When is a death threat funny?

At what point does a “real man” take death threats seriously?

In response to this site’s ongoing opposition to increasingly common calls for male-targeted murder, a blogger named Hannah Mudge appears to have missed the point entirely.

In a discussion on the topic of online bullying[1], Mudge correctly identifies threats of violence or death as problematic for opinionated bloggers whose postings, in the pseudo-anonymous culture of online writing, sometimes provoke threatening responses. Unsurprisingly, on a site named “bitchbuzz” the tacit assumption appears to be that female writers hold a monopoly on receipt of such threats. However, this fallacy is so common that exploration of it would be a distraction.

Mudge spends a paragraph establishing her ideological credentials, and demonstrating to her readers that she knows about the subtleties of psychological abuse, before getting to the meat of her argument.

According to her source, a “man” renowned for depraved futility; one of the more high-profile men’s rights websites (that’s us) recently offered a reward to for the personal details of a group of Swedish women who have made a video we don’t like.

Hannah omits mention of the reason we don’t like it, namely that it called for male-targeted murder. In addressing the video’s naked endorsement of homicide, Mudge manages to characterize it as “admittedly ridiculous.” She further smogs the issue by claiming it was “publicity for a play, which isn’t, you know, real”.

And in the limited sense of being technically correct, Mudge is right. The depiction of a man’s murder, followed by the text message “Do Your Part” is indeed the promotion for a play. That play being the stage adaptation of Valerie Solanas’ infamous anti-male hate literature “Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto”[2]. Many apologists for male targeting hatred and violence claim that Solanas was kidding. However, in addition to authoring this manifesto, she also shot Andy Warhol. Probably not kidding so much, eh?

But lets, just for argument’s sake; assume that Solina’s work is no more than a particularly dark joke. Clever satire, characterized by sentiments such as:

[unordered_list style=”tick”]

  • To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples
  • Every man, deep down, knows he’s a worthless piece of shit
  • Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female
  • The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness


The stage production based on Solana’s hate manifesto, and promoted by this disgusting item of murder advocacy is routinely performed by the group calling themselves “S.C.U.M.” for school-children. Yes, children. Try to imagine explaining to a 12 year boy that the presentation he was shown at school explaining that he is male and therefore worthless – that it was only satire and he should just man up.

Hannah Mudge also mistakes the intent behind identifying and publishing the names of murder-advocates. She claims my article on this site was “[a call] for those who are involved in the video to be publicly shamed.”

While public advocation of murder is shameful, particularly when based on a sexual demographic, the real reason for naming murder advocates is to prevent murder. The obtuse failure to grasp that Swedish feminists’ public call for murder is actually a public call for murder, while the identification of those murder advocates is a matter of civic responsibility is difficult to credit as genuine confusion.

If calling for male-targeted murder is, in Mudge’s words “All just a bit of fun,” then how does identification of those murder advocates transmogrify into an endorsement of violence?

Perhaps in Mudge’s mind, its not really violence or murder if it targets males.

National and regional governments commonly list male offenders on state-funded websites. News outlets also routinely publish the names of men accused, but not even convicted of various crimes, including unproven accusations of rape. Such men are professionally and personally destroyed, even after legal exhortation. The register-her project, condemned by Hannah Mudge, includes only those offenders on whom reputable reporting exists, and does not register those who have been accused but not convicted of crimes. Their crimes are already a part of the public record and are linked on their register-her profiles. However, in Mudge’s words: “if that’s not an encouragement to disturbed individuals looking to go on the rampage, I don’t know what it is.”

This is a rhetorical question, but one betraying either laziness or stupidity. The “About” page of register-her includes the following statement.

“This website is a public service designed as an information resource regarding criminal threats in the community. The need for register-her.com was born out of the unfortunate social and legal custom of failing to punish female criminals and to safeguard society from their continued criminality.”

Borrowing from Hannah Mudge again – the video of which I and the editors of AVfM are unreservedly critical is explicitly “an encouragement to disturbed individuals looking to go on the rampage.”

Mudge’s assertion, that public identification of the advocates of murder and promoters of hate constitutes “another example of women being targeted for harassment” stretches credulity. I do not believe that Hannah Mudge is an honest actor. Rather, she is attempting to protect hate mongers who advocate murder and who indoctrinate children in the same mentality, as if these people are satirists, and she is characterizing men who object to being targeted for murder as aggressors.


The Swedish feminists aren’t unique in their advocation of male-targeted violence. An american author who writes crime novels under the pseudonym Perri O’Shaughnessy also blogs using the online identity Vliet Tiptree. On a feminist themed blog called radical-hub, O’Shaughnessy crafted an anti male diatribe of more than 4000 words[3]. In this rant O’Shaughnessy demonstrated her lawyerly skills by using euphemistic language to call for a long term program of male-targeting eugenics. Commentary from her followers – left standing months after the blog’s exposure by AVfM is more explicit, suggesting programs of male infanticide as well as other methods of extermination.

Another blogger named Rebecca Carter[4] advocated male extermination in explicit language. The daytime women’s show “the Talk” treated male sexual mutilation committed by Katherine Becker as slapstick comedy[5], and one of that show’s hostesses announced that a previous generation’s celebrity male mutilator – Lorena Bobbit was worshipped at an alter in her home.

So Hannah Mudge I have a question for you, and it’s not rhetorical.

At what point should a “real man” take the direct threat of murder seriously? When, as a man, should an individual take the signal that the calls for murder, for eugenics, and for extermination are not “all in good fun” anymore, but that they represent a real violent malice?

Ill ask you again Hannah – with a repeat of my notice to you that this is not a rhetorical question. When does advocacy of violence or murder stop being a joke, and start being what it is; namely a death threat issued against an entire sexual demographic?

Maybe it’s when rape of members of a sexual demographic – happening with the sanction of law enforcement becomes a staple of late night comedy on TV? No, of course not, men getting raped in prison is hilarious!

Is it when state-sponsored performance groups teach children to hate based on sex? No, of course not, that’s just satire from silly old Valerie Solanas; the attempted murderer.

Is it when numerous blogs call for male targeting murder? Is it when those blogs receive dozens of comments in support of, and in escalation of advocated violence? Ha! No, of course not, the hundreds of women calling for men to be killed in their facebook, myspace, and twitter blogs are just cute.

Maybe its when gruesome, violent crimes targeting one sex are openly celebrated on daytime TV. Ha! men getting chopped up is funny, you can tell because the entire studio audience cheered and laughed.

So, men like me clearly have no idea how to recognize the difference between good-natured comedy, and murderous intent, so please Hannah, do inform me.

One more question for you Hannah. How does objection to violence transform, in your mind,to harassment of women?

Hanna Mudge, you are a disgrace.

[1] http://tech.bitchbuzz.com/this-week-in-online-harassment.html
[2] http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm
[3] http://radicalhub.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/
[4] http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2011/11/Proposition-777-Extermination-of-Man.pdf
[5] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rkl_oLSKQc

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: