The fact is, women are more easily rattled by nastiness than men. That’s a stereotype, but it’s also true — in the landmark Pew study on online harassment, women were more than twice as likely as men to say they were “very upset” by online harassment. That’s why, despite the fact that men are more likely to face abuse online, it’s mostly women you hear complaining about it in the pages of The Guardian and on Buzzfeed.
Men have had enough of third-wave feminism’s incessant and pathetic whinging about everything from gender pronouns to this bizarre “online harassment” craze — or “cyber-violence,” as they sometimes bizarrely call it. Women are upset at men being rude to them, and feel “oppressed,” we are told, whenever they are treated on equal terms as men in the maelstrom of trolling that is social media.
Consider the GamerGate controversy, where gamers fought back against the nannying, hectoring feelings police and were branded “harassers” and “misogynists.” It’s also happened in comics: if you go to an online comics forum and talk about anything but how stunning and brave the new SJW storylines are, you’ll get the boot.
The internet can’t cope any more with such strenuous tension between the sexes. I mean, there’s a reason that male golfers don’t compete against female golfers. They’re in a league of their own, and it would end in tears. It’s time to apply this logic to the online world.
Here’s my suggestion to fix the gender wars online: Women should just log off. Given that men built the internet, along with the rest of modern civilisation, I think it’s only fair that they get to keep it. . . .
Of course, the absolute worst to complain about online “harassment” are not actually women. Transgender weirdos like “Brianna Wu” (John Walker Flynt) and Nicholas “Sarah” Nyberg were among the whiniest opponents of GamerGate. Their self-created victimhood, like their self-created “womanhood,” is a delusion in which they would require the rest of us to participate. And, of course, the alleged “harassment” of feminist SJWs is endlessly publicized by the liberal media, whereas the harassment of conservatives (including conservative women) is generally ignored.
Our frequent commenter Jeanette Runyon is being sued in a Florida court by a man who is claiming “harassment,” etc., over a flame war that broke out in 2013 about the Kaitlyn Hunt case. Jeanette was one of a handful of people who followed the so-called “Free Kate” movement and exposed the extremism of those who made excuses for a tattoo-covered dildo-wielding dopehead lesbian hoodlum’s sexual abuse of a 14-year-old girl. The man who is suing Jeanette was one of the worst “Free Kate” fanatics who evidently believed either that (a) there should be no laws against statutory rape, or (b) it’s wrong to enforce the law against homosexual predators like Kate Hunt. Thomas Mix, the man who is suing Jeanette, called the parents of Kate Hunt’s 14-year-old victim “bigoted, disgusting people” who “used the laws to express their hatred and rage.”
Question: Why did Thomas Mix care so much about this case?
Here you have parents trying to protect their daughter from Kaitlyn Hunt, whose criminal acts were astonishingly brazen, and yet simply because this case involved homosexual behavior, Thomas Mix insisted that it was wrong for the victim’s parents to expect the law to be enforced. As I wrote of the case after a court hearing in October 2013:
Having sex with a 14-year-old is a crime in Florida, and the criminal sex offender Kaitlyn Hunt pleaded “no contest” today in Vero Beach, accepting the deal offered by prosecutors. It was the third such plea bargain Kaitlyn had been offered and, if she had taken the first deal back in May, nobody outside Indian River County ever would have heard of this foul-mouthed tattoo-covered teenage pervert.
Her parents didn’t think their precious little snowflake had done anything wrong, so they rejected the plea deal and decided to make their daughter The World’s Most Famous Sex Offender.
Everything that happened to Kate Hunt was her own fault.
She was an adult when she molested a 14-year-old girl. She was an adult when the girl’s parents asked her to leave their daughter alone. She was an adult when she decided to continue her obsessive pursuit of the victim despite knowing that this was a crime and having been warned by the girl’s parents. All she had to do was walk away, and the case might never have been prosecuted. Even after she was charged, however, Kaitlyn Hunt’s crimes would have been no more than a few lines in the local newspaper’s “police briefs” column, except that she refused to do what nearly everyone charged with such a crime would do in a similar circumstance — take the plea bargain.
No prosecutor ever wants to take a case like that to trial. It is inhumane to expose to cross-examination the victim of statutory rape who, as in the Kaitlyn Hunt case, was a “consensual” victim. The enforcement of statutory rape law is very difficult for this reason, and the subsequent events in this case showed why it is so difficult. Yet if parents are the rightful guardians of their own children’s safety — including the duty to protect teenagers against “consensual” exploitation — the perpetrators of these crimes must be prosecuted.
It is rather notoriously true that many such crimes are never prosecuted simply because law enforcement never becomes aware of these crimes. The 15-year-old sneaks off and hooks up with a 19-year-old and nobody ever catches them or complains, so the cops and courts never become involved. In other cases, the parents of the underage victim become aware that their teenager is being pursued by an adult and, as in the Hunt case, the parents warn the pursuer to leave their child alone “or else.” Faced with the threat of criminal prosecution, almost any 18- or 19-year-old would desist from their pursuit, no matter how much they might be “in love” with a minor.
Kaitlyn Hunt did the wrong thing over and over and over again. She could have walked away, but she didn’t. Even after she was charged with serious crimes (of which she knew she was guilty) Kaitlyn Hunt could have accepted the plea bargain offered to her by prosecutors. She didn’t.
What happened instead was a strategy that one psychologist has named DARVO — Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender:
DARVO refers to a reaction that perpetrators of wrongdoing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim into an alleged offender. . . .
It is important to distinguish types of denial, for an innocent person will probably deny a false accusation. Thus denial is not evidence of guilt. However, I propose that a certain kind of indignant self-righteousness, and overly stated denial, may in fact relate to guilt.
I hypothesize that if an accusation is true, and the accused person is abusive, the denial is more indignant, self-righteous and manipulative, as compared with denial in other cases. Similarly, I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of lawsuits, overt and covert attacks, on the whistleblower’s credibility and so on.
The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. The attack will also likely focus on ad hominem instead of intellectual/evidential issues.
When the criminal claims to be a victim — denouncing law enforcement and demonizing truth-tellers — these DARVO tactics function to confuse observers unfamiliar with the factual background of the case. Anyone familiar with the Brett Kimberlin case knows how confusing this can be. Despite the facts of the case, Kimberlin’s bogus Maryland lawsuit against me and three other defendants went all the way to trial before it was thrown out, and even then, Kimberlin did not cease.
The use of “lawfare” as an element of DARVO tactics is a problem with which I am directly familiar and, while I am not fully aware of all the details of the conflict between Thomas Mix and Jeanette Runyon, his lawsuit against her seems dubious to me, based on my own experience. John Biver believes her case has profound significance:
The more the public learns about large sections of the pro-“homosexual” agenda crowd the easier it will be for proponents of common sense to retake the culture. The public will be stunned to learn how “un-gay,” that is unhappy, many of those people truly are. And because they are miserable people, they lash out. . . .
Sometimes these people with damaged psyches use the Internet to harass and slander those they disagree with.
Read the whole series:
- The Homosexual Stalking of Jeanette Runyon (Part 1)
- The Homosexual Stalking of Jeanette Runyon (Part 2)
- The Homosexual Stalking of Jeanette Runyon (Part 3)
- The Homosexual Stalking of Jeanette Runyon (Part 4)
Where are those who will defend Jeanette Runyon’s rights? Where are those who care about religious liberty? Where is the Army of Davids?
Stand up! Stand up! Stand up!
UPDATE: Linked by John Hoge at Hogewash — thanks!
UPDATE II: Are you threatening me, Mr. Mix? Gosh, it’s almost like you believe you can out-crazy Stacy McCain.
First published at TheOtherMcCain.com
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.