AgentOrange and the Screencaps of Feminazi Doom.

Frankly, it’s a fucking mess. Now, in retrospect, this is to be expected: it’s Manboobz we’re talking about here. However, even by their….well, what we think passes for standards over there this is just weak.
Now, their first claim is simple: “Agent Orange revealed the personal information of some of the worst of the lot, and that’s just wrong.” This is basically without merit. It’s true that the identities of some of the more virulent (read: homicidal) commentators were revealed. However, what was posted was not what most of us would consider “personal information”. Typically when someone is “doxxed”, this involves revealing information like private phone numbers, addresses and so on. In this case, to our knowledge, the only information that was revealed was the actual name of the poster, general location (i.e. country), and in some cases their occupation. In many cases, this was information freely available on the forum.
It’s certainly true that this information was identifying, but it was not sufficient to promote stalking, plain and simple. What it was enough for was promoting awareness of the actions of these people, something I think most of us understand is rather a good thing. Would you want your children in the care of a person who regularly entertains (and chats with to her friends) fantasies of castrating them? Similarly, many of the people involved are public officials, people accountable to their constituencies. I would certainly hope that the next time election season comes around they find their words plastered every place within reach….unlike the usual marital infidelity, this actually says something about how they’ll do their job.
One way or another, when you post something, you’re accountable for it. It’s not “stalking” to attach a name to the bigotry.
The entire rest of the post basically amounts to a complaint that the files did not come with a user manual. The writer has leafed through a couple pages (let’s note that the entire point of the files were to give an accurate picture, and thus include most of the contents of the forum in question rather than simply a set of cherry-picked anecdotes, just like someone being responsible would do) and found that if he squints the right way and ignores the things that aren’t convenient, not all of it is bad. He isolates three threads (out of an entire forum) that don’t happen to contain any bigotry. Incidentally, two out of the three also don’t have anything to do with feminism: the one that does is itself….almost coherent.
Specifically, it has to do with a woman who has two complaints. One, some older people living in her building chat with each other about things, which on occasion includes their consternation with the (controlling) behaviors of some women in their lives. (Horror of horrors, it’s not like we’ve ever heard women chatting about their significant others.) Second, as she was sitting in the hall, someone waiting for their friends struck up a conversation with her and asked her if she had a boyfriend. (Le GASP!) Apparently (according to Futrelle), this was “being creepy”. I mean, it’s not like striking up a conversation with someone isn’t the normal way to meet people or anything, and it’s clearly not the case that someone would ask about someone’s partner status before considering any form of overture to avoid potential discomfort on their part. Nope. Not at all. Of course, despite Futrelle’s claim that the thread is simply “women complaining about creepy guys”, it’s really most of them justifying their assumptions about and assholeish behavior towards men who have the gall to talk to them.
The second involves a computer virus. This is the kind of thread you could find on most forums, with the addition of the occasional comment about castrating men. Not worth further comment.
The first one he dissects the most, but it’s really a pretty simple matter. A male midwife (a professor in the UK, actually) commented on the rising rates of epidural use. He suggested that for a number of reasons, epidurals should be avoided: epidural use has been linked to weakened maternal bonding in animal studies and increased rates of prolonged labor, epidurals do not in any way decrease the risks associated with childbirth, and there are a number of other methods that can be substituted to one degree or another that do not involve injecting a cocktail of powerful drugs into someone’s spine. It should be noted that Prof. Walsh was not in any way recommending limiting the availability of epidurals, simply suggesting that women should be encouraged to have them only when genuinely necessary and that increased one-on-one maternal care and resources should be provided to increase the availability of other methods. It’s actually an issue that many of experts of various genders have raised a number of times in many places.
The problem the radfems had, of course, was that he had a penis and dared to speak on the field of childbirth that he’s a tenured expert in. The various comments ranged from calling him a “closeted religious nut” and “misogynist and sadist” to advocating kicking him in the testicles and shoving an umbrella up his ass then opening it.
What a surprise that this behavior is seen as objectionable.
Of course, the core claim being defended here is that the files just aren’t as bad as people say they are, since a quick and selective look didn’t uncover the massive bigotry mentioned. Even though they could have easily found AVFM’s three separate articles and a podcast highlighting some of the objectionable bits. But I guess AVFM is just too full of penis to consider anything they have to say.