Category Archives: a voice for men
So, that tempest in a teacup involving MRA London, A Voice for Men’s British satellite group, that I wrote about last night? Well, it’s gotten even sillier.
The tl;dr is that MRA London has split up, with accusations and counter-accusations flying. AVFM staffer Andy Thomas has appointed himself CEO of the group after apparently tossing out most of its members. (Or “accepting their resignations,” or something; who knows?) As far as I can tell, this means that the group may now be down to literally two people.
Now AVFM’s Maximum Leader Paul Elam has posted a very long statement on the subject, saying very little indeed. The gist of it? He really doesn’t know what happened in the “very British coup” or who was right, but he’s sticking with Thomas because he knows the dude better than the dudes who are no longer part of the group. No, really, that’s his explanation.
Not only that, but Elam admits flatly that doesn’t really even care who was right, at least not enough to bother to try to figure out the basic facts of the case:
I am not in the least interested in trying to ascertain who was more or less at fault in MRA London’s internal conflicts. It is not that I am indifferent to right and wrong in this case, but simply as a pragmatic matter I cannot and won’t try to wade through several weeks/months of infighting, insinuation and accusations between people in conflict 8,000 miles from here and even pretend that I can come up with an informed judgment.
Really? Because most political organizations, when faced with issues like this, like to at least pretend to gather the facts before making their decisions.
Elam also alludes vaguely to
other factors, having to do with the best interests of AVFM and the MHRM, that lend more support to our decision to maintain the historical relationship we have had with Andy Thomas of MRA London. I am not at liberty to discuss them, but they are compelling.
Oh, so there were some SUPER SEEEKRET reasons too! Having to do with the “best interests” of the world historical force that is the Men’s Human Rights Human Movement of Men (But Not Those Dudes We Just Threw Under The Bus for Super SEEEKRET Reasons).
Come to think of it, no one has actually explained straightforwardly the non-super seekret reasons either. Ah well.
Elam also makes clear that any dissent to this decision will be confined to the comments of this one thread.
ALL HAIL ELAM AND HIS INFALLIBLE WISDOM OF MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON NOT KNOWING SHIT ABOUT WHAT HE’S MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT.
PS In my haste to write this post I neglected to include my regular reminder that AVFM, while claiming to be a “human rights” group, continues to post a literal call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its activism section.
A Voice for Men’s plans for world domination seem to have hit a little snag. Earlier today, the so-called “Men’s Human Rights” site — which posts an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its “Activism” section — posted a most unusual article titled “A Very British Coup,” which detailed — in a highly one-sided manner — some rather nasty infighting in AFVM’s apparently quite tiny British satellite organization MRA London.
According to newly self-installed MRA London Maximum Leader Andy Thomas, earlier this month,
a bizarre coup was attempted within the MRA London. While I was travelling and out of regular contact, a certain member of the group announced to the world that he had been ejected from MRA London by me personally, and put out a widespread appeal to have me “deposed”, “overthrown”, or whatever. He also made a series of even more bizarre allegations against me and several others.
But for various unspecified reasons this “reverse coup” failed, according to Thomas, “ending in farce and bitter recrimination.” Now the alleged coup-plotters are no longer with the group, and Thomas has declared himself the Chief Executive Officer of the group, such as it is.
This news seemed to come as a shock to most of the AVFM faithful, some of whom were faintly horrified to find Thomas airing this sort of dirty laundry in public where people like you and me can see it. One reader was so baffled by it all they concluded it might be “feminist gaslighting.” (When in doubt, blame the feminists.)
Others more familiar with the situation blasted Thomas’ account of the affair as self-serving nonsense. Richard Ford, one of the expelled/resigned/whatever members, wrote sarcastically, in a comment on AVFM that has miraculously not yet been deleted:
Andy has not chosen to speak to me directly about whatever is bothering him and I am unable to discover the reasons from any other member as it seems that every one of us (with the exception of Erin [Pizzey] and possibly one other) has been expelled at the same time! I honestly know no more about this than what I read here.
I wish Andy well with his new bonzai version of MRA London. The membership will simply have to start again with a new name. Much time will be wasted but we will get there in the end.
For the record. Andy has no power to expel anyone from a group that he so recently joined. Despite this I believe it best to go our separate ways.
AVFM’s own Maximum Leader, Paul Elam, has promised a further explanation tomorrow. Stay tuned, as this has the potential to get very messy indeed.
TyphonBlue: “Aside from the minor … physical effects of abortion surgery, how is forced abortion different for men or women?”
You may recall that post a couple of days back in which I talked about Dean Esmay of A Voice for Men — the alleged “Men’s Human Rights” site that hosts an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its “activism” section — suggesting that unnamed Man Boobz “minions” might stoop to impersonating female MRAs in an attempt to make the Men’s Rights movement look bad.
British barrister Barbara Hewson caused a bit of a stir last week when she called for the age of consent in Britain to be lowered to 13 so as to end the alleged “persecution of old men” like those arrested in the wake of the recent Jimmy Savile scandal, which revealed a widespread culture of sexual exploitation of underage girls (and some boys) at the BBC in the 1970s.
Now one female Men’s Rights Activist connected to hate site A Voice for Men has done Hewson one better, arguing that the real culprits in these scandals weren’t the predatory adult men but the girls they victimized.
Men’s Rights Activists turn to Russian dashcam footage to determine if all women are lazy and selfish, or just most of them
So someone on YouTube decided to put together what was intended as a heartwarming and inspirational video — assembled mostly from Russian dash-cam videos — showing an assortment of ordinary fellows taking a few moments from their day to help out their fellow human beings, and even a few animals. We get to see little old ladies walked across the street, cars pushed or pulled from snowbanks, and so on.
But when Paul Elam of A Voice for Men — the alleged Men’s “Human Rights” site that posts an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its “activism” section — watched the video, all he saw was what wasn’t there — that is, helpful women.
Gullible Men’s Rights Redditors fooled by fake Jezebel article arguing that paternity fraud is “one way to break the rule of fathers.”
This just in: Men’s Rights Activists are some of the most gullible nincompoops in the history of ever.
The latest evidence of this? The regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit were fooled by an obviously fake “screenshot” of an article from Jezebel that had been altered to make it look like a Jezebel staff writer thinks that paternity fraud is justifiable as a way to fight patriarchy.
Our dear friends over at A Voice for Men, the thought-leaders of the Glorious New Men’s Human Rights of The 21st Century Human Rights Movement With Girl Writes What (GNMHROT21CHRMWGWW) have been trying to introduce a new word into the vernacular, as part of their broad-based campaign for the betterment of human rights. That word? Rapetard.
While the portmanteau word has been floating around for some time, with assorted definitions, it took on its modern, human-rightsy definition in mid-April in a little-seen YouTube video by a fellow calling himself “Dick Magnum,” who defined it thusly:
An individual who, for reasons related to intellectual, emotional or moral deficits, cannot distinguish between questioning [the idea of] “rape culture” and supporting rape.
It was picked up in an AVFM post titled “Beware the Rapetard Society” about a week after that. Soon other AFVM writers seemed to forget Mr. Magnum’s careful definition, adopting it as their go-to epithet for feminists they don’t like. Which is pretty much all of them.
In a post having nothing to do with rape or rape culture, Paul Elam talked about “dumbing things down so that even a rapetard could understand.” In the comments to that post, AVFM contributor Dan Perrins joked about “rapetarded quote mining expedition[s].” And in a post yesterday, AVFM’s “Andy Bob” attacked Australian comedian Catherine Deveny for an assortment of alleged offenses against decency — including using the term “retard” – in a post that referred to her as a “rapetard” four times, including once in the title.
You might think that combining the word “rape” with an ableist slur –“tard” – and applying it liberally to feminist women would be a step backwards in the campaign for human rights, but apparently that’s old-fashioned twentieth century thinking on my part.