Category Archives: playing the victim

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

6 Memes from A Voice for Men, and What They Really Mean

avfmmemes

Memes, memes everywhere, and not a drop of sense.

A Voice for Men seems to have gone a bit meme-crazy. The site’s official Pinterest page, which seems to be fairly new, is loaded up with 374 memes on such subjects as Sexual Politics, False Accusations, MGTOW, and of course Feminism.

It’s not clear how many of these memes were created by the AVFM “Meme Team” and how many were simply grabbed from the internet. But a number of the memes are emblazoned with the A Voice for Men name and/or logo, so I think it’s fair to say that these, at least, are “official” AVFM memes.

Going through these memes, one thing about them becomes clear very quickly: most of them seem to convey messages that are often considerably different than those their creators seem to have intended.

So here, without further ado, here are 6 AVFM memes and what they really mean.

1) MEN SOLVE PROBLEMS

avfmmensolvingpeoblems

menciv

 

 

What this meme purports to say: These two variations on the same meme might (charitably) be interpreted to mean that we should honor the historical achievements of men.

What this meme really says: Men are superior to women. Suck it up, dumb bitches!

2) TODAY HE WOULD BE CALLED A RAPIST

avfmnursekiss

 

What this meme purports to say: Feminist ideologues have so corrupted the notion of rape that is has become ridiculous.

What this meme really says: We basically don’t understand what consent is. Why shouldn’t a dude be allowed to just go kiss a woman on the mouth without her permission?

3) THANKS FOR NOTHING, FEMINISM!

femswap

What this meme purports to say: Feminism has conned women into giving up the joys of motherhood for the sorrows of wage labor

What this meme really says: We believe in a magical prefeminist fairyland in which all mothers were young, beautiful middle class women whose husbands could afford to support them while they raised children. There was no such thing as the working class, or women working in factory jobs, before feminism. Also, we basically think women shouldn’t have jobs, though we get mad at housewives for “leeching” off their husbands all the time, too.

4) COMMITTED TO FAIRNESS IN FAMILY COURTS

badmom

What this meme purports to say: Judges should not automatically assume that mothers will make better parents than fathers.

What this meme really says: We hate women, and love to laugh at them, and think that if any woman anywhere behaves badly it reflects poorly on all women due to the transitive property of women being terrible bitches.

5) BAN BOSSY?

bossy

 

What this meme purports to say: We oppose the #BanBossy campaign, for some reason.

What this meme really says: We hate women with any power in the world. We also hate little girls.

6) FEMINISTS WON’T STOP UNTIL WE MAKE THEM

heel

shoveit

 

What these related memes purport to say: These two memes suggest that feminism is a vicious, violent ideology that must be strongly opposed.

What these memes really say: We like to portray ourselves as victims of feminist violence, even if we have to imagine it, because that gives us a justification to indulge in wild fantasies of violent “retribution” that for some reason involve fists being shoved into women’s orifices.

COMING SOON: An arbitrary number of A Voice for Men memes that make no fucking sense.

EDIT: Proofreading fixes.

 

Women who get catcalled are the real sexual harassers, explains Men’s Rights Redditor

Woman sexually harassing a group of men with her slutty attire.

Woman sexually harassing a group of men with her slutty attire.

A month or so ago, after an antiques dealer responded to her comment about a piece of furniture by asking her if she and her female friend “ever made out with each other,” Leah Green of The Guardian decided it was time to try a little gender-reversal experiment: she would use hidden cameras to film her to treat unsuspecting men to the same sort of inappropriate sexual remarks that women get treated to every day, using real life examples collected by the @everydaysexism project.

You can see their reactions in the short video she posted on the Guardian’s website; she discusses her motivations more here.

Many of the men, unaccustomed to this sort of harassment, weren’t exactly sure how to react to her comments. When she asked a bartender for a drink and a lap dance, she had to repeat herself several times before he got her point. When she tried the “have you guys ever made out with each other” line on two older men, they couldn’t quite even process the question at first.

Others got angry. When she yelled “oi, get your asses out” at some construction workers – a gender-swapped version of the classic “show us your tits” — one of the affronted men responded with “you can’t talk to us like that.” And that was essentially the point of the video: no one should be talking to anyone like that.

That point seems to have escaped one angry commenter on the Men’s Rights subreddit going by the name of frankie_q, who spewed forth a well-received virtual manifesto arguing that it’s complaints about cat-calling, not the cat-calling itself, that is the bigger problem. And that the biggest problem of all is that women wear clothes that men consider sexy.

Read the rest of this entry

Actual Video Footage of Man Going His Own Way

If you’ve ever wondered what the carefree, unencumbered-by-women-and-their-cooties life of a true Man Going His Own Way looks like, you’re in luck, as the video above presents ACTUAL FOOTAGE of just this. Apparently, Going Your Own Way looks an awful lot like Hanging Around and Pestering, at least if you’re Vention1MGTOW, a YouTube videoblogger who regularly offers up little glimpses into his awesome life.

In the video above, our hero, in between fits of giggles, gleefully relates how he “trolled” a cutsey YouTube video showing a high school coach who’d gotten his team to help him propose to his girlfriend. Vention1MGTOW did his best to ruin the mood by posting “a few strategic comments” (that is, endless screeds) attacking marriage and women and, well, you know the drill. My favorite line from his comments, which he proudly reads aloud:

I’m sure some old wrinkled up, STD, ex-party party girl would love to move into my home and begin diverting my income for her own use but I don’t really see a benefit for me in that deal.

I hate to break it to you, dude, but I’m pretty sure even the most thoroughly wrinkled-up ex-party girl would rather die alone and unloved than have to put up with you. Hell, I’m pretty sure the only reason your dog (he has a dog) puts up with you is because he has no idea what you’re saying.

If you check out the coach’s video, you can see that a whole swarm of MGTOWers have descended upon the comments. Vention1MGTOW’s comments are actually some of the more polite from that bunch.

Vention1MGTOW – from his choice of snack (ramen noodles) to his, er, casual sense of interior decoration – seems like such a perfect embodiment of MGTOWer stereotypes that it’s hard to believe he’s for real. But he is. He’s got 82 videos up on his YouTube channel detailing his various obsessions: MGTOW, Bitcoins, hugelkultur gardening, doomsday prepping. Oh, and he’s got a Segway.

If the video above merely whetted your appetite for more of Vention1MGTOW’s trolling, here’s a video in which he successfully infiltrates the YouTube comments for an Enya video in order to inform the women there that they’re all going to get old and ugly and no one will want them.

I may have to come back to him again later. He’s a charmer.

Many thanks to the unknown hero on Reddit who brought this fellow to my attention.

After a feminist activist at Queen’s University reports being attacked, possibly by an MRA, the king of “fuck their shit up” responds with angry denial

Paul Elam: Anger is "pulsing through my veins like molten lava" at the very notion that MRAs are violent.

Paul Elam: Anger is “pulsing through my veins like molten lava.”

A student at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, says she was attacked and beaten by a strange man after receiving threatening messages about her opposition to a Men’s Rights group on campus. On Thursday, Danielle d’Entremont posted a picture of her bruised face to Facebook along with this explanation:

Just walked out of my house and got attacked by a stranger. I was punched in the face multiple times and lost half my tooth. This was after a few threatening emails regarding my support for feminist activities on campus. I can’t say for sure if the two are connected, however the attacker was a male who knew my name.

The campus Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS) – the group d’Entremont has been fighting – has condemned the attack, as has the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE), which co-sponsored a talk the MIAS put on Thursday. The police are investigating.

Right now, this is pretty much all we know about the story. Not that it this has stopped MRAs from offering their very fervent opinions on the matter.

Before we get to them, here are a few of my own:

Read the rest of this entry

Men’s Rights graphics extravaganza: “I need feminism so I can treat women like equals and beat them.”

Actual screenshot of "antifeminist graphics" collection. Apparently graphics do not need to contain graphics.

Actual screenshot of selection from “antifeminist graphics” collection. Apparently graphics do not need to contain graphics.

So the founder of the Men’s Rights subreddit, a fellow who now goes by the name of notnotnotfred, has done his fellow Men’s Rightsers a little favor and collected together a handy assortment of “antifeminist graphics” to assist them in their antifeministing activities on the internets. I thought I would share some of them with you all, just so you know what you’re up against.

Oh, who am I kidding? We here at Man Boobz love love love MRA graphics. There are few things in this world so hilariously awful. Take a look at these hot messes.

Read the rest of this entry

Quiz: Who said “Sluts are just whores in training?”

MRAs also like to remain anonymous when they make terrible jokes

Misogynists also like to remain anonymous when they make terrible jokes

Time for a little quiz!

Who posted comments online in which he (or she) declared that:

“Sluts are just whores in training.”

“Women look at 2 bulges on a man, one in the front of the pants or second one in the back pocket. Whichever one is bigger, they can do without the other.”

“What’s the most used line in Arkansas: daddy get off me you are crushing my cigarettes.”

Female college students are “sororostutes.”

Women expect special treatment because of their “golden vajay jays”

Khloe Kardashian is “black by injection.”

Your choices are:

Read the rest of this entry

Today in Straw Feminism: Why they chuckle at male suicide figures — explained!

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, the regulars are getting worked up about imaginary feminists again. Well, I suppose that’s pretty much all they ever do. But these two have managed to get even more worked up about even more imaginary feminists than they usually do:

 

flying_downwardss 12 points 22 hours ago (18|6)  I'M SORRY FOR BEING BORN MALE, I'M SORRY!  Is that what the feminists and manginas want to hear?      permalink     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]Maschalismos 7 points 18 hours ago (7|0)  You know full well it is. And the only way for you to atone for your sin -making a woman feel bad by existing- is to kill yourself.  Thats why they chuckle at male suicide figures: they think its justice for the vast, infinite, undefined bulk of crimes against women since the dawn of time.

Upvotes for everyone!

 

 

A Voice for Men takes on feminist [rhymes-with-bunts] with new poster campaign

No, this is real. I didn't make it up. I just blurred out the c-word.

No, this is real. I didn’t make it up. I just blurred out the c-word.

Last week I wrote about the fondness of a certain Men’s Rights website for a certain four-letter word starting with the letter c. This week they’ve topped themselves — with a postering campaign based on the c-word.

Yep: A Voice for Men has thrown its support behind a postering campaign with the slogan: “Having a vagina is no excuse for being a C*NT.”

They don’t use an asterisk.

The postering campaign, spearheaded by a Youtube antifeminist calling himself Bane666au, feature what purport to be real quotes from feminists alongside not-exactly-subtle stock photos depicting comically angry women. For example:

Read the rest of this entry

James Taranto of the WSJ: Drunk women who are raped may be as guilty as their rapists

James Taranto, saying something annoying

James Taranto, saying something terrible

Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto is probably the closest thing to an authentic Men’s Rights Activist there is operating in the mainstream media today, by which I mean he regularly puts forth “arguments” on gender issues that are breathtaking in their backwardness.

His latest, er, contribution to the gender debate? A column in which he suggested that drunk women who are raped on college campuses by drunk men are as guilty as their rapists. No, really. Here’s his argument, such as it is:

If two drunk drivers are in a collision, one doesn’t determine fault on the basis of demographic details such as each driver’s sex. But when two drunken college students “collide,” the male one is almost always presumed to be at fault. His diminished capacity owing to alcohol is not a mitigating factor, but her diminished capacity is an aggravating factor for him.

Huh. I’m pretty sure we determine the victim of a rape not on demographics but based on WHICH PERSON RAPED THE OTHER PERSON. Much in the way we would charge a drunken person who shot another drunken person with shooting that person, rather than simply throwing up our hands and saying, well, they were both drunk, so no harm no foul, right?

For a longer take on the issue, check out this piece over on Media Matters.

Media Matters has also assembled a nice, and mercifully rather brief, media montage of some of Taranto’s other pronouncements on gender issues. See if you can make it to the end without pulling out all of your hair.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,848 other followers

%d bloggers like this: