#gamergate doxing swatting terrorism

Congresswoman Leading the Fight Against Swatting is, You Guessed It, Swatted

Rep. Katherine Clark
Rep. Katherine Clark

From the Boston Globe:

US Representative Katherine Clark and her husband were watching “Veep” Sunday night, when police lights engulfed her Melrose [Massachusetts] home.

Clark went outside, assuming something was wrong with one of her neighbors. But she said she was alarmed and frightened to see cruisers blocking both ends of her street and “multiple officers, some with long guns, on my front lawn.”

An officer told her they had received a report of an active shooter at her house, where her 13- and 16-year-old boys had just gone to bed.

But of course.

As the Globe notes, Clark is the sponsor of a bill that would make swatting a federal crime. Swatting, of course, is the practice of maliciously making false reports in order to send swarms of police and/or SWAT teams to the home of your target.

It’s not a hypothetical worry: several Gamergate critics have been swatted. And it goes without saying that it’s pretty dangerous to send a small army of heavily armed cops to a home where they think an active shooter is barricaded.

If Clark’s swatters intended to intimidate her, they seem to have failed. The Globe again:

Clark acknowledged that the experience Sunday night was deeply disconcerting.

But asked if she would be less vocal about the issue now, she laughed and said no.

“If that was the intent of calling in this event,” Clark said, “I think they have underestimated my commitment to making sure that we do stop this practice.”

Clark said she had been very sympathetic to people have been the victims of swatting before Sunday night but now fully understands what it’s like.

“It will,” she said, “really cause me to double down.”

Targeting a politician with what is essentially terrorism? Doesn’t seem like a particularly smart choice on the part of whoever was behind this.

H/T — r/GamerGhazi


181 replies on “Congresswoman Leading the Fight Against Swatting is, You Guessed It, Swatted”

I’m going to say this once, and I’m going to say it as clearly as I can, and then I’m not going to say it again because I don’t want it to come between us (because I do like you and enjoy your company.)

You could not be more establishment if you tried. You’re a lawyer working with the MoD, with ties to the security system and (if I recall correctly) an Army and Respectable School background. That’s not in and of itself a bad thing, but it means that when the great Venn diagram is drawn, then you’re in the group with the horsehair wigs and nice offices, and not the group begging for change on the margins. You will never be one of them. You cannot be. The fact that you may at times dissent is irrelevant: any dissent you raise is internal, and will be handled by them as internal dissent rather than a genuine threat to the system, which means that they play nice with you too. You may raise a pen but you will never raise a Molotov cocktail; and in return they may ignore you but will never ship you to Jordan to be tortured. You’re one of the club and always will be.

This is not inherently a bad thing; privilege does not make a person immoral. (Take it from me, I’m as privileged as they come.) However, it means that your view is blinkered. Let’s take two examples:

a) Police violence. Your initial viewpoint was “police need to protect citizens, and also themselves; and for this they need to use violence sometimes.” This is not wrong, but it’s also not the viewpoint of a person who’s ever seriously considered that they might be one of the people whom police violence is used against.

b) Torture. You’ve come out in favour of torture of prisoners of war and of civilians suspected of being terrorists. You reached this position by arguing that such prisoners may reveal things which save military lives (which is true) and that terrorists look and behave exactly like civilians (which is also true). However, it’s also the viewpoint of a person who cannot conceive of himself as either a prisoner of war or as a civilian who’s suspected of terrorism.

In both cases, the position you’ve taken is consistent with a “them” and “us” worldview in which violence and the use of power is acceptable if it saves “us” from “them.” The possibility that “they” need to be protected from “us” appears to not be real to you. Power is always on your side and never needs to be distrusted, and from what I’ve seen you’re not only comfortable with this but see it as the natural state of affairs.

Again, privilege doesn’t make you a bad person. However, unchecked privilege does make you an asshole. More importantly, it also creates an association which means that unbeknownst to you, you’re inadvertently saying some very ugly things.

Remember that you are very, very establishment. This means that while any good things you do reflect well on the establishment (and you say many things which are smart and funny), any bad things the establishment do implicitly come with a big “ALAN ROBERTSHAW APPROVES THIS” sticker on them. In this case, the establishment includes the British legal system, the British police and the British Army, and (tacitly) other such groups in other countries, because that’s how association works in people’s minds.

You can overcome or aggravate this by your explicit conduct, because that overrides the implicit approval. For example, in this thread you’ve brushed aside the killing of Mark Duggan and the subsequent outrage while saying nothing at all that could lead anyone to believe that you view him and his family as human, as opposed to a band of orcs which need to be kept under control. This has made you look much worse, and has made the implicit approval explicit; and by extension has increased the extent to which all other police killings come with your implicit approval.

By contrast, had you said something like “Mark Duggan’s death was a tragedy which must lead to a review of our firearms policies, and my sympathies are with his family rather than with the police” then it would have erased the implicit approval. Had you gone further and called for the murder or criminal trial of said officer, and approved of the rioting that followed, then that would have reversed it and helped to undercut the implicit approval of similar cases.

I appreciate that it is professionally important to you not to piss off either the legal profession or the Army, and in this capacity you are restrained to either saying things in support of the establishment or of keeping your mouth shut. I have sympathy for this: you do what you have to in order to get through the day, just as we all do. However, I will point out that it’s a good example of my initial thesis: you’ve entered into an arrangement with powerful structures in which they treat you with forbearance in exchange for you treating them with deference. By entering into this arrangement, you make the power structures stronger and they make your life comfortable. There’s a term for this, and that word is coopted by the establishment.

@ EJ

Don’t worry, you won’t piss me off, I enjoy your contributions too.

I’m dashing off to a meeting soon, but I’ll try to get a fuller response you later. It might be that others find this a bit boring/distressing so I’m happy to do this by PM if you think it may be more appropriate. Trust me though, you couldn’t be more wrong about me if you tried. I can furnish you with the relevant evidence for that.

One or two things though, I’ve never posted anything approving of torture, quite the opposite in fact. I think you might be getting me mixed up with someone else. Similarly with the Duggan thing. I’ve not commented on my personal views about him and I’ve never even mentioned his family. Again I think you’re getting me mixed up with someone.

And there’s an irony to your accusation that I’ve said nothing about how we might protect people from the police when I’ve also been criticised for raising how there obviously are steps that can be taken in this regard.

You’re doing a bit of filling in the gaps and making unwarranted assumptions with no evidence. You can’t really argue that ‘you haven’t said anything about ‘this’ so ill assume you think ‘that'”. It’s the old mind reading fallacy. We probably all fall into it.

None of the above is meant as an attack on you. I really do enjoy our discussions but you’re so very wrong on some of your assumptions about me. In fact, let’s definitely do this by PM as then I can perhaps give you some examples to disprove your hypothesis that I can’t really post publicly. You might find some of them funny, certainly ironic in view of some of your comments 😉

I’ve never heard a single woman complain about a man opening a door for them, probably due to the fact that’s just common courtesy.

Alright, I’ll complain about it right now so that the actual argument and not the strawman argument is understood. I hate it when a door is held open for me because I’m a woman. This is very different from a door being held open for me because I’m simply the next person at the door. A few examples: I have a baby-boomer, ex-navy coworker. He rushes in front of me to hold the door open. If I get to the door first and hold it open for him, he refuses to go through and insists, “ladies first.” I hate that. I’ve never yelled at him for it or even said anything, but I’m sure sometimes my annoyance shows on my face. That attitude about doors spreads to other areas of life, too. The door doesn’t exist in a vacuum, and you don’t go through life thinking you should always hold doors for women and that women should never hold doors for you without treating them differently in other ways. He has weird assumptions about my skills, knowledge, and expertise that are usually incorrect. As a result, while my male counterpart gets lots of good tips from him on how to code well, I get lots of tips from him on interpersonal communication and leadership (I’m flattered, but not interested in that career path). He explains a lot of things to everyone, but I feel some of the basic knowledge about our line of work that he explains to me would not be explained to my male counterpart.

Another example is the date. Lots of restaurants have a two door entrance, where you go through two sets of doors to reach the waiting area. On a lot of first dates the guy would reach the outer doors first (obviously rushing to do so) and I would walk through, reach the inner doors, and hold them open. For some guys, this is some kind of embarrassing, emasculating act that cannot be forgiven. From that point on they act different. They refuse to go through the door, then sulk and act sad/angry at you the whole date. Frankly, I’m glad they do because it frees me of having to learn of their sexism later on, but it’s just an unpleasant experience all around.

I object not to doors being held open, but to the implications that are present when a door is held open because I’m a woman. If you wouldn’t act that way towards a guy, just don’t act that way towards a woman. We’re adults and can open doors just fine on our own.

You might not have intended to brush off the Duggan thing up thread, but it did come off that way. If I have some time later I’ll go into more detail. I know you’ve said you feel detached and maybe in your view you were being objective, but the arguments you made did not come from an objective place. I’ll warn you now, and this is coming from a place of love because I adore your comments and the discussion that you bring to the table, but you’re starting to sound like Dawkins and other “rationalists” when you make these comments and then claim you’re neutral.

For some guys, this is some kind of embarrassing, emasculating act that cannot be forgiven. From that point on they act different. They refuse to go through the door, then sulk and act sad/angry at you the whole date. Frankly, I’m glad they do because it frees me of having to learn of their sexism later on, but it’s just an unpleasant experience all around.

Kinda sucks when that’s revealed in the first instance and then you have a whole meal to sit through…But still a good sifter.

Yes, I agree. I had a friend who was like your co-worker who insisted on opening the door, so I would just rush to the door ahead of him. It became quite comical.

However, I absolutely love the courtesy of people opening or holding open doors for others.

@ kupo

I’ll warn you now, and this is coming from a place of love

Thank you for that, it is appreciated and I do so so much like you and very much listen to what you (and others here) have to say on this, and other times when I may be out of order.

I do need to address something here though. I don’t want this to appear like I’m doubling down so I hope you’ll forgive me if I go into a bit of detail. It’s important to do so so you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

So to start, as part of my civilian criminal defence work I used to do a lot of stuff for a particular organisation in Tottenham. I won’t go into too much detail about that. I doubt if they read this but client confidentiality and all that.

One of my cases was defending someone who was transporting a gun. It was like what Mark Duggan was later accused of.

I appreciate that it’s not unfair to suggest I’m part of the establishment (although I’d dispute that) but there was an irony here in that the armed officers who’d done the hard stop in this case were guys I’d previously lectured to. In this case their evidence wasn’t in dispute (it was accepted the gun was in the car and my guy’s prints were on it) so that didn’t present a conflict.

As it happened I managed to get the guy acquitted.

That lead on to being instructed in a murder case. The organisation didn’t like me, but that was irrelevant, they appreciated what I could do professionally and I didn’t have the stereotypical English public school accent so they tolerated me.

Then murder trial collapsed because we managed to put some holes in a ducal bit of evidence.

So far so good. Another day at work and I put the matters out of my mind.

Cut to some time later. A friend has moved to the Tottenham area. She wants to get fit so we check out a local gym. It’s a great place, they do boxing and mauy thai. I like that sort of thing so we get chatting. It’s a really great set up. Nearly exclusively black people. The people who run it explain how they use the facilities to give the local kids something to do and especially keep them out of the reach of the local gangs (because who do you think the local gangs exploit to courier guns and drugs?)

By this time I’ve spent a bit of time there and people open up to me. Someone mentions a particular legal problem (no biggy, a thing with the local council). My friend points out that I’m a lawyer (it’s not something I usually disclose) and says I may be able to help. As it happens I can but now the cat’s out of the bag so people start asking stuff about the job. It gets out about the cases I mentioned above.

Now, that provokes quite a reaction. The people there have a delicate relationship with the police (the police appreciate the work the people do for the kids, but still the kids do get hassled when they’re out and about) but they *hate*’ the people I worked for. The adults and parents think I’m a monster. How can I defend people like that? Do I not know the problems those guys cause in the area? It’s ok for me living out of the area, I’m not going to get pressured into doing errands for criminals etc. you can probably get the picture.

I do the same sort of thing I do here. ‘Everyone’s entitled to a defence’, ‘it’s my job’, ‘not for me to judge, that’s what juries are for’ etc. They accept that and I’m still welcome but it’s something that crops up from time to time and I’m encouraged to point out to the kids what happens to such people, why they’re not to be trusted, why the kids should avoid them etc.

Obvious post Duggan this becomes an issue again. Now, whilst the parents and club leaders might have issues with the police, there’s not an iota of sympathy for Duggan. Of course there are people who do, and they make their views known too. But it’s by no means a universal thing. A *lot* of people in the community react the same way a white community might react to hearing about a white gun runner being shot (and why indeed shouldn’t they?). “Good riddance to bad rubbish” is a phrase that crops up a lot.

Now, having come to know all these people, who do not forget live in the area and are the people affected by the gangs, who should I listen to? Them, or rich white people writing for the Guardian?

I’ll be honest, my sympathies are entirely with their view.

My feeling on Duggan isn’t neutral. That’s why I tried to keep detached (which I think is a more accurate description anyway). Again I’ll be honest, I think when white people who don’t live in the area say the black people who do, are wrong not to hold him up as some sort of martyr I think it’s really patronising.

So I hope that explains my feelings on the mater and how I arrived at them. Sorry for going on so long, but you need the details
To know where I’m coming from.

This isn’t a dig at anyone here at all. I appreciate why people are suspicious of the police especially with the death of a black person.

But to suggest that anyone who doesn’t automatically agree that Duggan should be lauded is evil in someway is, I think, a bit out of order. Especially when it’s privileged white people telling black people that.

Like is say, not a dig or a double down, but maybe something to think about?


My views on that case are informed by my friends who live there


I don’t like it either–I have a friend who I otherwise really agree with who keeps posting it on facebook and it annoys me because I don’t think how cool you think the different candidates are shouldn’t matter especially seeing about how it’s we ended up with George W

I’m really sorry I incited this discussion. But Alan, you have to understand that nobody was discussing Duggan’s character. That’s not what this is about. You’re the one who says you defended guys whose guilt was much more clear than Duggan’s, and you say – and I agree – that they were entitled to a defense. That’s what EJ meant by having to view Duggan as human instead of an orc.

Duggan was not given the possibility of a defense, and the circumstances of his death are unclear because police obfuscated the investigation. What people – whether “rich white people writing for the Guardian” or black people in the neighbourhood – have to say about his criminal history or character is entirely irrelevant to this basic point: that disproportionately, non-white people are not given the rights they are theoretically granted through the constitution (in most European countries and the US) because of a judicial and police system that is racist as fuck.

This includes far too many individual policemen who make racist jokes (sometimes, as in Bavaria, in their official calendar), who kill refugees and non-white citizens in police custody (and yeah, this includes sometimes drug dealers. So what?) and too many of their colleagues who, even if they aren’t personally racist, put too much emphasis on protecting their colleagues although they know they did something wrong instead of protecting communities which they can only see as enemies.

Nobody is denying the experience of people living in these neighbourhoods, or the real damage drug dealers and gunrunners and gang members do to communities. I do, however, think that there is a political and social reason for the state of these communities instead of a moral one, even if on the ground, people argue morals. This political and social reason is that we live in a racist society that puts gunrunners and so on on the path they take. Individually, we can argue morals. On a social level, moral isn’t enough of an argument to explain why non-white communities are disproportionately poor, suffer criminality and police repression.

(what I meant was “I’m guessing that’s what EJ meant”, not wanting to put words in anyone’s mouth.)

It’s really starting to creep me out that every time Alan goes on one of his ‘splainathons, it’s always about racial issues, and he always comes down on the side of the white guy.

(Aside from that bizarre one about Star Wars.)

@scented fucking hard chairs
When you say ‘comes down on the side of the white guy’ do you mean in a way that is for or against? (Sorry English isn’t my strong suit)


I ramble on about all sorts of things but please, tell me how you get coming down on the side of the white guy out of this:

who should I listen to? Them (i.e. The black people who live there) or rich white people writing for the Guardian?

My whole point here was that EJ (who I do like and respect) but is a white guy, said I should feel a particular way about an issue, and I’ve explained why I don’t.

So I’ll put the question straight.

On this issue who should I listen to; a white person who isn’t part of the community we’re talking about or the black people who actually are that community?

This isn’t a dig, please tell me why I’m being so out of order here for siding with the black community. I genuinely can’t understand it!

Alan, you are not siding with the black community if you choose to represent their criticism of Duggan as supporting your argument while dismissing their criticism of police as “might have issues”. As I said, according to your own principles, Duggan should have had the opportunity to defend himself no matter his personal criminal history.

I think the issue here is not with what any community has said but more with Duggan being shot so there could be no investigation and the police withheld details from the public so we know nothing about him or why it happened. So now he ends up getting painted as a bad guy when we don’t know the facts or the history behind it. We can say it’s about race because it’s a symptom of the way society is but not because of the way different communities veiw what happened because the general public doesn’t know what happened because he got shot by police before we could find out. :/

@ Bernardo

I didn’t dismiss their criticism at all. I fully support it (and in what little way I can I’ve tried to help by assisting the kids where I’m able)

But the very narrow issue I’d been called out on was why I wasn’t treating Mark Duggan as a martyr and I explained that my opinion on that was informed solely by reference to the people who were in the best position to judge; and that’s not white people who don’t live there.

Of course there are wider issues, but I’d been trying to focus on the topic at hand.

I’m more than cool with people calling me out, but this is getting awfully like white people telling black people what they should think.

@ valentine

I’m completely with you that it would have been better if Mark Duggan hasn’t been shot and there’d been a trial. Heck, I get called out all the time for my opinion that it’s best to wait for a trial before coming to judgement.

In this case that didn’t happen; but there was an investigation. There was an inquest (I believe you might not be from England so I’ll just explain that’s a type of inquiry into the circumstances of someone’s death)

The decision as to what should happen to the police that shot the man was left solely to a jury drawn from the local community.

That jury entered a verdict of “justifiable homicide” so that’s why the police weren’t put on trial.

Okay. It’s just I read further up in the comments that the police had withheld information? Also anyway the way people hear about verdicts is through the media which of course again will put a spin on things. Like left wing white media woll martyr (like you said) and right wing will go with the typical racist assumptions so we can’t really balance. But I’m not really sure what I’m trying to say at this point and EJ and SFHC can say the same thing better than me anyway. :/Personally I distrust police generally cos of the what the others have been saying about good cops being powerless against the system which supports bad cops. Even without thinking of the big issue of racism in establishments.

When you say ‘comes down on the side of the white guy’ do you mean in a way that is for or against? (Sorry English isn’t my strong suit)

Oh, it means “Agree with/support/defend.” ^^;

@ valentine

Distrusting the cops isn’t a bad default position (and I say that as a member of the establishment 🙂 ). There are good ones, but it only takes one bad one to ruin your day, so it’s safer to wait until you have more information.

There were allegations about the police withholding information. Those allegations were made at the inquest in fact. But the jury was allowed to ask questions, they got to see all the evidence presented and they reached the verdict they did.

They had other options. They could have said it was “unlawful killing” in which case the police would have gone on trial in the criminal courts or, if they thought information had been withheld, they can return an “open” verdict. That means they felt they don’t have enough information to know what happened.

People are of course free to say the jury got it wrong, but I tend to trust juries. It’s a group of normal people randomly selected from the community and I think such people do know what theyre doing.

I don’t think such people are stupid; but of course other people are entitled to think differently. That happens all the time.

Honestly I’m pretty confident that it’s because Alan is a defense lawyer and tends to side with the group being condemned, and around here that mostly means white guys. Plus he actually posts on legal subjects a lot; on non-racial issues it’s accepted without comment.

Also, to an extent the police only make the news when things go wrong. Most police don’t shoot anyone, most of the people they shoot are white, armed, or most commonly both. Obviously we don’t want them to ever make any mistakes, but in a given year most US states don’t actually have any police shootings of unarmed black teenagers.

Certainly we have the right to demand much from the police, but they are not a net negative. It’s easy to take the fact that white supremacists can’t openly murder people without consequences for granted, but that is provided by police. Eliminating the police is not a viable solution.

Thank you! XDD I was confused cos it sounded to me like being aggressive towards so I thought come down on = to disagree/be against.

@ guy

Honestly I’m pretty confident that it’s because Alan is a defense lawyer and tends to side with the group being condemned, and around here that mostly means white guys.

Occasionally I do a rare bit of prosecuting, not a lot as the prosecuting authorities have problems with my ” it was only drugs” attitude (perhaps ironically in view of the subject at hand they think I’m too liberal)

But I think I have to take issue a bit with the ‘siding with the white guy’ thing. If someone can find an example of that, I’ll happily address it, but I think there’s some confusion going on.

That’s certainly the case here where I’m very stridently siding with the black community against the opinions of the white people.

My experience of police in Uk is very limited. I got told of in a station in London once for climbing over a barrier. But I have to say from reading about America and UK I still believe the biggest problem is racism. In all countries in fact where white is ‘normal’ racist police veiws are eveywhere. For exmple I’m not native Russian but I am white. When I was in vladivostok I had no problems from police. I walked at night and didn’t get stopped or asked for papers. Four of my friends (all filipinos) went out during the day and got asked for their papers at least 5 or six times. it is just one example but you can find many more. Vladivostok has a lot of Chinese and Koreans living also so it’s not just because they ‘don’t see anyone who’s not white’.


It’s a chain-of-association thing.

For instance, you said you “trust juries”. But juries are composed of people who have been raised in a racist and sexist culture. For them to not have a bias representing that culture would be a small miracle in and of itself.

Trusting the jury means trusting the system as a whole, and the system as a whole has a long history of abusing women and people of color, and of allowing their abuse by others.

Duggan’s status as a martyr or villain is irrelevant; the only point, once a person has been shot by the police, is, “Was their another, better way to handle it?” If so, then there needs to be consequences for that failure, regardless of whether or not in this particular circumstance the community does not care about the dead person’s fate.

@ freemage

I agree with you about the societal pressures and biases, and how people are influenced by them. But I still trust juries. I especially trust the jury in this case. They were drawn from the local community. I think they better than anyone, and certainly better than anyone here, would have a good knowledge about their interactions with the police and police attitudes within their own community.

I think we have to be careful if we suggest the jury in this case didn’t know what they were doing. That’s saying “There are all sorts of biases in society. I’m clever enough to recognise them, but you’re not”.

As to the relevance of Duggan’s status, that’s what this whole thing was solely about. Of course there are wider issues but I was addressing one very narrow question, why I wasn’t lauding him? As I think I’ve gone over lots of times now, I made my decision on that based on what people in the best position to know thought.

People have now tried to make this thread about lots of things but no-one has put forward any credible reason why I should ignore those people on that one issue.

I have to say, Alan is the first attorney I’ve know who trusts juries. Maybe that has a lot to do with my being American. I’m not sure what the jury selection process is in the UK, but the US voir dire process is basically designed to help the attorneys find the people they can most easily manipulate to accept whatever BS argument they can come up with. The jury will come to whatever conclusion the attorneys are able to convince them of, and the biases of all parties involved will heavily influence that decision.

@ kupo

I’m not sure what the jury selection process is in the UK

Over here they (literally in some cases) stick a pin into the register of local residents to get a pool of enough jurors to cover the cases for a two week period. Then they draw names out of a hat. First 12 go to courtroom 1, next 12 to courtroom 2 etc.

No jury selection and were not allowed to challenge jurors (although the defendant is told if he recognises anyone on the jury to let the court know and they’ll get another one). We just go with the ones were given. Sometimes causes problems on a trial of it turns out a juror knows a witness, but in that case the juror withdraws.

Probably not a perfect system but the best we can do.

ETA: I’ve been at conferences with US and UK judges. The US ones say they’d like our jury selection process and the UK judges say they’d like the US thing of alternate jurors. If more than 3 jurors have to withdraw or get sick we have to start again


the hate Anita Sarkeesian gets is really not justified–her feminism and criticisms aren’t that radical (with a lot of her criticisms I feel like has made practically the same criticisms as she has) and most of counter arguments I’ve seen don’t even address her core arguments which is just annoying

with Bernie–I like him, he’s the candidate that is closest to my political beliefs, but I agree with you that I don’t thing him getting elected will create a utopia–I’m mostly just hopeful that the fact that he is a strong contender will be beneficial to the overall political climate but I just really don’t his hardcore supporters — I feel like they’ve built to much of a cult of personality around him and the friends I have who are hardcore Bernie Sanders supporters keep posting all of this problematic stuff on facebook like that meme and how they hate Hillary and how Hillary supporters are dumb and don’t know what’s best for themselves and while I don’t love her policies I do think that she has the skills and experience to make a decent president and it’s frustrating because I feel like they’re giving me a reason to dislike a candidate that I actually like


I have also heard stories of roving radfems yelling at men for being chivalrous and yelling at feminine women for being feminine online and I have seen neither of these things in person (and as a very feminine woman who spends a lot of time in feminist spaces in real life, I feel like if there were radfems running around screaming at people who conform to gender roles I would have been screamed at by now) and I kind of feel like when people say that they’ve been screamed at for holding doors open or being feminine what I think happened is someone made a feminist critique and they took it as a personal attack against themselves because I’ve seen a lot of people take a feminist criticism of something they like as something that’s meant to shame them or police their behavior which is annoying because I think there are issues with chivalry and traditional femininity that feminists should talk about regardless of whether or not I personally like those things

I’ve never yelled at anyone for being chivalrous.

I have had friendly “you know, you really don’t need to try and carry all the heavy things when I’m right here and also have arms and can be more useful. I’d really rather you not kill your back to keep me from breaking a sweat” discussions with people.

Does that count?


Does that count?

I’m sure it does because mansplainers and MRAs are always eager to exaggerate real incidents if it gives them an opportunity to rant about the man-hating radical feminists who have opinions different from theirs.

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.