Archive | Terrorism RSS feed for this section

Protesters are threatening to kill us, other guests and hotel staff at the Detroit Conference: here’s how you can help

2 Jun


Another threat posted on Detroit Metro Times assuring us that at least one protester will be armed.



Oh look! “Trigger-happy” protesters are planning to shut down the Detroit conference promising “things could get ugly”.

29 May




Everybody, stand back!  The intellectual powerhouse who goes by the name Joel Reinstein is hosting a Facebook page called STOP the “International Conference on Men’s Issues!”, and you know Joel is a badass motherfucker when he pulls out the ALLCAPS!


Before you go over there with your misogyny and patriarchy hanging out all over the place messing up the throw cushions and doilies, be aware that “Misogynists’ comments and posts will be deleted. Threats and harassment will be screencapped and reported to relevant authorities.”  Joel means business.


Advance warning:  this kind of misogyny will not be tolerated:



I posted it more than once and was continuously deleted, because the sheer vitriol and hatred in that was unbearable to someone as delicate and sensitive as Joel.


Some of Joel’s supporters seemed at least marginally willing to engage in debate about specific issues but Joel took the hardline and deleted comments that failed to toe the MRA=WomanHater line, leaving all the supporter responses up, so that the threads became incoherent.  Like this one:


  • Sarah Gray Safe haven laws are gender neutral, and it does *not* absolve the abandoning parent of their responsibilities.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Women are legally required in all but two states to reveal the fathers identity and notify him if she wants to adopt out.
Men should keep track of their sperm, they can always contest an adoption because fathers have rights.

3 hrs · Like

Samuel Molnar Guys, this isn’t a dialogue. Don’t get it twisted. We want to get the sexist abuse-apologists to stfu and gtfo. So dont come here looking for dialogue.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray No, women cannot unilaterally choose to have no responsibility got a child that actually exists.
When a woman has an abortion there is no child that needs support.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Safe havens most certainly do. Every effort is made to find the parents.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Funny how sticking up for the rights of children and their fathers is construed as not caring about men.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Men can leave babies at sage havens too.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Other than forcing a woman to have an invasive medical procedure. If pregnancy took place outside of women’s bodies entirely, I would agree with the general concept.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray No, a man can drop off a child at a safe haven without having legal custody.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Giving men special rights is bullshit, that’s why.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray If MRAs stopped blaming women for their (sometimes valid, but not caused by women or feminists) problems, they might be more effective in their quest for equality.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray I am correct about safe haven laws. They are gender neutral.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray If the woman agrees to such a procedure, I guess she could do that, but that’s not what is being proposed for “choice for men”, where the man opts out of supporting a child that exists while the woman has all the responsibilities.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Men should keep track of their sperm then.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Because “discussing these issues” involves blaming women, encouraging the abuse of women, and denying much of reality.

3 hrs · Like

Geoffrey Hughes Gee Alison, a more perceptive commenter might just get the idea they were not wanted and go elsewhere

3 hrs · Like · 1

Sarah Gray I’m not sure what your point is. We don’t have artificial wombs, and ending a pregnancy is distinct from removing a viable fetus to an artificial womb

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray If men are concerned about that, they should keep track of where they put their sperm.
Safe haven laws are gender neutral.

3 hrs · Like

Geoffrey Hughes Well, Alison, that sure sounds rough. Maybe you should go make your own page where you’re the moderator and you can apply your own rules of moderation.

3 hrs · Like · 1

Sarah Gray So? That sounds like a good reason for men to use birth control every time no matter what a woman says.

3 hrs · Like · 1

Sarah Gray Read up on the laws, they are gender neutral. It has nothing to do with legal custody.

3 hrs · Like · 1



Of course what they deleted was me actually reciting the law to them, verbatim, about safe havens, which is apparently misogynist and far too harsh for their sensitive brains to contemplate.


Can I really keep my baby a secret?

Yes, you can keep your secret and keep your baby safe. The Illinois law says that as long as you don’t harm your baby, you can hand your newborn (30 days old or younger) to personnel at any hospital, police station or staffed fire station in Illinois for adoption with no questions asked.


No one will ask your name. Your baby will get medical care and be adopted into a loving family. You can even provide anonymous medical information, so your baby will grow up with a medical history.


Sarah also refuses to believe that Safe Haven laws are used generally by mothers, even when they are written as gender neutral, which is not the universal case at all. In four states (Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee), only the mother may relinquish her infant.

The National Safe Haven Alliance explicitly identifies mothers as most likely to surrender newborns under these laws, no matter how the law is written.

The whole discussion should just engender (ha!) a giant eyeroll, no?  Obviously it is going to be the mothers who surrender newborns with no further legal or social responsibility – how on earth could a father take a newborn and surrender it without the mother noticing? I can’t find any examples at all, because they don’t exist no matter how gender neutral the laws are written.


The safe haven conversation, in which the fact that women do indeed have the right to legally surrender a child after it is born was proven, combined with a private conversation I have been having with the Amazing Aetheist has led to me a new understanding of how feminists (and often MRAs including myself) see key issues: oppositionally rather than inclusively.


And that is a problem, perhaps our biggest one.


Sarah, and other feminist protesters see an issue like the right of men to choose parenthood as an attack on their own right to choose parenthood. Literal legal equality is perceived as an attack on their own special status, so statements like “giving men special rights is bullshit” and “because “discussing these issues” involves blaming women, encouraging the abuse of women, and denying much of reality” doubly ironic.





The only way they can counter the dissonance is to deny they have special status in the first place, which is simply not true.  No one is saying women should not be able to choose parenthood – the argument is that since women can in fact decide if they will be parents, why can’t men?


Pick any issue, and this seems to be the dominant approach:  pointing out that men can and are raped by women does not deny that women are raped by men.  It simply highlights that rape can be and is committed by both men and women with both men and women as victims.  How does noting that fact encourage the abuse of women?  It encourages accountability, to be sure, but what about accountability is abusive?


I myself have railed heartily against the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign in which all men are treated as rapists, but perhaps a more strategic approach would be to treat everyone as a potential rapists and to make all students sit through lectures in which consent is explained? Make women understand when they are in fact being rapists, as well as men.

ICMI Threats 1


It didn’t take long for the protesters on the Facebook page to start alluding to vague and not so vague threats.  One of the earliest posts on the page was by a man named Eduardo Guzman (Russ Tiller) who wrote “these people make me trigger-happy”. He only got four likes though.




Guzman also put forth the suggestion that the only way to properly protest was to “storm the conference” and bemoaned the fact that his inability to meet the cost of a ticket is the only reason he will not be attending.




Guzman’s own page links to two sports: motorcycles and Gabby Franco, an Olympic markswoman.  Hmm.  Interesting.  Wonder if the protesters are worried about that?




There was concern expressed for hotel employees in case they got tear-gassed, too.  My.  That’s quite a protest you’re planning if it involves tear-gas.




Another protester, Emma Howland-Bolton is apparently planning some sort of staged event that will …. I dunno – be fun I guess?  Wonder what that will be?  Maybe another staged attack like the one that “happened” at Queen’s University?  That worked really well.





Other protesters are warning that things could very ugly and it won’t be a dance party.





There is also some curious funny business going on with moderators claiming that they are not deleting comments, but rather that MRAs and those that question the protest are in fact deleting their own comments in an act of cowardice and fear, and yet when moderators accidentally delete a protester’s comments, they openly admit to deleting any and all comments that are not strictly supportive.  It was pretty serious, too.  The commenter who was accidentally deleted had her faith broken, her trust shattered! She was cruelly silenced!  I hope she didn’t get #PTSD from the experience.




So, I guess the takeaway is that democracy is alive and well?  Nothing says First Amendment quite like trying to prevent voices you don’t like from speaking and vigorously silencing all internal dissenters at the same time.  The Founding Fathers would be ever so proud, but they were all men, weren’t they, so screw them anyways.

we the people


I hope the protest goes well for our FB friends.  Sounds like it will be a riot.  Storm the ramparts, folks!  Tally-ho!


We’ll be over here, eating cake.


Lots of love,





Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, his fan girls and the Rolling Stone cover. When evil hides right in the open.

19 Jul

This morning, Massachusetts State Police Officer Sean Murphy released images of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev climbing out of the boat he had been hiding in, a sniper’s rifle clearly aimed right at his head.

sniper 2


Sgt. Murphy made the photos public in response to the Rolling Stone cover of Dzhokhar, which he felt glamorized the young murderer.


As a professional law-enforcement officer of 25 years, I believe that the image that was portrayed by Rolling Stone magazine was an insult to any person who has every worn a uniform of any color or any police organization or military branch, and the family members who have ever lost a loved one serving in the line of duty. The truth is that glamorizing the face of terror is not just insulting to the family members of those killed in the line of duty, it also could be an incentive to those who may be unstable to do something to get their face on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine.

While I understand Sgt. Murphy’s anger, I don’t think the Rolling Stone cover “glamorizes” the face of terror.  I think it shows us that the face of terror can be a very appealing one, and it exposes a fault line in the culture when it comes to double standards that call evil MEN evil, no matter how pretty they are, but ignores evil WOMEN for no reason other than the fact they’re pretty.

I suspect that when Sgt. Murphy saw that sepia toned selfie, his mind instantly leapt to a group of people who really DO glamorize the face of terror:  Jahar’s Fan Girls


They create tumblr pages for their beloved Jahar:


And tweet their support for him.


They have t-shirts with his face on them:


I’ve written about Jahar’s fan girls before and our reluctance to call them out for what they are:  sociopaths just because they happen to be pretty little GIRL sociopaths.

Amanda Marcotte offers her take on the fan girls, suggesting they are nothing more than famewhores trying to survive in a culture that values fame above else.  She quotes an author that inadvertently reveals exactly what is so chilling about these particular young women.


Women and men who are desperate for attention also find captive criminals easier to love. Isenberg notes that real celebrities are less likely to respond to fan mail than someone in prison, making it easier to actually develop a relationship with the often-dangerous criminals. “Any guy sitting in jail or on death row will focus attention out of boredom,” she says. “But that romantic focus is like a blazing light to some women.”


Hybristophilia is nothing new.  Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Scott Petersen – all with legions of fans desperate to be that one woman who charms the Beast into a Prince.

In order for the hybristophiliac’s arousal to be triggered, she MUST believe that her man truly is a monster.  He must be guilty of the crimes he is accused of, or there is no monster to save.

Jahar’s girls are NOT hybristophiliacs.

They think he is innocent. He was framed.  In the face of glaring evidence to the contrary, they refuse to believe that Jahar is guilty. They live in a reality so distorted as to be unrecognizable to most of the rest of us.

And we, as a culture, make it easy for these women to do that.  For one thing, the media is by and large giving these women a giant pass for their malevolence.  Hanna Roisin thinks the girls are just “maternal”.

Charlotte Allen thinks they’re just misguided good girls who find the bad boy sexy.

bad boy

He’s a classic “bad boy” of the sort to whom women are chronically attracted because they want to reform them, or minister to their wounds, or be the healing presence they’ve never had — but mostly because they find them sexy.

Alexandra Le Telliereven goes so far as to call the girls “disgusting”, but what these young women are goes well beyond disgust.,0,5441256.story

An interesting story is up at Jezebel that is tangentially related to this story:  women report more mental health problems than men.  Yes, ladies really are crazy.  Jezebel gets all huffy about how sexist it is to report a finding that portrays women in a slightly harsh light.  The fact that it appears to be verifiably TRUE that women have more mental health problems than men is irrelevant.  It’s sexist because LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU.


It’s an oft repeated truism that there are more male psychopaths than female ones, but when you consider how the common traits of psychopathology are EXPRESSED, it turns out that may not be true.

Across two independent samples, results indicated that the interaction of high F1 and F2 psychopathy scores was associated with borderline personality disorder (BPD) in women. This association was found to be specific to women in Study 1. These results suggest that BPD and psychopathy, at least as they are measured by current instruments, overlap in women and, accordingly, may reflect gender-differentiated phenotypic expressions of similar dispositional vulnerabilities.

What is borderline personality disorder?


Borderline personality disorder (BPD) (called emotionally unstable personality disorder, borderline type in the ICD-10) is a cluster-B personality disorder whose essential features are a pattern of marked impulsivity and instability of affects, interpersonal relationships, and self image.

The pattern is present by early adulthood and occurs across a variety of situations and contexts. Other symptoms may include intense fears of abandonment and intense anger and irritability that others have difficulty understanding the reason for.

People with BPD often engage in idealization and devaluation of others, alternating between high positive regard and great disappointment.

Self-mutilation and suicidal behavior are common.

One of the core signs and symptoms in BPD is the proneness to impulsive behaviour. This impulsiveness can manifest itself in negative ways. For example, self-harm is common among individuals with BPD and in many instances, this is an impulsive act. Sufferers of BPD can also be prone to angry outbursts and possibly criminal offences (mainly in male sufferers) as a result of impulsive urges.

Another common feature of BPD is affective lability. This means that sufferers have trouble stabilising moods and as a result, mood changes can become erratic. Other characteristics of this condition include reality distortion, tendency to see things in ‘black and white’ terms, excessive behaviour such as gambling or sexual promiscuity, and proneness to depression.

fears of abandonment

intense anger


idealization and devaluation of others

impulsive behaviour

erratic mood changes

reality distortion

tendency to see things in ‘black and white’ terms

sexual promiscuity

proneness to depression

Sounds like your average woman’s studies major, if you ask me.


Okay, that was juvenile, but it does read like a description of modern young women.

Women who suffer from BPD are not just suffering from a mental illness, they are suffering from an illness we characterize as psychopathy in men.

Psychopathy is among the most difficult disorders to spot. The psychopath can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, they lack conscience and empathy, making them manipulative, volatile and often (but by no means always) criminal. They are an object of popular fascination and clinical anguish: psychopathy is largely impervious to treatment.

At best, these young women who lust after a baby-faced murderer who blew the legs and arms off innocent CHILDREN have borderline personality disorder.  At worst, they are bona fide psychopaths. Not all psychopaths are violent, but they are no less destructive for that.

And even when psychopaths are violent, they can face zero consequences for that, if they happen to be psychotic and female all at the same time.


Given the ordinary and vaguely attractive appearance of Kayla Bourque, it’s alarming that someone with no perceivable warning signs can become such a potentially huge threat to society. As a result, it’s almost reasonable to suspect virtually everyone of being capable of committing acts of terrible violence. After all, some things are best hidden right in the open. And that’s scary as shit.

Sgt. Murphy is right to worry that the dreamy image of Jahar on the front cover of Rolling Stone might act as an incentive for others to do something equally terrible.  It’s also an invitation for the psychopaths in our midst to declare themselves, which they are certain to do because we don’t want to see what is right in front of our faces.

Because the psychopaths are all pretty little girls.  Who will one day be women.  Hiding right in the open.


Scary as shit, indeed.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: