TRIGGER WARNING:
While the Internet can be and is a pretty amazing place at times, it can’t be denied that it also has its downsides: the proliferation of porn would be one example of the Net’s more negative features, and the fact that anyone with a keyboard and the ability to read and write (no matter how appallingly) can contribute to it if they want.
If you want to know what, or indeed who I mean by that last statement, you need look no further than Bob. Because Bob’s got himself a blog, a blog which he uses to spew out the most misogynistic, woman-hating poison you’re ever likely to come across.
Now before I go any further with this I’ll admit that I’ve been conflicted about whether or not to write about this guy since I set this blog up nearly a year ago. On the one hand I don’t want to give Bob any publicity or send any traffic to his site, but on the other hand I think some people really need to understand the sort of shite we have to deal with. And by “we” I don’t just mean feminists, or even radical feminists, I mean women.
Because Bob and his ilk hate every last one of us. They hate us so much they want us dead.
I first came across Bob’s site when I was doing some research for my much maligned Comment is Free piece on family annihilators, and at first I honestly thought it was a spoof. But I’ve been checking in on the site pretty regularly ever since, and I’m horrified to say it’s not. This guy’s for real.
The blog post that caught my eye that first time was a charming piece Bob had written entitled: Dead cunts don’t get custody. In this Bob wrote about the very men my article had been dealing with, men who kill their families and sometimes themselves as well, out of some kind of sick desire for revenge against their ex wives or partners. But unsurprisingly, Bob’s analysis of the issue was somewhat different from mine:
But in our radical femiNazi illegal system, the SS Gestapo tries to steal the father’s children and give them to the criminal bitch who destroyed his family. He, not she, is treated like a criminal. He is routinely bound into indentured servitude, a form of slavery, and forced to pay her for destroying his family. Many men are rounded up and sent to illegal debtor’s prisons if they are unable to pay the illegal slavery payments. In the face of the pervasive criminal organizations that back up the feminist females, there are only a few viable options left for men who would not be slaves.
The first and most final option is to remember that dead cunts don’t get custody. In keeping with sacred religious teachings and practical experience, real men need to fight to protect our children. Real men don’t let our children be dragged off to suffer and fail under the “custody” of a lying cunt who destroyed their family.
In Bolingbrook, Ill, Drew Peterson discovered that his wife, Stacy, was hell bent on destroying his family. Rather than to go quietly into slavery while his children were taken to suffer and perhaps die, Mr. Peterson fought back. He refused to go quietly into slavery. He refused to sit quietly while lieyers and agents of Satan in black robes destroyed his family and stole his children. Now the blue gun thugs (“blue gun thugs” is a term Bob uses for the police) are hunting for Mrs. Bitch Stacy’s body. May they never find it. Dead cunts don’t get custody.
See what I mean?
Bob claims on his site that his posts are purely rhetorical in nature, and that they shouldn’t be misconstrued. Apparently he doesn’t advocate insurrection, sedition, murder, violence or assault, or any other criminal or illegal act.
Well I beg to differ.
Take last week’s contribution for example: The Femnazi Hate War Heats Up, where Bob blogged about a recent series of multiple murders, and where he did what I didn’t think was possible and surpassed his Dead cunts don’t get custody piece for pure unadulterated misogyny, vitriol and hate speech.
On this story about Guillermo Lopez’s killing spree at a Florida birthday party, which left Lopez’s estranged wife Lazara Mendez, and three other people dead, Bob wrote:
March 15, 2009, Miami, FL: A man barged into a birthday party early Sunday, shot his adulterous “cougar” wife, her latest young “boy toy” fuck, her grown whore daughter, and her feminazi mother.
And on this story about Alabama gunman Michael Mclendon’s killing rampage which left 10 people (including his own family) dead, Bob said:
U.S. authorities are trying to deflect understanding of why a man killed 10 feminists in the worst attack in Alabama’s history. The misandrist political liars focused on the grudges that he supposedly bore. Michael McLendon finally had enough. He killed his abusive mother, his matriarchal grandmother, his aunt, two cousins and five others including the wife and daughter of the pig who lived across the street from his matriarchal grandmother. His attack on Tuesday had the hallmarks of a planned attack against the feminist dominated society.
The German school massacre? Here’s Bob:
Lying gun thugs say the gunman entered the school and opened fire, shooting at random. What investigators are lying about is that the shootings were not random. The attack targeted abusive female teachers, female students, and females outside the school. They say he killed nine students, three teachers and a passer-by outside the building, but won’t report the counter attack by a man against abusive dominant females.
But it’s Bob’s conclusion that’s truly scary, and that should be a wake-up call to anyone who believes that feminists like Twisty are lying or exaggerating when they say that some men out there really do hate us:
As the femiNazi hate war on boys and men gets worse and worse, we will see more and more counter attacks against the evil in men’s lives. Some of the men will become become suicide attackers. Some will be killed by the blue gun thugs. At first a few will survive to be sent to some hellhole prisons. As the counter attacks become more common there will be more and more courageous men who wage the war against feminist destruction and live to fight again another day. Many good men will die fighting the femiNazi, as did Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. But their names and their courage will live on.
May they all be blessed with courage and conviction. And may all good men hoist a glass to the martyrs who die fighting against the very violent and destructive femiNazi anti-men hate war.
Chilling isn’t it?
Now obviously I’m not expecting anyone to come on here and start arguing that Bob’s right, or that they’re a fan of his work (note: comments even vaguely supportive of Bob’s twisted views on the world will be deleted, so don’t bother trying); even I can see that Bob’s way off the scale as far as online misogyny is concerned . That’s not what this post is about. My issue, or the reason why I’m blogging this, is that I’m interested to hear what other people think about this guy. Or to be more precise, I want to know what people think about this man’s right to free speech on the Internet.
Because to me Bob’s writing is hate speech: and it’s incitement to violence. And while a part of me thinks it’s useful to be able to see the kind of thinking we’re up against (know your enemy and all that), a big part of me thinks that this kind of stuff shouldn’t be allowed.
And no, I’ve no idea how the Internet could possibly be policed, and no I have no idea who could be trusted with that task. And like I said, I’m not even sure if I think it should be.
I just know that Bob scares the shit out of me.
And I genuinely think he’s dangerous.
And no, I’m not linking. If anyone really wants to go there, you just need to know that Bob lives in a world according to his name. And that’s all the clues you’re getting.
Too Much To Say For Myself 
Heavens there are lots of Bobs around, though they don’t seem to have discovered my little corner of the internetz yet. (I had a male troll once, but he buggered off when I told him the truth about the female orgasm. Probably traumatized, poor love).
I don’t think TBH it makes any difference what Bob says on the internetz. He’s hardly going to influence anyone but himself and his already converted fans who are probably the other 9 MRA bloggers. The Male is probably a bigger threat, though most people who buy the Male (which includes me occasionally) don’t really follow the party line, they get it for the free stuff. Or to enter the competitions, or for the coffee break bit in the middle.
CiF should be banned though…….
But:
Bob claims on his site that his posts are purely rhetorical in nature, and that they shouldn’t be misconstrued. Apparently he doesn’t advocate insurrection, sedition, murder,
Nice try Bob, but it won’t stand up in court.
I suspect that what he’s doing is illegal – incitement – and if that’s right (I’m not a lawyer) then his free speech doesn’t come into it he’s committing a crime and should face the consequences.
He’s not going to have large numbers of followers nor change anyone’s mind but there are two very serious things that his actions could lead to. They could give someone the confidence to go and do something terrible that they might have felt inclined towards but not actually done. And/Or he could work himself into a frenzy and eventually commit terrible acts himself.
If he isn’t already committing them.
Either way it looks to me like there is the potential for this to be more dangerous than just internet ranting.
I think it’s possible this guy might have serious mental problems brought on by some kind of traumatic event. Maybe his personal experiences with child custody issues has warped his mind and made him lose touch with reality.
I don’t know.
But I would have thought his madcap rantings would be much welcomed by feminists. Don’t nutters like Bob expose how much *they* “want you dead”, and justify feminism’s relevance in times when most women seem to run terrified from that label?
Bob is in the US of A it should be pointed out. So I don’t know if the law on incitement is the same as over here. Over here he would have to genuinely want someone to commit the crime to be guilty of incitement. Hence his bizarre disclaimer, though I don’t know what effect it would have legally on t’other side of the Atlantic, if someone took him at his word.
Yep, it’s a US blog, and Bob claims his opinions “are protected political speech under the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution”
Xander_Harris – we don’t ‘need’ any ‘justification’ for feminism; purely living while female is enough.
Maybe his personal experiences with child custody issues has warped his mind and made him lose touch with reality.
Or maybe his ‘warped mind’ had something to play in his custody battles?
Moreover, women haters aren’t mad ( in the psychiatric sense)
I’m a men’s rights activist, and I’m very familiar with Bob (he once labled me a “misandrist” because of my moderate opinions).
The man is a deranged lunatic, and a pariah within the men’s movement.
The problem is, any legislation to ban the Bobs of this world would almost certainly provoke retaliatory action to ban (for example) the SCUM manifesto. Now I can see the difference between the two; but that’s a cultural distinction, not a legal one. Any law that banned Bob and allowed SCUM to stay would essentially be saying that women require a level of protection that big strong men don’t need; a misogynist viewpoint in itself.
So what’s the name of the site?
Sociopaths Unite?
Xander, I’m guessing you are a joke.
Just in case you are not, you might want to consider the possibility that it is the murdering of women that exposes how much misogynists want us dead.
The ranting of the Bobs is just the same old “Submit, or Die” song we have heard every day of our lives, being sung at a higher volume.
Go to an MRA site TBW and you’ll find Bob linked.
Tim
Fair point, although I’d be equally concerned if Bob’s ire was being directed at another group, so it’s not only because he’s hating on women that I find him repugnant.
MRA As Polly points out, he doesn’t seem to be that much of a pariah within the men’s rights movement: quite a few MRA sites link to him.
I guess there’s a free speech issue in terms of whether Bob should be legally allowed to say this stuff in general (or whether it counts as incitement), but that doesn’t mean he has a right to say it where he is doing. Bob’s site is a blogspot, and Google, while reluctant to actively censor, do have a policy on content:
More here: http://www.blogger.com/content.g
I agree with damagedoor – free speech depends on the platform you are afforded. Personally, I think that everyone has a right to say whatever they want, but this also means that the people that can hear have a right to say that they don’t want to listen to it. Google does have policies on this sort of stuff and I think Bob’s writing is scary enough for them to censor that sort of content. It is incitement to violence. I would suggest reporting him.
Of course, if Bob was banned from Google blogger then he will probably just pop up somewhere else…and it might be somewhere that is happy for him to have a platform for that sort of speech. If it is more obscure though, it would likely reduce his web traffic.
Stumbled upon his ‘blog’ and its pretty grim reading – and he doesn’t reserve his hate for women only, looks like gay men aren’t ‘real men’ by his ‘truths’. He’s surely in contravention of blogger policy?
Bob’s also a racist. Which is nice.
I think his abuse (and it really is some of the most hateful writing I’ve ever seen) is so scattergun that it can’t be taken seriously enough to be worth trying to charge him under hate speech legislation (in whatever form it exists in the US). If he started advocating violence against specific people then I think you’d have to stop him if possible.
That’s just an initial reaction from a quick skim of the site and comes from a ‘freedom for the thought we hate’ point of view. I’m more than willing to be turned around on that though.
While I absolutely agree with Cath that this is a horrifying level of bile, I have to also mention that I’m picturing Bob as a malignant version of Comic Book Guy out of the Simpsons.
“Worst. Invective. Everrr.”
“Bob is in the US of A it should be pointed out. So I don’t know if the law on incitement is the same as over here. Over here he would have to genuinely want someone to commit the crime to be guilty of incitement. Hence his bizarre disclaimer, though I don’t know what effect it would have legally on t’other side of the Atlantic, if someone took him at his word.”
Hate laws in the USofAss are a joke, to say the least. States rarely touch these cases, and the major Supreme Court precedent case RAV v. ST.Paul, essentially came out and said it violated the first amendment to charge someone on the basis of hate (even though the defendants had already committed violence for that very reason, the hate).
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_7675/
You can report the blog here:
http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=76315&topic=12468
The blokes an obvious crackpot …just like that Solanas woman ..remember her?
It’s that darned playing field – it’s still not level.
Decapitation Vs headache – compare and contrast.
Hmm men are worried about the one Valerie Solanas’ SCUM manifesto. Yet, I’ve just googled “donkey-punch+porn” and got 50,000 results in 0.23 seconds.
Or to use an example from Nine Deuces post.
Banging a girl doggy style and then moments before you cum, sticking your dick in her ass, and then punching her in the back of the head as hard as you can. This gives a tremendous sensation. But for it to work correctly, the girl must be completely knocked out, so that her asshole tightens up uncontrollably. Last night, when I got back from the game I donkey punched Jenny, twice.
http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/04/04/the-world-hates-people-with-vaginas-part-1-the-donkey-punch/
Oh, I know this guy (thankfully, not in person). He joined an online discussion group I’m in and occasionally stops by to spew out a bit of woman-hating tosh.
I sometimes find his rantings quite useful as a feminist and, certainly, there’s a part of me that gains a perverse satisfaction from being able to stomach them. Personally, I wouldn’t want to make him seem like some rebellious outlaw by censoring him. The man’s an arse.