My thanks to Ken for bringing this rubbish in The Scotsman to my attention. Dani Garavelli, the “journalist” behind the piece, described me as a “vile men’s rights campaigner” in a piece about the odious, malicious, misandrous, narcissistic barrister Charlotte Proudman, in 2015 – here.
Much of the new article consists of an attack on Alex Jones, about whom I confess to knowing virtually nothing. I’ve never even watched one of his videos. The article is a predictably lazy attack on the “alt-right” (anyone to the right of Jeremy Corbyn, one suspects). The first extract, in which Ms Garavelli manages to include three qualifiers in one sentence (highlighted in bold):
Even as enemies of the alt-right were toasting the collapse of much of the social media infrastructure on which Alex Jones built his InfoWars empire, the man himself was settling into his new role as a “freedom of speech” martyr. Perhaps, as Mark Zuckerberg is said to have suspected, that was his plan all along.
Later in the piece, she absurdly tries to associate us with the alt-right:
Beyond the pursuit of clicks, there are two main drivers of the rise of the alt-right. One is a wilful misunderstanding of the concept of freedom of speech; the other is problem of “false balance”. The latter is rife amongst broadcasters. The producers of a news programme decide to cover, say, the poor rape conviction rates. They invite on a representative from Rape Crisis, but feel the need to “balance” that representative with someone who believes many women are “asking for it”, then treat the two views as if they are morally equivalent. This practice inflates the importance of fringe figures, such as men’s rights activist Mike Buchanan.
Anyone following this blog will be only too aware of how little coverage we get compared with feminists, whose narratives utterly dominate the mainstream media, and are very rarely challenged. I cannot recall ever having been invited by “producers of a news programme” to appear along with “a representative from Rape Crisis” for “balance”. I have never expressed the view – privately or publicly – that women are “asking for it” (i.e. rape), nor have I ever heard such a sentiment stated, or written, by any MRAs of even the slightest consequence. And the idea that “the two views” are treated “as if they are morally equivalent” is hogwash. Almost invariably, when I’m in a TV or radio discussion with one or more feminists, the presenter (almost always a feminist, whether female or male) will be hostile towards me, and indulgent towards the feminist(s).
I do, however, feel honour bound to point to a piece I generally point to when feminists write claptrap about rape, Janet Bloomfield’s 13 reasons women lie about being raped.
Ms Garavelli’s piece is so utterly woeful, she would surely feel right at home with Vice or Buzzfeed or 50:50.
I’ve posted a link to this blog piece in the comments stream (you don’t need to register to post comments). In case it’s removed, a screen save is here. Why not post your own comments there? Thanks.
Have a nice day.
