The Poisoned M&M Rule

During the #notallmen and #yesallwoman twitterfest, one twit stood out as the embodiment of the feminist rationale. Ironically, it was a twit by a man.

M&M

Put aside the logical and statistical failings of the metaphor, and consider instead its emotional appeal as a justification for women’s condemnation of the 90% for the actions of the 10%.  And if you’re a lawyer, wipe Blackstone’s Ratio completely from your mind.  This became a rallying twit, and was taken to heart by those seeking to justify their victimhood.

Cut to a video that went fairly viral, of drone flying Austin Haughwout being attacked by Andrea Mears, who was certain he was a “pervert” using his drone to harass women and take improper photos of Mears on the beach.

Had Haughwout not captured Mears assault on video, he would have been arrested.  His video turned the tables, and Mears was arrested instead.  Her lie to police that Haughwout had attacked her was squashed, at least as far as those who concern themselves with evidence.

But this is where the Poisoned M&M Rule comes into play, as Mears may have been wrong about what Haughwout was doing, and wrong to attack him, and wrong to lie about it, but not wrong enough to be made into a victim for the cause.

While Haughwout may not have been engaged in sexual harassment this time, don’t blame Mears for what she did. Blame the 10% poisoned M&Ms.

Earlier this week, a 23-year-old Connecticut woman was arrested on charges of assault after attacking a drone hobbyist who had been flying his GoPro-equipped quadcopter over a local beach.

An iPhone video captured by the 17-year-old drone operator, Austin Haughwout, shows the woman calling him a “little pervert,” ripping his shirt, and threatening to beat him for “taking pictures of people on the beach.”

The story may seem seem [sic] rather innocuous, relatively speaking, but it’s generated a significant amount of interest around the web this week.

“Innocuous” is a curious characterization.

Since being uploaded on Sunday, Haughwout’s point-of-view video of the incident has been viewed more than half a million times on LiveLeak alone — and has sparked an intense discussion about the use of drones for the purpose of filming people who don’t want to filmed.

The discussion “sparked” is largely dependent on the comments one focuses on.  While this article focuses on the “use of drones for the purpose of filming people who don’t want to filmed,” there was also a great deal of discussion about crazed women assuming they’re being harassed because this is all about women being harassed.

Many are relating this week’s Connecticut drone story to previous allegations of drone spying, and while nobody has condoned Mears’ behaviour — quite the contrary — some are saying that her suspicions about drones being used to sexually harass women are not unfounded.

So it didn’t happen here. Mears was wrong. But Mears was right, because there were “previous allegations of drone spying.”  And so Mears’ “suspicions” were “not unfounded,” because it’s a “thing.”

drone

Sure, #notalldrones, but stick your hand in that dish of M&Ms and take your chances.

So the problem is drones?  Well, an aspect of it is, as they have become a target:

“We heard this whirring noise above us, and I looked up and saw a remote-controlled plane — one of the square ones that can move really articulately in all directions. No big deal. I turned back down and napped more,” she wrote in a highly-trafficked Reddit thread. “Then I noticed: A. It was getting really close to women. Like, straight up in their a**es close, flying really low, staying there for probably three minutes at a time; and B. It had a camera on it.”

She went on to reveal that she discovered two drone operators in some sand dunes nearby.

“You are violating every woman on this beach,” she claims to have told them. “Get it out of the sky.”

Whether this is accurate about how the drone was being used is unknown, but let’s presume it was.  People are out in public. Sometimes, pictures of them are taken. Is this creepy? I certainly think so, but does it “violate every woman on this beach”?  I don’t know what that means.  I’m a big fan of privacy, and would really hate to have someone taking unwanted pics of me, but then I also realize that my control over my privacy is my responsibility.  My right to privacy doesn’t trump someone else’s right to take pictures. Even creepy pics.

Yet, this has nothing really to do with drones, or privacy, or women in bikinis on beaches.  This has to do with the Poisoned M&M Rule, and how this inapt metaphor has infiltrated the minds of those who believe that their complaint of violation justifies their attacking the 90% because they fear the 10%.  After all, you never know which M&M is poisoned, so they are entitled to destroy all M&Ms for their own safety.

One reaction to the Poisoned M&M Rule was to substitute blacks, gays, Jews for men in the metaphor.  Suddenly, the metaphor wasn’t so appealing. But if you shut your eyes tight enough, scream “lalalala” as loud as possible, and just keep focusing on the patriarchy, attacks by crazy people like Andrea Mears because somewhere, somehow, someone was alleged to have violated women on the beach the exact same way make it all seem right.  Or would you rather swallow a handful of M&Ms?

 

 

24 comments on “The Poisoned M&M Rule

  1. Turk

    Reading the original twit, I wondered if the 10% poisoned referred to men. Or women.

    Or, perhaps, 10% of every group you can think of.

    1. SHG Post author

      It’s the perfect excuse for every person to indulge their every fear by lashing out in anticipation. Because, M&Ms.

  2. Mark Lyon

    I find the “creepshots by quadrocopter” to be implausible. The craft are incredibly noisy and utilize (even as accessory cameras) lenses that have an extremely wide field of view. The combination just doesn’t lend itself to generating quality material for even the least-discerning pervert.

    If all you want is to take some photos of people lounging near the water, one would be far better off investing in a decent camera and a high-quality zoom lens. That way, you can be far away from the subject, still fill the frame with the desired anatomy and do so all without being spotted and subject to ridicule or assault.

    1. tim

      I was at a beach yesterday and took a number of pictures of surfers out on the waves with my rather expensive camera. I wasn’t the only one. There were at least a dozen people taking pictures with phones or other gadgets of the very same scene. And there were people taking pictures of themselves or their companions. It would be difficult NOT finding someone taking pictures of someone else at that scene. The same goes for the dog beach I go to on a regular basis. So I don’t get the “creepiness” being discussed.

      My main concern with drones is not the picture taking part. But that they can be dangerous. I own a couple of drones myself and wouldn’t think of operating them near an area with a lot of people. And this isn’t a new thing. There is a reason model airplane clubs operate in the middle of no where. Planes get away. Crash. Breakup. Etc.

      1. Beth

        While older model airplanes could be dangerous, the newer ones are so light weight that they would do little damage even if they did accidentally hit someone while flying.

  3. Coola Abdoola™

    C’mon, this is a problem that has already been solved in Islamic countries. To wit:

    Women’s Hijab

    The purpose of hijab is to cover the awrah and awrah varies in different situations and amongst different groups of people.

    We begin with the conditions of hijab for a woman in public and amongst non-mahram men. As long as these conditions are fulfilled a woman may wear whatever she pleases.

    1. The hijab (covering) must conceal the entire body except the face and the hands.

    2. It should not be translucent or tight. Tight clothes, even if they conceal the colour of the skin, still describe the size and shape of the body or part of it, and create vivid images.

    3. It should not attract the attention of the opposite gender; thus it should not be extravagant or excessively opulent. Nor should jewellery and makeup be on display.

    4. It should not be a garment worn because of vanity or to gain popularity or fame. The female companions were known to wear black and other dark colours but other colours are permissible; a woman must not however wear colourful clothes because of vanity.

    5. It should not be perfumed. This prohibition applies to both the body and the clothes.

    6. It should not resemble the clothing worn by men.

    7. It should not resemble the clothing that is specific to the non-Muslims.

    And thus, no worries, ever, of being violated by a creeper drone . . .

      1. Coola Abdoola™

        Van Halen solved the M&M problem long ago . . .

        From SNOPES:

        “Claim: Van Halen’s standard performance contract contained a provision calling for them to be provided backstage with a bowl of M&Ms from which all the brown candies has been removed.

        [Claim found to be] TRUE”

        “. . . By far the most notorious of these whimsical requests is the legend that Van Halen’s standard concert contract called for them to be provided with a bowl of M&Ms backstage, but with provision that all the brown candies must be removed. The presence of even a single brown M&M in that bowl, rumor had it, was sufficient legal cause for Van Halen to peremptorily cancel a scheduled appearance without advance notice (and usually an excuse for them to go on a destructive rampage as well).

        The legendary “no brown M&Ms” contract clause was indeed real, but the purported motivation for it was not. The M&Ms provision was included in Van Halen’s contracts not as an act of caprice, but because it served a practical purpose: to provide an easy way of determining whether the technical specifications of the contract had been thoroughly read (and complied with).”

  4. Jake DiMare

    I’m definitely curious to know what you think the outcome would have been in this scenario had the gender of the assailant and victim been swapped.

    1. SHG Post author

      They would have gotten married and lived happily ever after.

      Oh wait, he would have been charged with a felony.

  5. William Robelen

    I am always amused by how evil drones are portrayed to be today, particularly from those who have little to no concept for what a drone is or what its limitations are. Drones have been around in private hands since the 1940’s. A drone is just a remote controlled vehicle, primarily some type of aerial platform such as a helicopter of airplane. Cameras for drones have been around just about as long. My dad used to mount a small movie camera designed for model rockets on one of his rc airplanes to get video from his flights. To echo what one of the other commentators pointed out, if a person truly wanted to be a pervert in his video filming, he would be wiser to use a ground based camera, or at least a larger scale helicopter that could mount a larger and higher quality camera.

    1. tim

      I agree. My main concern with drones is not the picture taking part. But that they can be dangerous. I own a couple of drones myself and wouldn’t think of operating them near an area with a lot of people. And this isn’t a new thing. There is a reason model airplane clubs operate in the middle of no where. Planes get away. Crash. Breakup. Etc.

      Besides – I was at a beach yesterday and took a number of pictures of surfers out on the waves with my rather expensive camera. I wasn’t the only one. There were at least a dozen people taking pictures with phones or other gadgets of the very same scene. And there were people taking pictures of themselves or their companions. It would be difficult NOT finding someone taking pictures of someone else at that scene. The same goes for the dog beach I go to on a regular basis. So I don’t get the “creepiness” being discussed.

  6. John Barleycorn

    Hockey fans know how to deal with arse sniffing drones that get to close.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KR39DErszRE

    I think a three pound bag of peanut M&M’s and a sling shot could prove entertaining on my next trip to the beach.

    However, I would personally encourage offended women to jump up and down while throwing their beach towels at low altitude drones for more predictable results.

    Come to think of it, I dislike drones even more than man boobs and seagulls but I think I dislike cops on bicycles sneaking up on my beer cooler more than drones last time that happened they made me dump my remaining two PBR’s and my last cheese sandwich was splashed in the process. Unforgivable really.

  7. Rick

    Yes, poisoned M&Ms!!! Because people should be treated like inanimate objects. Brilliant argument, feminists.

  8. portia elm

    Actually, my goat informed me of a drone flyover. We were relaxing in a hayfield when we saw a “crow” fly over the trees behind us. He rose to all fours as if a string had pulled him up, and stood staring at this thing now flying towards us. It was totally silent to me but his creature hearing told him it was definitely something maybe to run like hell from. The only strange thing to me was that there was no wing-flapping. It was not a buzzard, but it was soaring around in a way that seemed impossible for a bird. My goat was riveted long after it was out of sight–he could still hear it. Later, I looked on the youtubez and found a drone lookalike to what I had seen, called the Maveric. You can’t fool an animal about what is NOT an animal. I have never seen another one here.

          1. portia elm

            and if you don’t believe me, you can ask him, lol. I don’t know about having to do all this math to post here–I have terrible math anxiety.

Comments are closed.