Search Results for matt forney
What Matt Forney’s “Case Against Female Self-Esteem” Reveals About His Own Deep Insecurities
Matt Forney is desperate for attention; it’s as glaringly obvious as the giant MATT FORNEY that adorns the top of his blog, creatively named MATT FORNEY. And like some caricature of an emo teen “acting out,” the misogynistic manosphere blogger has decided that any attention — even bad attention — is better than no attention.
And so, perhaps at least dimly aware that his ideas are and his prose are both too lackluster to command much attention on their own, he seems to be trying to rile up as much of the internet as possible with posts that are deliberately designed to offend liberals and feminists and pretty much anyone who is not a woman-hating douchebag. He had a minor hit a this spring with a post entitled Why Fat Girls Don’t Deserve to Be Loved, which did in fact live up — that is, down — to its title.
Now he’s got an even bigger hit in a post titled The Case Against Female Self-Esteem.
Is the disgusting manosphere blogger LaidNYC actually the disgusting manosphere blogger Matt Forney?
The real Matt Forney. Is he also LaidNYC?
So, I’ve written about the terrible “game” blogger LaidNYC several times already because the fellow is such a reliable purveyor of terrible what-the-fuckery — what with his weird fixation on the alleged value of his sperm, his creepy obsession with underage girls, and his overall awfulness as a human being. I have wondered, from time to time, if the fellow isn’t simply a troll, but I’ve kept on writing about him largely because his readers — and other manosphere bloggers — seem to take him utterly seriously.
Today, though, I just noticed a post from Matt Forney — a Manosphere blogger who is himself a deeply terrible person with a history of trollery and sockpuppeting — who seems to be dropping big hints that LaidNYC may not be who he seems. In a post reviewing an”ebook” by LaidNYC — insofar as a 13 page collection of platitudes obviously banged out in a few hours can be considered a book of any kind — Forney writes:
There are bloggers who take weeks, months, years to get into a groove, honing their talents to the point where their posts become must-reads. And then there are guys like LaidNYC who come exploding out of the gate, writing stuff so good you swear they’ve done this before. LaidNYC is on my top tier of bloggers because his writing is not only brutal and honest, brimming with verisimilitude, but his prose style is hilarious as well.
The fact that he so effortlessly sends feminists into shrieking hysterics is proof that he’s doing things right.
Emphasis mine.
He ends the “review” urging his readers to send LaidNYC some real money for his ridiculous “book.”
So is Forney — with that bit about “stuff so good you swear they’ve done it before” — basically admitting that he is LaidNYC? If so, this wouldn’t be the first time he’s written an enthusiastic review of one of his own, er, books under a different name.
I suppose we’ll find out.
In any case, I’m not sure if it matters much if LaidNYC is a genuine “game” blogger with deeply misogynistic views who writes horrendous shit because he believes every word of it, or a troll with deeply misogynistic views who writes horrendous shit because he wants to piss off women and feminists and maybe con a few gullible followers into sending him money while he’s at it.
And whether or not LaidNYC’s noxious “advice” is meant seriously, manosphere dudes are lapping it up regardless.
Matt Forney and LaidNYC — who may or may not be the same person — have learned that you can get attention by saying terrible things. Congratulations. What an amazing accomplishment.
EDITED TO ADD: Well, on Twitter, for what it’s worth, Forney denies it all.
I did manage to find an audio interview with LaidNYC here. You can compare it to Forney’s voice on his podcast here. At first I was thinking that while the voices are similar, it wasn’t a match: LaidNYC was a faster talker with a higher voice, etc. (It’s hard to tell, in part because LaidNYC’s voice in the interview is poor quality, over the phone.) But then I skipped ahead to about ten minutes into Forney’s podcast and now I’m not sure. The voices are awfully similar (and frankly, not terribly alpha-sounding). Any thoughts?
How to get rave reviews for terrible books, the Matt Forney way
This spring, the pseudonymous “Ferdinand Bardamu” of the defunct manosphere blog In Mala Fide self-published a book/ebook collecting together his, er, best posts from that terrible, terrible blog. I actually bought a copy of the ebook — for research — and it is awful. Somehow putting Bardamu’s posts in book form makes even more clear how puerile — and how badly written — they really are.
But there are evidently some people out there who disagree. Indeed, I recently ran across a review of the book that could not have been more glowing had it been written by the author himself:
Three Years of Hate is an invaluable, priceless book not merely because it’s well-written, entertaining and thought-provoking. It’s worth reading because it’s a piece of history. It’s a record of one of the most influential and important thinkers of our times. Decades from now, when the current dystopia is naught but a bad memory, Ferdinand Bardamu will be remembered as one of the architects of its fall.
Elsewhere in the review, which appeared on the site Alternative Right in March of this year, the execrable Bardamu is described as
one of the best writers of modern times (and no, that is not hyperbole)
He’s lauded for his “tenacity and courage”; his prose is said to
lurch … and crackle .. like lightning, grabbing you by the back of your neck and shoving you face-first into the action.
In the end, the reviewer concludes that Bardamu had
An influence far greater—and far more of a force for good in the world—than the frauds who attacked him.
Frauds, huh? That’s an interesting way to close out his review, given that the person writing it was none other than … the odious Matt Forney.
Yes, that’s right, the guy who — a month or so later — revealed to the world that HE WAS “FERDINAND BARDAMU.”
If you’re relying on glowing reviews to sell your book, and your book is a piece of crap, you might as well write the glowing reviews yourself, huh?
I suppose Forney’s explanation would be that it was all a big joke, and that by then “everyone knew” that Forney and Bardamu were one and the same, but that’s not true, and he didn’t confirm that fact for more than another month in any case.
I can’t remember exactly where I ran across a reference to theis ingenious little bit of self-boosterism, but I think it was while reading back through some old posts on the always interesting blog Roosh & Me: An Old Feminist Looks at the New Misogynist, by Cinzia La Strega. who is an occasional commenter over here on Man Boobz.
Matt Forney, still trying hard to offend, publishes post suggesting that whenever women drink they cheat on their boyfriends [CORRECTED]
Women preparing to cheat.
Matt Forrney, the asshole behind the now-defunct In Mala Fide blog, is apparently as desperate for attention as ever. So today I’m going to indulge him by posting this deliberately obnoxious comment of his about women and drinking. [CORRECTION: The post was actually written by someone calling himself "The Captain Power," who is evidently a whole other different person than Matt Forney, who merely published this post on his blog called Matt Forney.]
If your girlfriend goes out and drinks alcohol, you are most likely getting cheated on.
Women by nature are predetermined in their D.N.A to get pregnant and reproduce, and until they reach menopause they need a constant supply of penis to provide fertility. Your girlfriend might prefer your penis, but once the alcohol kicks in and she is inebriated, your penis is useless. Out of site, out of mind (but full of semen).
In my entire life I have never met a women who was out drinking and didn’t cheat on her boyfriend. …
The few drinking exceptions for women include weddings, work parties, birthday parties with male friends, and suicide attempts.
The reference to suicide attempts at the end is a nice touch.
Big Manosphere Reveal: Matt Forney was Ferdinand Bardamu
Matt Forney’s a dick, so here are some goats in a tree.
Longtime readers of Man Boobz may remember “Ferdinand Bardamu,” the pseudonymous blogger behind the thoroughly despicable In Mala Fide blog. How despicable? Well, once upon a time, “Bardamu” wrote a post with the lovely title “The Necessity of Domestic Violence,” in which he set forth the proposition that “[w]omen should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.” Yeah. It was that kind of a blog. You can find some more of Bardamu’s terrible thoughts in the MB archives.
Matt Forney: When we call women fat sluts, it’s because we care!
Matt Forney, your argument sounds dubious at best.
Hey, ladies! You know how the dudes of the so-called manosphere are always saying horrible shit about you? They’re not doing it out of hate. No, no, they’re doing it for your own good! In a guest post on the blog Freedom Twenty-Five, Matt Forney offers women his own brand of tough (alleged) love:
The Daily Beast takes on the Men’s Rights movement — and takes down A Voice for Men’s John Hembling
John Hembling, possibly lying about something
The bad publicity bonanza for Men’s Rights activists continues — and it couldn’t happen to a worse group of people.
Yesterday, the Daily Beast published a long-awaited piece on the Men’s Rights movement, and it’s a doozy. If you’re a regular reader of this site, trust me, you’ll want to read the whole thing, like now. The piece, by R. Tod Kelly, is long — some 6000 words — but worth it.
It’s mostly on the money, but with a few notable flaws.
Here’s what it gets right:
1) It captures the pervasive misogyny of the Men’s Rights movement in general, and of A Voice for Men in particular.
2) In an extended section, it profiles AVFM’s John Hembling, and tears apart some of his most blatant lies — including the now legendary box-cutter incident, in which Hembling claims to have stared down a mob of 20-30 feminists brandishing boxcutters.
As Kelly notes:
Vancouver police records show that there was indeed an altercation in September of 2012 between Hembling and others seeking to tear down men’s rights posters. However, according to the police, Hembling was arguing with two or three people, not being accosted by a “mob” of any size. When questioned by the authorities, neither Hembling nor witnesses mentioned seeing any weapons. …
Curiously enough, Hembling actually videotaped the events and had his AV4M Radio partner Karen Straughan post it online. The discussion with the police has been conveniently edited out, but the rest of the video clearly matches police records and not Hembling’s story. There are only a few young men taking down Hembling’s posters, and the video shows them choosing to ignore him except when he engages them in conversation. One of the men is seen using a box cutter to take down the flyers, but at no time does he use it as a weapon, raise his voice, or threaten Hembling in any way.
Kelly found some troubling, er, discrepancies in another story told by Hembling. Kelly writes:
According to Hembling, sometime around 1995 he was on his way home at 2:00 am after working a night shift when he came upon [a sexual] assault in progress. He says he used his steel-toed boots as weapons to chase off the perpetrator. When the victim was too distraught to speak with him, Hembling says he contacted the police, waited until they arrived, and then quietly left without speaking to them. He says they later tracked him down at his home, where he gave a statement.
It’s hard to know whether this event actually occurred or not. There is no record—at least, not in the Vancouver police files—of Hembling being a material witness to a rape, and police blotters from that time period do not show a crime that matches Hembling’s description. However, this does not necessarily mean the event did not occur. Vancouver police did not fully computerize their data until 2002, and it is possible the police never reported the incident. Hembling claims the incident took place at a specific hospital, where he says he worked as a contractor for 18 months. The address he gives, however, is for a different hospital in a completely different part of the city. This raises the curious question of whether Hembling forget the name of the hospital he contracted with for 18 months, or whether he forget what part of the city he worked in for that same period of time. The real truth of the matter is anyone’s guess, because Hembling wouldn’t comment to The Beast on that or any other matter.
In other words: Cool story, bro.
3) Another thing the story gets right: it makes clear just how little the Men’s Rights movement does to actually help men — and how in many ways it can actually be terribly damaging to men who need real help. As Kelly writes,
the movement’s radicals might … do … immediate damage to those who most desperately need the MRM to succeed.
“When we talk about recovery from trauma and abuse, there were two things that helped me,” says Chris Anderson, executive director of the male-victim advocacy group Male Survivor and a sexual abuse survivor himself. “The first was realizing that I’m not alone; the second was hearing that recovery was possible.” Anderson is quick to dissociate himself from the men’s rights movement: “In [the MRM] people get that first message, that they’re not alone. I don’t know that they ever get the second message. And when they don’t get that second message, it turns into an endless feedback loop and eventually they say, ‘Oh my God, all of society is f**ked.’”
Indeed, Kelly writes:
It is telling to note that of the professional male-victim advocacy organizations I spoke with, every single one specifically asked that I not allow readers to think they were in any way related to the MRM.
But there are also some things that I think the article gets wrong.
1) I think it gives Men’s Rights activists way too much credit for their supposed good intentions. While there are some MRAs who do seem to be motivated at least in part by a sincere desire to help men, most of the MRAs I’ve encountered in the 3 years of doing this blog have clearly been motivated primarily by anger and hatred of feminists — and women in general. They don’t really seem to give a shit about doing anything to actually improve the lives of men — and the paucity of their accomplishments reflects this. In its relatively brief lifespan, AVFM has raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Has it set up any shelters or hotlines or helplines for men? Not a one.
2) It wildly exaggerates the importance of Hembling to the MRM - especially ironic given that Hembling has been more or less AWOL in recent months, producing only a few short videos and one article for AVFM.
3) It paints a picture of The Spearhead’s WF Price as a Men’s Rights “moderate.” Really? While it’s true that Price is not an AVFM-style hothead given to rants about “fucking your shit up,” his views are anything but moderate. This is a guy who thinks higher education is wasted on women, who blames the epidemic of rape in the armed forces on women, who celebrated one Mothers Day with a vicious transphobic rant, who once used the tragic death of a woman who’d just graduated from college to argue that “after 25, women are just wasting time.” He published posts on why women’s suffrage is a bad idea. Plus, have you met his commenters?
I was, however, kind of amazed to learn that Price is married … and to a feminist. No, really.
4) The article, while solidly researched, contains some small errors and simplifications that will no doubt give MRAs and others the excuse they need to dismiss the whole thing. Kelly refers to Reddit subreddits as Reddit “threads!” He refers to Matt Forney as an MRA! Oh no!
Still, whatever its flaws, this is an important piece, and one that tells a lot of truth about the Men’s Rights movement. Again — go read it!
Oops! Roosh V’s #FatShamingWeek rallies Fat Acceptance activists, makes fat shamers look like the dicks they are
Rubens: Not into fat shaming
The gentlemen bloggers of the Manosphere — particularly those obsessed with pickup artistry, a.k.a. “game” — like to pretend that they’re part of some sort of reactionary intellectual renaissance. Indeed, some have even convinced themselves that they’re part of a new “dark enlightenment.”
These intellectual pretensions are undercut rather thoroughly by the often puerile content of their blogs, in particular the bloggers’ obsession with cheap insults of the “yeah, well, you’re a fattie who can’t get laid” variety. Indeed, sometimes this seems to be their only real response to their many critics.
Roosh pal: Attack on Pax Dickinson is “like a gang of angry, deformed and diseased street cripples overcoming a confident and successful alpha male.”
Roosh: A baby Hitler for the Internet age?
So I want to move on from the whole Pax Dickinson thing, but I feel I would be remiss to do so without first mentioning a remarkable post on Roosh’s Return of King blog with the seemingly innocuous title Pax Dickinson And The Culture Of Tolerance. Written by a Roosh forum regular who goes by the name scorpion (nice), the post is ostensibly a critique of alleged “cultural Marxists” whom, he charges, “claim to be tolerant of everything [yet] are … intolerant of traditional masculine behavior … .”
But his post is in fact a plea for intolerance so over the top that, save for some manosphere-specific jargon, and its focus on “feminists, white knights, manginas, fat acceptance activists and homosexuals” rather than, you know, Jews, it might as well have come straight from the pages of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
Embittered pickup artist douchebags rally around embattled Twitter douchebag Pax Dickinson
Yes, this is really Pax Dickinson, and that’s really his name.
Roosh V and the other human skidmarks who make up the reactionary “game”-centric wing of the manosphere have finally found something to rally around beyond their shared hatred of women and gays and trans* folks and fatties and people with skin colors different from theirs: they’re taking up the cause of a dude who recently got forced out from a high-profile position at news site Business Insider for loudly expressing his own hatred of … woman and gays and trans* folk and people with a different skin color than him.
Really, about the only manosphere prejudice that former Business Insider CTO Pax Dickinson doesn’t seem to share — and enjoy sharing with the world on Twitter — is a hatred of fatties.
Dickenson found himself the center of a Twitter tempest earlier this week after Valleywag’s Nitasha Tiku wrote a brief piece calling Dickinson a “Tech Bro Nightmare” and quoting some of his more noxious tweets. Among them:
