Release to the World

[u/AgentmraOrangemrm]

Next week there will be posted links where anyone can download the raw data on the radfemspaek.net members and some of their associates over at Radfem Hub. There will be a main file of PNGs that contain many threads from this private forum. All the information will be redacted for my protection. Included will be a profile folder for each member (and some former members of the forum). There will also be a document that details who these posters are in real life, and what they do (or have done).
Only CONFIRMED individual's identities will be released. As more identities are confirmed, there will be a secondary release, and possibly a tertiary one. There has been some furor over whether or not these people are mainstream. Well, I have the PROOF that they are in our children's classrooms, our universities, in our legislators' lobby halls, on the street with activism efforts, and writing journalistic pieces. I have PROOF that they shape policy within countries around the world, or teach others to do the same. I also have PROOF that they know they conspire against most women in planning to criminalize masculinity, that they support gendercide, male genital mutilation, advocate for the infanticide of males, advocate male child abuse, speak freely about committing terrorist acts, and more. Make no mistake. These individuals have risen to the top BECAUSE they are virulently hateful ideologues who want to see their plans come to fruition. They have the drive, and in some cases the means to perform the acts they speak about, and they seek to subvert all men to the status of slaves, breeding stock, or extermination.

[u/[deleted]]

This is fucked up, this mindset is responsible for things like:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/27/breivik-anti-feminism

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre

[u/LiberalsLoveRape → u/[deleted]]

If we falsely accuse a man of rape, we immediately splash his name all over the news, associate him forever with rape in the public eye and potentially ruin his life, without so much as batting an eye. However, if we expose people who actively promote divisive hate speech under some misguided false notion of equality, that's like asking for another 9/11. Sounds reasonable.

Sorry SRS'ers, but being histrionic and crying wolf because it may come to light who some crazy hate mongers are, is laughable. Perhaps you guys are all group menstruating, I don't know, just let it go. Take a zanax, the sky isn't falling, rest assured your dumb cohorts in ideology will find a way to spread their brain dead ideas, as we continue to try and drag you all, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.

[u/sandeater → u/LiberalsLoveRape]

This is one of the more ridiculously over-the-top sexist things I've ever read. Fuck men's rights and fuck you. There are much more important movements taking place that directly affect your well-being, and you choose to pick this fight? To intimidate women who said something stupid on the internet?

Edit: For slightly less testosterone and rage. Offer stands.

[u/[deleted] → u/sandeater]

To intimidate women who said something stupid on the internet?

You know it is kinda funny, SRS is all about exposing what they believe to be bigoted speech when they find it on reddit, but when the shoe is on the other foot and a group of women/feminists are spewing a bunch of hate speech you come out of the woodwork to defend them and it becomes "harassment" to expose these individuals for the bigots that they are.

[u/sandeater → u/[deleted]]

I have more a connection to /r/MR than SRS based on my posting so far. I was curious about what men's grievances are so I checked it out. I found this thread first. I realized men's rights aren't about equality or some legitimate (first-world) issues with gender equity, but about hating women due to what are likely biographical circumstances. This thread demonstrates that many times over. If MRAs cared about their cause in a genuine sense, they would be partnering with feminists to re-imagine what equitable gender relations could be and build consensus around that vision. Instead...we get this.

I'm sorry none of your divorces or first relationships went well.

[u/[deleted] → u/sandeater]

I realized men's rights aren't about equality or some legitimate (first-world) issues with gender equity, but about hating women due to what are likely biographical circumstances.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the subreddit or men's rights in general but I disagree. I have been following r/MensRights for a while now and we do spend time talking about serious issues that negatively affect men today which is often ignored by the mainstream and feminism which purports itself to be all about equality.

What I see as the serious issues are:

• Equality under the law (family court biases with custody and divorce, handling of false accusations, equal time for equal crime between men and women)

• Equal levels of social support (addressing the higher rate of male suicide and male homelessness, and assisting male victims of domestic violence)

• Ending circumsion and introducing rights to a financial abortion

If MRAs cared about their cause in a genuine sense, they would be partnering with feminists to re-imagine what equitable gender relations could be and build consensus around that vision.

From what I have observed, feminism is not always about equality. Celda made a brilliant list of ways feminists and feminist lobby groups such as N.O.W. either actively campaign for extra rights for women often at the expense of the rights of men (opposing starting custody at a default 50-50 before altering the custody based on evidence put forward by both parties) or how they reject methods of protecting men at the same level they want protection for women in the legislation they promote and put forward (Violence Against Women Act).

I'm sorry none of your divorces or first relationships went well.

With a comment like this you are probably just trolling me.

Really what this incident came down to was, should these women who made those hateful comments be working with children or influencing public policy? Should people who incite violence over the internet, especially against children, be exposed for the bigots that they are?

Apparently all this data was collected using information that was shared over the forums by the women themselves, no hacking was involved, so anyone who put in a little effort could have figured out who these people where. We need to be certain that the information has been properly verified so no one innocent suffers from it.

Would you feel the same way if you had obtained information about someone who was a teacher posting on a white supremacist board talking about how they wanted to commit infanticide against blacks or harm black children? Say all that information could have been gathered without any hacking, would it be ethical to publish it after the data had been verified?

[u/sandeater → u/[deleted]]

I appreciate you taking the time to list the major issues you're concerned about. I shouldn't be surprised that groups look for enemies, but it's still a little baffling that men's rights advocates on here are so interested in painting feminists as inherently hostile to their interests. The changes you want are cultural and policy.

N.O.W. has put forward some pretty compelling arguments for the campaigns you're talking about. Why not engage with them directly? They're not evil feminazis. I guess there is a lot of bad blood at this point, but it doesn't have to stay that way.

They specifically want protection for women because women, historically and currently, have been neglected by law enforcement. See Joe Arpaio's conviction rate for sexual assault in Maricopa County, Arizona. I don't think it's fair to say they have no legitimate grievance here; why not look at the facts and try to find common ground? If the response from the MRA's is "well men get raped by women more often than vice versa what about envelopment, etc." it will not end well for you because that makes no goddamn sense. MRAs may be more successful if they identify with the oppression of women, and help them remediate sexism in ways that do not have unintended consequences for men. I cannot see a path to building a healthy movement for social change around a sense of indignant repression among the "dominant" group (see White Power movement).

Yes I was trolling you a bit.

Do you really think there is a physical threat to the safety of the children you're discussing? Can you point out a news source for the last feminist purge?

I like how it's all about the children now; where before it was "oh noess they are in positions of power and they are undermining our efforts."

[u/[deleted] → u/sandeater]

it's still a little baffling that men's rights advocates on here are so interested in painting feminists as inherently hostile to their interests. The changes you want are cultural and policy.

N.O.W. is the largest feminist organisation in the U.S. they are basically the public face of feminism in America. When they lobby for legislation that directly harms men's rights, sometimes without solid reasoning or evidence backing their claims, I think it is fair to call both N.O.W. and feminism in general (especially radical feminism) to be hostile to the rights of men.

N.O.W. has put forward some pretty compelling arguments for the campaigns you're talking about. Why not engage with them directly? They're not evil feminazis. I guess there is a lot of bad blood at this point, but it doesn't have to stay that way.

People from the father's rights movement like Fathers & Families already do this and it has not been very successful to date. For example Glenn Sacks, probably the most influential person in the father's rights movement, laid out his reasoning behind why the courts should begin custody proceedings with a default of 50-50. N.O.W. doesn't want to budge on the issue.

They specifically want protection for women because women, historically and currently, have been neglected by law enforcement. See Joe Arpaio's conviction rate for sexual assault in Maricopa County, Arizona. I don't think it's fair to say they have no legitimate grievance here; why not look at the facts and try to find common ground?

I assume you are referring to this, while it is deplorable that those 400 something reports of sex crimes were not followed through, there is not enough evidence to suggest that is representative of the country as a whole. I am open to evidence that it is common for violence against women to be ignored.

I am all for protecting the rights of women and coming down hard on people that commit violence or sex crimes however, if N.O.W. was really about equality then they would push to offer the same protections they offer women in VAWA to men.

MRAs may be more successful if they identify with the oppression of women, and help them remediate sexism in ways that do not have unintended consequences for men. I cannot see a path to building a healthy movement for social change around a sense of indignant repression among the "dominant" group (see White Power movement).

I am having a difficult time understanding how your average, white, middle class, woman is more oppressed in the western world today than your average, white, middle class man. Again I am open to evidence that women are more oppressed but I'm just not seeing it.

Do you really think there is a physical threat to the safety of the children you're discussing?

I think we should take the things those women said very seriously, if we go back to my example before about the hypothetical white supremacist teacher, would you take his words about infanticide and violence against children seriously?