MRAs post secret recording of non-secret event, confuse feminism with the complete opposite of feminism

Secret Squirrel: Much better at this than MRAs

Secret Squirrel: Much better at this than MRAs

If you’re a feminist holding an event, and you don’t want to have recordings of that event posted online without your permission by MRAs, it looks like your only option is to ban anyone and everyone associated with A Voice for Men from the premises.  AVFM “activism director” Attila Vinczer has made that very clear.

Earlier this month, you see, Jaclyn Friedman – feminist writer, speaker, founder of Women, Action & The Media (WAM!) – gave a talk at Queens University in Kingston, Canada, followed by a panel discussion.

A number of Men’s Rights Activists associated with everyone’s favorite hate site A Voice for Men showed up with cameras and other recording devices, as they do.

The organizers made clear that there was to be no filming or recording of the event.

They had security remove Steve Brule, an MRA-sympathetic “documentarian” who’d shown up with his camera gear. Organizers had every reason to worry about Brule and his camera: in the past, footage from Brule has been used by AVFM to dox feminist students. Nevertheless, he cried foul, saying that he promised the security guards he wouldn’t film the event –honest! — and, absurdly, claiming that he had been discriminated against as an “old guy.”

But organizers let in other MRAs, apparently on the condition that they not record any of the proceedings.

Well, I guess we now know how much those sorts of promises are worth. Today, A Voice for Men posted a recording of the event. Vinczer explained that

I herewith revoke my word not to record the Jaclyn Friedman What’s Feminism Got To Do With It public event.  Had security not violated my Charter Rights I would never have had to take the steps I did to preserve those rights.

His accusation?

On April 7, 2014, a group of five men and one woman were denied access to a public feminist event at Queen’s University for absolutely no reason at all. Security trampled on Charter rights of these Canadians.

But then in his next line we learn that four of these people, including him, WERE ultimately allowed to attend the event. (Presumably the fifth was Brule.)

So four of these people were unfairly denied access to something they were not actually denied access to, and a fifth was denied access because organizers and students didn’t trust him not to record the event.

And so, in order to protest a man being kept out of an event because people were afraid he would secretly tape the event, AVFM is … posting audio that someone secretly recorded of the event, after promising not to record it.

So that’s irony number one.

As for irony number two, well, according to Vinczer, posting the audio of the event is necessary because

The public has a right to know what type of damaging and dangerous rhetoric is being spoken to highly impressionable young adult minds.

But guess what? The event wasn’t actually secret. It was actually BROADCAST LIVE AS IT WAS HAPPENING.

And for anyone who missed it, it’s ARCHIVED ONLINE HERE. Go to April 8 at 8pm (or, as they have it, 2000 hours). Ta da! The sound quality is better than AVFM’s recording, as well.

Besides sound quality, the other difference between AVFM’s recording and the officially broadcast one is that AVFM’s includes the panel discussion afterwards, which, as the radio station that broadcasted the event noted in a tweet “we were not permitted by the panelists and event organizers to record & broadcast the panel discussion due to safety concerns.”

In other words, the organizers wanted students to be able to ask questions without worrying about being publicly identified on the internet by MRAs — because MRAs, particularly those associated with AVFM, have a longstanding practice of singling out college feminists for harassment online.

So good on you, AVFMers, for making life a little easier for potential harassers.

Also, in the comments on AVFM, we see this wondrous little exchange.

 Kimski Mod • 7 hours ago  At approximately 15 min's in, you can hear Dan Perrins say: "Extorting as much money as possible for your sexuality!", to which Friedman agrees and runs with it.  So, the purpose of feminism is apparently to teach women how to become prostitutes, according to Jaclyn Friedman. She then continues her little scheme of extortion possibilities by teaching these young women how to pressure young males into "loving them" by withholding sex. The purpose of course being with a later marriage in mind, which actually makes this another clear example of promoting outright prostitution. 'Oh, the tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive'.  No wonder they didn't want you guys in there. The cover-up has been blown wide open: Jaclyn Friedman is actually a prostitution promoter in a feminist's disguise.  6 • Reply • Share ›          −     Avatar     DEDC Kimski • 5 hours ago      This is where I see the feminism is 'socialism in panties' argument: wherein the only 'legal' or state sanctioned 'sex-transaction' is marriage and it is price-floored at the cost of your soul.

Wait, a feminist telling women to exploit their sexuality for money? That seems … odd.

And that’s because she isn’t doing that at all.

Which brings us to irony number three: If you actually go and listen to that portion of Friedman’s talk, you will see that she isn’t issuing marching orders to her feminist sisters. In fact, she’s describing the traditional, patriarchal, female-sex-as-commodity notion of sexuality. She’s very clearly describing a model of sexuality she, as a feminist, finds troubling, not one that she endorses.

But just as the folks at AVFM have trouble telling the difference between a secret event and one that was literally broadcast to the world, they also have trouble telling the difference between feminism and the complete opposite of feminism.

Congratulations, AVFMers, you’ve once again demonstrated to the world that you are both liars and idiots.

EDIT: Added several paragraphs noting that the AVFM recording included the panel discussion and audience questions.

EDIT 2:  On Twitter, AVFM “assistant managing editor” Suzanne McCarley seems to suggest that Attila Vinczer’s argument that he had to post the audio because the public “has the right to know” is pure bullshit: AVFM, according to her, posted the audio simply because it was forbidden to post the audio.

Here’s her tweet:

So is she trying to make excuses for AVFM not knowing that the audio of Jaclyn Friedman’s talk was already online, or is this the truth? Funny thing is, either way, the folks at AVFM look like asses.

About these ads

Posted on April 21, 2014, in a voice for men, are these guys 12 years old?, doxing, drama kings, entitled babies, hypocrisy, irony alert, lying liars, misogyny, MRA, oppressed white men, playing the victim and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 81 Comments.

  1. Multiple blockquotes win! *victory boogie*

  2. > @DavidFutrelle It wasn’t secret, silly. It was forbidden. Much more exciting.—

    If true, this sounds like the whole point is intimidation, a technique AVfM is fond of. Their goal is to prove that even when the event forbids recording and security removes cameras, AVfM will find a way in.

    The point of which is not to bring transparency since it was never secret. The point is to discourage people who don’t want AVfM recording them from having the event in the first place, since it’s impossible to escape their “Activism.”

  3. @David Futrelle

    > I originally said in this comment that Janice Fiamengo had been shouted down at Queens University, but she wasn’t; she delivered her talk. She was however shouted down at the U of Ottawa.

    It’s true she was shouted down at U of Ottawa (which I’m not condoning) but to be clear she still delivered her talk there as well, after security moved the event to a new location.

    CAFE sponsored the event and their tweets confirm,

    > Indeed we are so very grateful to security. Thanks to them the event in fact did proceed despite opppsition

    > Event ends at 9pm. A little early but most of talk was complete and we got a lot of interest and contacts. We’ll be in touch!

  4. If anyone feels like writing a feminist conspirators script, I will totally draw it.

  5. Would Pierre be the security guard at the University? I wish I had time to write a script.

  6. Having a member of the MRM describing something forbidden (in the context of being explicitly denied consent) as being exciting gives me fucking chills.

  7. RE: sparky

    And, do they really believe that feminists are holding meetings teaching young women to sexually extort men for money? That’s such a strange and unbelievable thing for a feminist to say.

    From what I can see, they often equate feminism with “anything a woman does that I disapprove of.” Thus the broken irony detector–they really seem to think that if a woman says she eats puppies, it’s totally true and FEMINISM!

  8. katz –

    a coven of strawfeminists meet under a bridge

    A: Muhahahaha. How can we misander against the MENZ today?
    B: We could spermjack another several thousand of them to make ourselves pregnant and make them pay child support?
    C: But we already diddddddddd that. I’m tired of impregnating myself for that sweet, sweet misandry!
    B: Good point. Uh… we can cut off some foreskins?
    D: I can’t. My foreskin cutting tool is really dull and I haven’t had time to sharpen it.
    C: Scratch that then.
    E: Well, I heard that some of those mighty men were going to hold a rally today.
    A: OHMAIGAWDCANWEPULLANOTHERFIREALARMAGAIN???
    B: We should totally do this!
    C: YEA!
    B: I’m going to call up our fellow friends of misandry. LET’S GO SHUT DOWN THAT RALLY!
    All: YEAH!

  9. Shoot, I screwed up the tag. ITALIC MONSTER!

  10. Proving, once again, that every woman who has ever been smart enough to reject those losers are geniuses that had it right all along.

  11. I was thinking more something like:

    Feminist A: How can we consolidate all the world’s power into the hands of women?

    Feminist B: I have a plan. First, we need to get men into all the positions of power. And then we’ll teach women to control them.

    Feminist A: Excellent! How will they control the men?

    Feminist B: Sex, mainly. They will offer men sex in exchange for doing whatever the women want.

    Feminist A: But what if a man doesn’t want to have sex with a particular woman?

    Feminist B: Don’t worry, I have it on good authority that men are physically incapable of controlling their animal instincts around any woman, regardless of how she looks or acts.

    Feminist A: True. And if it doesn’t work, we can always use our fallback plan and mail them feathers. No man can withstand the power of an envelope with a feather in it.

    Feminist C: But wouldn’t it make more sense to put the women into positions of power? And then they could just make the decisions, instead of having to convince a man to make them?

    Feminist B: You don’t understand feminism at all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 6,371 other followers

%d bloggers like this: