a voice for men antifeminism I am making a joke I'm totally being sarcastic lying liars MRA video

JohntheOther: I totally didn’t lie about Rebecca Watson, Take Two

Totally not a liar. Whatever is coming out of his mouth here, it most definitely is not a bunch of lying lies.

Hey, you remember that thing the other day, when A Voice for Men’s second banana JohntheOther said some awful things about evil feminist atheist Rebecca Watson because she made a joke at a conference and he didn’t realize it was a joke?

And then he said he didn’t realize it was a joke, even though she explicitly revealed it was a joke in the video of hers he said he watched ? And so then he tried to pretend explain that he hadn’t watched the whole video, even though he had clearly downloaded the whole thing and incorporated parts of it in his video?

Well, now it turns out that some of the parts of her video he used in his video, well, they included the bit where she revealed the joke. Only – OOPS! – John just happened to edit that part out.

Unsophisticated folks might conclude from this that JohntheOther is a lying liar who lies about his lies. And that maybe he should henceforth be known as JohntheLiar.

But no. Apparently, as JoththetotallynotaLiar explains in a new video, he was just so, so convinced that Rebecca was a mean evil sociopath that he just didn’t realize what she was saying! He basically thought she was babbling nonsense, making a complete non-sequitur, so he cut it out of his video.

I mean, a feminist making a joke? Instead of being a mean evil sociopath? Beep Boop does not compute! His complete inability to understand the words that were coming out of her mouth? That was just good old confirmation bias at work, he explains in the video.That’s his actual explanation: he’s not a liar, just someone — to phrase it a bit more bluntly than he is willing to — who is so blinded by his own ideology that he cannot tell that a joke is a joke, even when someone announces that it is a joke.

He goes on to explain that it would be “illogical” to conclude that he is a liar because, come on, who would lie so blatantly, knowing that they would be caught?

And then he eats a baby.

Oops! My bad! I watched the video again, and it turns out he does not in fact eat a baby. Instead, at this point in the video, he apologizes to Watson for calling her a sociopath. I blame confirmation bias for causing me to misinterpret the video at this point.  The apology seemed like a total non-sequitur to me, so naturally I saw it as him eating a baby.

In reality, what happens is that he apologizes to Watson, and then he eats a baby.

Here’s the video.

Oops! Mea culpa! Here’s the video, for reals:

EDITED TO ADD: It turns out that after eating the baby apologizing to Watson for calling her a sociopath in the video, John told one of the commenters  that he still thinks she’s a sociopath. So his apology wasn’t really much of an apology after all, was it? It wasn’t even a “sorry if you were offended” fauxpology. Since he was apologizing for saying something that he still believes and that he went on to repeat, it’s really more of a liepology.

78 replies on “JohntheOther: I totally didn’t lie about Rebecca Watson, Take Two”

It’s their way of saying “this is what we do to women who say ‘guys don’t do that,’ so just imagine what we’d do to a woman who named the guy, or got him banned from the convention, or called the cops.”

They really do operate like a hate group. First they try to scare their target into submission. and then it escalates.

There’s a good reason the SPLC is watching them and probably the FBI too. They have a specific target (feminism and women in general who appear too uppity) and they frequently lie about and harass them like with Rebecca or even that mommy blogger. This is what hate groups do.


I really don’t hope so. Unfortunately, if it did actually happen the world probably still wouldn’t see the obvious evils of the MRM. Stupid people would still complain how inferior and horrible women are and how manliness needs to be restored.

On the other hand, if a feminist loses zir temper in an online argument it is undeniable proof that feminism is an evil and irrational movement.


it’s because men’s anger is justified and women’s is just seen as irrational or based on emotion. It’s never seen as legitimate. Many people don’t consider that some women are angry for an actual REASON, not just for nothing.

MRAs will excuse their anger because they believe their rights are under attack or they’ve been hurt too many times by women, but then when feminists of the past have done the same, like Dworkin for example, was raped and abused by men in her life. Oh no, she can’t get away with saying angry shit just because she was hurt. But MRAs, that’s different, they’re justified in their anger and hate because they’ve been hurt! somehow their hurt is more important and lets them get away with saying horrible shit and harassment.

Its biased, hypocritical and rooted in misogyny. Either you excuse both groups for saying angry, hateful stuff because they’ve been hurt, or you excuse neither of them.

I wouldn’t be surprised if a good number of MRA’s had actually raped a woman at some point in their lives. It would explain why they’re always trying to persuade people not to believe rape victims.

I wonder about this a lot. Some of them seem to focus more on family law or on a generalized sense of oppression, but certain MRAs seem to make every damn conversation circle around to FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS!!1!1!

But I don’t think it’s always because they’re consciously trying to discredit rape victims. (Although there’s no question, there’s some of that.) I think it’s, sometimes, because they raped someone but don’t think they’re rapists.

They had an experience that seemed to them like “I had sex with this girl, and she totally went nuts and acted like I was raping her/had raped her, for no reason! Clearly women will just randomly decide a sex act is rape.” For whatever reason, they’re completely unable to connect their own actions (intimidating the woman into sex, taking her to bed when she was blind drunk, “playfully” holding her down, etc.) with the woman’s reaction.

So they think that it was some random irrational woman thing, and over time convince themselves that it’s terrifying that women could do this irrational thing at any time and they’d have no control over it!

Three pieces of anecdata to support this theory:
1) The number of MRAs who only talk about FRAs in the context of women regretting sex or manipulating their sexual partners. It never occurs to them that if it was just women being irrational, they could accuse someone of rape without having sex with them.

2) The number of MRAs who seem to have serious problems connecting their behavior with people’s reactions to their behavior. How many times have we seen them call us horrible lying bitches and then act baffled that we didn’t like them?

3) I’ve had the misfortune to know a few rapists offline and I don’t think any of them really thought of themselves as rapists. They all had internal stories about “sure he was too drunk to walk, but he liked it” or “we were having sex and then she just freaked out.” And if they’d been legally accused of rape I have no doubt they’d have considered it a false accusation.


But knowing the mainstream, feminists will never be seen in a good light. I sometimes think “Why bother fighting at all?”. Being a woman means so many lose-lose situations and being a feminist means playing a rigged game. You will never turn out well to the public at all.

How can you convince people who are so biased? Sometimes I think there needs to be a “feminist movement” on Youtube just as there was an “atheist movement” on Youtube. Granted, the atheists get a fare share of crap piled on them too, even though most of them are just as narrow-minded and oblivious as the people they criticize. But feminists get it so much worse.

I think part of that is because they started speaking on a very public and mainstream forum such as Youtube. Now they aren’t reviled so much. If feminists did the same (and started debunking popular MRA propaganda) maybe the world will be a better place, a place with less prejudice, bullying, misunderstanding, hate, and all around idiocy.

Because the world is fucked up enough as it is without self-important, whining, immature, ignorant douche bags like MRAs running around waving their arms in the air and screaming.

There’s enough direct evidence to show that many MRAs including leaders want to minimize the crime of rape,

“Rape is not special” – Paul Elam.
They betray that it’s not important by comparing losing jobs to getting raped (Farrell- if that has been interpreted correctly)… and more.

So the other segment of MRAs that discuss the topic want to remind us that is a gendered situation where the laws appear to favor the victim, to the point of being constitutionally questionable. So when people ask how do men get discriminated against… they point to that.

Here’s the problem. There is no rule or law that says rapists have to be men. They just are. So it’s not an intentionally gendered issue. What they’re saying is, “ok mostly men rape”… then of course, they suggest that there are many many women rapists that get away scott free. Nobody knows how many there are. I personally, in my lifetime, have met three men that were raped by women. Good old fashioned rape. They talked to me about how it went down and they were upset about it. Het men, stereotypical guys. Drunkenness in all three cases, one did not say “no” outright because it was his mom. The other two protested. I would argue that patriarchy has women so confused about what men would love or always like that they really believed it was a favor to them in two of the cases. One guy said to me in a bitter tone, “She thought she was doing me a FAVOR.” it’s also clear why these cases are not reported. But remember… rape is not special. My point is, I feel that knowing three men is a lot. What the mrm is saying is just true, it’s not their issue, it’s NOT anti feminist. I’m feminist and I knew about and cared about that issue long before I ever heard one of them co opt it and pretend that proves feminists wrong.


I think it depends on how you go about it. There are lots of misconceptions about feminism and most people when they think about it think of a straw feminist.

I’m not going to pretend that radical feminism did a disservice to the movement, because they did. On the other hand I could always just use MRA excuses like “they were abused and came from a time when women have less rights thus they were justified” However conservative propaganda really played a part in shaping the public opinion on feminism.

Youtube is a cesspit of stupidity, vulgarity and angry people. There is a reason MRAs are popular there. I don’t think feminists necessarily need to be on youtube, because if someone wants to find out the truth about feminism they can just go to the websites. Its pretty easy to tell which websites are biased and full of misinformation.

I think the problem isn’t even the man-hating, I think a lot of men still hate when women dare to speak out against something. They see is as a personal attack. Unless of course they are on the men’s side. But even then, are they? they don’t care that Phyllis Schlafly opposed the equal rights amendment because that mean women would LOSE their privileges, they just care that she’s anti-feminist despite the fact that she’s like that because she wants to be protected

Schlafly argued that the ERA was unnecessary because women were already protected by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which barred sex discrimination, and that the amendment would outlaw separate public restrooms for men and women and would deny wives the right to financial support. She also raised the “women in combat” issue by suggesting that the passage of the ERA would mean that woman would have to fight alongside men during war.

Those are things MRAs DONT WANT…they don’t want women to get financial support, they think its unfair that men have to fight in war but women dont, yet they still love Schlafly simply because she doesn’t like feminism. Its hilarious how stupid they are when they cant see the reason why. Staunch anti-feminist women are like that because they want the right to men to take care of them when feminists say women can take care of themselves.

Anyway…I do think feminism is unpopular. I don’t talk about it with just anyone. But my friends know I’m a feminist and they don’t hate me for it because I’ve made my points clear and have told them my issues with the MRM and they agree. I have male and female friends too. They know I don’t hate men. Largely, they just don’t really care about gender issues so that actually makes them MORE objective because they aren’t coming in with preconceived notions. If people are going to view you as the enemy or hate you even though you don’t hate men and just because you believe in things like equal pay for equal work or that rape and victim blaming is horrible and needs to stop…if they’re going to degrade you by calling you a feminazi because you believe those very reasonable things, then you know you’re dealing with a biased sexist asshole.

I feel like giving up a lot too, but I don’t think you have to necessarily have too. I dunno, that’s somewhere I can’t offer advice because I’m still sorting my own beliefs with it. All I know is that I don’t depend on a partner for anything. I don’t even want a partner right now and I never want to marry or have kids. I don’t depend on men for money or even emotional support. I try to do what is best for me and being a woman is what I choose it to be for myself. That’s pretty much how I live and I think that’s pretty feminist. It’s definitely anti-MRA, they believe women should be completely selfless and “respect” (aka submit to) men and their husbands in order to be considered a good woman. If I’m the anti-thesis of that I know I’m on the right track XD


Thank you so much for your smart and kind advice. If anything, Quackers, be as anti-MRA as possible. Live a life of Self-Reliance (I’m reading Emerson now ^__^), and never, ever, compromise your integrity, your individuality, your creative impulse.

But I don’t think you needed me to remind you. 🙂

Here is the JTO rape video with clips of his FOLLOW UP included. He had this video featured on his channel at one point to mock and say YES YES I stand by it!

If someone is a sociopath for sending people on errands, what is this?

Regarding Quakers recent interesting post. I would argue that the radical feminist end of the spectrum has no power in society. If that did a disservice to feminism it’s because people have bigoted views of feminism and are reaching. Of course I don’t agree with every rad fem doctrine or some bombastic warlike statements or actions they’ve done, but what power do they have? I would say none. I was told that there was some firebombing some decades ago? I can’t find links on that. I’ve seen a couple of quick blurbs from things that A were not that trustworthy and B don’t tell me enough.


Thank you so much, and the same to you as well! ^__^


He doesn’t care about rape victims? is he actually claiming youtube feminists are not rape victims when they might very well be? does he know them and their lives personally?

What a hateful prick.

You know I didn’t even know what Radfemhub was until MRAs posted about it? They probably gave it more traffic lol

When I talk about radfems I mean the things Andrea Dworkin has said in the 80s. But to what extent did she and other radfems change the laws? she spoke against pornography but I don’t see any laws against it…porn is all over the place, even the most obscene porn is available in 2 seconds at the click of a mouse. Yet the poor oppressed MRAs are convinced we’re trying to ban it or something. Newsflash: NO ONE is trying to take your precious porn away you dumb fucks. Porn they are so enamored with yet are the first to say the most dehumanizing things about “sluts” I have ever heard in my life. Complaining that they have no sexual outlet, that they don’t have “10s” lining up to fuck them but then turn right around and vilify women who do have sex.

But I digress…what power do radfems have in modern society or even modern feminism? because even if they had some influence in the movement, the majority of modern feminism seems pretty sex positive. They’re also pro consent, pro helping victims or rape and anti-rape of any kind. Any normal, ethical and moral person would have no fucking problem with that.

“He doesn’t care about rape victims? is he actually claiming youtube feminists are not rape victims when they might very well be? does he know them and their lives personally?

What a hateful prick.” -Quakers

Well… there was an ugly you tube thing for awhile to talk about someone’s rape, that she shared in a video to highlight an issue, and pontificate on if it was “real” or not, because if it was “real” she would not say X Y and Z. Yes, they’re a bunch of hateful pricks. And people get really mean when they don’t agree with someone, so all bets are off. Women fully participated in that discussion. I didn’t talk about rape, but some feminist that calls herself sex pos did a video on me, saying that my views (that she would not quote or deal with directly, none of them are controversial actually) were skewed because I was raped and that I can’t see clearly anymore. One very important point is… I have NOT been raped! I never said I have, never eluded to it, so where does she even get this? But she has thousands of subs, or thousands of people that would see that video. Issue two… what a crap filled argument, I.don’t,even. and this is a feminist people on YT are quite comfortable with. She’s popular. So later she said she will put an annotation on the video to correct it, later she took the video down. But wow. How could it even enter her mind to do that in the first place? And if it meant their lives, these people would not be able to state my positions on things. If a sweaty terrorist was torturing them, and all they had to do for him to stop was to state my positions on things, from the PREMISE they would not be able to do it to save their lives.

So that’s the environment in which JTO made this video. This video is indicative of the abuse that goes on. He thought he would be fine and dandy saying these things. There were a couple people formerly friendly to him that spoke out and said “fuck him” after this, but nothing in comparison to the endless hate videos about a couple of rad fem dipshits that people love to talk about.


Unfortunately, Andrea Dworkin and her fellow radfem Catharine MacKinnon were in part responsible for some actual anti-pornography legislation. They drafted an antiporn ordinance for Minneapolis in the mid-eighties, which defined pornography as a breach of women’s civil rights and would have allowed individuals who felt their civil rights had been compromised by pornography to bring civil suits against its makers and retailers. Happily, this ordinance was vetoed by the mayor. Dworkin and MacKinnon also wrote a ordinance for Indianapolis, which was passed, although it was soon found to be unconstitutional by the federal court.

MacKinnon and LEAF (the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, a feminist legal organization with a strong anti-porn agenda) are in large part responsible for the 1992 R. v. Butler ruling in Canada, which criminalized “degrading or dehumanizing” pornography. (Note that “degradation” and “dehumanization” have nothing to do with the consent or well-being of the actors, and everything to do with the supposed “harmfulness” of the pornography to the community at large. For instance, any sort of BDSM porn would almost certainly be deemed degrading, dehumanizing, and therefore harmful, even if it featured enthusiastically consenting actors and actresses.) R. v. Butler is still in effect, and it’s most often enforced against queer and alternative pornography, while “mainstream” porn aimed at hetero males tends to get pass. To be clear, R. v. Butler would be an Orwellian abomination even if it were enforced without prejudice, but the fact that it’s become a tool to stigmatize and marginalize queer sexuality should make even supporters of antiporn legislation stop and think twice.

So, yeah. Anti-pornography feminism can’t be written off as mere sound and fury; it has significantly eroded basic civil liberties in at least one country, and it continues to pose a non-trivial threat to freedom of expression in the US.

. . . All that being said, I want to bang my head against a wall every time I run up against the common assumption that hatred of pornography and/or sex in general is a core tenet of feminism (and therefore all feminism is EVILBADWRONG). As long as your pornography does not involve actual minors or actual coercion, I will defend your right to produce it and consume it to the fucking death, and I know that I’m hardly the only feminist who feels this way.


Jeez that really sucks that she lied about you like that, I’m sorry you had to put up with that shit 🙁 some people can be real douchebags because they hate being proven wrong or exposed lying. It doesn’t surprise me that feminists would get more hate or “punishment” for doing something wrong than MRAs would.


Oh okay my bad then, I should have researched further. I basically thought they were against it and tried to pass legislation but none of it ever came into law.

In the case of R.v. Butler, how does it affect citizens who can access any type of porn on the internet anyway? I guess it only affects the studios who produce queer and alt porn and forbids them from making it?

Like you said though it is really annoying hearing that all feminists are anti-porn and anti-piv and anti sex. My introduction to feminism and the mainstream feminism online is one that is sex-positive. I think MRAs and general anti-feminists also misinterpret a critique of porn with wanting to ban it. Not true. I for example find some types of porn degrading and to have misogynistic undertones, and I do think porn has the possibility of making some people think that that’s the way non-porn star women should behave in bed too. But I certainly don’t think it should be illegal. They’re just my opinions. If it’s consensual and the actors are legal age it’s fine.

@David Futrelle

David, please, Please, PLEASE write something about the angry Fathers for Justice dudes in England attacking a mom’s blog for “misandry”.

Man, it is so off the wall…

“As long as your pornography does not involve actual minors or actual coercion, I will defend your right to produce it and consume it to the fucking death, and I know that I’m hardly the only feminist who feels this way.”


Only I would add critique to the list, that the media is not above critique, like Cosmo, like use of the Bechdel test, like well uh…any other media. It’s place in prevailing social attitudes, if it has a place, etc. (also labor issues, but you maybe implied that’s ok already in your blurb). How pornography would not be a part of woman’s issues is beyond me, that would take some mental acrobatics.

And thx Quakers.

There’s another Marc Lepine in the making of that “movement”

I have this worry too. Hell, Tom Martin sounds seriously unhinged with his hateful views that all women are dirty whores.

You can tell that another Lepine massacre is really what MRAs want. They won’t state it plainly (In some ways, the Spreadhead troglodytes are the most honest MRAs out there for openly displaying their bloodthirst and misogyny) of course, and will profess to condemn it, but only to a degree that wipes their hands of guilt. Something like, “What that guy did was horrible, BUT understandable. Clearly the feminists drove him to do it.”

How can you convince people who are so biased? Sometimes I think there needs to be a “feminist movement” on Youtube just as there was an “atheist movement” on Youtube.

Should feminists maintain a presence on the Internet? Probably. On Youtube? No.

Go look up any video on Youtube featuring a woman. Any. Not even one about feminism. Nine times out of then there will be a flood of comments like “That’s a funny looking kitchen lolz” or “Shut up and make me a sandwich bitch”.

As Quackers points out, Youtube is the perfect place for MRAs to exist because it’s the perfect site for misogynists to exist.

I don’t understand the idea of a feminist movement on YouTube. There already is a feminist movement, like, in the world. And some of the members post on YouTube.

But trying to orchestrate some sort of feminist “takeover” of YouTube is pointless. It’s impossible (too many freelance assholes commenting there) and it’s worthless (yay, Internet Points).

I like seeing feminist views and videos posted on YouTube (and lots are), but it’s not going to be a feminist (or a decent-human-being) space any time soon, and I’m resigned to that. I don’t think it’s an important fight.

In my opinion, if the MRAs want Youtube, they can have it. The comments are a cesspool. All the people like me who don’t like their philosophy on video can go elsewhere.

I guess it can be interesting to have video from feminists on youtube (though I prefer reading than listening myself), but past that I don’t really care.i
I think for the next generation, “don’t read youtube comments” should be as important a rule to teach as “Don’t accept candy from stranger and don’t go in their car”.

“What that guy did was horrible, BUT understandable. Clearly the feminists drove him to do it.”

Which is a related but distinct phenomenon from “Jared Loughner was a lone psychopath. Up next: Are Democrats commie traitors or nazi traitors?”

johntheother has always given me the creeps. He is one scary human being.

David, please, Please, PLEASE write something about the angry Fathers for Justice dudes in England attacking a mom’s blog for “misandry”.

Man, it is so off the wall…

@Happy, I can’t find anything on this in a Google search. Do you have a link?

Bizarre is an understatement:
they walk around naked in Mark & Spencer because of (unmoderated) comments on a website (if the numbers are true, 70 angry comments on a website that has 30 000 a day). Since the article say that their usual MO is dressing up as super heroes, I think they just like silly protests. But seriously dudes, drop the metaphors. If you don’t take any risk (and you don’t except maybe getting cold) that’s in no way a guerrilla and some mothers saying mean things about you is as much the apartheid as someone stepping on my foot is an holocaust.

When I talk about radfems I mean the things Andrea Dworkin has said in the 80s. But to what extent did she and other radfems change the laws? she spoke against pornography but I don’t see any laws against it

Dworkin, and McKinnon (at the very least) made common cause with the Moral Majority to get porn banned (IIRC, Alabama) on the theory that, as it was a purely masturbatory aid it had no public value.

Ignoring the side effect that it also outlawed vibrators and dildos (and that they made a special pleading for them being exempted, because they were different from images of women having sex: it’s not that they were hypocritical, they had a different baseline argument about the harms of porn, and theirs was such that dildos and vibrators weren’t actually a harm), one of the things that happened was an odd sense that feminists weren’t sincere in their principles because they were willing to join anyone who was willing to; for whatever reason, support them.

Even if those people were doing other things that were (and remain) really harmful to women.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.