Thursday, January 14, 2016

A Personal Response to bane666au

Last month the blog got a little action when someone picked up on my review of Netflix’s Jessica Jones and brought it to the attention of series creator Melissa Rosenberg who linked to it on her Facebook page. With exposure comes a greater audience. Not all of them will be of the same high caliber we’ve come to expect here at Castle Schadenfreude.

My review included this: “The most fun—for me, at least—is how this show must make men’s rights advocates’ heads explode.” That prompted this comment from bane666au: “Why exactly would it make our heads explode? We aren't against female characters, writers, directors etc. This is just a lame strawman argument by someone who has no idea what they are talking about.”

I did a little looking into bane666au and checked out his web site, so you, dear reader, wouldn’t have to. A quick perusal and listening to a couple of his videos provided ample evidence as to why I thought it might make men’s rights advocates’ (read: bane666au) heads explode: they (read: he) are (is a) misogynistic douche bag(s). And a dickless coward, to boot.

What leads me to believe he’s a dickless coward? I use my name on my blog and web site. My real name. Dana Fucking King. I don’t hide behind a pseudonym. (Note to bane666au: that means “fake name.”) Even worse, his sounds like some teenaged kid’s idea of badass. (“Bane’s hard-core man, and 666 is fucking evil, Dude. Rock on, Garth.”) True, the “au” hints that he’s in Australia (though you’ll know that two words into a video), but Australia’s big and it used to be a penal colony so for all I know “Bane” is like Smith or Johnson down there. Why not let his name stand like a beacon in these dark times?

Probably because his intentions aren’t all that honorable. Note his carefully-worded reply. “We aren't against female characters, writers, directors etc.” I never said their heads would explode because there were female characters, writers, directors. I said it was because there strong female characters, etc. I’ve done quite a bit of research into the men’s rights movement for an upcoming book. They’re all in favor of women. In their place. In the eyes of the men’s rights activist, that place is either in the kitchen or on her knees. (I exclude those “men” who have joined up with Men Going Their Own Way and have decided they want no women in their lives, period, which I also suspect is largely bullshit, though I suspect most women are grateful.)

I will admit my research into the men’s rights movement (MRM) was not exhaustive. It was, however, exhausting. I really couldn’t do more than half an hour or so at a time before disgust and the desire to un-read some things overcame me. These are people who believe domestic abuse is “sex symmetrical” and that the vast majority of rape accusations are false. Many do not believe it is possible for a man to rape his wife. There is a school of thought in the American MRM that Mexican wives are preferable because they are docile. There is a group with the sole intention of diverting donations from White Ribbon, a Canadian organization dedicated to “end violence against women and girls, promote gender equity, healthy relationships and a new vision of masculinity.” The counter group’s (, as opposed to motto is “End Violence Against Everyone” and has a photo of a “battered woman” with their pledge. (Looks more like a cheap make-up job to me, but I’m no expect.) Scroll on down and the evenhandedness disappears. Women are the culprits here, and feminism is the root or most evil. The site is hosted by A Voice For Men, the “leading” web site for the MRM, and hardly a voice of reason.

So, bane666au, that’s why men’s rights activists’ head will explode. Strong women. Women of the type that led to MRAs boycotting Mad Max: Fury Road. You think you’re men? Men don’t blame others for their own failures. Men don’t carry on about a vast female conspiracy that has neutered the “manginas” in positions of power to bias laws in women’s favor.  What men do—in addition to taking responsibility for their own weaknesses and failures—is have to deal with a world where a woman has little choice but to view us as potential threats, both physically and economically. As usual, Louis CK is dead on:

Here’s the deal, bane666au or whatever the fuck your real name is: (In fairness, he may use a pseudonym because his family has threatened to beat the shit out of him if he leaves any way for people to connect them.) We’re on to you, and your cowardly, spineless, pusillanimous, timorous, yellow, weak-kneed, gutless, frightened, cowhearted, despicable buddies. Go your own fucking way. Find an island somewhere and create a male utopia of self-emasculating, self-loathing, self-defeating, and self-abusing onanists and leave the rest of us to work things out. Without you, we have a chance of getting it right.


Unknown said...

I find it hilarious that you claim MRAs were boycotting mad max.
The article calling for a boycott was written by a non MRA and published on a non MRA website (return of kings is a pick up artist site, 5 minutes of research will tell you that not only are they not MRAs, but also they don't like us much)
But why let the facts get in the way of a good lie, right?
Its much easier for your side to use lies, false stereotypes and ad homs.
The fact you think we want women "in their place" shows how little you actually know about us.
I'm guessing you are unaware that some of our most popular members are in fact female.
You would know this if you actually did research.
(I'm guessing your research consists of reading feminists articles without checking their accuracy).
And look at all those Ad homs you used instead of actual arguments........ well done....... much easier than forming real counter arguments, right?

I did LOL, by the way.

Oh one last thing....... you called me a misogynist, but never bothered explaining why.
I guess we can just chalk that up to yet another Ad hom.
Oh well.

Unknown said...

Your claim to have researched the MRM is demonstrably false.
Mexican wives, traditional gender roles, you're talking about pick up artists.
You're as well researched as a 'scholar' who conflates Judaism and Islam because both involved Abraham.

Jack Getze said...

My only problem with the blog was your use of the word "onanist." Bastard. I had to look it up, and of course immediately wished I hadn't.

Dan_Luft said...

Well Dana, I guess you got it all wrong. Of course no one's telling you how you got it wrong or to what degree you got it wrong because that might be dialogue. I guess no one's looking for that.

Dana King said...

The article calling for the boycott? Like there was only one guy revved up about it? Your research skills are worse than you say mine are. I only went to see the movie to break MRA balls after I couldn’t avoid references to the boycott on social media.

BTW, it wasn’t Return of Kings where I did most of my research; it was A Voice for Men, which I would read until a shower just couldn’t be put off any longer.

I am aware that some of your “most popular” members are female. I suspect much of their “popularity” comes from the fact that the honey badgers agree with you. Why, I can’t imagine. (Low self-esteem, maybe.) Still, saying some of your most popular members are female does not in any way refute the argument you only care for women in their place, as these women are, in fact, in exactly the place you want them: agreeing with you.

As for the misogynist comment, I didn’t come up with it until after viewing as much as I could stomach of a couple of your videos. You appear to be unclear of the definition of misogynist, so let me help you: look in a mirror, pal.

Dana King said...

I generally delete anonymous comments for the reasons stated in the post: you have an opinion you want to stand by, use your name, as I did. You come in here billing yourself as Un Fucking Known doesn’t really cut it. I’d break your balls, but they’re too small already for it to be noticeable.

Unknown said...

I didn't intend to post anonymously, I just have never been to this corner of insanity before.
Look, you made a shitload of false claims in your article. And you instead are addressing people's anonymity.
Address your lies, or at least call out the liar who sold them to you.
Or, keep your cult firmly in the crosshairs of those who are fighting for legal gender equality.

Unknown said...

Misogyny: The hatred of women. That's what feminists do, by constantly casting them as the victim, and constantly seeing them as helpless objects with no agency. And that is one of the main reasons that the number of female supporters of the MHRM is growing.

To get an idea on why it actually takes a strong woman to oppose feminism, I would highly recommend you watch some of Alison Tieman's Youtube earlier videos, here is one about rape culture.

Dana King said...

@Felfop Returns:
This is more stand-up than Unknown? Really? Does your phone book listing read, "Returns, Felfop?"

As for your comment, I'll concede the Mexican wives thing is much more for pick-up artists. I've done a lot of reading on men's rights and misogyny for my next book and conflated the two on that one issue. For that, I stand corrected. As for the rest, I have done extensive research for that book, and will stand by any comments that equate the larger men's rights movement with misogyny. I've dug into the major sites, most prominently A Voice for Men, as I have a character speak for the men's rights movement in the book and didn't want to put anything in his mouth an MRA wouldn't say. What I found for attribution was worse than anything I could have come up with.

Dana King said...

@ R Raven,

You wouldn't call it misogynistic to grossly misrepresent the percentage of rapes that are false allegations? How about the practice of doxxing? Next you'll fall into the "women actually run the country" argument.

Unknown said...

First of all thanks for replying, it is more than I expected.

*You wouldn't call it misogynistic to grossly misrepresent the percentage of rapes* on the contrary. This is what the 1 in 5 myth does by redefining rape and shifting goal posts - I am sorry but it is the feminists who are misogynistic in a way that defines unwanted touching etc. as rape, and thus belittling real suffering of actual victims of this crime.

As regards doxxing, I don't care very much about that and would be against it, UNLESS we are attacked in the real world by others. So if people write to my employer to get me fired I will return the favor and also attack them in the real world; this is what doxxing is for, to react to real world attacks.

As regards your comment to Dan (felfop) he had the custody and well-being of his son at stake, and he actually _is_ showing his face with his opinions so your demand of using his real name on YouTube seems petty.

Unknown said...

Oh and PS: *Next you'll fall into the "women actually run the country" argument. * - don't make the mistake of trying to predict what I think or going to say next. Group think is not as popular in the MHRM as regressive lefts and authoritarians may assume. Often this is projection.

I could reply with "next you will say men run the country", which is factually correct but doesn't give any more power to individual men. Political decisions are made by brains, not by penises; and good Politicians care for their electorate, not for specific genders. The MRM's contention is: Where there _is_ gender specific focus it is stacked in favor of females and very little for males. Council housing for single parents is a good example for this. Another one is the budget of women's health vs Men's Health. budgets for gender specific cancers are regularly slashed on the male side. Also, as regards genital mutilation, the politicians who hold the power do not care much of ending or even bringing up as topic the male side of this problem. I do not expect this to be improved by introducing female quotas; especially not when the kind of females that should be "forced in" by such quotas are feminists, as these specifically have a track record of ignoring such gendered issues with the catch all phrase "solve women's problems first".

Dana King said...

@R Raven,
Sorry my last reply was so tardy. My e-mail unilaterally decided all messages from Blogger were spam and I only figured it out yesterday. I try to respond to comments within a day or so, and I think I have it fixed now.

“…feminists who are misogynistic in a way that defines unwanted touching etc. as rape…”
Based on your own definition of misogyny (“hatred of women”) this hardly qualifies, even if it were accurate. “Unwanted touching” falls into the category of “sexual assault,” of which rape is the most extreme version. Considering this a crime in no way belittles those who have been physically violated. It’s wrong, period. The line is simple: you don’ t touch people who don’t want to be touched.

“As regards doxxing, I don't care very much about that and would be against it,”
You would be against it? Like if ever happened? Then you give exceptions. How about when rape victims have their names and contact information leaked so every arrested development case who can’t get laid and has time on his hands can harass her? The Onion nailed this one, as it so often does:"

“your demand of using his real name on YouTube seems petty.”
This isn’t YouTube, and I never “demanded” he use his real name. I use mine, and most of my commenters use theirs. My general experience is that people willing to stand behind what they post are willing to use their real names. If they’re not, I’m under no obligation to indulge their opinions, since they post them without concern for blowback. He doesn’t want to use his name, don’t post here.

“Where there _is_ gender specific focus it is stacked in favor of females and very little for males.”
This is another MRM argument I see lots of places that doesn’t hold water if one looks behind the curtain for even a few seconds. The reasons these laws are “imbalanced” in favor of women is because the de facto status gives men the superior position and has done so for centuries. It’s a relatively recent phenomenon for women to be considered better than chattel, and there are many in this country, even now, who believe it impossible for a man to rape his wife; that’s supposed to be his due.

The men’s rights movement may have begun with worthwhile causes. Some men do get screwed in custody and child support cases. That shouldn’t be. On the other hand, those numbers pale in comparison to the father and husbands who walk away and have to be chased down for child support. The “mainstream” of the current men’s rights movement, as put forth by A Voice For Men, has so badly corrupted the whatever good might have been in the original intent as to make it indiscernible. It’s a “flat earth” position: MRAs can put forth anecdotal evidence and cry foul when others can provide volumes of documentation. It may fly at AVFM, but not here.

Unknown said...

Sir, you are either lying or are incapable of doing proper research.
Imagine if someone claimed to have done a lot of digging into Islam, and they then tell you Muslims take communion.
That's what you did.
It's obvious as he'll you got your info from anti men's rights sites, and occasionally looked at an article from the MRM, without looking at the context.
As a father who was screwed over by anti male discrimination in the legal system, I find your willful ignorance mingled with hard opinion to be childish, but also extremely harmful.
"More men walk out on their families than get screwed by family court"
Um, citation please. Also, what does that have to do with gender discrimination in the fucking LAW?
THAT is what men's rights activists care about. The LAW. Not any of the other nonsense your "research" unearthed.
Seriously, do you research the GOP on liberal websites? Research Christianity on Atheist websites?Do you research the holocaust on neo nazi websites?
Ok then. Try for some consistency.

Dana King said...

@ Felfop (if that is, in fact, your real name)
Actually, the overwhelming majority of my research on the men's rights movement was done on a Voice For Men. Crime stats were mostly from the DOJ web site. As I noted above, "gender discrimination" in the law is an answer to the status quo where women are far more likely to be assaulted, or wives abandoned, than vice versa.

I'm sorry (if) you got hosed, but this only makes you one of the two ultimate refuges of the men's rights argument: anecdotal evidence. (The other is cherry-picked (at best) statistics.)

Pisanty said...

Why won´t you put any sources?

certifed said...

When you make the slur against bane666au... "dickless coward" I'm not sure if you're aware, but this appears to be a slur against women, you're connecting people without penises to being a coward. I feel this exposes an underlying misogynism in your character among other deficiencies, for instance, your constant fall-back to shaming language and name-calling. Without substantiating your school-yard taunts, you just come across as being weak.

Also without providing any citations or evidence for your ridiculous claims and blatant ad-hom attacks you only erode any credibility you may have collected. Although going by your apparent lack of understanding of history, yet willingness to embarrass yourself on the topic, I don't think the process of erosion was long-lived.

As already pointed out by others' here your 'research' has apparently been entirely gleaned from feminist sources and particularly anti-mra hit pieces. I'd recommend you look up the research* exposing the unreliability (and that's being generous) of 'feminist research'; especially regarding deliberate concealment and distortion of evidence on 'gender symmetry' in partner violence. Distorted to match their preconceived bias, you know, the narrative you've fallen for so far that you are more than willing to exclude a whole demographic from receiving help, and in doing so, you're adding to a very real and serious problem in our society. You really should expand your 'research skills' to include sources that have not been demonstrated to be dishonest. That way you won't embarrass yourself so completely.

yours sincerely,
(anti-feminist, mra and egalitarian).


*Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence:

An investigation by Straus concerning 30 years of hiding DV statistics by feminists:

Until feminists deal with the hatred and lies coming from the very leaders of their group I'll call them out for it. And the people who facilitate those lies ... that would be you.

Dana King said...

Thanks for chiming in, even after all this time. I'm glad everyone took the time and appreciate may have taken a while for some of you to find someone to read the original post to you, although apparently not the comments. As has been previously noted (and apparently ignored), my research was almost entirely from men’s rights sites, plus some stats from DOJ. The statements made on these sites speak for themselves, regardless of how much MRAs try to spin them after the fact.

The anonymously posted comments shave been removed. You want to post here, show yourself.

David A Kast Jr said...

Here's my name, I have nothing to lose, Mr.King.

Speaking of evidence, you provided none whatsoever and even went as far as namecalling. For an older man, you have a very childish way of going about things. As to your claims about the MRM, you've also given no links to what makes you say those things. Someone already provided you links above to show how wrong some of your claims were. Are you just going to ignore them?

I'm convinced you only hold populist views for the sake of book sales. Because if you held anti-fem or MRM views, you'd probably sell little by comparison. Money makes people do and say stupid things.

In the anti-fem and MRM communities, anonymity is key to not losing your job because some feminists didn't like what you said. It also helps to not get dox'd, then subsequently harrassed by phonecalls or swatted.

Dana King said...


First, thanks for using your name. It shows integrity and class too often missing from the men’s rights movement.

I see by your reply we agree on at least one thing: “In the anti-fem and MRM communities, anonymity is key to not losing your job.” We part ways as to the reasons for this. You say it’s because “some feminists didn't like what you said. It also helps to not get dox'd, then subsequently harrassed by phonecalls or swatted,” which I find highly entertaining. Thanks for the morning chuckle. Men’s rights advocates need to remain anonymous for much the same reason the Klan wears hoods: they may, in fact, face repercussions, as the opinions espoused are so repugnant to a vast majority of people. The doxing and swatting are also nice examples of transference, as the men’s rights movement practically wrote the book on those tactics and uses them extensively.

You asked for sources for my comments. Here is bane666au’s YouTube channel. I don’t see a link to his web site in my Google search. I presume he took it down, as my recollection is his written communication skills didn’t kick ass any more than his arguments.

For more—and justification for bane666au’s hysterical rantings—I direct you to the Master of Misogyny, the Charlemagne of Charlatans, and Rasputin of Rape Apologists, Paul Elam, who better than anyone else has the meaning of “male” ass backward.

The “views” that abhor what the men’s rights movement has become are not populist, but I can see why you would think so. They are sign of empathy, a quality men’s rights activists are sorely lacking. A man does not whine and cast blame for his failures and insecurities. He gets up and fixes himself before he starts in on others. Look in the mirror. You have one advantage over many of your MRM peers: with the courage to use your name, you’ll at least see a reflection there.