Men’s Rights provocateur and bow-hunting enthusiast Janet Bloomfield — a.k.a. JudgyBitch — has not been shy about sharing her fantasies of violent retribution against feminists.
Several months ago, you may recall, she begged her Patreon supporters to send her $800 so she could buy a “beautiful angel of death crossbow with which she could, as she giddily explained, “shoot … feminists in the face” if they showed up at her door.
Today, inspired by her colleague Jack Barnes’ threats against me, Bloomfield has reiterated her desire to shoot her enemies dead. In a post on her blog, archived here, she writes
I will kill anyone threatening me or my family. There are no ‘ifs’. …
Show up on my doorstep, and … I will take you down with lethal intent. If you survive it will only be because my aim was off, and we have excellent medical care. Think it through, brave warriors.
In this and in her other comments, Bloomfield — a Canadian stay-at-home mother whose real name is Andrea Hardie, as she noted in a recent fundraising appeal — is careful to frame her murderous fantasies as acts she would take in self-defense. Whether or not it is legal for her to shoot someone who rings her doorbell in the face with a crossbow I will leave up to experts in Canadian law.
But she also seems to imply that she would be justified in targeting anyone she thinks is threatening her, whether or not they pose an actual physical threat.
At one point, she appears to imply that doxing itself would be enough to justify murder.
Doxing Jack’s daughter is crossing a line, but rest assured that line is there, and I am willing to defend it, with every ounce of my being.
I suspect this will get worse before it gets better, and I promise every brave SJW I can make it far worse than they can even imagine.
And I will.
Threaten me, or my family, and you’re dead.
She also seems to think that whoever launched an alleged letter-writing campaign against her family might deserve death as well. Immediately after one of her announcements of her murderous intentions, Hardie/Bloomfield writes this:
This is perhaps a good time to remind Futrelle and his various psychotic minions, who have recently been engaged in a campaign against me and my family, that the FBI has taken notice, and a process is in motion that has absolutely nothing to do with me. … I cannot discuss any specifics of what went down (at this point in time), and indeed, there are aspects of the case that I don’t even know about, but I will assure Futrelle and his minions that the involvement of the FBI in this matter permits me to easily meet the ‘reasonable person’ standard of self-defence in Canada to justify the use of lethal force.
I’m pretty sure the fact that the FBI is (allegedly) investigating someone does not mean that you have the right to murder that someone with a crossbow. I’m also pretty sure I don’t have any “psychotic minions” or indeed any minions at all.
It’s not quite clear what the alleged “campaign” against her or her family allegedly consisted of, though somehow she thinks I am in the thick of it.
Using private email, I informed Futrelle about the campaign against me and my family, the involvement of the FBI and the use of his name. Should Futrelle be foolish enough to deny that, I will publish those emails.
Really? I’ll save you the trouble. Here are two of the three emails in question:
I have redacted the name of the person Hardie/Bloomfield thinks was responsible for the letter-writing campaign, as well as the name of Hardie/Bloomfield’s husband.
She sent a followup note with a few more details about the alleged letter-writing campaign; since she says now that she “cannot discuss any specifics of what went down” I won’t post that email.
I did not respond to that followup note, as I generally try to keep my interactions with bow-hunting enthusiasts who hate me to a minimum.
In case there is any doubt: if someone wrote threatening letters to Hardie/Bloomfield and/or her family, that’s sleazy and disgusting and wrong. But I have no idea what happened, if anything actually did, much less who might have been involved.
Given Hardie/Bloomfield’s long track record of deliberate deception, I don’t exactly put much stock in any of her claims about anything. At this point, if she told me the sky was blue I would have to get confirmation of that from someone else before I believed it.
I should add that Hardie/Bloomfield’s alleged outrage about the doxing of her A Voice for Men colleague Jack Barnes rings a bit hollow, given that she has been an enthusiastic doxer herself, at one point proudly revealing the identities of several until-then-unknown women vaguely connected to a woman AVFM was targeting for harassment. She has also posted childhood photos of me and my siblings on her blog, apparently pilfered from one of my family members’ Facebook pages, a weird bit of boundary crossing presumably intended to unsettle me.
I can only hope for everyone’s sake that Hardie/Bloomfield’s murderous fantasies remain just that, fantasies.
ljy2008, before someone else jumps in and says it in a less-nice way, the community here prefers it if commenters don’t speculate on people’s mental illness. Check out the comment policy for explanation.
Psh. I highly suspect this is all to garner a reaction in people to amp up the money-making. They know it’s bullshit, they know they’re safe, they know it can’t be disproved (so, they’ll look believable to the gullible), and they know this kind of thing rouses their followers and brings in money.
These folks lack any ethics at all – surprise, surprise.
These people are really starting to remind me of the right wing gun lovers who talk constantly about how there gonna use there gun in self defense with an almost perverse glee.
Good grief, David, I hope you’re taking good care of yourself as you seem to suddenly be at the centre of a maelstrom of manosphere drama. What the actual fuck. Is there something in the water at AVFM?
It goes without saying, but I will add my voice to the chorus stating that doxxing is not ok, trying to have a political opponent’s spouse fired is not ok, internet harassment and threats are not ok. And none of these behaviours are things I have seen condoned around these parts by even a significant *minority* of commenters.
Stay strong David, and thanks for the work you do.
I’m very happy to confirm that David’s views on doxxing have been extremely consistent and go back years. In fact, I think I heard the term in the first place as a by-product of David condemning it many years ago.
YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE COMMENTERS:
Concerning the surge of new commenters, I would like to direct your attention to our comments policy before you comment further on this thread, and pay close attention to the section that talks about ableism.
I know it’s tempting to think that JB and others like her are “crazy”, “psychotic”, “unbalanced” and the like, but it throws everyone with a mental illness, myself included, under the bus so you can safely other them and leave it at that, without questioning why they think the way they do. Those of us regulars who have mental illnesses manage just fine without being assholes.
In the words (and gifs) of one of our regulars:
http://i.imgur.com/M7DgVn7.gif
Mental illness may exacerbate misogyny, but I assure you that misogyny itself isn’t a mental illness, and we will not tolerate any “debate” on the subject. You have been warned.
(I’m also petitioning David to please put a note at the bottom of the article with a link to the comments policy so it gets seen a bit more by newcomers. Please and thank you, David.)
Okay, for anyone who’s interested in knowing, I talked to my lawyer friend (we’re in Canada) and, after having a laughing fit when I described the content of this post, she essentially said this about self-defence laws:
In a self-defence-type assault or murder cases, the court basically looks at these things:
– Was there an imminent threat?
– Was the level of force the person used to defend themselves proportionate to the threat?
– Were there alternatives to the use of violence in self-defence?
To convict a person for a violent crime in a self-defence situation, the crown has to show that the level of force was out of proportion to the threat, and/or that there were alternatives to committing the violent act.
This is also the gist of what you will find if you google Canada’s self-defence laws.
Kale’s link above is definitely worth checking out; it’s a taste of what these laws look like in practice.
I’m actually going down a rabbit hole now because I’m fascinated with the term “reasonable person,” which turns out to have a long history and a complicated definition that brings up some mindbending philosophical problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person
Based on what I’ve learned so far today, I’m pretty sure the “reasonable person” standard refers to what a typical person who is in touch with reality as we understand it would make of a situation. It doesn’t mean that the FBI is on your side, or that you’re telling yourself the FBI is on your side, or whatever.
Thanks Malice W Underland, for the wiki link. I liked this explanation of ‘reasonable person’ from the Notes
‘R v Camplin, A.C. 705 (1978) (“[a reasonable man] “means an ordinary person of either sex, not exceptionally excitable or pugnacious, but possessed of such powers of self control as everyone is entitled to expect that his fellow citizens will exercise in society as it is today”).
Regina v Smith, 4 AER 289 (2000) (“[sub-citing Camplin and Bedder:] the concept of the “reasonable man” has never been more than a way of explaining the law to a jury; an anthropomorphic image to convey to them, with a suitable degree of vividness, the legal principle that even under provocation, people must conform to an objective standard of behaviour that society is entitled to expect”).’
“I’m also petitioning David to please put a note at the bottom of the article with a link to the comments policy so it gets seen a bit more by newcomers. Please and thank you, David.”
*signs petition* thank you PI
You know what, I think JB should be admitted back to this thread, if it was her posting. I’d like to see her actually engage in a debate about her actions for once.
As to her accusation that David redacting the name of person involved in the alleged writing campaign somehow means he was in on it, what utter shite. David would have redacted the name out of discretion, regardless of who it was, it’s called not being a doxxer, Andrea.
That said, I do know who it was, your saying her blog was down let me figure that out. And you know what, that individual (who was doxxed and harassed by your AVFM buddies and has been out for payback eversince) was known to me too, does that make me complicit? Your real name was leaked to me a year ago, but I didn’t put it on my blog. I was sorely tempted because you are an egregious liar and a doxxer, but I didn’t because I knew it would be hypocritical. Your details were leaked in lots of places, but not by David Futrelle. He has nothing to do with this, and you know it.
Judgy Bitch believes in “the radical notion that women are adults.” Apparently she thinks that adult behavior includes taking to the Internet to threaten to kill SJWs.
Oh yeah, we feminists are definitely stupid enough to believe that “the involvement of the FBI in this matter permits [Judgy Bitch] to easily meet the ‘reasonable person’ standard of self-defence in Canada to justify the use of lethal force.” Definitely.
I wonder if she’ll get the Royal Canadian Mounted Police involved. Nah. They’re in Canada.
Good Lord. How sad, empty and hollow must her life be for her to fill it with hatred, drama seeking and aggression to this degree? The mind boggles.
Here’s what’s happening – they’re all gleefully fisting themselves because Thunderf00t got one of his “enemies” to shut up, so now Jack Barnes and Andrea Hardie are trying to do the same with David. Also, they are very very lucky that feminists are not rage-filled bullies like them.
Petition signed. (And awesome to see my GIF get more use! I can’t wait to see what you do with the t-shirt design.)
Quick note to Judgy and the other lurking MRA dipshits: When we call David the Dark Lord or Boss, or joke about being his minions, the operative word there is “Joke.” Joooke. You know what a joke is, right? Hu-mour? Fun-ny? Point is, we don’t rush to his offsite defense like flying monkeys or #GamerGaters, we don’t always agree with him 100% and do speak up when we need to, and we sure as hell don’t end phone calls with “We are a group of volunteers dedicated to a cause, and the cause is David Futrelle.” We just happen to enjoy and appreciate his work, his jokes (there’s that word again!) and his cats.
I agree with sn0rkmaiden. Let Judgy Bitch defend her actions on this blog. There are some pretty sharp people who comment here!
That said, David, I completely understand if you have your reasons — possibly reasons that you can’t talk about — for not allowing her on.
JB is a liar, a harasser, and a bow-huntng enthusiast who hates me and the rest of you and has a bizarre and rather frightening definition of what self-defense consists of. And she probably broke all sorts of comment policy rules when I banned her originally, I can’t remember. In any case, I really don’t think it makes sense to give her a platform.
@SFHC
Joke? Wat? You’re joking about David being the Dark Lord?
Does … does this mean he doesn’t live in a castle? In a parallel universe? No?
But the cats … they’re still magical, right?
I should note that my objection to her bowhunting enthusiasm has less to do with the hunting animals part of it (though I’m not really a hunting fan) as it does with the fact that she so often talks about using her bow on human beings, specifically their faces.
I’ll see if I can figure out a handy way to mention the comment policy more prominently.
I agree with keeping JB banned. She came here looking for ammo. She probably knew we’d get pulled into arguing with her. I’ve no idea if she was trying to be in stealth mode and pretending to be just a random newbie – if so, for the love of God Janet you couldn’t have made it more obvious it was you. But I digress.
She would just lie, sealion, ask gotcha questions and wind all of us up. Then screencap our responses and twist them into things we didn’t say when posting them on Twitter for the AVFM minions. She wants to cause trouble for David and let’s not give that lying liar the chance.
For the record, since I know she is still reading, I also condemn the doxxing of her family and do feel for her, actually. If, given her track record for dishonesty, it did happen. But assuming it did, it shouldn’t have.
Duuuuudes, remember when JB started posting here during the run-up to the AVFM conference, trying to get us to dox some random woman no one had heard of because she’d decided for exactly zero reasons that said woman was the unknown and possibly imaginary feminist who threatened the conference and also that we were all in on the sinister scheme? And it took ages to even figure out what the hell she was talking about? I hope you remember that. Because it was awesome.
I’d kind of love to let her post here for comedy reasons, but all she ever does is go “I meant to do that” about twenty times, get increasingly agitated, and bolt back to Twitter to declare victory.
“I will kill anyone who threatens someone with violence” is up there with “this statement is false” as my favorite paradox.
Well, things I never knew before but learned from JB via this website:
Doxxing is absolutely fine when JB and her friends do it. When David and the rest of us DO NOT do it, and make it clear we don’t support anyone doing it, we definitely did it and it is very bad indeed.*
Proof of an accusation is the same thing as the accusation. Publishing JB’s emails in which she accuses David of various nefarious activities is totally proving that those activities occurred and were directly traceable to David.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation operates and has jurisdiction in Canada. Does the Canadian government know this?
And finally – ringing someone’s doorbell is a major violent threat to life and property which can only be resolved by deadly force.
Where do you start with nonsense like this?
* Doxxing IS very bad indeed, even if JudgyBitch says it is. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Don’t DOX, folks.