Search Results for a voice for men
Tom “Female Penguins are Whores ” Martin, banned from A Voice for Men for excessive feminism?

Tom Martin would be right at home in Second Life, apparently.
I realize that I may be the only one who’s really all that interested in sectarian infighting amongst the MRAs, but an old friend of ours has weighed in on the recent battles over the A Voice for Men satellite group MRA London, and I’ve learned some interesting things as a result.
A Voice for Men/MRA London infighting gets even sillier: Paul Elam makes his uninformed stand

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.
Dirty Laundry Alert! Tears, recriminations and infighting amongst A Voice for Men’s London allies

A hit, a palpable hit!
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.
A Voice for Men attacks a male activist — with a rape joke reference
In an apparent attempt to prove that they’re not misogynists, the folks at A Voice for Men have decided to take a temporary break from their practice of vilifying individual female activists to vilify a male activist – University of Toronto Student Union VP for University Affairs Munib Sajjad.
As far as I can tell, the folks at A Voice for Men decided to target Sajjad, perversely, because he told Toronto’s CityNews that he was afraid he was “going to be targeted” after announcing publicly that he thought a campus Men’s Rights group should be banned. The A Voice for Men post about Sajjad is a typically long-winded, and largely content-free, rant from the excitable John Hembling (“John The Other”).
But what’s more disturbing than Hembling’s empty bloviating on Sajjad is the way A Voice for Men has framed the attack. “Munib Sajjad, it’s your turn in the barrel,” the headline declares, and Hembling repeats the phrase “your turn in the barrel” in the post itself.
I wasn’t familiar with this phrase, so I looked it up, and found that it derives from a rape joke. Here’s the definition of the term, from Urban Dictionary:
To say someone is “in the barrel” or “taking a turn in the barrel” means it’s their turn to do an unpleasant task or to suffer an unpleasant experience.
Click on the “definition” link above to see the gang rape joke it’s derived from.
Rape jokes aimed at men — even men you don’t like — are certainly a, well, counterintuitive way of showing “compassion for boys and men,” as the A Voice for Men slogan has it.
EDITED TO ADD: Looking again at Hembling’s piece, I realize I hadn’t noticed his, er, argument that the term “mansplaining” — which I find useful from time to time — is somehow equivalent to the incredibly offensive term “[racial slur redacted]splaining,” which Hembling has just made up. (The slur in question starts with an “n.” You can figure it out.) This is ridiculous on its face, not to mention that it’s frankly racist not only to compare the alleged oppressions of men — who are not systematically oppressed — with those of black people — who are — but also to use a racial slur in doing so. Of course this isn’t the first time that A Voice for Men has used the n-word in an attempt to suggest that men, collectively, have it as bad as a historically disadvantaged and still systematically oppressed group.
Rape jokes and racial slurs: A Voice for Men has it all!
Lazy Libel: A Voice for Men “doxes” an alleged misandrist blogger — and ID’s the wrong woman [UPDATE2 w/ Georgetown response, notes from neo-Nazis]
As I finished up my last post about Men’s Rights Redditors attempting to dox a so-called “conservative feminist” blogger who had confessed to trashing male applications when working in a university admissions office, I saw that A Voice for Men has run a post by Paul Elam identifying someone they’ve convinced themselves is the blogger, apparently using the information dug up by the Reddit doxers.
Their alleged culprit? “Arianna Pattek, a Georgetown grad student.” Other Men’s Rightsers have taken up the case, and the Conspiracy Subreddit is all aflutter about a post identifying her by name.
They’ve got the wrong person.
The Creepy Voicemail Message I got from A Voice for Men’s most active activist, KARMA MRA MGTOW
So a reporter from the Toronto Star recently contacted Paul Elam of A Voice for Men to ask him about the harassment and threats received by several student protesters at the University of Toronto after Elam and his associates identified and vilified them online, both on AVFM and on its bogus “offenders registry” called Register-Her . (You can read more about the harassment here, here and here; here’s the school’s official statement condemning the threats.)
A Voice for Men uses pic of brutalized woman to illustrate post blaming feminists for domestic violence
[TRIGGER WARNING for picture of brutalized woman]
If you want to show someone what sort of website A Voice for Men is, have them look at the following screenshot, which I’m putting below the jump because it may well trigger some readers in its depiction of the effects of domestic violence on women:
A Voice for Men: we’ll support women in combat only if the proper percentage of women get killed.
As everyone reading this blog no doubt already knows, feminists have hailed the Pentagon’s decision to open combat jobs to women, which will allow women the same opportunities to serve as men. The decision is also a backhanded acknowledgement that, for all intents and purposes, women are serving in combat today already. (Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth lost both of her legs in combat in Iraq – but officially, what she was engaged in wasn’t combat.)













