Just a quick update on the case of Arianna Pattek, the recent Georgetown graduate targeted for harassment by A Voice for Men and others, including the white supremacists at Stormfront. As I pointed out in an earlier piece, the “detective work” that led A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam and the other Pattek-bashers to target her was incredibly inept and sloppy, and it’s clear beyond any possible doubt that she has nothing whatsoever to do with the misandrist blog they accused her of writing, which increasingly obviously seems to be an utter hoax.
A Voice for Men, which hasn’t yet acknowledged much less apologized for its obvious mistake, has made much of the fact that information about Pattek was pulled down off of a Georgetown website after various websites started targeting her — attributing this to some sinister conspiracy. “[I]t now appears almost certain,” Elam wrote in his error-riddled post on the matter,
that individuals at Georgetown, perhaps even university officials, are purging their online records of that thesis, and her identity, in order to protect the interest of the school against what will almost certainly result in a massive amount of litigation.
Last night Mark Lance, director of the Justice and Peace program at Georgetown, left this message in the comments here on Man Boobz. (I confirmed his identity through email.)
Hi. Im the director of the Justice and Peace program at GU, though I was not directing when Arianna graduated. I just wanted to let folks know that her information was removed from some web sites at to protect her. This story was first picked up by Stormfront.org and the white supremacists have been harassing and threatening her, including posting her home address, picture, etc. It was probably pointless, but the person who directed the program last year decided to remove the info. So, sorry, no conspiracy. Just an attempt to protect a young woman from vicious hate groups.
That explanation makes sense to me, and certainly he’s got more credibility on this matter than Paul Elam. (A ham sandwich has more credibility than Paul Elam.)
Lance’s comment raises an interesting question: Did Stormfront in fact start harassing Pattek before the MRAs got to her?
Here’s what we know: Stormfront — incorrectly — named Pattek the author of the feministconservative blog a little after 3 AM Eastern time on the 18th, the same day that Redditors in the Men’s Rights and Conspiracy subreddits (and a few others) picked up the story. Timestamps on Reddit aren’t precise, but I’m guessing they got to it after 3 AM. The phony news also began spreading around Tumblr that day as well. Elam posted his piece trashing Pattek later that same day.
So, yes, it does sound like the white supremacists got to Pattek first.
Does this also suggest that the bogus information published by A Voice for Men came — directly or indirectly — from Stormfront?
That seems much less likely. Though I can’t confirm it, it looks like the whole thing originated not on Stormfront but on 4chan, and that their bogus theory about Pattek spread to all the other sites out there. (I find it hard to believe that all the other sites arrived independently at the same patently false conclusion.) It’s certainly possible that Elam got his info from Stormfront, but it seems more likely he got it from 4chan, or, even more likely, 4chan via Reddit.
If anyone has evidence that 4chan picked up the theory from Stormfront, let me know.
In any case, the whole event says a lot about how bad information spreads on the internet, and just who is getting information from whom.
It also says a lot that A Voice for Men, which likes to pretend it’s at the vanguard of a great 21st century “Men’s Human Rights Movement” was nearly as quick to jump on the Pattek-hating bandwagon as the literal Nazis at Stormfront — that is, the leftover stragglers from a 20th century hate movement.
And it’s quite telling that both Stormfronters and AVFMers think that doxing and harassment of individuals are justifiable forms of “activism.”
I would say something about strange bedfellows, but these bedfellows aren’t strange in the slightest. They’re two hate movements, just made for each other.
In what world are Paul Elam and his merry band of fools not racist?
And Jack, honey, having a different definition of racism than you isn’t quite the same as lying.
Just clarifying.
The boys at AVfM certainly take great glee in throwing around the n-word.
ha ha ha!
ha ha ha!
hahaha!
Not like I don’t think that liberals can’t wind up being sexist, because they can, but you seriously need to look up the definition of “feminist”. Or start using your brain.
riiiiiiight.
cool story, bro.
You’re still an asshole.
Also, note that his “not an MRA” claim hinges on a philosophical position about the nature of rights, not on his rejection of MRA theories in general. I mean, the screed he linked to is on The Spearhead, and “I’m not an MRA I just post on their sites” isn’t exactly a strong defense.
I guess you can make up whatever you want.
I know Elam and his pals are happy to include men from all races, and he would never support or associate with any actual racists. Bill from The Spearhead is also against discriminating against men of any ethnicity. I’ve talked to him in person about it. There have actually been several attempted purges of WNs from MRA sites, because a lot of those guys are offended by the idea that they even have WN readers and commenters. There are also a lot of MRAs who are Jews.
All I really need to know is that both Jack Donovan & his ilk and AVfM & their ilk are my ideological enemies. The small nuances separating them are not relevant, since at their core, none of them view women as human beings with equal rights.
Really, Jack? Because the only time I see PaulE and the gang give one fuck about MOC is when they can use them as a beatstick against feminism.
You’re a lying sack of shit asshole.
Oh yes. We’re ideological enemies. Absolutely.
If you say things that aren’t true about your enemies, it makes you look foolish, uninformed, and easy to discredit.
Everyone who disagrees with you about women is not a racist. Only some are.
I’m constantly reminded that I can’t pigeon-hole feminists, or that I’m mis-characterizing them, because there are many different feminists with diverse views on a wide range of topics.
This is the same thing, applied in the opposite direction.
No one here ever said that every anti-feminist is a racist. Just that the AVfM is certainly packed fat with them. Learn to read, Jack.
If you mean anonymous commenters and trolls, then probably, sure.
Paul Elam, no. The majority of his writers and supporters, no.
And rest assured, I don’t like the guy. But he’s not a racist by any meaningful definition.
Yeah, right.
@Jack
I admit I haven’t read enough of Elam’s garbage to know whether he is really, really racist, or just regular racist, but I do know that he like to appropriate the slavery (in the USA) narrative for his purposes, which as a white male, is incredibly skeevy.
Like here
yeah. The fact that he is comparing men as an oppressed group to slaves and feminism to plantation owners is suuuuuuper creepy, and also lacks any understanding of history.
I guess. As far as I can tell using slavery and Nazis as “ultimate evil” hyperbole for rhetorical effect is a common political practice from Republican neocons all the way across the spectrum to far-left animal rights activists. I don’t know if cliche writing makes him a racist.
The fact that Paul E. is willing to appropriate the experience of men of color and use it to attack women? Pretty fucking racist, actually. So yeah, while he is not a robe-wearing member of the KKK, he’s a racist, just in a kindler/gentler format.
That’s my opinion. We could always submit the question of whether or not Paulie is a racist to binding arbitration, I suppose.
Okay, so some people minimalize evil all the time in their narratives. And? How does that make it okay? Just because you care about
the alleged oppression of mengetting laid does not make that cause similar to fighting slavery or the Nazis. It just disrespects people who have actually had to deal with those problems.Going through the racism tage here on Manboobz, it looks like most of the racism that’s been highlighted here has been from the Spearhead. I can’t find much from Elam, but I’m only a couple of pages in. Anyone got links?
Okeydokey. Nevermind. Please return to your regularly scheduled program.
KItteh’s: When did the MRM start? I started noticing it in the late 80s/early 90s. Not so “organised” as it is now, but with a lot of the same things, and support networks to push the ideas: things like the divorce courts being “stacked” against men, and women having all the power (for some stupid; and mostly discredited, stuff google, “alienation of affection”), as well as the idea that women are being given preference/feminism is lying (wage gap, etc.).
Basically about the time feminism had made the sort of inroads which made it possible for people to think, “well we don’t need feminism anymore”.
So…why should we allow this moron to define racism for everyone?
Also known as “the backlash”.
Unsurprisingly, if us lefties occasionally get into shouting matches with each other based on whether our particular brand of activism thinks patriarchy or white supremacy (or class) is the most pressing problem, the reactionaries also have the same internal scuffles.
One thing though, Jack Donovan, is I hope you’re ready to march down to camp with your little embroided pink triangle once you get your wishes. Otherwise you’re even dumber than the average WN.
Jack: Your complaint isn’t really that Elam’s not a racist, it’s that he’s not racist enough; and that what racism he has he’s not proud of.
Saying he’s not racist; because he tries to hide it makes you look stupid.
“Racism” is a pretty broad term. It can include things like assuming all that black people you meet like rap music, or comparing yourself to Rosa Parks for standing up to the guy at IKEA when he refused to take your return without a receipt. It can also mean that you think race is the most important thing about people and all of history can be explained as the struggle between different ethnic groups.
So, yeah, AVfM is ‘racist’ when they compare the term ‘mansplain’ to ‘n-wordsplain’, and they deserve to be called out on this. But they’re not ‘racist’ like white nationalists are racist. They’re all anti-feminists, though, which really makes me happy to identify as feminist.
In my personal taxonomy of manosphere d-bags, MRAs seem to be mostly identified by their use of oppression and ‘social justice’ language, just made to be about men. A lot of the way they talk seems to be a weird bizarro world distortion of feminism. Take a feminist issue (rape, DV, workplace discrimination, etc.) and make it about men and you’ve got a good chunk of the MRA bullshit.