Category Archives: harassment
I‘ve written several times about the campaign of false accusations and harassment directed at Georgetown University alum Arianna Pattek by Men’s Rights activists, white supremacists, and assorted internet trolls. While some of Pattek’s false accusers have retracted their claims, others continue to peddle false information about her and still others, including some of those who’ve retracted their claims about Pattek, continue to make vague accusations against Georgetown.
And so I would like to draw attention to the following official statement from Georgetown University spokesperson Rachel Pugh.
In response to inquiries regarding Georgetown University alumna Arianna Pattek and the Admissions Office at Georgetown University:
Georgetown University confirms that Arianna Pattek graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service with a bachelor’s degree in 2012. On April 18, 2013 she was mistakenly identified as the author of an anonymous blog, and as a result became the target of threats on several Internet discussion boards. Out of concern for the safety and well-being of our alumna, the university removed information about Ms. Pattek from the university’s website. Georgetown University further confirms that Ms. Pattek is not now, nor has she ever been, employed by any of the admissions offices at Georgetown University. The unethical admissions practices described in the anonymous blog post do not reflect the careful and comprehensive admissions procedures at Georgetown University. Ms. Pattek has confirmed that she is not the author of the blog in question. Further, the blog in question does not reference Georgetown University.
You can find the statement online here, and can direct any questions about Georgetown’s handling of this whole surreal incident to them directly.
Though I really have to wonder at anyone who pretends to be shocked or surprised or mystified that university officials might remove information about a recent graduate after receiving word that this person is being harassed by white supremacists.
You can find more details about all this in my earlier posts on the subject.
Why haven’t Men’s Rights Activists turned on Paul Elam for falsely accusing Arianna Pattek of civil rights violations? [UPDATE: Elam retraction]
UPDATE: Elam has retracted his original story. See the end of this post for more details.
Men’s Rights Activists often insist that false accusations of rape are literally as bad as rape itself, and that false accusers of rape should spend as much time in prison as actual rapists.
Presumably they feel the same way about false accusers of other crimes, from murder to check kiting.
So in the wake of Paul Elam’s reckless false accusations against recent Georgetown graduate Arianna Pattek, one would expect other MRAs to rise up en masse to demand that Elam turn himself in.
Elam, you may recall, accused Pattek of serious violations of civil rights laws, claiming that she, as an employee of Georgetown’s admissions office, showed clear bias against white men. Indeed, Elam didn’t even qualify his accusations with an “alleged,” as journalists routinely do when writing about those accused but not convicted of crimes. Here’s what he wrote about her:
In an apparent attempt to prove that they’re not misogynists, the folks at A Voice for Men have decided to take a temporary break from their practice of vilifying individual female activists to vilify a male activist – University of Toronto Student Union VP for University Affairs Munib Sajjad.
As far as I can tell, the folks at A Voice for Men decided to target Sajjad, perversely, because he told Toronto’s CityNews that he was afraid he was “going to be targeted” after announcing publicly that he thought a campus Men’s Rights group should be banned. The A Voice for Men post about Sajjad is a typically long-winded, and largely content-free, rant from the excitable John Hembling (“John The Other”).
But what’s more disturbing than Hembling’s empty bloviating on Sajjad is the way A Voice for Men has framed the attack. “Munib Sajjad, it’s your turn in the barrel,” the headline declares, and Hembling repeats the phrase “your turn in the barrel” in the post itself.
I wasn’t familiar with this phrase, so I looked it up, and found that it derives from a rape joke. Here’s the definition of the term, from Urban Dictionary:
To say someone is “in the barrel” or “taking a turn in the barrel” means it’s their turn to do an unpleasant task or to suffer an unpleasant experience.
Click on the “definition” link above to see the gang rape joke it’s derived from.
Rape jokes aimed at men — even men you don’t like — are certainly a, well, counterintuitive way of showing “compassion for boys and men,” as the A Voice for Men slogan has it.
EDITED TO ADD: Looking again at Hembling’s piece, I realize I hadn’t noticed his, er, argument that the term “mansplaining” — which I find useful from time to time — is somehow equivalent to the incredibly offensive term “[racial slur redacted]splaining,” which Hembling has just made up. (The slur in question starts with an “n.” You can figure it out.) This is ridiculous on its face, not to mention that it’s frankly racist not only to compare the alleged oppressions of men — who are not systematically oppressed — with those of black people — who are — but also to use a racial slur in doing so. Of course this isn’t the first time that A Voice for Men has used the n-word in an attempt to suggest that men, collectively, have it as bad as a historically disadvantaged and still systematically oppressed group.
Rape jokes and racial slurs: A Voice for Men has it all!
Just a quick update on the case of Arianna Pattek, the recent Georgetown graduate targeted for harassment by A Voice for Men and others, including the white supremacists at Stormfront. As I pointed out in an earlier piece, the “detective work” that led A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam and the other Pattek-bashers to target her was incredibly inept and sloppy, and it’s clear beyond any possible doubt that she has nothing whatsoever to do with the misandrist blog they accused her of writing, which increasingly obviously seems to be an utter hoax.
Impressive! Here’s the link. Maybe they’ll eventually fill this blank page with inspiring tales of harassing women, including women they’ve mistakenly targeted because MRAs, on the exceedingly rare occaisions they try to be activists, are the most inept and gullible activists the world has ever seen.
And while we’re at it, here’s the Wiki’s ethics page.
Wow! Instead of nothing, this time they have a list of nothings.
Thanks to Reddit’s veduualdha and StephenMurphy for pointing out these links in r/againstmensrights.
Lazy Libel: A Voice for Men “doxes” an alleged misandrist blogger — and ID’s the wrong woman [UPDATE2 w/ Georgetown response, notes from neo-Nazis]
As I finished up my last post about Men’s Rights Redditors attempting to dox a so-called “conservative feminist” blogger who had confessed to trashing male applications when working in a university admissions office, I saw that A Voice for Men has run a post by Paul Elam identifying someone they’ve convinced themselves is the blogger, apparently using the information dug up by the Reddit doxers.
They’ve got the wrong person.
Earlier this week, as you may recall, Men’s Rights Redditors pretended they were shocked – shocked! – that anyone might think that MRAs had anything to do with the doxing and harassment of that red-haired Canadian activist we’ve been discussing. Couldn’t be them! Had to be … trolls!
Then on Wednesday the Men’s Rights Redditors found a blog post by a woman claiming to be a “conservative feminist” with a recently minted doctorate who was working in her alma mater’s admissions office — and, she claimed, rejecting out of hand all the applications that she thought were “dripping with white male privilege.”