    Criminal law is no deterrent for some people as there are murders every day in the U.S. for those reasons.

    All deterrents to criminal activity depend on the would-be criminal having something meaningful to lose. If you completely destroy a man's life, as our courts often do using feminist-inspired laws and precedents, then you nullify that deterrent. Yes, that makes such crimes both inevitable and understandable, but as must always be explicitly pointed out to feminists, explanation is not justification and prediction is not prescription.

    If you want fewer murders, then stop driving normal, non-psychopathic citizens to the point that they will commit murder.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Far be it from me to tell you how to keep yourself secure, but considering how many people have been murdered or survived murder attempts by folks they pissed off at some point or another who managed to track them down.

    You're talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of one percent of the population. You're more likely to die crossing the street than you are to be murdered by someone who you pissed off and who knows your address. However, if it concerns you that much, then don't give out your address to anyone and/or don't give anyone a reason to want to kill you. Following the Golden Rule is a good way to satisfy the latter condition.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's weird to me that these guys show up and put on this big show of trying to sound hyper-reasonable and then go right ahead and blame feminism for men who go nuts and kill women.

    It's a frightening level of delusion.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Since when was pointing out valid cause-and-effect relationships in contradiction with being "hyper-reasonable"?

    ReplyDelete
  34. You're talking about a tiny, tiny fraction of one percent of the population. You're more likely to die crossing the street than you are to be murdered by someone who you pissed off and who knows your address. However, if it concerns you that much, then don't give out your address to anyone and/or don't give anyone a reason to want to kill you. Following the Golden Rule is a good way to satisfy the latter condition.

    Yes, yes, but those two women probably belong to that "tiny fraction of one percent" for the reasons I've described above. Thus, the simple point I was making originally stands--it's more than a distant possibility that something a good deal more fatal than being mailed a few snarky letters is going to happen to those two.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Yes it's somewhat more likely to happen to them than the general population, but I still consider the probability to be VERY low. Plus, their names and addresses wouldn't be known in the first place had they not falsely accused a man of sex crimes. Moral of the story: actions have consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, here's hoping the probability really is as low as you say. And while you're correct in saying that actions have consequences, that applies to many things, not just false rape accusations. One of the "consequences" of Ferdinand posting these peoples' contact information is making people like me-folks who dislike feminism but are leery of the MRM--much more suspicious of the supposedly non-violent and benevolent nature of the MRM.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Since when was pointing out valid cause-and-effect relationships in contradiction with being "hyper-reasonable"?

    You do realize that feminists say the exact same thing, right? Whenever you hear somebody trying to justify what Lorena Bobbitt or Valerie Solanas did, it's often something along the lines of, "well, I don't CONDONE violence, but it's simply a natural result of patriarchal oppression! Their violent husbands/fathers/whoever just pushed them until they couldn't take any more! If only our society wasn't so misogynistic, these murders/attacks wouldn't happen! It's just cause and effect!"

    That may be true, but I doubt it, personally. Unfortunately, by the same token, this also makes me suspicious of similar "predictions" coming from the other side of the gender wars.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Christine WE said...
    There are many MRA's who say violence against women is inevitable, understandable, justifiable, etc. on MRM websites - because they leave them, because they get child support, alimony, because they are disobedient, disrespectful, and other reasons


    What a nonsense is this? What a drivel!

    MRAs do not support any violence.

    First of all you should ask, who is the instigator of violence.

    But anyway, we always tell such men, who suffer a lot by manipulation of malicious women, to stay calm and to move away, quickly. Don't say a single word, move on!

    This makes it impossible to claim violence, as you have not been there. - Easy!

    Best is to move to another city, if possible, and start quickly a new job and life with entire new people. No contacts anymore with the ex-wife and friends around her except by letters, checked by a lawyer, no phonecalls.

    Get away first of all! Make a clean cut with your past.

    -----

    However most activity now for most MRAs like me, who are living within a violent-free family overseas is prevention. PREVENTION. I say it again. How to PREVENT such problems in the future of young men.

    The best advice I can give to a young man living in a country which has hostile law execution against men is to AVOID situations, which might turn out to be harmful for him as man.

    That's easy now for MRAs to explain, as many young men are getting more and more mistrusting towards females in Western countries.

    Advice 1: Stay single, don't bring females in your private room. Be aware of 'false rape allegations'. No marriage, no co-habitation. Don't pay for sex, porno, bar-girls etc.

    Advice 2: No friendly conversation at your workplace, say good morning and good evening, do your work and do not socialize. No talks.
    Study about existing laws and execution, like sexual harassment claims. Anything what you say now, can be used against you anytime. Even 20 years later...

    Advice 3: Get on airplanes, countries are not the same everywhere. Study about what is going on beyond your borders, especially if you are from USA.

    Notice the difference between USA/UK, continental Europe, Asia etc. Notice the difference in other countries, where English is not generally used, and you will see all is much much less hateful elsewhere. Learn to communicate in foreign languages.

    Foreign wife? This is NOT an option for the beginning, regulate your own life first, be emotionally and financially stable.

    This is about what we are doing as MRAs, who are NOT living in the feminist hate-zone anymore.

    Basically said, we advice all young men to stay calm, to remain single, to save money through regular work and in future to move on to a better place.

    We advice all men, that they cannot expect any help - they have to go their own way making their own decisions.

    There are virtually 10000 of organizations for women, but there is nothing for men.

    I don't know, what such advice has to do with 'violence'. - It's about reality.

    I know feminists do not like such advice as it is cutting down their financial resources.

    My advice is clear and not-violent about feminism. Don't give them money.

    No money and feminism is finished, as it is a non-productive, parasite hate-movement.

    ReplyDelete
  39. MRAs do not support any violence.

    Some of you do--the examples of Arpagus calling Sodini an "MRA hero" and the support Lepine has received from some people in the manosphere is evidence of that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. why there is a perception that feminists are pathological liars

    I think, this question is not relevant, if you follow MRA-advice and IGNORE feminists.

    As young man you need not even acknowledge its existence. Nobody can force you to socialize with women in a feminist country.
    A man has the right to say NO!

    Advice: AVOID feminism!

    ----------

    The problem is more about cheated older men, frequently divorced or in unhappy marriage, they cannot change their life so easily anymore.

    There are children and these men want to have contact with them and not only to pay child-support for them to the ex-wife, who is using the money for something else.

    Or, there is an ex-wife working nothing but claiming alimony for life after divorce while living together with a thug-boy.

    Other women claiming violence and the man is gone to jail, and she takes the house etc.

    Again, we MRAs can only ask ALL these men regardless the circumstances to remain calm, to move away, to start again, and to avoid some certain mistakes of their life.

    ' she is a liar ' - This talk will not help you as man... better is to avoid her, be strong in your decision, leave her and never see her again in your life.

    ReplyDelete
  41. thevagrantsvoice said...
    MRAs do not support any violence.

    Some of you do--the examples of Arpagus calling Sodini an "MRA hero"


    There are always some people who need a psychiatric evaluation. Both, the criminal and the people who admire them...

    Some feminists admire Solanas, a convicted prostitute and killer. And nobody says a word about it...

    Feminist Robin Morgan (later editor of Ms. magazine) demonstrated for Solanas' release from prison. Ti-Grace Atkinson, the New York chapter president of the National Organization for Women (NOW), described Solanas as "the first outstanding champion of women's rights." Another member, Florynce Kennedy, represented Solanas at her trial, calling her "one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement."

    Source:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Raul Groom:

    "It's weird to me that these guys show up and put on this big show of trying to sound hyper-reasonable and then go right ahead and blame feminism for men who go nuts and kill women.
    It's a frightening level of delusion."


    Gee, Raul. Were you really frightened by a mere blog comment? Or were you just trying to make someone with whom you have a disagreement feel ashamed?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Some feminists admire Solanas, a convicted prostitute and killer. And nobody says a word about it...

    I do--like I said above, with apologies to our host, I hate feminism. The fact that some feminists admire Solanas is one reason I want nothing to do with them...just like the fact that some MRAs admire Sodini and Lepine is one reason I'm not a part of their movement either.

    Gee, Raul. Were you really frightened by a mere blog comment?

    Perhaps "frightened" is too strong a word, but it's not really unreasonable to be suspicious of even blog comments online. The vast majority of crap people spew in support of violence (whether from feminists or MRAs) is just tough talk and hot air. There are always a few, however, which might actually be serious, and it can be hard to separate those from the rest. Perhaps the attempts of some (not all) MRAs to justify, condone, or even advocate for violence (and not necessarily just against women, either) online isn't "frightening," but it is something to be concerned about.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "Ugh. Innocent until proven guilty? The MRA are very fond of yelling about this in one breath (and rightly so - false rape claims are disgraceful) but then doing the exact same thing to any rape claimant while attacking straw-feminists for hypocrisy.

    It has to work both ways, or not at all."

    What?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Some asshole keeps posting the contact info here so I am moderating comments until this dies down.

    ReplyDelete
  46. From Dr. Deezee's article,

    We cannot, at the same time, believe that the accused rapist is innocent AND that the person leveraging accusations is telling the truth.

    While this may be true in this case, to be fair, it's not true in other situations I can think of. For instance, purely for the sake of argument, let's think of a hypothetical situation in which a woman gets raped (and is actually, genuinely raped--yes, I know, some MRAs might claim that sort of thing doesn't happen, but for the purposes of argument let's just pretend) at night when it's dark, she can't can't see her attacker clearly, and the only thing she knows is that her assailant is wearing a hoodie. So she's been legitimately raped, and when the police show her a lineup of suspects, she can't remember anything else about her assailant except what he was wearing. She sees a random black dude wearing the same type of hoodie and accuses him of being the culprit. DNA testing, however, reveals that the black dude was innocent, and it turns out that a white guy in the area was also wearing the same hoodie and the DNA matches with his (i.e he's the real guilty party).

    In this case, the woman wasn't "falsely accusing" anyone, she really WAS raped and just made a misidentification. It sucks, but it does happen, and not just in cases of rape either--as the innocence project proves, people get convicted of MURDER (which I'm sure you'll agree is more serious than rape) simply because they happened to be in the wrong place in the wrong time, got framed for it, or whatever. At the same time, though, the black dude in my example was innocent of the accusation. So in some cases, at least, we can believe that an accused rapist is innocent while also believing his accuser isn't levying a false accusation--the crime may have actually happened, but the person being accused was framed or was a victim of mistaken identity, not a "false accusation."

    Again, that's not the case here, but I'm just sayin it does happen.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @thevagrantsvoice

    You are talking about misidentification. This is very common in any criminal case, like theft, robbery.

    Often something really happens and the person misidentify the criminal, because it was dark, the victim was shocked, or has seen the criminal running away only for a few moments...

    Some women are known claiming sexual harassment, but the person arrested was a pickpocket and the hand in the trousers was for the wallet...

    We know about that, and MRAs do not accuse such women for any wrongdoing.

    -----

    We are talking about DELIBERATE false rape allegations, about sex-crimes which do not exist.

    Sometimes it's done out of the bad mood of a malicious woman to keep the police busy, sometimes however even accusing a certain totally innocent person, known or unknown to this crazy woman, like a taxi-driver, policeman, boyfriend, father etc.

    MRAs want such false rape allegations considered as a felony, such women to be sentenced to a long jail-term similar to rape and, already done sometimes, police given the right to charge this woman for wasted investigation hours.

    However all these women so far are getting away with lenient sentences and even with anonymity for life, despite some men spent years innocent in jail and had considerable problems to return to their jobs and suffered big financial losses, had family problems etc. etc.

    As MRA I want all governments to do something to finish with that nonsense, to finish with such dangerous hoax of false rape allegation.

    Change the laws, some days community service is by far not enough for such crimes.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338835/Heidi-Jones-Good-Morning-America-weather-girl-falsely-claimed-raped-jogging-Central-Park.html

    The next one, every day in the news...
    and this article is also interesting
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.html

    The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks.
    The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only six per cent of complaints end in a conviction.
    ...
    Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.

    ReplyDelete
  48. TheVagrantsVoice:

    I see what you're driving at, here, but I think you're getting hung up on women being "guilty" of a "false accusation." That's not what really matters about "innocent before being proven guilty." What matters is that the burden of proof is on the person leveraging the accusation, and not on the person being accused, to prove that the person being accused deserves to go to jail.

    Furthermore, you've outlined a rather extreme and uncommon counter example that doesn't really apply in the majority of cases in order to defend the notion that we should somehow hold both the accuser as telling the truth and the accused as innocent (which, again, cannot logically be so). Most legal rapes are not stranger rapes.

    ReplyDelete
  49. What matters is that the burden of proof is on the person leveraging the accusation, and not on the person being accused, to prove that the person being accused deserves to go to jail.

    I agree, and I also think that the whole "innocent before being proven guilty" thing mandates, justly and correctly, that the burden of proof *should* be on the accuser, but there's a difference between saying that the burden of proof should be on the accuser and saying that "since one can't simultaneously be falsely accused while one's accuser isn't making a false accusation, we should therefore believe anyone accusing anyone else of rape (or any other crime, really) is guilty of making a false accusation." No jury, so far as I am aware, is going to find an accused rapist, or thief, or murderer (again, the same concept applies to these "more serious" crimes as well) "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" and then turn around and claim that whoever made the accusation is *therefore* now guilty of perjury, lying under oath, etc. The concept of laying the burden of proof on the accuser was justly and wisely intended to make it very difficult for innocent men to get put in jail, but its purpose is not to cast aspersions on people who accuse others of committing a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Serves them right. It's only leveling the playing field to post the contact information of the accusers. If you theoretical, ideological feminists didn't like it, you would bare your red-eyed, self-righteous anger about the accused (oh who are we kidding, mens') names and contact information published by the media. But when one or two little websites do unto you - EEK! It's a fucking sex war waged against women! Oh, the humanity!
    Doesn't feel so good when it's your goddesses who take the fall, does it castrato? Sorry, if these equivocal tactics are what it takes to show a feminist "how it feels," that's what it's going to take. Until you start thinking, it keeps happening.

    ReplyDelete
  51. TheVagrantsVoice:

    I can agree with that. Unfortunately, rape IS a crime that there is an absurdly high incidence of false accusations for (I'm not gonna bust out a bunch of links and quotes and what not, a) because I'm lazy and b) because I don't care to try to make the point on this blog) which explains (though perhaps does not excuse) the tendency towards the "false accuser" label. I chalk it up as another example of how feminist activism and victim idolatry actually hurts the real victims.

    As for the case of Julian Assange, the facts which are in about the case are pretty ri-god-damn-diculous but I digress.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Interesting article in the dailymail news, and it was written by a woman!

    Instead of giving anonymity to men charged with rape we should name their accusers

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1280752/MELANIE-PHILLIPS-Instead-giving-anonymity-men-charged-rape-accusers.html

    .....feminist activists claim, perversely, that the acquittal rate demonstrates bias against women - and have accordingly tried vindictively to load the judicial dice against men.

    Without any doubt, rape is a vile and disgusting crime. But these feminists have used it as a stick with which to beat the entire male sex.

    In a reversal of the most fundamental principle of justice, men accused of rape are perceived to be guilty and accordingly have to prove that they are innocent.
    .....
    the important point is that the real injustice to men in those 40 per cent of rape cases where they are acquitted is not that their identities are made known but that they are the victims of false allegations in the first place.

    And if women were held publicly to account for the claims they make, the number of those false accusations would undoubtedly drop.


    40 percent?

    ReplyDelete
  53. @yohan,

    I'm not sure that you get how the justice system works given your failure to grasp it in the discussion of the OJ Simpson case the other day, but acquitted doesn't automatically mean the person did not do what they were accused of. Assuming that all who are acquitted of a crime were falsely accused is irresponsible of the writer as anybody who does understand the system knows that sometimes guilty persons go free. In that 40% acquitted, there will be some falsely accused and some who were not falsely accused. In addition, MRA's are tainting juries with their idiotic pact to try to get chosen for jury pools and voting all men accused of rape and other crimes "not guilty" no matter what the evidence, so the outcome of trials are not even close to reliable indicators of whether a man actually did it or not. Who knows how many criminals have gone free thanks to the MRM?

    ReplyDelete
  54. I'd like to see that 40% broken down by how many were acquitted due to false accusations, lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, mistakes in investigation or prosecution, and how many trials had tainted jury pools due to the MRM pact to find all men "not guilty" in rape trials no matter what the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  55. There's only a logical fallacy to a consistent application of 'innocent until proven guilty' if you take it as a literal expression of a person's guilt or innocence. In fact, as should be fairly obvious, a person can be guilty of a crime before they're convicted so it makes little sense to claim that someone accused of a crime is literally 'innocent' until proven guilty. As has been observed, the spirit of the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is to remind the court and public that legally guilt must be proven, and not to assume that someone is guilty before they've heard the evidence. There is no contradiction to holding the same principal for both Assange and his accusers: to wait until guilt is proven before branding either a rapist or false-accuser. In neither case has evidence been brought forward to convict one or the other.

    N.B. This does not mean that both are concurrently 'innocent', only that guilt has not been proven on one side or the other. Although it should be noted that the criminal justice system does actually presume guilt: this is why people accused of violent crimes are often taken into custody and kept in prison until their trials. Thus rather than being considered innocent, the accused are actually placed in a limbo where they're waiting to see whether their guilt is legally established or not.

    ReplyDelete
  56. One of the "consequences" of Ferdinand posting these peoples' contact information is making people like me-folks who dislike feminism but are leery of the MRM--much more suspicious of the supposedly non-violent and benevolent nature of the MRM.

    And nothing of value was lost.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I'd like to see that 40% broken down by how many were acquitted due to false accusations, lack of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, mistakes in investigation or prosecution, and how many trials had tainted jury pools due to the MRM pact to find all men "not guilty" in rape trials no matter what the evidence.

    There is no formal pact; just an essay which lucidly explains why, under the current legal climate, juries should acquit alleged rapists. The essay was published on August 1, 2010, so you can stop frothing at the mouth about statistics from before that date being "tainted".

    ReplyDelete
  58. Oops, and nothing of value was lost was supposed to link to this article like it does now.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The problem is, of course, that if the "reality on the ground" are really so bad, men dealing with it need all the help they can get. And the fact that MRAs like you seem so dead-set on alienating virtually everyone, male or female, who's not crazy enough to embrace the use of these sorts of tactics, means that you're separating those unfortunate men from a sizable population of people who'd otherwise be more than happy to help them. This doesn't apply to me, of course--regardless of whether you MRAs call me a "mangina" or an "ignoramus" or whatever, I'll continue to condemn false rape accusations, advocate for anonymity for the accused, lend what support I can to male victims of domestic abuse, and generally speak up for men. Unfortunately, the fact that the MRM, if you're any indication, is so fond of tactics that will alienate so many potential supporters is not going to make my job easier, nor is it going to help men dealing with "the reality on the ground" very much either.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Forgive me for being skeptical of your status as a would-be helper. If the likes of, say, Glenn Sacks decide that they need to distance themselves from the MRM, that is when I will become concerned about our tactics.

    The fact is, we have been trying for years to get ANY western government to do something about the epidemic of false rape accusations, and this year we finally got the UK government to take the most minimal measure of protecting the anonymity of the accused the same way they protect the anonymity of the accuser, and they backed down from doing so the second that some feminists starting complaining about it. It was only after that fiasco that we began to seriously discuss the idea of taking matters into our own hands without resorting to any kind of violence. Subjecting people who are clearly false accusers to the same publicity and scorn as the men they accuse is, in my opinion, a very fair-minded way of restoring some balance to the legal system and, as far as I'm concerned, any would-be ally who is alienated by such a tactic is not someone who would be of value to the movement anyway. Hence, my position that nothing of value was lost.

    ReplyDelete
  61. If the likes of, say, Glenn Sacks decide that they need to distance themselves from the MRM, that is when I will become concerned about our tactics.

    I'm no fortune-teller, but I wouldn't be surprised if that day came eventually, even if in a long time. Mr. Sacks has previously expressed his hopes the he and feminists might eventually be able to "work together" and that, for instance, "any linkage between the men's & fathers' movements' grievances and Sodini is not my view"." If you also look at the several hundred entries dealing with false accusations on his blog, you'll notice that he rarely, if ever, posts pictures and detailed contact information of the false accusers. Despite being considered a bigwig among MRA, I'm not sure how many other MRA sites besides his own he actually reads...perhaps if he ever does, listening to folks like Arpagus (who isn't just some random person, but who thinks of himself as an MRA and an antifeminist, just like you) call Sodini an "MRA Hero," or Ferdinand posting up pictures and contact information of two false accusers (something Mr. Sacks has never done, despite, as I said, writing a great deal on the problem of false accusations), he might very well reconsider his relationship with you people someday.

    Subjecting people who are clearly false accusers to the same publicity and scorn as the men they accuse is, in my opinion, a very fair-minded way of restoring some balance to the legal system and, as far as I'm concerned, any would-be ally who is alienated by such a tactic is not someone who would be of value to the movement anyway. Hence, my position that nothing of value was lost.

    You are entitled to your opinions, but the ultimate efficacy of such a tactic is up for debate. If something happens to these women, regardless of whether or not Ferdinand even had anything to do with it specifically, feminists will point to his blog post and scream about how anonymity for accusers is even ~*MORE*~ important, and given how much many people in positions of power hate Assange (such as the U.S Government), they'll likely listen. The ultimate result will be more rape hysteria, more "protections" for accusers (and less for the accused) and, in general, an even more hostile environment for men such as ourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This question can be asked in any form you like, for example how many criminals (regardless their gender) have gone free thanks to their wealth and aggressive lawyers?

    Or, how many criminals have gone free solely because of their female gender? etc. etc.

    I was posting merely the link to that article, and it shows that false rape allegations are a problem and men are the victims, sometimes however victims are also his family members, while the false accuser remains anonymous.

    So you think, that's all fine and laws should not be changed?

    False rape allegations are also an annoyance for police investigators and I think, police should file lawsuits against these women demanding compensation for wasted investigation time.

    To finish with this nonsense, the only way I see is to consider false rape allegations as a felony which should result in very long jail terms for these women, equal to those of rape.

    I do not understand why feminists are so highly protective to such criminal females - maybe out of that fact that the victim is only a male?

    Of course females who are real victims will face a wall of mistrust.

    In this case a woman reported 40 (!) false rape allegations - and remains anonymous.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1133104/BBC-wasted-legal-fees-protect-rape-personality.html

    The BBC has spent licence-payers’ money in a failed attempt to prevent The Mail on Sunday publishing a story about how one of the Corporation’s personalities had falsely accused her former boyfriend of rape.

    Last Sunday we revealed the woman told police she had been assaulted 40 times during their relationship, before withdrawing the allegations.

    The officer investigating the case described her claims as ‘inconsistent’ and ‘not credible’.

    Yet, because of a legal loophole, the incident remains on the Police National Computer, ruining her former boyfriend’s job prospects and his freedom to travel.
    Whereas his life has been wrecked, the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 guarantees her anonymity and prevents him suing for damages.


    Call us misogynists or rape apologists or whatever you like.

    I say it again, MRAs what such laws to be changed.

    ReplyDelete
  63. And about a certain lady, please read

    http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/12/10/854025/officer-testifies-at-mangum-trial.html


    The charges include arson, injury to personal property, resisting arrest and contributing to the delinquency, abuse or neglect of her children.

    Attorneys spent five days weeding through 40 potential jurors to pick 12 and two alternates who could try Mangum without prejudging her credibility because of her false rape accusations in the Duke lacrosse case.

    Mangum threatened to stab boyfriend Milton Walker after piling his clothes in the bathtub and setting them on fire - all in the presence of two police officers.


    It's time now again for feminists to become active to protect their poor sister...

    Mangum could get up to 7 years. Arson is not the same as false rape allegations...

    ReplyDelete
  64. This is a report about an innocent girl and her thug-boy.

    For sure, not all girls are like that - says the feminist...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339154/Ruby-Thomas-19-guilty-drunk-attack-killing-gay-civil-servant-Trafalgar-Square.html


    A former public schoolgirl who stamped to death a gay civil servant in a homophobic attack in the middle of Trafalgar Square was facing life behind bars last night.

    Ruby Thomas, 17, launched a savage attack on Ian Baynham, 62, simply because he was holding hands with another man.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Yohan, no one disputes the fact that some women commit violent crimes. Random stories about random evil women, like this last comment of yours, aren't relevant to the issue here, and in the future I will simply delete them as spam.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Well, you are posting here comments of a few radical men and are claiming all (or at least most) MRAs are into violence.

    Do you not see how biased your way of moderation really is?

    You are also claiming that MRAs are against gays, but you see there are violent women who are also against gays.

    You are only presuming something, usually without any link to reality, without any links to references.

    This thread is about rape and anonymity, and I gave you plenty of links and stuff to think about it.

    About violent crimes, you highlight only rape (as it is frequently from men against women) but you do not highlight crimes from women to men.

    About rape, I do not know a better example than Mangum, the accuser of the Duke Lacrosse team.
    And now this poor girl, supported heavily by feminists, is facing jail for arson and violence.

    I think, this is very much related to this thread about rape and anonymity.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yohan, where exactly have I claimed that all or most MRAs are into violence?

    Oh yeah, nowhere. I haven't. I do think there are violent people in the MRM, and that the manifestos of Lepine and Sodini remind me an awful lot of a lot of what I read on MRA/MGTOW blogs and message boards.

    That doesn't mean that all or most MRAs are into violence.

    Please READ WHAT I WRITE instead of glancing at it and making up your own version of what I've said.

    As for your comments, the Mangum comment is on topic. I wasn't talking about that comment. I was talking about your comment about the gay-bashing murderer. As I made perfectly clear. Again, READ WHAT I WRITE.

    ReplyDelete
  68. thevagrantsvoice said...
    That's a good question, Yohan
    .....
    What else can you do? Well, I'm no expert
    .....
    Talking them down and trying to convince them to calm down is good, sure, but setting up some sort of IRL charity or group for men to get counseling from male-friendly therapists if they feel themselves on the verge of violence, or some money and a place to stay if they absolutely need to get away from an oppressive environment, or something like that might be very effective...


    Thank you for your nice reply.
    I am no expert either.

    The Men's Rights Movement is growing, but has openly said, problems related to organization.

    Most of it are small groups with not much connection between themselves or to politicians, neither local nor international, and one group is only for fathers, another group only for prisoners, another one for cheated men/divorce or for old men and so on.

    Some men we can advice, others will never listen to us...

    As I said, I am not an expert, my reaction and advice as MRA is only about what happened to me, how I was treated by Western females and about the lesson I learnt.

    About violent men, I am convinced most men would not be violent at all, if not strongly provocated by women.

    Instigating violence by females is very common, as the general opinion whatever happens is always to the favor of the woman as a victim.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @yohan,

    You are not convinced most men would be violent at all if not strongly provocated by women? What? For not being submissive or compliant enough? For not meeting your expectations based on stereotypes? Have you checked out the rate of male on male violence? This statement by you clinches suspicions I have had that you are an abusive person. You would be the exact person telling the police "She made me do it." as the handcuffs are slapped on. Do you tell your foreign wife it's all her fault as you're pushing her around? Talk about not taking responsibility for your actions. You are the epitome of that. I'm not surprised you believe this, but it would be more honest to say "Because I believe women should be obedient, I choose to beat them when they don't do what I want".

    ReplyDelete
  70. thevagrantsvoice:Mr. Sacks has previously expressed his hopes the he and feminists might eventually be able to "work together" and that, for instance,...

    Yes he did try that on at least one occasion that I recall pretty well. About 2-3 years ago he made a big fuss about the "Open Wide/Shut Up" cut tags that are used on a major feminist blog. He went on and on about how mean they were. Then someone informed him that they were not meant to shut people up but just a way to condense really long posts.

    After admitting he didn't know what he was talking about he pretty much said, "Well since we are interacting let's talk about other things and get the ball rolling." They all but literally spit in his face and continued to rant on about how he intentionally too it the wrong way just to cause trouble (and this is after a post where he open said he didn't know what he was talking about). Why make nice when you can get more high fives and page views by attacking "the enemy"?

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis