This Is What Feminist Hate Speech Looks Like

By Janet Bloomfield (aka JudgyBitch): A disturbing trend is emerging much more forcefully than I have ever noticed before in mainstream media, with the exception of Australian media. Australian media feminists have been openly, aggressively malevolent towards men for some time now, with some organizations pushing back, but far too few. (Link contains graphic video about Australian women who physically attacked, including a near fatal stabbing, their male domestic partners. It is the exclusive property of ACA, so I couldn’t embed it.)
I think it’s reasonable to extend the benefit of the doubt to many North American feminist media pundits who parrot feminists lies on the grounds that many of them have never read the original source material and are completely unfamiliar with the fact that the ‘data’ and ‘evidence’ they are citing is deeply flawed, biased or just plain fabricated. But I am noticing a new trend of media feminists consulting source material, and then openly misrepresenting that data to serve their ideological goals and frameworks.
They are, in other words, engaging in conscious, deliberate propaganda, with malicious intent.

One of the basic tenets of law is mens rea, or criminal intent. A key part of whether or not someone is said to have committed a crime is what the intended results of their actions were. When you struck that match, did you know the gas was leaking and the house down the street would blow up, killing everyone inside? In many cases, the reasonable person standard also must be met. Would a reasonable person have known the gas was leaking (strong smell of sulphur, etc.)? I’m not a lawyer, obviously, but I think I have given a quick and dirty summary of how and why certain actions are deemed criminal and others are not. Please feel free to clarify or refine these comments. Let’s keep those two ideas in mind though, as I build my case.
Published the day before the outrageous Gawker article that ignores murderous women in order to spin a narrative that men are particularly prone to lethal retribution because patriarchy and toxic masculinity is this article from Think Progress.

The Gawker article merely ignores evidence. The Think Progress one goes a step further, and I think it’s an important step that warrants careful consideration: they consult the actual data and then deliberately and malevolently misrepresent that data to promote fear and hatred of a specific group in society: men. Referring to the horrifying public, televised executions of journalist Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward, the article claims that being murdered at work is ‘relatively common’:

Parker and Ward are the latest Americans to be murdered while on the job, a relatively common occurrence in the United States. Of all the incidents in which someone died at work in 2013, 9 percent were due to homicides, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ most recent data. In total, 397 people were murdered while at work. That’s more than were killed by fires and explosions, getting caught in equipment or machinery, and exposure to harmful substances combined. The total number of homicides was down from 2012, when there were 475 work-related homicides.

Note that Bryce Covert (the name is beautifully ironic) carefully deploys gross numbers and percentages to create the impression that getting murdered at work is ‘relatively common’, her basic assertion. 475 workplace homicides?!?!? Oh my gosh! In February of 2015, 157M people in the civilian population participated in the labor force (out of 250M eligible workers, 16 or over), meaning the rate of homicides at work was 0.0003%. Relatively common? Compared to what? Getting struck by lightning and killed? Well, okay. There were 22 people killed by lightning. Your odds of getting murdered at work are better than being struck by lightning. However, if you drove your car to work, you took a much greater chance of being killed. In 2013, 30 057 people were killed in car accidents. Since the age for legal driving and the age at which the BLS collects workforce participation data are the same, we can easily compare the two. Assuming that all eligible drivers are on the road (all 250M), 0.01% will die in a car accident.
Covert (can’t get over that name – who better than a person named ‘Covert’ to write propaganda?) then makes an astonishing claim:

Women are far more susceptible to being murdered at work than men. While women have a lower workplace fatality rate — there were 302 fatal workplace injuries involving female workers in 2013 — 22 percent of them involved a homicide, making it the leading cause of death [emphasis mine]. For men, just 8 percent related to a homicide. That’s thanks to the fact that for victims of domestic violence, who are overwhelmingly female, the workplace is an ideal target for an abuser, given that it’s often a public and easy-to-find place. A woman is killed by an intimate partner at work about twice a month.

Okay, let’s do the math. If there were 302 workplace fatalities for women and 22% of them involved a homicide that’s 66 deaths that involved a murder. If women are being murdered by intimate partners at work twice month (no source provided), 24 of those 66 deaths were by intimate partners, leaving 42 deaths a result of someone other than an intimate partner. Let’s go back to the top number again, that ‘relatively common’ claim. 24 women are killed every year by intimate partners, making the odds of getting killed as a result of domestic violence at work pretty much identical to getting struck fatally by lightning (24 vs 22).
Very common indeed.
Notice that ‘the leading cause of death’ statement. Oh gosh, look at this. According to the actual source Covert consulted, roadway fatalities killed more women than homicides.

Covert is openly, audaciously and unapologetically lying her little bitch ass off. And notice right above that data is the data for men. Over four thousand men died at work during the same period that 302 women did, but move along folks, there’s nothing to see here, amirite? No story there at all. Men aren’t the overwhelming victims of workplace fatalities by any method or event. Won’t someone please think of the poor, helpless, hapless damsels in distress? Someone please think of the women! Ladies first!
I’m not even going to address the ‘women are the main victims of domestic violence’ argument, but rather, just provide a link to Erin Pizzey’s White Ribbon site, where she will clearly explain, using facts, data and evidence that children are the primary victims of domestic violence and women are the main perpetrators. When it comes to violence between adults, men and women are equally likely to throw a punch, and in cases where only one person throws a punch that person is a woman 70% of the time.

Let’s go back to my previous comments about mens rea and the reasonable person standard. Why is Covert doing this? What is her intention? Would a reasonable person interpret the data the same way she did? Is anything about this article sane, rational and reasonable?
The answer looks pretty clear to me: NO. This is propaganda. This is more than propaganda: this is hate speech. Covert wants the women who read her to hate men, to loathe them, to fear them. She wants the men who read her to hate other men, to hate themselves, to fear and loathe other men, and the man they see in the mirror.

And then what?
What is the end game? What does Covert, and writers like her, want men and women to do? This is the million dollar question, isn’t it? Are feminists like Covert just vomiting forth the detritus they must to continue to earn the living they currently make? Are they trapped in a machine they can’t get out of? Or are they following the examples of history and fomenting hate intended to result in violence and death? Does Covert want men cowed, frightened and self-loathing? Does she want to see defiant men and the women who stand beside them eradicated?
Vester Flanagan, the deranged, perpetually aggrieved social justice warrior behind the murders of Parker and Ward took the first step in the feminist end game. He murdered two innocent people on live TV, filmed himself doing it, and then took his own life when his plans for escape were foiled.
The rhetoric is ramping up. We’ve seen it before. It leads to streets running with blood. The only question we need to settle is: whose blood? Will we allow this madness to continue until the SJWs and feminists begin shooting in earnest (or more likely elect officials who will carry out their violence by proxy) or do we fight back? And what weapons do we deploy?
Truth. Facts. Evidence. A war of words. Relentless criticism of the feminist hate machine.
And then what?
I think we’re gonna have to figure this one out sooner rather than later.
Lots of love,
JB

Source