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.
Is there some horrible contest these wastes of space are in, to come up with the weirdest most unlikely crap to accuse others of? Because it seems that way.
JB and Barnes appear to be addicted to drama. I know that this is in all likelihood flexing and posturing, but the constant references to deadly weapons is extremely childish and/ or very unsettling. Unless they are truly suffering paranoia, in which case I can drum up a tiny amount (let’s say less than an ounce) of sympathy for them.
David, be careful. I know it’s all bluster but it just takes one wound up person to do harm. Just look out for yourself is all I’m saying.
What fascinates me about this is they don’t realize at no point does David ever imagine a scenario of “self-defense” that involves doing physical harm to any of them. His interest in being in the same space as any of these people is zero, fails to register. They’re swearing hysterical oaths that they will shoot to kill this “anyone” they imagine will show up any day on their doorstep, and best I can tell, neither David nor any of his “minions” or “cult followers” have any desire whatsoever to be around them, at all, ever. That’s throughly weird to me.
But that’s always the pattern. I see non harassers being victimized by harassment campaigns and their response is to look for help, call in authorities, try to stay safe. At no point do they engage in thoretical violent scenarios about what they would do if a harasser approached them. When a happy warrior who gleefully engages in harassment themselves is targeted, it’s like they’re more excited than fearful, and suddenly they start weaving elaborate fantasies about what a badass they are and shouting how they’re going to shoot people. Always the pattern.
That’s because that trait is a part of their self-definition.
From what I’ve seen, to them (and to JB, I’d imagine), the response to “look for help, call in authorities” flies in the face of their often (but not exclusively) libertarian ideals. “Looking for help, calling in authorities” = “not taking care of oneself, acting like a child”.
Fantasizing (or, probably, in their minds “planning”) about the actions that they’ll take against those that they see as a threat = “taking care of yourself, being an adult“.
I think that that’s one of the reasons it’s so difficult to find common ground with many in that movement – it’s hard to have a conversation when there’s a fundamental difference is working definitions.
– technicolorstatic
I don’t know about others, but for me it’s an ongoing life-goal to stay away from MRAs (or any similarly misogynistic creep from the manosphere). Their presence in cyberspace is bad enough, why would I ever want to meet them face-to-face in fleshspace?
@mockinbird
That’s been one of my observations of the MRM as well. Another thing that strikes me often is their idea of “dealing with the consequences of your actions”. When women do things like have sex, wear clothes, get drunk, leave the house, be on the internet, exist in the vicinity of a man, etc, and someone decides to attack them for no good reason, MRAs always talk about taking responsibility for your actions. As if, in their head, being assaulted should be an expected consequence of leaving the house. They treat deliberate attacks as just a force of nature, even when they themselves are the very people responsible for the attack. I also don’t know how to have any form of meaningful discussion with people who think like this.
I remember JB from before we banned her. There’s basically a 0% chance she would say anything informative if we unbanned her now.
Seeing as the men over at AVFM don’t seem to be anywhere near having a consensus on JB – some think she’s a parasitic life form who didn’t even finish an MBA program her poor husband worked hard to provide money for her to attend all for nothing other than resuming the easy job of being a full time stay at home mom (yeah, being a SAHM or SAHF is a piece of cake…YES THIS IS SARCASM.); others do the MRM equivalent of a “you go girl!”; and then there’s some who agree with what she says but don’t because it’s from a female and that means something has to be wrong with it someplace but they’ll have to get back to the group once they’ve thoroughly examined every word she’s ever said to formulate their final opinion…how can anyone (including JB) think this ‘interesting’ pairing between JB and AVFM/et al. is going to be all roses and duckies for all eternity? Just because an individual isn’t on the shit list *now* doesn’t mean the boys won’t change their mind on that one if it suits them or something gets a bee in their bonnet, knickers in a twist, burr under their saddle, etc.
But despite the frequently spewed vitriol from JB, nobody should be in the position of worrying when and if the other shoe will drop. Or feel like they have to constantly up their antics to stay on the good side of anyone regardless of ideological affiliation. Nobody here thinks that attacking her is good, acceptable, or endorsed. We don’t condone any threats or harmful actions targeting people; not her, not any of the individual MRAs, not their family members.
Katie has cats, not minions. There are no minions here.
Shaenon,
I mentioned that in the Jack Barnes thread yesterday. I’ve decided to dredge it up for the mocking pleasure of those who weren’t here a year and a half ago.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/06/01/a-voice-for-mens-threatener-in-chief-paul-elam-demands-that-feminists-pay-security-costs-for-his-groups-conference/comment-page-4/#comment-502270
JB(f) and JB(m), two angry rage-y oddities separated at birth and by international border. I just read WWTH post link. Does Judgybutch think she;s a US citizen, cos she seems to constantly cite FBI & Homeland Security, not the RCMP that a proud Canadian citizen would. I’m a Brit, so I think CID and Special Branch first, Interpol second. She does write some very odd things.
Yeah, I concede the point about having Judgy back. While some anti-feminists are capable of an honest debate, she is not.
Also, what is this nonsense about someone trying to get her husband fired? Since when can a man lose his tenured position over his wife’s online (non criminal) activity? Either the letter writing campaign was fraudulent, in which case it should be pursued in the courts, or Mr Hardie just stood to be embarrassed by his wife’s nasty little hobby coming to light among his peers?
However something that prompts me to believe that she was the target of something is her recent decision to dox herself, maybe she knew it was already on the cards and chose to get in first?
Someone else commented on Canadian self-defense law. I don’t know anything about Canada, but in the US her statements could get her in serious trouble. (Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, but I am trained law enforcement.)
For starters, she says she will take you down “with lethal intent.” Intending to kill the person, in most US jurisdictions, invalidates a self-defense claim. The only valid intent is to end an imminent threat of death or grave bodily injury. Force is considered justified only for the purpose of making the attack stop. It might stop because the person has ceased to live, but it also might stop because the person is incapacitated, or becomes frightened and runs away, or throws down their weapon and shouts “I surrender!” And as soon as the threat is over, so is the justification for self-defense: additional use of force would constitute a brand new incident, in which the person using force is guilty of assault or worse.
As law enforcement, I was trained painstakingly to exorcise from my vocabulary any such phrases as “shoot to kill” or anything like that. If I ever fire a weapon, it would be “to end the threat,” period. Note that this isn’t just verbiage: a young man once saved the live of himself and his girlfriend from a jealous ex using a shotgun. Unfortunately for him he fired TWICE. When asked on the stand why he fired the second time, he said “because the man was still moving.” All this testosterone-laden hooey about “lethal force” and “shooting to kill” actually leads people to think that they’re supposed to keep shooting until the attacker is good and dead–but throughout the US, that’s murder. You shoot until the attack is over, and then you stop. If death results, it’s an unfortunate side effect of stopping the attack.
Apologies; I had to get that out of my system. These folks think they’re cagey, hedging their language with caveats like “if you threaten me,” but JB’s statement would, in a US court, destroy her claim of self defense and get her imprisoned. Self-defense law is NOT a game, folks.
@ a rose for Emily
Regulars on this site will be familiar with my mantra regarding use of force: “It’s not what you do, it’s what you say afterwards that gets you into bother”
Same goes for what you say before.
I’m constantly drilling people about language and the difference between “incapacitation” and “killing”.
Having said that, JBs comments, whilst certainly outlandish, would lay a good groundwork for a self defence case under English law, and probably Canadian as well. You only need suggest an honest belief in the threat, not a reasonable one. Sometimes the wilder the rhetoric the easier it is to believe someone. Can we be sure she doesn’t think feminists might try to kill her? That’s the test for any jury.
@SFHC
Did you create that GIF? It’s wonderful!
I’m just astounded that with all of the doxxing of feminists, real and perceived, that they have done, they are totally unable to see the irony of getting all pissy about it.
codimichel13: Well, they’re hypocrites, but it’s important to note where the hypocrisy lies–it’s not in complaining about getting doxxed, it’s doing it to others. Ie, IF JudgyBitch and Barnes are actually receiving threats, even though they’ve contributed to harassment campaigns of their own, those making the threats are still in the wrong.
**********
David: Have you considered contacting the FBI yourself, to see if there’s any truth to the claim that they are investigating you? I don’t know if they’d ever actually answer that question, but given that you can point to JB’s claims on the matter, it’d be a reasonable step to attempt, I think.
@codimichel13 and all
That’s a weird thing that has gotten my attention for awhile. Looking through twitter, we can see that theme over and over again – MRAs accusing feminists of the things that they’re doing. The projection, it’s real.
Part of me wants to think that they’re being cynical about it – they know it’s hypocritical and are doing it to “win for their side”. Same for JB coming here to the comments, the same part of me wants to think she’s doing it because she’s trying to get us to say things that she can use against us. They treat it as a war, and any hypocrisy is justified, as long as they come out on top.
(This reminds me of a study done relatively recently that I can’t find. There’s been a few on liberal vs conservative thought lately. This one captures a lot:
https://news.virginia.edu/content/study-american-liberals-and-conservatives-think-if-different-cultures
The one I’m thinking of specifically targeted the idea that liberals hate hypocrisy but don’t care about inconsistency, where as conservatives hate inconsistency but don’t care about hypocrisy. So we’d expect conservative MRAs to hate the idea of women getting ‘special treatment’ because of poor outcomes, but wouldn’t see a problem with being hypocritical about doxxing. Meanwhile we don’t care if we have to give more concern to minorities, women, and the disabled, but are going to cry foul if conservatives start using the tactics that they are complaining about.
Anyways!)
In the end though, I think that it’s not really about cynically doing “whatever it takes” to win a war. They really don’t see themselves as doing anything wrong. We’re the Bad Guys, so we deserve what we get. I’m really not sure how we can burst that bubble.
Also, as an aside: I’d be willing to bet JB is from Alberta, given how she talks and her fondness for hunting – that’s often a prairie sort of a thing. If so, I’m really sorry :C I hope she hates the fact that we’ve turned ultrasocialist in the recent provincial election, at least …
I think it’s just so weird that everything has to be dressed up in really complicated purple prose. Say what you mean.
Also, am I the only one ever baffled by how MRA fantasies of violence always assume the other person is totally clueless? It’s not exactly quick or subtle to load a crossbow and it wouldn’t be my weapon of choice in a conflict with someone 3 feet from me. Not the point, I know, but it’s right in line with MRAs proclaiming that women will be totally helpless in the event of an apocalypse, but somehow their experience of typing on a computer will magically let them know how to hunt, gather, start fires, and do basic medicine.
@Scildfreja
She’s in Thunder Bay according to her GoFundMe page.
@weirwoodtreehugger [blockquote]Shaenon,
I mentioned that in the Jack Barnes thread yesterday. I’ve decided to dredge it up for the mocking pleasure of those who weren’t here a year and a half ago.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/06/01/a-voice-for-mens-threatener-in-chief-paul-elam-demands-that-feminists-pay-security-costs-for-his-groups-conference/comment-page-4/#comment-502270%5B/blockquote%5D
That was comic gold. Thank you,
oh blockquote monster. you got me!
Oop! Thank you, @Auntie Alias. That’s a relief. I thought I had to apologize for both Canada and Alberta there!
@karak,
Their violence fantasies are just that, fantasies (not that it prevents a miserable few from acting them out, mind you). It’s not about being practical, it’s about being awesome and Proving Your Worth by Defending The Authority against the Degenerate Masses. Colonialism, Patriarchy, Nationalism – in my perspective, at least, it all boils down to being the champion of the king and defending the laws of the realm. Nothing to do with reality.
If any of that makes sense!
A note on Canadian law, as I had to know this when I was a security guard…. it’s harder to commit trespass than you think. Walking up to someone’s door if you have not previously been told not to is absolutely NOT even a misdemeanor trespass. Self-defense and defense of property doesn’t apply to people that aren’t actually threatening you THERE & THEN. it doesn’t matter if they threatened to kill you and set your dog on fire yesterday, if they aren’t currently engaging in something the Platonic “reasonable person” would consider an imminent threat, no go. Outside of your home you have a “duty to retreat” (if possible)… so, if the threat is on the doorstep and you can close the door, you can’t claim self-defense. Inside of your home there’s more leeway, but you still have to make sure the holes are in the front.
In other words, her little fantasies, hell even confronting someone at the door with a crossbow, would land her in jail.
crassenti way at the front…
Unless crassenti is in good ol’ #yeg, at least they don’t have to share a city with Men’s Rights Edmonton.
Scildfreja
And now the bad news… https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/?s=mens+rights+edmonton
Oh, sweet lord, @Tabby Lavalamp, you don’t need to remind me :c