On Herd Mentality, YouTube Pop-Feminism, and Male Feminist/Allies

With my experience as a young woman just getting into the subject of feminism, even though the feminist part of me was already there, it took me a while to fully realize where my feminist positions really stood, and to self-actualize these deep-set feelings that I’ve accumulated throughout most of my lifetime. I began by learning about feminism on social media, after witnessing misogyny from content sharing sites such as YouTube.com, and this was my mistake.

On there, feminism is very unpopular, and will get you bullied by anti-feminist mobs for openly showing your support of it. Most anti-feminist videos are misogynistic in some way or another, while pro-feminist videos are few and far between, which results in them being massively down voted and given negative comments by the dominant, anti-feminist, male majority. Most youtubers in the public sphere are men, and as a result of this, they also dominate the feminist discourse within a small, youtube, atheist community. At my own expense, I learned more about how misogyny thrives in anti-feminist groups, but it was actually the men who claimed to be allies of feminism in the youtube community that turned out to be my downfall, or falling out with this online youtube community.

Male content creators who claim to be feminist or defend feminism like: HannibaltheVictor13 or Sequester Zone; claimed to have higher education in feminism and philosophy; making themselves authorities on the subjects in the youtube community. Many young men and women looked up to them on scientific, philosophical, and feminist topics. So when it came to feminism, these men controlled the conversation on it in the atheist community for quite some time; they decided which feminist topics were worthy of discussion, and used tactics to convince their followers to reject the feminist ideas in which they personally disapproved of. In this article I will explain how they managed to do all of this.

One method I want to discuss, is through classic gas-lighting techniques. As many feminists know, men have used this tactic for many years in order to subjugate women, by trivializing our concerns and discrediting our points of view; they render our lived experience and our material realities of being a woman in a male supremacist society as meaningless, unless it is validated by their own experiences, or it is them who are defining it. That, along with the intention to get us to doubt our own thoughts, feelings, and experiences. When I brought this up to SequesterZone, on him calling feminist women ‘crazy’, he didn’t even acknowledge it, instead he called me “a little crazy” for supposedly misunderstanding his argument against the other feminist, which was basically just an attempt at joining in on character assassinating her. I brought up how ‘crazy’ started out as an ableist slur and that it was offensive to me that he was calling women this, as a woman who suffers from mental illness, and that the women who he has labelled this may be as well. Still, he thought there was no reason to apologize. When I brought up how it is sexist to label women as crazy, he said I was mistaken, that I meant to say female hysteria, using the excuse that the medical diagnosis doesn’t exist anymore, so it’s acceptable to call women crazy now. He later went into defense mode in a video, resorting to mansplaining the historically, sexist, medical misdiagnosis of female hysteria to me, and how crazy actually means illogical in the context that he was using it in, which had nothing to do with the arguments I brought forth to him, which was actually about gaslighting women. I explained how even if a man thinks a woman is being illogical, whether or not she actually is, there is still a sexist trend of men calling women crazy in society. Of course, my arguments still weren’t being taken into any consideration. He ignored the Ph.D source I provided about how calling so called “bad” people crazy is both offensive and ableist to those with mental illness who are most associated with the slur ‘crazy’. This was actually an argument he, himself, had used before when arguing against one of the few, female, popular, atheist youtubers, Jaclyn Glenn, because she called the mass shooter, Elliot Rodger, crazy, but not misogynistic for his behavior. When those with mental illness are actually more likely to be victims of crimes, not the perpetrators of them. He also targeted her with another male “feminist”, saying nothing she ever says is intelligent and that the only reason she got to where she is, and why people like her on youtube, is because she is attractive. Then, going on to make a parody account of her on Twitter, with one tweet making an offensive lesbian joke with her and Rebecca Watson, who was a target of anti-feminist hate mobs.

My intentions weren’t to try to censor any use of the word crazy in any context. My point was that he was being hypocritical when it comes to calling out someone else for ableism when describing an anti-feminist mass shooter, but then turning around and describing feminists the same, and denying ableism has anything to do with it. And, thereby, ignoring any harm done that would result from calling other feminists who go after MRAs, ‘crazy’, as well as ignoring how women constantly being labelled as ‘crazy’ by men is a form of misogyny and gaslighting. There can be no denying that it has always been used as a weapon against women throughout history, that we are just over-emotional and not as logical as men are; that we are just overreacting when we bring up our issues with misogyny, and that anything we say cannot be trusted as being truthful. Despite this, somehow, he thought it was perfectly alright to call a female feminist crazy for her words in a past argument between the two of them that no one else had any knowledge of; not even giving her the benefit of the doubt for her words that were being presented, as well as misrepresented, in a video made against her by another male “feminist”. The reasons he gave for appropriately labeling her as ‘crazy’, is from a private argument between the two of them where he claims she was inciting bio-terrorism against anti-choice activists with something to do with using an aborted fetus, which I’m certain was just a hyperbolic response to anti-choice extremism on her part. He claimed she never looked at a source which proved that is what she was describing, but as it turns out, from a screenshot she took herself, you can see that it was he who never went to her source, that she had read his, and explained to him how it didn’t described what she was talking about. Apparently, he then got angry, blocking her afterwards.

The reason I decided to confront him on his behavior toward feminist women is because he called another female feminist crazy before in a past video of his, because she argued with him that religion is patriarchal. He denied that the God in Abrahamic religions has largely been portrayed as masculine gendered, which is quite a departure from ancient religions that came before, which worshiped the feminine aspect of divinity. Instead, he said God is supposed to be genderless. Basically ignoring how religious texts were written by men since the beginning, reflecting themselves as an authoritative father figure in God; playing a substantial role in controlling the structure of the family and women’s sexuality through patriarchal tradition. Instead, blaming a patriarchal culture on this, rather than considering religious texts could be patriarchal doctrines that have a strong influence on culture. He acted as though there is a certain purity that can be ascribed to historical religious texts, when they were really rehashed myths used to control the masses by the current power structure; as moral rules and guidelines are used to maintain the order of male supremacy. Someone’s own personal spiritual belief system can be secular instead of patriarchal, but this isn’t what she was talking about; she was talking about the indoctrination through patriarchal religious texts, which creates a continuance of the patriarchal family structure in society. One of the excuses he gave to me for calling out these women for saying religion is patriarchal, is that there’s proof Jesus was an actual person who lived at the time, so we should respect the bible as a book with recorded history and moral lessons in it. And that religion is sacred to people because it is traditional, so we should respect their belief system as well. I think this is the same argument used by religious people to protect religion from any atheist or secular criticism or analysis. And what about ex-religous women, especially those who come from countries ruled by the authoritarian religious-right? Are they not allowed to speak of their experience of oppression being connected to religion out of respect? He got very upset with her that she said he supported misogynistic religions, so he made a video against her, using personal details about unrelated viewpoints of hers to make her look crazy in the eyes of the atheist community, as well as sharing screenshots of her private messages to him without her permission. She was also not a content creator like him, so she shows how her arguments were being misrepresented by him in his videos in her blog.

So the questions that came to my mind was, what makes these men feel so entitled to dictate feminism to women while dismissing our concerns? Instead of calling out other male “allies” for their obvious misunderstandings, and disrespect toward feminist women? Why do they think it’s right to try to silence women from speaking against religious oppression? And why do they think calling women crazy for disagreeing with them is acceptable? Even if these men do hold some disagreements with these women, these actions should still not be tolerated. So I denounced SZ as a feminist for these actions, which apparently is something women are not allowed to do to these men who claim to be feminists, but something they have complete free rein to do to feminist women. Other men quickly went to his defense, by also using gas-lighting language, since they look up to this guy, they repeated his arguments to me; saying that nothing we were saying made any sense, and denying that any harm was being done to us. I then later faced retaliation from SequesterZone for doing this, along with others for our disagreements with him.

This all came about after another male, self-described feminist, youtuber called, Captain Andy, decided to make an attack video on a feminist who I personally looked up to. This woman was the first to make a google plus community for youtube feminists to share their comments, videos, or other information pertaining to feminism and women’s issues. I liked the feminist propaganda that she created because it emphasized the cruel and dehumanizing aspects of a male supremacist culture over women, it was one the first times I heard women’s oppression as being a result of an ideology of male supremacy. Her political messages were harsh, blunt, and didn’t coddle the feelings of men, and this is what upset these men the most. Captain Andy was offended by her comments about Islam, religion, hierarchy, and war. Demonizing her an islamophobe, racist, egalitarian, anti-theist, misandrist; as well as an over idealistic, hateful, idiotic, bigot. Some strong labels made from just skimming over her words and not looking into any deeper meaning behind them, and coupled with a poor understanding of basic feminist concepts such as: patriarchy and equality. Instead of featuring the dialogue that happened between the two of them, he took out of context quotes of hers to put in his video to paint her as a bigot.

His knee jerk reaction was to persecute her for what he perceived to be her socio-political beliefs, thereby persecuting other feminists who hold similar positions, such as: political/economic Egalitarianism and Radical Feminism; to which he felt appointed to label as extremist. He believed equality just means equal rights under the law in education, the workforce, and in politics. Pandering that ol’ liberal mantra that freedom and equality can only be enforced through existing power systems, which hint: are patriarchal and enforce oppression in other ways; through authoritarian, economic, and political power. If feminism were just about equal rights for women with men under the law, then there would be no need for feminism any longer after the first wave in the first world, but there is. Ignoring any differing definitions about the meaning of equality, which dismantles and questions authority and hierarchical structures that perpetuate a superior/inferior status, or master/slave power relations between people. Thereby, ignoring how there is a gender hierarchy; with males at the top and females at the bottom; maintained through systemic oppression and religion. And by taking the concept of equality to mean the descriptive, literal, definition of the word; when it comes to there being a truly egalitarian society. This is the same fear mongering tactics used against the concept of equality or egalitarianism by right-wing Libertarians; a vision of a kind of dystopian, conformist, society, where everyone is forced into limited standards so that no one is perceived as being better at something than anyone else. This, coming from a guy who now claims to be a socialist.

He defended the divisiveness you see among humanity brought about by religious tribalism; as if the warring hatred and intolerance between groups of people isn’t a result of this. Rationalizing that it is acceptable for groups of people to believe God created them superior to other groups of people, by comparing this to ideologies being better than other ones, and that it’s inevitable for people to think their beliefs are superior to others. He also defended masculine values of competition, as a part of our human nature to achieve, which cannot be altered. Ignoring the role a divisive and competitive community or humanity leads to hostility, selfishness, egoism, and social Darwinism; which downplays the enduring benefits of a united community of humanity; resolving conflicts by assisting each other, and advancing together as equals; rather than harboring an us vs. them mentality. By dismantling a competitive society, people wouldn’t be left behind to fend for themselves; lower class people wouldn’t be blamed for their situation, and told it’s up to them to get out of it. Materialism and consumerism wouldn’t be valued over human life. People wouldn’t be told they must strive to climb the economic ladder in order to be valued or find value in life. Violence wouldn’t be glorified and celebrated in order to rally people in uniformity against other people’s differences. No one would be dehumanized by being perceived as weak or inferior; domination and oppression would be foreign concepts. Men wouldn’t be expected to prove their manliness through aggression, by being competing killing machines. An egalitarian society wouldn’t rely on a contradictory religious morality, which teaches love and equality, while simultaneously teaching hate and supremacy. Which is really all the point she was trying to make. But he called the positions that he perceived she held, utopian, and demanded that she had to make a well thought out plan to structure society in order to hold these beliefs against male supremacist values that create the conditions in society that oppress women, or else be mocked. Although, a lot of what he accused her of believing didn’t really reflect what she actually said, in fact, he defended the very things he condemned her for doing, such as: believing she was claiming to have superior knowledge about what she believed in, and that she was being divisive in feminism. Even comparing her to a cult leader. It was baffling to me that other leftist men were defending his backwards, clearly misinformed viewpoints, and the resulting witch hunt against feminists for their socio-political views. Something I’ve never seen these leftist men do to other men with similar values who defend feminism, in fact the opposite happens, these men are given support, and vice versa.

Captain Andy also denied religion has ever played any historical role in enforcing patriarchy with male violence and control through organized institutions. Or that men have been perceived as physically, intellectually, morally, and spiritually superior to women within the eyes of a masculine God in religion; who keeps women in a subordinate state for their perceived wickedness. The point she was trying to make was that people are indoctrinated into Islam and other religions in religious societies, where the religious-right has full domination of women and girls with the control of their bodies. Religion teaches unquestioning obedience to authority; that only men can hold superior positions in a religious hierarchy. As well as culture, religion is also a reason why women are forced to be modest and treated as the subordinates to men under what is perceived as God’s commandment; resulting in covering up, genital mutilation, being married off early, sexual slavery, and death for disobeying male authority. But he was also deflecting blame away from men for perpetuating a patriarchal culture, instead putting all the blame on culture for men’s actions against women from a moral relativist point of view. Culture does play a huge role in forming our belief systems, but this doesn’t mean the majority of men shouldn’t be held accountable for benefiting from patriarchy while harming women in the process. To say feminists are creating a conspiracy theory by saying patriarchy is enforced by men collectively participating in the oppression of women since the beginnings of civilization, is no different from MRA propaganda; it infantilizes men for their wrongdoings, portrays them as being an oppressed group, and denies them any personal or collective responsibility in the oppression of women. Banding together with other men in a brotherhood to deny women rights is more than just a mistake; it’s an intentional effort to dominant over another group. Men may have been raised to see themselves as more human than women, but they still contributed to, and continue to perpetuate a system of male supremacy. He used a one-dimensional, old-fashioned definition of patriarchy, which only mentions the rule of the father, but lacks a feminist theory of structural oppression, male domination, or the rule of man as master in society. He then denied that patriarchy exists anymore, using the excuse of there being a ‘kyriarchy‘ instead. And argued that working class men couldn’t have possibly held dominance over women in the past, because they were an oppressed class, basically using a “Not All Men” type of argument. Even though men in the same economic class as women still held dominance over them, because of a gender hierarchy, male violence and control, and the resulting male privilege from this. And, working class men, to this day, try to exclude women in male dominated industries.

Refusing to think outside of the box society has groomed him on how to view the world, he defended war as an inevitable, heroic, part of life; rather than being the biggest example of patriarchal masculinity and imperialism; that ought to be prevented to stop crimes against humanity. Because this feminist woman said she didn’t feel sorry for men who’ve died in world wars and emphasized the fact that women were finally welcomed into the workforce, and were given a chance to gain equal rights because many men were gone; he brought up how past female feminists played a role in pressuring men into going into war, but he didn’t mention how men had a role in voluntarily participating, creating a culture of war, or starting the wars themselves. This isn’t to say that many men weren’t forced into going into war by the state, but if he were really against this, he should hold the position that men should have collectively stood against it; not that men weren’t to blame for the atrocities they’ve caused, such as rape being used as a weapon against the enemy forces women; torture and mass murder. He said instead of condemning men for wars, we should have sympathy and respect for men who fight in wars, because they are protecting us; rather, treating us as their property, and other women as spoils or casualties of war. This isn’t to say that there weren’t ever men with noble intentions trying to defend their loved ones or destroy evil regimes, but in the majority of cases, this is just used as a cover to conquer more land, spread dominance, and gain more resources through male violence; most of the time, complying with the orders of men in a power hierarchy, where the top benefits from their deaths. Her saying that men must hold full responsibility for facing the inevitable consequences of participating in war, is in no way a pro-war stance, as Captain Andy put it, while derailing away from the point that war is a patriarchal institution that must be stood against.

Believing himself to be intellectually superior to the women he disagreed with, he had no problem with belittling us and calling us stupid in response to anything we said, yet while not appropriately refuting our arguments, just cherry picking out of context quotes to fit his limited perceptions. Taking no consideration as to the fact that women are largely stereotyped as stupid, and harshly judged for their intelligence, especially on political matters. I have to admit, that I didn’t make the best of arguments under his video, since I was completely unprepared to deal with his confusing interpretations. I made a few comments under his video inviting him to debate with me on what I thought he was misunderstanding about what she said, to which he intentionally ignored, even liking a comment by someone else who replied to me instead, even though the comment was clearly meant to be directed at Captain Andy. It’s not that he didn’t have the time, or wasn’t obligated to engage with me, as I was told by another dismissive member of the community, he just simply wanted to sit back and watch the drama he started unfold, while dismissing and demonizing anyone who tried to defend her. And later, blocking the woman who he had made the video against, so that she could no longer defend herself. Instead of just blocking and ignoring her to begin with, he wanted to make an example out of her with a video punishing her as a bad feminist, because he really just couldn’t handle debating against her; he found using his position in the community to defame her a lot easier to do. I had never felt so insulted in my life by people who claimed to be my allies and so I expressed this sentiment by saying they could not be feminists, and that they are men, so they could not possibly fully understand what women experience; to which they thought was misandrist.

He has since went on to attack women for their feminist views against prostitution or for being gender critical, demonizing them as ‘TERFs‘ and ‘SWERFs‘. Making ‘intersectionality’ into a sort of call-out competition, which does nothing to actually assist those who are affected by oppression, only to try and bully them for their socio-political viewpoints; further marginalizing and oppressing the people he chooses to not support, such as survivors of the sex trade. In other words, punching down instead of up. It should then come as no surprise a white privileged male like himself would believe nothing could possibly be wrong with men paying for sex with women, who are the majority of buyers, making up most of the demand, in an industry where women are mostly prostituted, and is the most dangerous for women. Men, who are more likely to be more economically and socially powerful than the women they use as sex dolls on their spare time. Reducing sex, something that is deeply intimate and personal, into a simple transaction, and resulting commercialized industry, does nothing to help put an end to gender and economic inequality in society; it only helps to further the sexual exploitation and sexual objectification of the most marginalized and vulnerable women and girls. 

Later on, when I  tried to confront SZ on how I felt ignored and hurt by both him and Captain Andy in the comment section after confronting him on calling women crazy, he went on to say that I was unworthy of his attention, because I was declared a troll by this self-proclaimed feminist. I responded to this by making a witty, semi-trollish, comment, calling out his love for BDSM, by bidding him farewell to go enjoy his torture porn. He used this against me by saying the only reason I was after him was because of his recent show of support for BDSM in one of his videos, even though the entire reason I expressed why I was upset with him was because he ignored the arguments I had made toward him under that exact video. As well as the recent ones I had made under the Captain Andy video that he went on to indirectly mock me behind my back about with his buddies on Twitter, rather than engaging with me. He mocked my concerns saying some people will still complain even when they are being treated equally. I told him in response, having my concerns as a woman in feminism being dismissed and trivialized by a man, is not being treated equally. But in his mind, this was an excuse for him to ignore his male privilege and to not reflect on his actions against members of an oppressed sex class; instead, treating me as if I’m like other oppressive men. One of his fanboys butted in on the dialogue I was having with SZ, mentioning an old 90’s BDSM themed video game to SZ, in which you gain points by whipping the clothes off of a chained up woman, both of them pointing out the absurdity of the creators ever thinking it was a good idea to make it, and that it is obviously sexist, but some how, along with that position, they think people should be uncritical of BDSM in real life; that it’s acceptable within feminist philosophy, and that I shouldn’t say someone who has more education in philosophy than me is less of a feminist than me.

In the then, recent video, where he mentioned BDSM in order to be “progressive”; SZ expressed a wish that if only more people were like people who practiced BDSM, then there would be no rape culture, since he believes they practice consent better than the general population. I found this to be unbelievable, not only because I’m against anything that erotizes sexual abuse, violence, and torture as being considered in any way a superior form of sex, but because we live in a rape culture, and surely any sexual practice or fetish can be subject to it. So I looked up some sources showing people who practice BDSM speaking out against the community for covering up instances of sexual assault, and as it turns out, there are many instances. It makes sense that careless, abusive, misogynistic people would be attracted to, and take advantage of a practice that sexualizes non-consent. Where despite pre-negotiated terms, the line between full, ongoing consent and coercion is often blurry. Not to mention, choking, which poses the risk of death, and becoming unconscious, as well as physical assault in interpersonal relationships, and torture; cannot be legally consented to. When someone is tied up, blind folded, gagged, and being choked, they do not have full control over what happens to them; they are put into a powerless position so that the sadist can get off. He has also opened up to others about how he has hit women in the face before in a sexual context, and that it was okay, because he was aware of what he was doing, unlike those who don’t understand consent. I would argue that abusers are at least somewhat aware they are doing something that is selfish and wrong to do to women, unlike him, which makes him more dangerous. Not having the intention to do wrong doesn’t necessarily mean what you are doing isn’t wrong. The fact that he wants to distance the practice of BDSM from consent violations, while others in the community acknowledge rape culture trends within it, shows he does not truly support sexual assault victims. I wanted to have a respectful discussion about this with him, but he decided to ignore my comment while replying to other ones that didn’t express any disagreement with him. I felt as though my comments must have offended him somehow, that he was upset that I even posted them, and that since I was not a content maker, I was unworthy of any response. In this video he also used a radical feminist on youtube’s personal sex life, to push BDSM as feminist, and to appear as though he is in solidarity with radical feminists against the label ‘sex negative’.

Under this video, I also questioned him on his stance on prostitution, which he said he wasn’t against it, but believed it shouldn’t be legalized. I asked him how could prostitution be separated from sexual objectification, since in a previous video he expressed the position that commodifying women’s bodies is the definition of sexual objectification, then going through a list of images depicting women that he didn’t believe were examples of it, that have long been considered to be sexually objectifying by feminists, such as: the male gaze and portraying women in a dehumanized or subordinate fashion. I also asked about what his views are on survival prostitution. He didn’t really respond to my questions, besides saying sex surrogates are an example of how prostitution isn’t sexually objectifying. I responded by saying having sex isn’t a medical necessity, and that these women’s worth in society is still being determined by the instrumental use of their bodies for sexual purposes. In a culture that highly sexually objectifies women’s bodies, making their bodies into a commodity to be bought and sold into a legitimate profession plays an intrinsic role in perpetuating the belief that women’s worth can be reduced to sexually servicing men; this belief further endangers women into sexual exploitation. Normalizing the commodification of women’s bodies as a positive, even healthy thing, ignores the real damage that results from it. My comment about Belle Knox, who he talked about in the same video, which I will go into later, were also ignored by him, and everyone else who watched his video. So all this made me feel pretty alienated in this youtube feminist community. From what I’ve experienced, it’s more likely that he had a bias against me for my comments; since he purposely avoided them, dismissed me as a troll, made a video against me, and afterwards went after a friend who defended a BDSM critical stance.

This all brings me to some other methods that are used to silence views deemed unworthy of consideration: Herd Mentality, groupthink, mob attacks, and online witch hunts against women. These methods are the most used on social media sites such as youtube in order to try to silence opposing viewpoints, especially feminist ones. Before joining the feminist community, I noticed these methods being used ever since I first began using youtube, while observing a small cult on it that was run by a narcissistic man. I found out later that this was an all too common practice. Basically any type of criticism or questioning of certain admired content makers, or of any of the positions they hold dear, is never allowed by them or their devoted fans. And with youtube and social media pop-feminism, there are certain topics that are declared protected from feminist critique, such as: BDSM and prostitution (“sex work”), unless they are being propped up in a “choice feminist” framework, rather than acknowledging patriarchal socialization and oppression.

While all of this was going on, SZ was set to host an all female panel hangout with some young, female feminists on youtube to discuss prostitution, all this being his great male ally idea, because debating whether men should have the right to use women’s bodies for their own sexual gratification is such a fun topic to debate about! Making these young women feel obligated to give their opinions on it for the feminist community, while potentially creating drama in the process; as is what always results when the topic of prostitution is brought up on youtube. But before this, there was another small hangout with some other prominent members in the feminist community. And because a feminist named, Buntzums, didn’t show up, and because she defended the feminist who was being demonized earlier, they decided to gossip about what happened earlier under the Captain Andy video, and to use this against her. She was labeled as crazy for her actions by both Hannibal and SZ in this hangout. This type of drama should have absolutely no place in a discussion that was supposed to be about a serious topic. And the reason for her not showing up actually has to do with her not knowing when the hangout was going to be until the last minute, which is highly suspicious. She also had no idea she would be the only one there arguing against prostitution, since SZ isn’t actually against it. Because of this, Buntzums created her own hangouts to discuss prostitution from a feminist abolitionist perspective, since she felt excluded from the other one. You can hear her account of how she was treated by SZ and the rest of them here. I can also say that I never saw a notification in the feed for what time the hangout was going to occur.

SZ then went on to make the attack video on me and others who also expressed concern for his behavior and stood up for the feminist who was being character assassinated by them earlier. Associating us with her as a terrorist, and slandering us as unintelligent trolls, as well as sharing private messages from Buntzums, after telling her he has never, and would never, share private messages. This is the attack video I mentioned earlier where he defended calling feminist women he disagreed with crazy, comparing this to calling religious extremist terrorists crazy, because they’re irrational; as if mental illness or religious beliefs don’t make people irrational; contradicting himself about how people should focus on the hate ideologies that motivate violence, instead of just excusing the perpetrators as crazy. In this video he named something along the lines of ‘Clearing the Air’, but it was really just him putting fuel on the fire. He said Buntzums was lying about what had happened, that she lied about him excluding her from the chat, and that this was all just a scheme against him to make him look bad; even though his actions prove to be incredibly irresponsible, and he was the one using his position in the youtube community to target us. He felt victimized as a male ‘feminist’, when all she had requested from him was for him to leave us alone and to focus on helping women instead.

And to be clear, Buntzums and another user named, MRAsExposed, are entertainers on youtube, but also hold serious positions against the sex trade. But he wanted to create an image in people’s minds of them being tricksters, when they only play as tricksters on youtube. In other words, he was trying to make others not want to take them seriously, as he has done before by calling feminists ‘crazy’ and trolls. Even comparing MRAsExposed to an MRA, because he said if he had a daughter he wouldn’t want her to go into the sex trade because of the risks involved. He wanted to lump us all together as examples of bad feminists in the youtube community, and that we are basically just prudes, even though he has tried to make it out like he is against calling feminists ‘sex negative’ before. No one should be punished like this simply for defending themselves or someone else, or simply for questioning a content maker on their positions or behavior. Attempting to publicly shame us for these things was more of an attack on our viewpoints; to make us targets in the atheist, feminist, and MRA communities.

We decided to refrain from continuing any drama by not reacting to any attacks made against us or interacting with those involved. And mostly because we really just didn’t have the time, nor the energy to deal with it. This has in a way, swept what has happened to us under the rug, but it’s also important to warn others about some dangerous youtube users, which is why I made this blog. These videos against us portraying us as extremists, rather than opening up a dialogue, were shown overwhelming support. We were victims of ostracization in this youtube ‘feminist’ community, this is not the way people should be dealing with different ideas.

SequesterZone’s next move went to an even more disturbing low. A youtube contributor, RepublicofSandles, who is very critical of BDSM, found out about the drama that was going on. I explained how SZ was treating us, as well as his positions on BDSM, but ROS didn’t know who SZ was, so most likely thought he was an anti-feminist from what they heard about him. When ROS went to look him up, they mistook a video where SZ used the audio of an MRA’s voice, as being SZ’s voice. Even though it was a pretty simple, understandable, mistake; the argument ROS made against him was still sound, since SZ was being hypocritical about his stated allyship with feminist critiques of pornography and other forms of sexist media, which is what the MRA was speaking against. But, this one comment was turned into a weapon to be used in order to bully ROS, by the defensive SZ, in the same mocking styled video that he made of the MRA. Using the audio from an old video ROS had just uploaded against BDSM, which wasn’t a response to SZ, and the comment ROS made to SZ didn’t even mention BDSM. He used a slideshow of stupid memes, along with a screenshot of ROS’s comment, to make ROS out like an idiot, but not once responding to any of ROS’s points, just simply ending the video with a slide about BDSM being ‘safe, sane, and consensual’; a cult like mantra used to prohibit any questioning of BDSM ethics.

I think he put this video up for attack because he saw it as a personal attack on him for his position on BDSM, and as an invite to battle. All because ROS defended an anti-BDSM position by uploading the video in solidarity after only a few comments I made toward SZ that went against his narrative about it being perfect. And because this video didn’t make a positive view of BDSM, he made a video in order to target the video for attack, and anyone else who wants to express criticism of BDSM, or disagree with him on anything, into being intimidated into silence. Under the comment section of his trollish video, his fans were joining in on undermining ROS for being asexual and having Asperger’s syndrome, as if these personal things disqualified ROS from having any position on BDSM. Coming from the position that BDSM is a sexuality, instead of a practice or personal preference, they used ROS’s sexual orientation as an attack, by saying ROS can’t understand sexuality as an asexual. Asexuality isn’t a misunderstanding of sexuality, it is an absence of sexual interest in others, there are many asexuals in the BDSM community. ROS is not a child and shouldn’t be treated like they can’t make well informed opinions about anything pertaining to sexual activity or fetishes. The message from all this really being, that it is wrong to dislike BDSM, that it’s wrong to only want to promote healthy and equal relationships; devoid of violence, dominance, sexism, and misogyny. And that there can be absolutely no feminist analysis of it, because of a key word used in the movement: ‘consent’. Consent is not the be all end all when it comes to determining whether sexual things are liberating women from patriarchy, for example, it is possible for women to objectify themselves, internalizing the gendered belief that their only worth is connected to their sexuality. It’s also important to take into consideration that under authoritarian systems, there is a construction of consent and manufacturing of consent, with the use of traditional societal norms, and cultural influences that people are born into. The defense of consent, contrasts with the issue I originally brought up to SZ about BDSM, which was simply about the community not being immune to rape culture, because of the consent violations frequently occurring within it. But, apparently, he considered this to be causing trouble simply for talking about sexual assaults within the BDSM community, which he believes isn’t possible within BDSM, because the ideology of it being an acceptable practice relies on completely separating sexual assault from it. This is a reason why victims have so many problems bringing up their issues and are blamed for their assaults such as, not saying the safe word in time.

The troll video that was used to bully ROS, and target anyone who might consider criticizing BDSM, was basically an invite for his fans and other onlookers to attack ROS’s video, making way for the potential for dogpiling; with SZ silently standing by on the side lines. Knowing full well only very few other people, and myself, would be on that video defending it without a pro-BDSM stance. Just as MRAs do to feminists who have small followings, these male ‘feminists’ are really no different when it comes to targeting feminists who disagree with or question their view points. There were three so called, male feminists, who decided it was their duty to use their privileged positions to put us in our place for openly speaking about BDSM being linked to an oppressive, authoritarian culture, or an abusive upbringing. Anything we said about BDSM having ties to misogyny, racism, and other forms of oppression were dismissed as bigotry, especially by another male feminist known as, UnseenPerfidy, who thought by just repeating that we are bigots over and over again in response to anything we said, was an excuse to get everyone else to hate us and avoid actually arguing or thinking about the points being presented. 

One point I tried to explain to him, that he continually refused to acknowledge; was that BDSM is not healthy for those with PTSD and abuse victims, because becoming addicted to the thrill of domination or self harm, is a compulsion to repeat trauma, which could also easily trigger it. And in a Christian Grey type of fashion, lead to the abuse of others; continuing a cycle of abuse. This is because I was told by SZ that BDSM is therapeutic for abuse victims, in response to me sharing a link on how BDSM is unhealthy for those with mental illness who use it to self-harm or mutilate themselves. As an abuse victim who suffers from mental illness, and possibly PTSD, I found it very offensive that a practice which uses self defeating terminology, oppressive slurs, and physical harm, would be considered at all therapeutic for past abuse. When I told UnseenPerfidy that I know what abuse is as someone who has experienced abuse in the past, because he accused me of not understanding what abuse is, he then accused me of trying to speak for all victims of abuse, and said I had to be lying about my abuse in order to have the position that BDSM is or can be abusive. He then went on to say that I deserved worse than being called stupid because of this.

This is not what someone who claims to be a feminist against harassment should be saying to an abuse victim, who has only just recently, before and after this event, experienced online abuse from their ex-boyfriend; who mocked my past sexual abuse in arguments, later using the excuse that he thought I was lying about it. I’ve also been called stupid many times by the person who sexually abused me as a child. And have had to witness MRAs online saying women are abused and get raped for being stupid. Yet, UnseenPerfidy has been held up as a defender against harassers in the online feminist community. And has gained sympathy from the community when MRAs accused him of lying about being raped; this being used an example of how abusive MRAs are to rape victims who are feminists. I guess being against or offended by depictions of dehumanization, as an abuse victim of misogynistic oppression, doesn’t grant you that same respect. Because the BDSM community is considered a minority group, they somehow carry the same oppressed status as actual oppressed groups, even though they fetishize what oppressed people suffer from. After this he called me a horrible, vile, piece of shit in a private message before blocking me. I was never disrespectful toward him in this way, I was again, only trying to have a respectful discussion, despite all the unbelievable attacks against the wonderful feminists and allies that I had witnessed. I’m amazed I even kept my cool as much as I did, perhaps because I knew it was their intentions to upset me, which is sick, especially for grown men to be doing this.

I was told by another male user, XCBeskow, that questioning whether someone is misogynistic for getting pleasure out of the thought of women being tortured is, by far more creepy than if the person actually is, because it is trying to “go into their head”. Apparently women trying to avoid dangerous men are just bigoted against their sexuality. These male “feminists” want to give out the message that it is perfectly alright for men to get off to the thought of women being abused and tortured, and that this type of dehumanizing media doesn’t trivialize, nor encourage, violence against women. He made sure to let me know what a horrible radical feminist I was, which meant I deserved no respect, because I’m not as opened minded about sex like how all the real, hip, modern feminists are; who’ve been raised on hypersexualized media all their life, associating sexual objectification and appeasing male sexual entitlement with sexuality. Our understanding of sexuality is still subject to sexist socialization, just as anything else is in society. It’s important for feminists to acknowledge power relations when it comes to sexual activities, not to blindly embrace anything considered sexual as being progressive. Whether women are expected to always be sexually appealing/available for men’s sexual access to them, and open to all degrading forms of pornographic sex, or expected to be child bearers and chaste to live up to the feminine ideal; they’re still both two sides of the same coin of men controlling women’s sexuality in a patriarchal society, with the virgin/whore dichotomy.

The violence that happens in pornography are more than just fantasy, they have real destructive effects on society, and onto the “sex workers” whose bodies are used to act it out on to meet the demand. They reinforce rape myths and misogynistic beliefs; reflecting what men really think of women in society. The history of sadomasochistic media has been that of glorifying femicide; mutilating and disemboweling women’s bodies. And having a sexist culture within it, by making use of gender stereotypes of masculine and feminine, as master and slave roles. As is seen in the Gorean lifestylers cult, with a philosophy built around the idea that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally submissive; whose life’s purpose is to serve the men who enslave them. And, of course, modern sadomasochism has it’s roots in the work of Marquis De Sade, a sociopath of the 18th century who committed crimes against women; paving the way for novels which included sexual abuse, torture, and femicide to be considered erotic. Like the ‘Story of O’, inspired by Sade’s work, involving an ending with the submissive O getting permission from her ‘master’ to commit suicide. Or from the more recent “erotic” novel, Fifty Shades of Grey, which involved a powerful, wealthy, sadistic man pushing a slave contract onto a young, naive, woman; romanticizing domestic abuse and consent violations. It’s about time this type of media is talked about openly; violent and sexist depictions of women are very common, and are a reactionary response to women gaining equal status in society; it has nothing to do with respecting women’s rights. Time is already running out, when these sadomasochistic fantasies have led to the rape and murder of women just after this recorded drama happened; as in Ireland in the case of Graham Dwyer with the influence of the Gor series, as well as Julian Ghomeshi using the defense of BDSM after being accused of violent rape by multiple women; and after the popularization of Fifty Shades of Grey, in multiple cases men got away with rape by using the defense that they were practicing “rough sex”. This shows that fantasy can blend in with reality and that associating violence with a sexual preference gives men an excuse to violently rape women by blaming them for it. 

If the atheist community is truly about free thought, then they should allow critical thought of BDSM and the communities’ ethics, not condemn any position that isn’t completely for it. Because we don’t comply to the demands of accepting a torture fetish as a sexual orientation, or tolerate those who get off on dehumanization, we are considered oppressive enough to have our views silenced. Their argument for this being domination and submission are an innate part of human sexuality, and we shouldn’t care about what people do sexually behind closed doors, even though BDSM isn’t always sexual or private, and has been accepted into the mainstream media. In fact, many BDSM practitioners are quite explicit about BDSM being mainly about domination and submission, rather than it being about sex. How this can be considered feminist, is a complete perversion of the goals of feminism. Women accepting submissive roles are not fighting their oppression, they are complying with a role that has been pushed on them. Playing with dominant and submissive roles is not subversive; it continues a cycle of domination and submission in how people relate to each other in society. We were not hating on people who practice BDSM. All these people demonizing us on ROS’s video reject basic feminist and egalitarian principles.

And then there is the male ally named, HannibaltheVictor13, who at least admits he isn’t a feminist, yet still somehow in our culture has had an authoritative position on the subject by promoting “sex work” and pornography as empowering, feminist, choices for women. I wonder how this can be? Men like this have co-opted women’s sexual liberation as an excuse to be open about their own sexual perversions, and to make males’ sexual access to women’s bodies a human right. He has been very open about his love for “sex work”, not being shy about sharing pornography pages on his social media accounts, and encouraging teenagers to go into the porn industry as an empowering choice. These men have had live open chats with other men defending and debating the merits of feminism with very little, to no female representation; they did it because they knew it is seen as okay for men to dominate the feminist discourse in our culture in the name of equality. This man believes any feminist who doesn’t think women can be empowered through hardcore, face-fuck pornography, or living off the avails of sexually servicing men, are no more than prudes and bigots. Really keeping up the tradition of keeping a subclass of women for sexual use and abuse since ancient Greco-Roman times. Preserving man’s sexual right and freedom to dominate the bodies of lower class women and girls doomed to sexual servitude.

This is evidenced by his and SZ’s promotion of Bell Knox, famous for being bullied by men from her college who found out she was performing in pornography in order to pay her way through college. The media blew up over this story with the porn industry as the hero and her as a slut-shamed victim, pushing her into the spotlight as a representative for the porn industry, even though she was only a beginner at the young age of 18 years of old. Hannibal and SZ dismissed any constructive criticism of her from more experienced porn workers who were concerned for her wellbeing, by calling it slut shaming. And by not giving the whole story behind her career, which actually involves coercion from her porn producer, who didn’t let her know the man she’d be performing with was a lot older than her, even though she let her producer know beforehand that she didn’t want to perform with someone that age. Understandably, she created a scene, getting angry and crying because of it, then feeling pressured into doing it by the producer, because she was already there at the shoot, and thought it would reflect badly on her in the business if she left, which it would. I’m assuming these male “feminists” knew about this, since they complained about the male performer who complained about her behavior, so why would they support it?

This woman is obviously too young to give any experienced opinion on the porn industry and was basically forced into a position of showing the industry in only a positive light, with the promise of fame and fortune, despite having been clearly uncomfortable in some situations within the industry. As I pointed out before, she was in desperate need of the money to pay off student loans. The porn industry made sure to take advantage of the opportunity to use her image as a feminist working towards a degree in women’s studies to promote pornography as feminist to the public. One of the porn sites she performed for when just starting out in the industry, as many women are initiated into when entering the porn business, was a violent porn site called ‘Facial Abuse’, where they verbally abused her, calling her fat, stupid, and a feminazi; before physically abusing her in the shoot. Clearly in pain and not liking how she was being treated, they told her they had to keep going after she told them to stop, violently forcing a penis into her throat when she showed resistance. The message these male ‘feminists’ were giving out is that, if a woman submits to being degraded for men’s sadistic pleasure, then it makes it perfectly okay, even feminist. A man who claims to be an ally to feminism, who seeks the equal status of women in society, can not also support the sexual objectification of women through misogynistic, violent, and degrading pornography at the same time.

After these revelations how can anyone say these men truly care about women? Not to mention, after all this Hannibal had the nerve to put all the attention onto his feelings when it came to anti-feminist hatred, this is because feminist Buntzums dared to create her own hangout chat to talk about issues surrounding prostitution, rightfully defending herself against the gossip about her and the drama that had happened earlier. More concerned with how this makes him look as a male ally, while being completely unsympathetic to how any of it negatively impacts us as women and feminists who are targeted by MRAs. Clearly, only women who comply with them are worthy of protection from this hate group. He even equated hating ‘some men’ to misandry, when criticizing us. Thankfully, some people called him out for that, but have any of these fans called these men out for any of the other things I’ve mentioned here and stopped giving them their support? Most likely not, because to them youtube is all a show, and video makers who have a substantial following know this.

(It has been revealed since then that HannibaltheVictor13, who has now destroyed his youtube channel, is a sex offender. A screenshot of his court file is here, he was grooming a girl under the age of 16 for sexual abuse online. It’s no surprise then, that he has made videos in support of prostitution, the porn industry, and eradicating age of consent laws under the guise of being progressive. Saying things like, the sex trafficking of minors connected to the sex trade is an overblown issue made up by prostitution abolitionists. What he really meant to say is that; those under the age of consent should be able to consent to the sex industry.)

What these men have proven to me is that they do not truly care for, nor do they actually understand female’s lived experience. This isn’t an attack on them simply for being men, as they would like to frame it, I liked their content before I realized how they operate. They will use bullying tactics and create videos against you in order to publicly shame you for your views, to make you feel even more afraid to speak your mind in an anti-feminist environment, while at the same time claiming to understand what women go through on the internet and outside of it. Even if a person were to only make a few comments disagreeing with them like I did, they’re still at risk for this public humiliation. Of course, there are women in the ‘SJW’ community who do the same thing, but usually these women are also in alliance with these kinds of men when they attack other women. These tactics are one of the biggest reasons why I avoided MRA videos like the plague; I didn’t want to end up as some laughing stock for hate-filled men for having the courage to defend women, but it ended up happening anyways by people who claim to want to protect women from harassment. Women should never have to expect or excuse this type of treatment just because they are on the internet.

The biggest lesson I’ve learned from this experience, is to never fully trust men on the subject of feminism, especially not on social media. Even though these men think they can put down amateur female feminists as bad representations of feminism, they will never be in the same qualified position in the movement to talk about the oppression these women have experienced for themselves. A better learning experience comes from reading feminist material written by women for women, and learning from past feminists on what they believe is needed to achieve women’s liberation, not listening to what a man thinks you should do, especially when they won’t even put in the effort to listen to us. Older women have had to put up with a lot more of men’s bullshit in their lifetimes than younger women have, and their generations put up a good fight to create the foundations young women enjoy today, their wisdom can only be beneficial to the movement. There’s always a lot more to learn and explore on the subject and history of Feminism, don’t allow feminist ideas to be restricted by neoliberal principles.

This, as well as countless other examples, show how men within positions of leadership in the feminist movement is problematic, and at worst, dangerous to vulnerable women. There are many misogynistic leftist men, it’s not too far fetched for women to believe there are men joining the movement for the wrong purposes, and we have every right to exclude them as the privileged, oppressor, sex class. There are various reasons for us women to become suspicious of men in the movement. Men don’t just lose all of their male socialization and privilege simply by labeling themselves as feminist, or because they are interested in feminism. That is why female only spaces in feminism are so essential, women need a safe space to talk among ourselves for our well being and consciousness raising, without the interference of men hovering over us and trying to assert themselves in the movement. Fighting back against patriarchy is a constant struggle, which is why Feminism needs female only spaces for women who have been deeply harmed by misogyny to discuss our issues; not a space where men think they have the authority to talk down to us on what we think causes or constitutes our own oppression. Although feminism is an important subject everyone can benefit from properly learning from, or debating on in an academic setting, and it’s better for men to be pro-feminist; the movement isn’t obligated to be inclusive of men, and I think that is what makes it so threatening to them. Men already dominate enough space in this world, feminism should only serve as a barrier to this cultural trend.

Even where women only spaces are not possible, like on websites such as youtube, more importance still needs to be put onto men respecting women’s boundaries and women gaining sisterhood in the feminist movement. Women organizing and supporting each other is the best and most effective way to combat patriarchy. Internalized misogyny doesn’t go away easily, we have to keep in mind that women need other women to believe and support them, since society already neglects to this. Catering to men’s agendas instead of doing this only benefits men, while increasing the suffering many women experience already under misogynistic oppression. Women who are more willing to align themselves with men will eventually get stabbed in the back, betrayed, or disappointed in some way, because male privilege and socialization runs so deep in society. Men are much more able to get away with their wrongdoings without a strong sisterhood to expose them. So called feminist men who target feminist women for their opinions act no different than anti-feminist dudebros. We do not have to be totally accepting and unquestioning of men simply for doing the bare minimum in the movement. Your feminism isn’t bad or harmful if it doesn’t please or isn’t approved by men. Women are not obligated to ally with men who treat them poorly in the name of feminism. Liberating ourselves from male oppression is far more important than focusing on collaborating with men to maintain an image that feminism sees men as our equals; since we live in an unequal society, this only gives men a free pass to ignore their place in the oppressor class.

I hope from this blog, other feminist women, as well as men who wish to be good allies, will reevaluate their staunch support and idolization of male voices in the movement, especially if they are being favored over women’s voices. Marginalized women have it rough enough already, they don’t deserve to be put down even further through humiliation and silencing by men with more power, who have gained status for themselves under the guise of equality; in a movement that is largely supposed to be for the benefit of women. Men should not be spending their time policing and dictating feminism to women in the movement, they should first be policing their own, and other men’s behavior. Leave us women to manage the internal politics ourselves, don’t drag us into the drama that you’ve created which further divides women in a movement that is meant to bring us together. This solution will produce far better results in the ongoing saga of the ‘battle between the sexes’.

~ wolfwomanofthenorth

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*UPDATE*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ (6/4/2015)

I started this blog post in April, taking my time to accurately detail the events that took place in the Fall the previous year as best as possible, and before I could even publish it, everything I wanted to warn female feminists about with men in the movement had been revealed in the online yt community, although not completely. Which was actually a pretty short period of time since these last recorded events. Which takes the total up to around 6 women who have been targeted by SZ, other than a few MRAs he has made videos against.

SZ added another female feminist onto his hit list, except this woman, who will be called EB in the blog, was once his friend and she had protected him before when I expressed my issues with him. I don’t think I could have prevented this from happening, and some women really don’t understand until it happens to them personally. When a man positions himself as such a vehement supporter of feminism, it can be difficult to see them as abusive to those they claim to defend. Unfortunately, in this male dominated world, it happens all the time. And I can understand why she would want to maintain friendships with the men in a male dominated space as a token woman feminist of the community, not that I agree with that. She was accused of harassing him because she had realized what an abusive and disrespectful person he really is, and decided to tell some friends about it, who also decided they wanted to distance themselves from him as well. She and others had a problem with his constant rudeness with people whom he disagreed with in the community, as is what I had problem with as well. She also expressed concern for his behavior toward another female feminist in an interaction, because it seemed sexual in nature and the woman was 18 years old, SZ probably being in his 30’s or early 40’s. He flirted with an 18 year old, using the excuse that he sees her as an autonomous human being; this trivializes the problem of older men sexualizing and flirting with teenagers. His position on this is more comparable to claiming to be a victim of creep shaming discrimination. He also believes 16 year olds, or in some cases, teens under the age of consent, can consent to sex with adults over the age of 20, as many male feminists on social media I’ve witnessed do.

Now it turns out the young woman who she thought SZ was being inappropriate or disrespectful toward, was not hurt or offended by him, but this young woman did come out saying she has experienced sexual harassment from other male feminists in the community, and apparently it is quite a problem, especially among bigger youtubers. But because another female feminist even suggested that SZ might have been inappropriate toward another woman, and proposed that he may really not be a good feminist ally from her experiences with him, EB became just another horrible feminist to this man and his devoted supporters. So he took it upon himself to use the power of his feminist platform to make a video about her in order to defame her in the eyes of the community, just like he has easily done to other feminists who had a problem with him before. He claimed they were accusing him of sexual harassment and because of this, he was a victim of harassment for these accusations, and for being kicked out of chat groups. He, of course, never showed any proper evidence of being harassed; using his skills of persuasion to get people to only believe his twisted version of events.

So, because she expressed some red flags she saw from him to people, he wanted to punish her by giving out personal details about her to the public in a video, that he had learned from her in confidence through their private online interactions. All of which have no bearing on whether she is actually a bad person who just wants to harass him or not. Such as: having a mental illness, a lack of friends, no contact with family, no job, lack of ambition for future, and substance use; using these details to go as far as to accuse her of being a sociopath who was just jealous and obsessed over him, so all these concerns of hers were just crazy false allegations. Unsurprisingly, another male ally I spoke about here, HannibaltheVictor13, decided he needed to weigh in on this unruly woman too. Taking SZ’s side of her being a sociopath, he says there is evidence in a lack of emotion he perceived in her videos, that he thought was a result of past abuse she had experienced as a child. I don’t know much of EB, but from what I’ve seen of her in her videos and text, you can tell she is an introverted, timid, intelligent, kind, and empathetic person who cares about women’s rights. He basically blamed her past abuse for her supposed attacks on SZ, of her being a bad person, and ultimately, the attacks made against her. Again, only bringing the attention onto their male feelings as allies to feminism; that they put so much effort into being good allies, so we should just bow down, respect that, and never portray them in a negative way. These men have successfully deluded themselves into being good allies to women in feminism, whether we agree with it or not, and because they are all we got of men on youtube defending it. Apparently, us women online are too unreal for them, only their interactions with individual women in their personal lives offline can prove to them how good of male allies of feminism they really are. This sense of grandiosity with being allies to women has led them to believe they can accuse a woman of lying about being raped and get away with it, even be believed. Which is what happened when they accused EB of lying about being raped, after accusing her of having sociopathy. EB had made a video opening up about being raped at a party when she was under the influence of alcohol after popular, anti-feminist, atheist, Thunderf00t, made a video blaming women for date rape, and saying women were just regretting drunk sex. These men also made videos after this, speaking out against disbelieving rape victims, but once they’ve proclaimed a woman as a bad person who shouldn’t be believed, they’re not condemned in the same way as MRAs are. Another male user on youtube named, Bewildered Ape, who has tried to ally himself with feminists, also took these men’s side accusing her of being a sociopath who lied about being raped. This is extremely low, and dirty, coming from the same men who once supported her and her video opening up about being raped, which shows these men’s true character.

EB and SZ were never in any real relationship, but he and others were treating it like this was just about a jealous woman’s revenge. Even when she had expressed that she was unsure about being with him, was distrustful of him from their interactions, and wanted no contact with him anymore; this shows she wasn’t attacking SZ because of jealousy or because of a break up. He was the one trying to convince her to move in with him, because of her financial situation. I see this as an attempt to rule over her life while disguising himself as her savior, claiming to feel the need to protect and care for her, because he is so convinced that she can’t take care of herself, so he believes he needs to tell her how she should live her life, and that she is worthless without him. Many young adults, like myself, are in the same situation as she is, it’s nothing unusual, and devaluing someone because of these things is extremely unhelpful. I can see why she wouldn’t want an older man trying to take care of her as a young woman. That doesn’t spark encouragement in women, as he claims he wants to put in her, it’s incredibly discouraging for a young woman to feel parented by a man a lot older than them, and there is a high risk of women being taken advantage of in this way. He then blames her for having this strong desire to take care of her, and that she was the reason he went and got a job, all the while he has been living off of his ex-girlfriend’s money. EB never wanted to use him in this way; he wanted to gain her trust as a friend in order to get close and personal with her so he could take advantage of her. His ex-girlfriend, who he was with when all the previous drama happened, even spoke out against his shady and abusive ways online; that he has also lied about her and talked about her behind her back to people online, but apparently not even a person who has lived with him, and knows him personally can convince some people.

Once EB opened up about her problems with him, he expressed how he was angry with her, deciding to go after her when she only wanted to distance herself from him. This created fear in EB about speaking out more. In his videos about her, he kept trying to distance himself from abuse by constantly making excuses for his behavior, bringing up how he had an abusive father as a child, so he knows what abuse is, disqualifying him as an abuser. Keeping up the pattern of ableism in order to character assassinate, he used her mental health issues against her, because he perceived this as a weakness to attack, instead of being considerate toward her issues. One of these mental health issues is called agoraphobia, which is something I’ve suffered from as well, and know how difficult and misunderstood it is to have in this society. You see, SZ wanted to use his status as a feminist in order to identify his way out of the oppressor class to get with away with abusive behavior, while comparing anyone who has a problem with his behavior to MRAs, sorry, but we don’t share the same ideas and behavior as them, it’s SZ who has proven he does. Even teaming up with them in his hate campaign against feminists by joining a hangout chat with them, since demonizing online feminists is so acceptable and popular online.

He wanted to create a sob story for himself as a victim of online feminists, claiming everything he has done against other feminists that he disagrees with, was actually done to him by them. Deflecting blame away from himself and never taking responsibility for his own actions. All the while gaining a pity party from his fan base, other female feminists, and of course, MRAs. It makes sense that a man who makes his feelings out to be the most important issue, while putting down a female feminist as a straw feminist, to gain the same victim status as women who are actually subjected to online harassment, would be believed and supported by the MRAs. These chauvinistic male feminists want women to stay meek and humble with them in order to be considered good feminists, otherwise be punished for our perceived uppitiness. After he threatened a video against her, she destroyed her channel in order to avoid harassment. She wanted nothing to do with him anymore, especially not the attention from the public from what would result from it. This is proven by her leaving groups in order to avoid him. Yet, in the dog eat dog atmosphere of youtube, she was condemned for refusing to play his vengeful game. He has proven that he has no respect for her boundaries, even feeling comfortable saying he had people spying on her interactions with other people, and saying he can see what she posts even if she has a private twitter account. As well as trying to contact her multiple times after she had told him not to, and threatening that he is going to continue to do so. This should be considered a form of harassment and male control, at the very least, an invasion of privacy. But despite all this, him dead naming a transgender male was considered the worst thing that he did according to the, mostly male, youtube feminist community; not even the fact that he even went to search for this person’s private information. This proves that the SJW community cares more about PC violations than actual justice.

The support SZ got from the community from all this, proves that only certain privileged members in the community will be respected, where men can feel comfortable creating smear campaigns against women without facing any repercussions. This is all a great example of what I’ve detailed in this blog post. It was also brought to my attention that he lied to EB about being a submissive in BDSM, I think this, as well as what I described in my blog, show how he is actually a sadist, not a switch, as he has claimed before. This completely turns his credibility as a compassionate ally to women’s oppression on it’s head, when he can’t help but get turned on by the thought of dominating over them. It was also found out that he lied about having a master’s degree in philosophy, which is important, because he was using this claim to higher education against me and other people in order to make us seem uneducated and stupid. His ex-girlfriend has also opened up about his offline emotional and physical abuse of her; choking and being pulled by the hair. From what I heard she also showed proof of this. After claiming to be done with youtube feminism, he couldn’t help himself but to engage in more drama against a targeted woman, joining a hangout with other male “allies” or MRAs, drawing misogynistic things on a screenshot of a feminist youtuber who is currently being targeted by hoards of anti-feminists attempting to dox her. Towards the end of the video, the older men in the hangout hypocritically spoke out against exactly what they were doing by hosting and participating in a chat to harass Jenny. This hangout has always been a sort of boy’s club, where these male “allies” were hosted to talk about feminism. It makes sense that it would end up turning into a fully misogynistic hangout eventually. This brings the total up to 8 women SZ has targeted for abuse, including his ex-girlfriend. He has also threatened to dox someone for replying to his comments.

(SequesterZone, or Christopher Roberts/Amarus, made most of his videos private, especially the ones where he is abusive in. This is because he wanted to hide the videos that might make a bad impression on him for his new website and video projects. So I can not link to the videos and some of the comments that were mentioned in this blog post, this makes the events detailed rather confusing, but those involved should know which ones I’m speaking of.)

(After this, he has now completely deleted his SequesterZone channel and his newer video review channel. HannibaltheVictor13 and UnseenPerfidy are no longer on youtube as well.)

You can learn more about this here, on a blog called Mancheeze created by a radical feminist who also knows how male “feminists/allies” operate. She’s a badass who battles against MRAs on an almost daily basis, and who was also made a target by yt communities in the past for her views against prostitution as an exited woman. And most importantly, the feminist in question, using the name, extremelyboring, gives her account of the situation in the comment section of this blog post, which has more truth in it than SZ’s hour long rants put together. The fact that her version of events, as well as her character, are being devalued over a much louder one from a man in a trusted feminist position, speaks volumes as to the current pop-feminist, social media atmosphere.