Saturday, March 21, 2015

How to hate men

Many words are spilled in the effort to convince people that feminists do, or do not, hate men.

In some view, it is a useful discourse. In all subjects, prejudice matters. Bias matters. Motives matter. And good activism relies on objectivity - if facts are always second to immutable feelings, it's hard to imagine any arguments standing up to critical analysis.

It's also true that feminism positions itself as a movement to end bias and gender-based hatred. Feminism, it is said, exists to end sexism and misogyny. It would obviously be a failure to exchange one contempt for another.

But there's a reason that "misandry" is not a word that seems to be catching on.

Some self-styled "feminists" that are fond of jokes about "male tears" and "manbabies" will say that their form of humor is a way to "punch up" and battle the oppressors. Others may say that it's a satirical expression that aims to show how feminists are perceived.

Perhaps the answer is simpler. Nobody cares about "misandry" because the hatred any feminist has for men does not even register. That is, perhaps feminist women cannot hate men more than men hate men.

Consider comedy that is fat-shaming or transphobic. The staple that puts a heterosexual man in bed as he wakes up to find that the person in his company is an individual that does not conform to the typical assessment of beauty and propriety. The joke shames women, while it also shames the man - ultimately he is culpable for his situation and his loss of social status. Entirely a product of his own choices, he now has a shameful secret to hide to the end of his days. The men in the audience can laugh at his demise while feeling comforted that his existence ensures other men are not laughing at them.

Second, the tired lament that women date "assholes" and not the "nice guys". Does this protest illustrate contempt more for women or fellow men? The phenomenon is not unique to men, as we know women also do not have one another's back.

This is not to suggest that men do not hate women, only to suggest when doing so men also find copious amounts of distaste for one another.

The feminist hatred of men, to whatever extent it exists, is not only drown out by volume of awfulness but also by its similarity. Consider that in some corners of the internet, men can be witnessed calling each other "manginas" and "betas". The 'feminist' side of this coin are the terms "neckbeard" and "angry virgin". The common denominator is a man qualifies as a loser when subservient to or not winning the affection of a woman. These words only exist as "faggot" is now thankfully passé.

The question of man hating is a tiresome debacle. If there is something interesting to see in self-styled "feminist" women, it is that they love men too much. Take for instance the coveted office of the CEO. As it turns out, there is not a lot of evidence that suggests it really matters how much these paragons of business dismiss, talk over or tie up women.

Attention focuses on the 'problematic' behavior of these abrasive, self-confident, pushy and wealthy men - but at the end of the day they remain winners. Their asses are firmly planted in the driver's seat, as they are impeccably dressed providers that will get invited back to a panel that will ask them politely for advice as to how more women could land a CEO job. The job can be naturally be assumed to be the CEO position at someone else's company, of course.

These titans of industry are mouthpieces of status quo uniformity, but look good in a suit. Brash, but bold. Sexist, but seductively stoic.  The boss critiqued by "progressive" pundits still epitomizes a man in control, simply given an opportunity to slap rationality into or whisper sweet-nothings for the horde of hysterical bloggers.

Whether men are loved or hated is at times irrelevant, as we have a common preoccupation. We all greatly admire and respect gender roles more than we're willing to admit. Even the most hardcore gender warriors live lives that are embarrassingly normative and old fashioned.  Some other woman is going to flip marriage on its head and put a ring on a bloke. Someone else's husband is going to be the stay-at-home dad. Someone else's workplace can be exactly 50% women. The next generation will be the one that finds a way to excel at both pregnancy and promotions. A systemic problem is continually someone else's problem.

There is more ambivalence than anger.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

Does Sexual Assault Matter?

Recently an alarming study was published that concluded that twenty-one percent of high school girls have been physically or sexually assaulted by someone they dated. Ten percent of boys reported a similar experience.

This is oddly similar to the college statistic cited - that "1 in 5" women are "sexually assaulted" before completing their program. Even more concerning, we know that "young women who don't attend college are more likely to be raped."

Within this mix of factoids, we've gone from variations on partner violence, to statistics about sexual assault exclusively, to a definitive judgment of the likelihood of rape. All of these concerns are related, but not necessarily equivalent - something to remember as "feminists" are often great at escalating all concerns to the level of rape. For a specific example of this, note the recent mix up by Valenti and Al-Jazeera that gave the label of "rapist" to all those accused of "sexual assault".

Using the Wikipedia definition of "Sexual assault":
Sexual assault is any involuntary sexual act in which a person is coerced or physically forced to engage against their will, or any non-consensual sexual touching of a person. Sexual assault is a form of sexual violence, and it includes rape (such as forced vaginal, anal or oral penetration or drug facilitated sexual assault), groping, forced kissing, child sexual abuse, or the torture of the person in a sexual manner.

The label seems to apply in many circumstances. Perhaps one circumstance that may qualify is a situation in Florida where a man has demanded his four year old son be circumcised:

A South Florida woman fighting the circumcision of her son has fled with the boy and will face imprisonment for contempt if she doesn't allow the surgery to proceed. 
Palm Beach County Judge Jeffrey Gillen said Friday that Heather Hironimus could avoid jail if she appears before him by Tuesday with the child and signs paperwork needed to schedule the procedure.
[...]
The 4-year-old boy's father, Dennis Nebus, testified he last saw his son Feb. 19.
Court documents show that Hironimus and Nebus had a son together on Halloween 2010. Although never married, the couple is considered to be the legal and biological parents of the boy.
Hironimus and Nebus agreed to a circumcision in a 2012 legal document, but Hironimus later changed her mind and fought to prevent the boy's circumcision. Circuit and appellate judges have sided with the father.

In this circumstance, the boy is at the age or very near to the age to vocally opt-out of a foreskin removal. Despite that, the law says that what must happen to this boy's body is described in a legal document between his parents signed years ago. There does not seem to be any time limit to this agreement, so the boy may need to evade his father's hatred of foreskin another fourteen years before legally free from complying with this order.

The question is, what could this father do that would qualify as sexual assault?

To many, taking a knife to his son's genitals is not sexual assault. What would be sexual assault is if the man managed to kiss his ex-girlfriend against her will.

In this strange world we live in, the son of this man is to be circumcised without his consent, at an age where he would presumably remember a great deal of the impact of the procedure. A number of years later, he will borrow money to attend a school and learn what "sexual assault" in the first year of life in academic regret - as if his puny male brain did not know what violation truly was.

If circumcised, in the eyes of the majority this boy has not been "sexually assaulted". While we're on the subject, perhaps it it's helpful to point out that Janay Rice was not "sexually assaulted" either.

"Sexual assault" that gets the magnifying glass of concern occurs in some union of intent (sexual desire) and intrusion of consent and personal boundaries. If someone grabs a breast by mistake, it's not sexual assault. If someone receives a punch to the genitals out of pure rage, it's likely not sexual assault. If someone is forcibly kissed in a car commercial and does not hate it, then it's up for interpretation.

Revisiting the story of the boy in Florida, it would be simple to dismiss the case as a crazy southern state doing crazy southern things. But on this issue the most bizarre region may be New York. It turns out that in New York there are several people that choose to practice what is known as Metzitzah B'Peh. The practice is known to have given several infants herpes and may have been a factor in the death of a child.

To borrow lingo from the climate change drama, it turns out the "science is not settled" as to whether or not euphemistic oral suction of an infant's penis is the cause of herpes transmission. As an outrageous consequence of this, New York has failed to ban the practice outright. Further, it has even failed to establish a most basic structure of informed consent :

Under the agreement, the city will no longer require that a mohel obtain signed consent before the ritual.
Keep in mind this is of course not written consent from the impacted party - that is, the child - but informed consent from the child's parents.

It gets worse:
If a mohel is found, by a DNA match, to have infected an infant with herpes, he will be banned for life from performing MBP by the health department, officials said.
It does not say a proven infection will end the practice forever - as it probably should - it simply states that infection will end a single career in an industry of sexually transmitted disease.

Consider the baseline of violence that is constructed in youth. Routine genital cutting, bizarre and neglectful parenting practices, the impact of a boundary-free inquisitive sibling, the chaos that is high school.

Despite all this, the tradition that creates the scary statistics right now are the choices made during the ritualized prayer before the gods of Pabst Blue Ribbon at the local temple built on non-dischargeable student debts. After the pilgrimage is over, one can look forward to a web-based survey that asks about "unwanted sexual contact" (Appendix A, link via WP) that is then qualified as "sexual assault" possibly only by the authors of the publication and its concerned readers. There are some good reasons things are not as straightforward as asking a respondent to check yes or no to the question of "Have you been sexually assaulted at college?", but choosing to not be this direct sure makes a lot of tiresome false panic.

Reusing this rule that we need not the assessment of the victim to label an experience a sexual assault and the old social justice slogan that "intent is not magic", one can simply also brand circumcision as sexual assault. And one arrives at the answer to a mischievous title at the bottom of a cumbersome journey through disconnected experiences - of course sexual assault matters.

To their credit, our progressive journalists are concerned about both issues - campus sexual assault is an "epidemic", while having a foreskin removed is getting much too expensive. Even the CDC would tell the state of Florida that it's a tragic to have to circumcise a four year old, as it's much cheaper to circumcise an infant.

Does one tip a mohel that really makes an effort at oral suction?

Saturday, February 14, 2015

To Sound Smart, Go Negative

A relevant and disappointing article surfaced in WIRED recently - "A Sad Fact of Life: It’s Actually Smart to Be Mean Online"

Some excerpts:
She took a group of 55 students, roughly half men, half women, and showed them excerpts from two book reviews printed in an issue of The New York Times. The same reviewer wrote both, but Amabile anonymized them and tweaked the language to produce two versions of each—one positive, one negative. Then she asked the students to evaluate the reviewer's intelligence.
The verdict was clear: The students thought the negative author was smarter than the positive one—“by a lot,” Amabile tells me. Most said the nastier critic was “more competent.” Granted, being negative wasn't all upside—they also rated the harsh reviewer as “less warm and more cruel, not as nice,” she says. “But definitely smarter.”
[...]
Other studies show that when we seek to impress someone with our massive gray matter, we spout sour and negative opinions. In a follow-up experiment, Bryan Gibson, a psychologist at Central Michigan University, took a group of 117 students (about two-thirds female) and had them watch a short movie and write a review that they would then show to a partner. Gibson's team told some of the reviewers to try to make their partner feel warmly toward them; others were told to try to appear smart. You guessed it: Those who were trying to seem brainy went significantly more negative than those trying to be endearing.

There we have it.

Perhaps there is a physical reality that means it is more effort to be lucid and critical, so it would not be so bizarre that we find negativity to be more intelligent. More effort, more thinking must be involved. Right?

The downside is that on the internet, it's easy to have the appearance of credibility. If the reader is willing to share a few assumptions, it's simple enough to string sentences together in a semi-logical way and successfully preach to one choir or another. One does not even need to wear pants while assailing the world with their insight.

And there is no end to the issues that we should be concerned about. Climate change, vaccination rates, pollution, war, economic problems... a safe default is to be concerned all the time about all the things.

Except the train of all things terrible must eventually stop. Nothing can be perfect, but life in many aspects can be quite acceptable. Not every day in one's life can be an ordeal of harassment and destruction of one's civil rights.

Sadly, nobody wants to read about how great one's day was. Content creators have incentives to make every day the worst day. Moreover, "activists" face incentives to create drama and outrage out of ambiguous situations.  As Scott Alexander explains, animal rights groups like PETA will be attracted to create fireworks out of trivialities (pet ownership, perhaps?) rather than fix issues everyone seems to agree with. Similarly, contemporary "feminist" journalism may be condemned to always champion confusing antiheroes simply to court controversy.

There's writing polemic, pushing boundaries, and thinking critically - and then there is pseudo-intellectual trolling and activist delusions of grandeur.

It's fun to participate in all of the above, but maybe the lot of it is thoroughly stupid.

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Feminism Likes Big Buts

The subject of campus rape remains a subject of concern, as it should, and Amanda Hess wrote a decent article in Slate on the subject of drunk sex.

An interesting disclaimer was put into the article:
And I’m not raising the specter of false accusations, the rare phenomenon in which a vengeful woman “cries rape” after engaging in consensual sex (or no sexual activity at all).

The article linked to is a piece by Cathy Young, describing a case where a xoJane commenter completely falsified a story about a musician. Amanda Hess' piece wishes to speak about cases where both parties are drunk and what that means as far as legal consent is concerned. It's interesting to consider that the latter not being in the same category of "false accusation", as for an allegation to be false it does not actually need to be a lie with malicious intent.

That is, perhaps Brian Williams actually believes most of the things he says - this does not change the fact that they are false allegations when viewed in the perspective of any reasonable person.

This "but I'm not talking about false allegations" to keep the pseudofeminist hivemind at bay was actually not the biggest but in feminism-related commentary this week -


Where to even begin.

It seems odd that, at a moment when we’re finally making headway on campus assault – with White House-backed initiatives, rape victims sharing their stories, and students mobilizing to make their campuses safer and more responsive to sexual violence – the response from some quarters is to worry for men’s futures rather than celebrate women’s potential safety.

It seems odd we are to celebrate the posturing by the administration and universities that ultimately has not been shown to have made any real changes. "Potential safety" could not be a more accurate portrayal of what has been going on.

No one wants to see innocent people accused of horrible crimes, but there is a distinct lack of evidence that young men on college campuses – even the ones who have raped women – are suffering any harm due to the increased focus on ending rape.

Here is the but that Valenti thought was good enough to highlight in a tweet. It's a long way of saying the ends justify the means. Valenti admits that someone is going to be smeared with little evidence, then bemoans how little evidence there is that enough punishment is happening. Evidence is apparently something that matters only sometimes.

Rape remains a chronically underreported crime, and only 2% of rapists ever spend a day in jail. On college campuses, only 10 to 25% of rapists are expelled,less than half are suspended and many are given university-mandated“punishments” like writing a research paper or an apology letter.

This paragraph is ridiculous for a number of reasons. First, the efforts by the White House and campus tribunals have never even attempted to put more people in prison nor do they have the power to do so. Valenti knows this, so why it appears as a criticism here is bizarre.

Second, watch this phrase:
"only 10 to 25% of rapists are expelled"
This statistic comes from this link. Which then redirects one to this NPR article, which includes the following:

Colleges almost never expel men who are found responsible for sexual assault
Reporters at CPI discovered a database of about 130 colleges and universities given federal grants because they wanted to do a better job dealing with sexual assault. But the database shows that even when men at those schools were found responsible for sexual assault, only 10 to 25 percent of them were expelled.
The Center for Public Integrity reports it as such:

Though limited in scope, the database offers a window into sanctioning by school administrations. It shows that colleges seldom expel men who are found “responsible” for sexual assault; indeed, these schools permanently kicked out only 10 to 25 percent of such students.

NPR reported the people as responsible for "sexual assault". Al-Jazeera included this as a subheading of "male college rapists". Valenti went with Al-Jazeera's subheading.

Does Valenti and Al-Jazeera not understand the difference between sexual assault and rape? Do we need to explain this?

Let's say a woman files a complaint with a university officials that a fellow student grabbed her bottom at a campus bar. This would, in the English language, qualify as a "sexual assault". However it is not a "rape" by any means. Imagine the man is brought before the university administration and the institution finds him absolutely culpable, as it should.

In Valenti's feminist utopia, (borrowing from Filipovic for a moment) what ought to happen then is the man should be forever exiled from campus -- as he is a rapist. The statistics say so!

I also believe that the disproportionate worry for accused rapists over their victims boils down to a fundamental distrust of women.
[...]

The rape truthers’ belief that any increasing efforts to stop rape and hold more accusers accountable will hurt innocent men is, at best, magical thinking. While multiple female rape victims at 89 different colleges have filed suits citing Title IX violations and unfair treatment by school administrators, there has not been one recent public case of a wrongly-accused male student who suffered significant, permanent legal harm at the hands of a malicious accuser. That hasn’t stopped people from trying to identify one, though.

Ah yes, Title IX complaints. "Look at the Title IX complaints, they matter!" After already destroying statistics (Charles Blow and nearly everyone else also get the numbers wrong) we're going to spend time counting Title IX complaints.

The thing about counting Title IX complaints is that it is a metric that will never change. It's safe to say that every sizable school will screw up something worthy of filing a complaint on an annual basis. All large academic institutions can be thought of as permanently under investigation, as the government will always be asked by concerned parties to do so.

Perhaps it's time to make a wager. If a single school of sufficient size can have a record clean of Title IX complaints for a span of three years, then it's a metric worth following. There is no evidence to suggest that Title IX complaints are not simply the new normal, as even if mistakes are not made complaints will still be filed.

Revisiting this sentence:
"there has not been one recent public case of a wrongly-accused male student who suffered significant, permanent legal harm at the hands of a malicious accuser."

Notice how the words "recent" and "legal" makes the word "harm" nearly meaningless. According to this sentence, the accused are only truly damaged within the confines of a court of law -- and only within some time span that Valenti does not disclose. Those are apparently the only true victims of false allegations. There is some level of irony here.

Later, Valenti points out:
"no school has ever had their funding taken away because of a Title IX violation."
Why would this be infuriating? The threat of a funding loss does not mean that a funding loss needs to happen. It's like threatening employees with dismissal - it's entirely possible that compliance is achieved without terminating people to set an example.

All this said, Valenti's biggest critic remains Valenti:

The tagline:
"Reporting, prosecution and incarceration haven’t eliminated intimate partner violence. Some new solutions offer women hope"
Quote:
But some advocates say that the focus of mainstream anti-violence organizations – relying on statistics, reporting assaults to police and putting offenders in prison – while well-meaning, may be part of the problem. Grassroots activists believe this broad brush approach is a mistake, and instead are working on alternative methods, from restorative justice to iPhone apps, to tackle violence from a community mindset.

Yes, Valenti wrote a piece about how prison is not always a fantastic idea just a few months before demanding that more men go to jail. Valenti thinks the public at large disagrees with her as there is a  "fundamental distrust of women". Maybe people just cannot follow the incoherence of contemporary "feminist" activism.

"Restorative justice is great, but..."

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Islamophobia and Chapel Hill

A man in North Carolina has killed three college students. The victims were two women and one man. All victims were muslim and of Arab descent.

It must be admitted that at least one person was reading early reports on Twitter with the morbid and regrettable hope that the suspect was not a man, not white and definitely not a secularist. If the murders could be branded just another "honor killing", it would be simpler to reconcile with certain worldviews.

The suspect is by many accounts a left-leaning, pro-choice, pro-LGBT secularist. Not a right-wing Christian nutjob, not a delirious escaped inmate, not a Brevik-like manifesto-wielding psychopath, but a seemingly regular guy that likes to read Richard Dawkins and watch Rachel Maddow.

It meets all the qualifications of a racist and Islamophobic hate crime like the shooting in Wisconsin.

Some may run to point out to claim that the inevitable comparison to the Charlie Hebdo shooting is a false equivalence. Others may point out that the shooter may have been motivated by a pitiful neighborhood parking dispute and not out of anti-theistic rage.

Regardless, what matters is that it's immensely disappointing, tragic, outrageous and unacceptable that secular folks are not better than such violence. It matters not whether the trigger was a hijab or a parking spot. If believing in a higher power makes one relax about parking spaces, then within modern life it is absolutely a moral obligation to take up monotheism.

This blog is decidedly "Islamophobic" and will remain so, if that word has any meaning. Islam is a terrifying dogma that too many confuse for a social, economic and legal policy. At the same time, hijabs should not be confused with threats and parking spaces should not be confused with things that are worth killing over.

There is another escape route to be closed for some on the secular left - it may be said the shooter was a "pro-gun nut", which would put him at odds with many "sensible" supporters of the grand secular conspiracy. While it's true that many of the secular left would not have armed this man, pointing this out is ultimately a derailment. If the man had not a gun, he would have victimized these youth with his fists and given well-read "progressive" secular "rationality" just as much to think about.

As everything is politics, many things recently said about Islam by secularists will be viewed with a sense of irony. It is the time to hear this criticism and be better for it.

It's difficult to find enough words to condemn this man's actions, but the search is meaningful.

Friday, February 6, 2015

Is Rape Complicated?

Recently Cathy Young published an article on The Daily Beast that included a lot of information from the perspective the accused rapist in allegations at Columbia University that have become a form of performance art.

Young's piece is straightforward to understand as it is largely simply reporting on the perspective of the accused - the accused denies the allegations and provides evidence he feels exonerates him. Much of the evidence happens to be recorded communications of the accuser(s) being friendly with him in Facebook chats and emails after the purported assaults occurred.

The accused seeks to show that the allegations are false by demonstrating that the accusers were absolutely cordial with him even though he's supposed to have terrorized their lives as far as to warrant his expulsion. The argument is that if they are being nice to the alleged perpetrator at the same time as plotting his demise, the chances they are lying out of insanity or jealousy increases.

"Feminists" rush out to loudly proclaim the simple fact that rape victims do not need their behavior policed - being polite does not mean someone has not been victimized.

It's absolutely true that victims do not have to fit a profile of behavior. Everyone deals with trauma differently. Perhaps most relevant to this story, victims cannot be expected to immediately verbally dress down their abuser in order for their claims to be taken seriously.

Yet there is something missing about this empathetic view of victims. Too often "activists" have already decided who the victim is - calculations about the victim's feelings are interesting only in that they paint the foregone conclusion in an ever more sympathetic light.

The mantra often repeated from accusers and their advocates is "Why would I lie?"

A potentially similar statement that often remains unvoiced is "Why would I rape?"

It's very black and white. The accuser is a complex character in a confusing situation, dealing with conflicting emotions and motivations.

Meanwhile, the accused is to be a simple sexual sadist. Blurred lines do not exist - the accused is a horny automaton that knowingly steamrolled consent. The only thing to do now is to exile the cancer from the community.

Easy, right? Perhaps one can be convinced after seeing manipulations of statistics pointing whichever way the author wants. Opinion pieces give us good reason to believe that rape is a complex subject. Bizarrely, this is said to be another reason why skepticism is a bad thing!

It seems the best course of action is to withhold judgment until more information is known. Yet there are elements that believe fact-finding and character witnesses are tools to be used in only one way, that is in support of the "survivor". "Believe survivors" is an ideological talking point repeated so early and often that it becomes a weapon to crush any hope that a transparent investigation into what exactly transpired will occur.

While it is not true that one person must be a rapist or the other is a liar, the topic is so poisonous that nobody is thinking at all about the possibility that neither party is actually a culpable and abusive evil. The choice narrows and lines are drawn.

But are "Why would I lie?" / "Why would I rape?" not questions with the same answer?

"Because you need help."

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Please Don't Give A Damn About My Bad Reputation

Once upon a time, a man wrote a story primarily about his ex-girlfriend - let's call her "Zoe Flynn". The story was filled of allegations against several parties. The story was one of betrayal, hypocrisy and even some insinuation that some sex-for-favors happened within the indie game industry.

It was a tale to be read many different ways, and one with several aspects disputed by Flynn. The details of this particular story are not relevant to repeat, as the crucial point is that the story was one of the catalysts of the drama that is "#GamerGate".

For many "feminist" activists, #GamerGate was not at all confusing. It was obvious - a sordid online misogynist pile-on trying to tear down women that loves to pretend to be anything else. #GamerGate was just all the people that hated Anita Sarkeesian deciding to also find the time to hate Flynn, gaming blogs, and feminism generally. Simple.

Long before any #GamerGate nonsense, social media had its tribes. Despite it being quite a source of controversy, we don't need to believe that #GamerGate is an event that fractured many communities. Chances are that all one's social media connections moved lock-step into a pro-#GamerGate, anti-#GamerGate, or ambivalent camp.

Two people that had little to do with gaming and each other are Milo Yiannopoulos and Shanley Kane. It's likely both of them spend more time in a word processor than a first-person shooter. That their relationship has anything at all to do with gaming drama is interesting.

To make a long story somewhat shorter, Shanley is an outspoken critic of the technology industry, is an advocate for women in tech and publishes a quarterly journal on the subject. Milo is a columnist. To be entirely reductionist, they have the same job - write something moderately interesting about the topic of the day.

Milo, from disagreement or dislike, decided his topic was Shanley. In December, Milo published a profile of Shanley - which everyone that knows Shanley knows she does not particularly enjoy. In January, Milo followed up with a more revealing story, in which it was alleged that Shanley dated a well known internet troll with which she shared racist humor and some sexually submissive inclinations.

Shanley later confirmed the relationship and problematic past opinions, but held that the troll in question was a manipulative liar that she broke up with - a claim that no reasonable person doubts as the poor character of her ex-boyfriend has been confirmed by many witnesses. Further, Shanley labelled the interest in this aspect of her life "kink shaming".

Shortly afterwards, Shanley blamed the Linux community for a doxxing that happened about the same time:

Last Thursday, I criticized the Linux community for continuing to support and center a leader with a years-long, documented history of unrepentant abusive behavior, someone who has actively and systematically nurtured a hostile, homogeneous technical community, and someone who has long actively chased people from marginalized groups out of open source. 
The retaliation has been terrifying.

Apparently the doxxer was not Milo writing the story, not the ex-boyfriend filling in the details, but people retaliating on behalf of "the Linux community". The Linux community is to be the part of the triune Godhead of harassment that was ultimately the source of the dox.

The timeline of events is Shanley apparently trash talked Linux on Thursday, posted Milo's phone number on Twitter on Friday, and Milo posted the account of her ex-boyfriend on Saturday.

It sounds like a game of Clue, except Shanley is here to tell us it was definitely Linus Torvalds with a candlestick in the conservatory. To dial up the weirdness, the same day Shanley fingered the Linux community, her former business partner and co-founder of Model View Culture posted an account of her own fallout with Shanley:

I left Model View Culture because working with Shanley felt like I was in an abusive relationship.
[...]
But as the business grew, my relationship with Shanley deteriorated. Each day I dreaded having to interact with her. I had trouble squaring that dread with how much I loved the work I was doing and the company’s vision, and for several months I tried everything to make it work. But eventually I was able to see many of the things I was experiencing - such as yelling, excuses that the yelling was just because she needed me so much, her demands that I isolate myself from my friends - as classic abuser tactics. I woke up one morning with the bone-deep realization that I could no longer work with her. 
Shanley has since erased me from Model View Culture’s history. Fighting erasure of work is a feminist issue, and also one that Shanley is aware of and has specifically addressed in the past. Yet the publication did not announce that I had left, and quietly took me off the about page, though it has continued to refer to itself as “we.” Shanley credits herself as “Founder” not “co-founder.” In telling the story of founding the company in press, she does not mention that I was there unless specifically asked about it.
[...]
I decided to write this disclosing my own experiences with Shanley because the feminist conversation about tech right now feels like “You’re either with Shanley or you’re with [Shanley's ex-boyfriend].” And I think there should be room for a third option: You support diversity in tech and the work Model View Culture has done, but you are allowed to have doubts about Shanley's sincerity or track record of abusive behavior.

Indeed, if the Model View Culture publication is good at anything, it is erasure. Not only did MVC erase a founder, but it unceremoniously erased the writings of a one Dana McCallum, once a feminist and transgender activist that is now most famous for pleading guilty to domestic violence charges. McCallum was once a listed Model View Culture author, but now no trace of McCallum exists on the site.

As bizarre and outrageous as all this nonsense is, it might not be the best drama of late.

For it turns out that another semi-famous social media personality, Holly Fisher, is facing her own critics. Fisher is famous for doing her very best to be the embodiment of everything American "progressives" are said to despise. Vocally pro-gun, pro-Bible, pro-abortion restrictions and anti-Obama, Fisher is perhaps what Sarah Palin would be if Palin had a lower profile and was more ready to engage random people on Twitter.

The source of drama in the Fisher story is her admission that she had an affair. The admission may have come after some relatively unknown idiot appeared to want to publish the details. The incident is particularly problematic in conservative circles, as her husband is a doubly sympathetic figure due to his service in the military - seems he was at one point deployed overseas. The other man in the picture is a Tea Party activist.

The steamy setting romance this pro-life advocate had, according to her traitorous conservative pals, was apparently a “Restoring the Dream” event, a "Faith & Freedom" conference, and on election night 2014. (No word yet on whether or not "Faith & Freedom" conferences have acceptable and inclusive harassment policies.)

Shanley Kane and Holly Fisher are two very different women, yet their response to their similar predicament can be summarized in the same phrase - "this is basically none of your business". One does not need to subscribe to any particular brand of feminist ideals to imagine that there may be a double standard in play - all the people revealing the embarrassing details are men, and the individuals embarrassed and scandalized are women. Just another example of misogynistic slut shaming.

Yet it isn't quite so simple. The men in these stories are not embarrassed as they were either invisible or already considered creepy. To speak of the men these two women chose to hook up with would be to first learn their names or give them an ounce of respect which they could forfeit. The men are nobodies.

In what version of reality does a feminist critic of a male-dominated tech industry think it's not the least bit relevant that she dated a particularly wicked internet troll? It is somewhat difficult to hold men accountable for "microaggressions" while dating a man that is a macro-asshole.

Similarly, what kind of booze is in the punchbowl at an adulterous "Faith & Freedom" conference? One may as well do lines of cocaine at a rehab clinic. Did the red hot rendezvous happen in a hotel room, or in the 15 minute break between the family values and abstinence-only education seminars?

Relationships matter. We know this as nobody is quite in the mood to discuss hiking the Appalachian trail or the meaning of "is". It turns out women are also capable of having a relationship built on secrets that when revealed undermines trust their followers held for them.

Luckily for some, the subject of women's preferences is a third rail for feminism. Speaking of any affinity a gender may have to even the most innocent of behaviors is quite taboo. Any realistic discussion about women's sexuality might lead to gender essentialism or "victim blaming" - both of which are tragedies to be avoided at all costs. We live in a world where Jian Ghomeshi can still find a date and Charles Manson can still find a wife but it remains not one's place to question the logic.

Consider the possibility that every woman activist that would like to see empowerment in the workplace may currently be dating a man that the very image of what it is to be a toxic, misogynist colleague. Also possible is that every self-identified fan of "personal responsibility" and our brave men in uniform may actually spend their free time being fed Plan B by buttoned-up political desk jockeys.

It's taken for granted that some number of the "men's rights" activists ranting and raving about child custody made at least a few relationship mistakes. Having a crazy ex-wife does not put one in a position to speak objectively about the merits of feminism.

It's simply time to take the same calculus that we apply to these "activist" men and apply them to our "activist" women. A safe assumption is that every popular social media personality is hypocritical, depressed and manipulative until proven otherwise. Taking their soap box seriously is a bad idea.

Human beings can be transparent, honest and consistent. The world's in trouble, there's no communication.

On the other hand, a girl can do what she wants to do and that's what I'm gonna do.