The following piece of threat-narrative propaganda has recently been posted by Katie J.M. Baker on Jezebel.Com:
http://jezebel.com/rape-and-death-threats-what-mens-rights-activists-rea-476882099 This article, as you will note, concerns the recent anti-male demonstrations at the University of Toronto. Please read the article carefully, and note the pattern, or rather sequence, which plays itself out.
First, an unabashed feminist acted like a dreadful pig. This feminist was captured on video and the video went viral on the internet, where the general population was exposed to it. A load of abusive and threatening comments were then directed at the feminist in question, or so we are told -- but not all of this is clearly substantiated, let alone vetted for authenticity.
A number of feminist supporters claim that the senders of the abusive material were something called "MRAs", yet proof is not given. For example, it is not known how many, if any, of the senders actually called themselves "MRAs" as opposed to merely being deemed such.
Furthermore, the term "MRA" is never properly defined in such a way that we could know if the terminological application is appropriate. If we were told precisely what an "MRA" supposedly is in the first place, we might hazard a guess whether the abusive commenters were actually in that class of people.
But Katie J.M. Baker offers no definition of terms. Therefore, all we've got to go on, is what the phrase itself plainly intones. The acronym "MRA" is said to mean "men's rights advocate", namely, one who is outspoken upon the subject of men's rights. The phrase contains nothing more than that, which means we are not entitled to conclude that an "MRA" is "a person who makes abusive statements or threats". Nor are we entitled to conclude that an "MRA" is a "stalker" or anything else of that nature.
Nothing in the phrase "men's rights advocate" even faintly hints at abusing, threatening, or stalking. I trust that I have made this point clear. If you impute anything further to the phrase "men's rights advocate", then you are reading more than the plain intention of the text will allow.
Very well, I would submit that Katie J.M. Baker is simply attacking the idea of men's rights in itself. For whatever reason, the idea that men (and boys) might have "rights" just like other people, does not sit well with her. But of course, she does not care to pronounce this openly because it wouldn't sound very nice to say "I don't think that men and boys have rights." So as feminists typically do, Ms. Baker conveys this feeling circumspectly, through the use of doubletalk. Yes, when Ms. Baker conflates men's rights advocacy with abuse and harrassment, it is the worst kind of doubletalk I can imagine.
Let me put it simply. Either you believe that men have rights just like other people -- namely, human rights -- or you do not. It is just that simple. Even if you stuck the "MRA" tag to every abuser or misogynist on Earth, it would detract nothing at all from the stand-alone premise that men's rights are human rights. Yet Katie J.M. Baker is attempting something quite along this line -- her logic (if you can call it that) comports perfectly with such a motivation, and scarcely at all with any other.
Although few if any of the abusive commenters were self-described "MRAs", it wouldn't matter one jot if ALL of them were. Even if every self-described "MRA" on earth were as bad as Ted Bundy, it would still make no difference. All that counts in the present discussion is the issue of "men's rights", and whether men are entitled to such. Everything else is extraneous baggage that needs to be thrown off the wagon.
Yes, if you agree that men's rights are human rights, it doesn't matter who says it. So if Ted Bundy said it, it would be no less true than if Jesus Christ said it.
But I would conclude that everything in Katie J.M. Baker's article is designed to mystify this point by use of an irrelevant diatribe. The impression I get is that Ms. Baker doesn't want men to have human rights, so if I am mistaken about that Ms. Baker had better speak up and make it clear to all the world.
Oh wait.....
does this mean that I am harassing her?Something else.The viral video has gotten over 300,000 views, only some of which generated comments. I mean, we are told only that "thousands" of comments arrived. However, of that number, not all would have been threatening or abusive. No doubt some of them were merely critical or insulting -- which seems about right in view of the redhaired feminist's appalling behavior. I mean, she needed to get some flack, in the same way that a local peer group might apply corrective social pressure to one of its misbehaving members. After all, such things are right and proper, and the cyber-age plays this timeless game by a whole new set of rules. By the end of the day, redhaired feminist is not such a special snowflake that she can't take peer correction from the human community -- she can jolly well suck it up and experience shame.
Bear in mind that the video would have gotten many views which generated no comments at all. So we are left to guess which percentage of those viewers were male human rights advocates. Remember, these viewers wrote nothing whatsoever -- which hardly makes them threatening abusers. And yet they too could be described as "MRAs". Couldn't they? You bet they could.
Not that it matters. The principle that men's rights are human rights is axiomatic, eternal and uncorruptible. Isn't it? You bet it is.
So Katie J.M. Baker, please get busy and explain why you feel that men's rights are not human rights.
And no, this is not harrassment. It is peer correction from a fellow member of the human community. You owe us an answer, Katie. And for your own sake, I'd think that you would want to clear up any possible misconceptions. I mean, if we non-feminist men and women are wrong, this is your chance to tell us why we are wrong.
So let us hear from you.
Don’t forget to check out my blogger of the week Vicki and her amazing lifestyle blog 
