ZDL

The #iamjanedoe movement seems to have been born out of an attempt to protect Jane Doe's identity after an independent journalist put out a public call Monday to name her "so we can all evaluate her veracity … since her lawsuit didn't hesitate to name and shame seven of her peers as gang-rapists."

"Independent journalist" is usually code for "angry crank with a platform".

So let's name this asshole. Michael Tracey.

Let's look over his history:

Started with the Young Turks (you know, the "leftist" outlet cofounded by this asshole). While working with them already showed his colours in how he deals with women. Citing Wikipedia:

In June 2017, Congresswoman Maxine Waters walked away from an interview with Tracey and pushed aside his hand and microphone. The incident was captured on video. Tracey said that Waters had "initiated unwarranted physical contact" and "shoved" him, but that it was "not a violent shove".

And here you can already see the manosphere rearing its ugly head. He harrasses a woman. She pushes aside the hand he shoved in her face. He has a whiny conniption. The pattern begins: a woman did something dismissive to a man, so he freaks out.

The hypocrisy of this toad becomes more apparent when you read the next major incident:

In 2019, Tracey criticized an article by Kevin Poulsen in The Daily Beast, which revealed the identity and criminal history of a man who had allegedly created a modified video of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that made her appear drunk.

So apparently exposing the ID of an asshole who attacked a woman with deepfakes is bad, but exposing the ID of a rape victim is just fine, eh Mikey?

His manosphere credentials are already finely polished and we're only at 2019.

But it's not only women he hates and men he loves. He also apparently loves war crimes.

In April 2022, Justin Ling wrote in Foreign Policy that Tracey had questioned the authenticity of photos relating to the Bucha massacre as potential "war propaganda".

I can already hear the bleating voices of war crime deniers. "He only said that it was potential propaganda." We here in the trade call that "JAQing off". Just Asking Questions. Questions meant to derail conversation. It's never done for anything other than nefarious purposes.

But it's OK. It's not like he stopped hating women. That continued on:

In September 2025, Tracey was ejected from a news conference featuring survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse after Tracey questioned the veracity of Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.

JAQing off again. This time to a rape victim. The manosphere pattern is secure.

If you have the stomach for it, just perusing the headlines of this rabid piece of manosphere shit's Substack will show you a distinct pattern of questioning rape victims, questioning women with authority, and excusing or denying the crimes of men in power committing atrocities against women and children. (Yes, that's an Epstein reference.) This living, walking, unfortunately still breathing pile of dysentery effluent is exactly why "Man or Bear" became a thing: bears don't punch down on women to prop up the kings.

Time for Action. (CW: Link to a repulsive sex crime at Cornell)

I'm not putting the URL in the post header itself because this is very serious trigger warning time. Do not follow this link if a story about an extreme sexual assault will hurt you.

For those who read the story, might I recommend emailing president@cornell.edu, link to the story (there's plenty of links to find; I just linked to the Cornell Sun's own story), scold the asshole, and end with "Do better."

If you happen to be Cornell Alumni, I'd also recommend pointing that out and telling them that Cornell will never see a dollar from you ever again if this is left standing as is.

Why "do better"?

The defendants were offered the opportunity to mitigate their conduct by submitting essays to the University, according to the lawsuit.

An essay. Would mitigate their disgusting, animalistic behaviour.

I can think of two things even better:

1. Getting pay and benefits for your own work instead of through your spouse's taking credit.
2. People paying attention to the rules of the group they're posting in.

I misidentified pretty embarrassingly once; I'm much more careful now than before as a result. But there's a few things.

1. A big tell is when people who have never been seen in here before suddenly Have Opinions™. That sparks immediate suspicion. It's not conclusive, but it's a flag.
2. An even bigger tell is that the Opinions They Have™ seem to take the man's side, or use some argument about "human nature" to put the men in the right and so on.
3. A lesser tell is there is some wording issues that raise a smaller flag for me.

But once the tells are there and I start looking, the first place I look is their posting history. A lot of them just flat-out state that they're dudes in some post or another. Others will mention their wife in one post, then in another post say they're cis-het. If you're cis-het and you've got a wife, you're pretty much automatically a dude because of, you know, what 'cis' and 'het' mean. Also a history of commenting on men's issues is a big tell.

And then, if I'm VERY suspicious but still not really certain, I hit the mod log for the user. And there it often comes glaring out. Even if they don't identify as male in the mod log entries, the nature of their behaviour and what they get modded for often screams "OBVIOUS GUY ... AND A COMPLETE DOUCHEBAG TO BOOT!" Things like being banned and having posts deleted for misogyny.

This is a rough one because there's so much entitlement that's buried deep in cultural assumptions that most people don't even consider to be worth examining.

Here's my shot at it: the unexamined expectation that women will absorb inconvenience—e.g. emotional, cognitive, and domestic labor—so men don’t have to.

It means women have to be ready to decode, manage, and soothe male emotions. It means women have to remember anniversaries, birthdays, plan celebrations and such. It means women work full time jobs and do the cleaning and laundry and such.

A close second would be the entitlement to be heard. Women will listen politely and attentively before being allowed to speak, and if at any point a man speaks, women are to shut up and listen again. You can see this dynamic in this very group with the number of people who can't read some perfectly clear text:

This is me predicting we're going to get a lot of that in this thread.

Here are my indispensable condiments and/or sauces:

• 腐乳 (fǔrǔ, or "fermented bean curd"). If you've been in a Chinese grocery and saw the red or yellow cubes in a suspicious-looking slightly translucent liquid, that's the stuff. I use it in congee. I use it on steamed buns like butter (spread very thin). I toss a cube into a stir-fry to give it an instant lightly-sour, heavy-umami boost. It works well to jazz up slightly under-developed noodle soups too if you screwed up the broth and found out too late.
• 豆豉酱 (dòu chǐ jiàng, or "fermented black bean sauce"). This is most popularly (for a good reason!) the 老干妈风味豆豉辣椒酱 (Lǎo Gānmā fēngwèi dòuchǐ làjiāo jiàng, or "Lao Ganma fermented black bean chili sauce). Lao Ganma (literally "old dry mother" but more accurately "old godmother") is a China-wide brand that has absolutely nailed this sauce. The only time I've had it better was made from scratch by a withered lady from Guizhou. The various sauce-alikes in grocery stores are inferior copies.
• 剁辣椒 (duò là jiāo, or "[Hunan] chopped peppers"). This is a Hunan export that uses chilies grown in Hunan's terroir that then ... well ... as the name suggests, get chopped. They're then salted/pickled. It sounds simple, because it is, but that simple process results in the weirdest ambrosia I've tasted in my life. You want to liven up purple taro? Throw in a spoon or ten of this and what was once a pleasant, but a bit drab, staple turns into a lively, tasty thing that people look forward to eating. It can also be used, like the furu above, to spice up a drab stir-fry like bok choi or other leafy greens. It is used as a marinade for roasted chickens. And when I make OTHER pickles (like pickled string beans) a spoonful of this mixed in gives it a really nice sparkle.

Well throughout history people have just dealt with excessive body odour by, you know, cleaning. Most times, under ordinary circumstances, the body's odour is not really noticeable, and when noticeable isn't really that offensive. For example I go to work every day in a pretty crowded subway. Most people in China don't use deodorant, yet there is no real problem with body odour. If you sweat a lot for whatever reason (heat, labour, etc.) and body odour starts up, historically people just, you know, washed. With a cloth. And some water. Or in water-poor areas, with even just sand.

But then in 1888 Mum, a deodorant, was inflicted on the world. This was a cream you applied to your armpits. In 1903 Everdry, an antiperspirant, was inflicted on the world. These were not very popular for a variety of reasons, including how inconvenient they were to apply (Mum was hand-applied, and Everdry used a kind of daubing stick like boot black liquids), and in the case of Everdry, how much damage it caused to the skin and clothing.

Then in 1912, Edna Murphey marketed an antiperspirant derived from her doctor father's concoction to help surgeons with sweaty hands as Odorono (Odor? Oh no! Get it? GET IT!?). Initial sales were slow and she commissioned a survey to find out why. The result was that most women just didn't need deodorants or antiperspirants. Or so they thought. EDNA WOULD SHOW THEM HOW WRONG THEY WERE!

And thus was the insecurity marketing strategy born. Odorono's advertising from that point onward was based on the term "B.O." which was specifically invented to sell her product. ("Body odour" was a term in medical texts, but it was not a term in common usage until Odorono inflicted it on us.) It convinced women that sweating was an embarrassing problem that needed handling, and look! Here's a product we make that fixes this embarrassing thing that you never once thought was embarrassing at any point in your life beforehand but now...

And thus the comic cavalcade of deodorants and antiperspirants began to really rock and roll.

Roll-on antiperspirants came about in the 1940s with Ban Roll-on popularizing it in the '50s using a product that basically imitated the then-new ballpoint pen. Also in the '50s Stopette came out with a new chemical to smear on your body to deal with that "embarrassing" problem of being human that nobody worried about until Edna came onto the scene. They were the name in women's "hygiene" because of their sponsorship of The $64,000 Question, an insanely popular television quiz show. When Stopette's patent lapsed it lost its massive prominence as competitors started crawling out of the woodwork to make the same product but cheaper.

Then again in the '50s (what was it about that decade!?), deodorants and antiperspirants, hitherto pretty much restricted to women, started getting marketed to men. This was hilarious because up to that point, deodorants and antiperspirants had been marketed so much to women that it was viewed as a product for women alone, like tampons. Marketeers had to come up with a whole new vocabulary to not make men think of deodorants and antiperspirants as "girlish" and "feminine" (and, sigh, yes, "queer"). Thus came the aggressive wording like "masculine protection" and all the other stupid man stuff that sold things to men back then.

Aerosol dispensers started showing up in the '60s so you could kill the ozone layer while protecting yourself from the harmful effect of smelling like a human being and occasionally doing a bit of an extra rinse under the pits. Vaginal deodorants, whole body deodorants, and all the other nonsense that the field became replete with followed suit until today we have a bewildering array of deodorant products ranging from deodorant soaps to deodorant sprays to deodorant sticks to deodorant body sprays to ...

And yet, we really don't need any of it. We just need to be clean and prepare to clean up in the day if things get out of hand down in the pits. But it's much better to just smear/spray/whatever chemicals that harm our skin, clog our pores, stain our clothes, or in extreme cases destroy them, right?

It was a joint decision by the couple to market the books this way, where she was the one who insisted on not being credited, while he wanted to credit her.

I have seen too many married couples, ESPECIALLY in the '70s and '80s era, where the wife will say whatever story her husband has concocted.

If they really wanted a joint brand, well, there's been a long tradition of using fake authorial names (the earliest example I can think of is the Bobbsey Twins) where various writers write under that brand. But they didn't do that. They used HIS name. This tells me something.

Is it possible that this was something she willingly partook of? Sure.

But it's not very likely to my mind. The story "no, really, I want my wife to get credit but we HAVE to do it under my name for reasons" is very, very thin.

Ayup. It's absolutely scary to me that women were that badly off in the USA in my lifetime.

In her 1925 Radcliffe College thesis, Cecilia Payne ...

...calculated that stars are overwhelmingly hydrogen and helium. A senior astronomer talked her into calling her own result "almost certainly not real." Four years later, he published the same conclusion under his own name

This is a story that should be taught to all girls from junior middle school onward. A woman makes a discovery, is gaslit by a man into denying it, then has that discovery and credit stolen from her by the very man who gaslit her.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

You have to wonder at the mentality of men who do this. What kind of narcissistic asshole do you have to be to pretend that a creation is yours?

Oh. Wait. The popularity of generated "Art" tells me exactly what kind of asshole you have to be: a run of the mill asshole.

I just scrolled through the mod log (for a reminder of why rule #1 exists) and I stumbled over this:

Reason: Man who requested banning.

A man thought he was entitled to women doing the work to ban him from the community because he lacked the self-control to not comment in it.

Think about that for a second.

Women have to be this man's self-control because he can't do either of:

• exercising self-control and not posting
• doing the simple task of blocking the group himself

THIS is male entitlement in a nutshell.

Please point to the sweeping generalization.

:::spoiler hint You're going to want to read all the words I wrote, and read them for comprehension. :::

After that, once you realize that your response was dumb and start moving the goalposts, make sure moving them includes and explains the results of the Ipsos/King's College London Global Study. Among many others. Like, say, the Journal of European Public Policy study on voting patterns. Among many others.

I anticipate your goalpost-shifting and denial with bated breath.

IF you are in compliance with rule #1 in this group, that is. Are you?

So you didn't read rule #1 apparently…

I counted you utter fuckwit. There's no sweeping generalization in the phrase "in greater numbers". I did tell you to read for comprehension, you dolt.

I also then added formal studies to show that my counting isn't based on fucking TikTok. You moron.

Now. Since it's pretty fucking clear that you are not in compliance with rule #1, fuck right the fuck off you fucking fucker.