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.
“@Futrelle – You’re an American chosing to talk about my country – just trying to bring a sense of perspective to your obsession.”
Where does it say on this blog that it’s about discussing murders (be they terrorist or not)? It’s about mocking misogyny, in case you hadn’t noticed. That this “major human rights movement of the 21st century” can only get FIVE blokes to its London launch, and promptly has a schism among those five, says a great deal about their relevance and sense of perspective, not about David’s.
Why do you think he lacks perspective? Nowhere has David made it look like this is the most important thing happening in London.
Like not being from the U.S. has EVER stopped Joe from wanking about things here he knows nothing about.
Joe, where did I say it was important, to people in London or anywhere else? I said it was “silly” and a “tempest in a teacup.” I write about a lot of silly things on this blog.
The killing, which happened after I posted this post, is clearly much more important. You should probably go to a site dealing with British news if you want to talk about it.
Is Uncle Joe upset that we aren’t paying attention to him? Well, he could go back and answer the people who were paying attention to him in the past.
Or he can continue to be irrelevant.
David is apparently now the BBC. Or the Times, I’m not sure.
I’m bored and I don’t have any more episodes of Supernatural* tonight, so I’ll humor you.
Have you got any evidence of systematic misandry? PS, “Divorce court rape” is not a thing, men get custody 50 percent of the time they actually ask for it, and not getting laid is not oppression
*supernatural fans, don’t quiz me on my fanliness! I’ve only seen 10 episodes!
David, I came here today hoping to find that you’d written a thoughtful piece about the situation in Syria. Instead you’re just mocking misogynists.
I am disappoint.
And what about immigration reform? Huh? Well? And I hear Chicago is closing 49 public schools, and you live in Chicago, but not even a peep!
I was expecting to see coverage of the invocation of the legislature in Arizona, led by an Atheist who invoked Carl Sagan!
That or the woman who tweeted about running down a cyclist.
I wonder if Joe’s trying to take over from ol’ Schticky? Remember his endless blatherings about how David should write about this, that or the other?
And here I was hoping for an in depth review of this season of Criminal Minds! Like, is it bad that I’m pleased with who they killed off?
I was looking forward to a dissertation on the development of fashion in the 17th century and its influence in the Romantic period. ::shakes head sadly::
Bad? Have you ever said something not-quite-adulatory about some male person or other some time or other?
I thought so. You’re a bad feministish person already. No need to worry about any other evidence of your moral (feministish) failings.
Heya, mildlymagnificent! Sir mentioned your post in conversation on Tuesday night!
“Did you read those things we were writing about fun and joy and love?”
“I did. Your heart was in it. I laughed when I read the magnificent comments about falling from beds. It is well ours is not by the wall, I see that might happen.”
“Bad? Have you ever said something not-quite-adulatory about some male person or other some time or other?”
Well…uh…actually…they killed off one of the women and I was really, really, nervous it was going to be one of the men…so…not misandry? (Vague cuz spoilers)
Side note — reasoning is based on my views on the specific characters, not the gender, but that’s the only part that matters to the MRM (and I really would’ve lost it if they killed off Reid)
Don’t think you’d get a pass mark, Argenti. You’d have to be rejoicing that one of the women was killed, otherwise it’s still misandry.
Umm…considering the options when they said that one of the team members wouldn’t survive…I kinda am. Of course, this is in part because I like the rest of the women too.
“Funny” story — part of the contract negotiation hold up was the actresses who play JJ and Penelope fold out they were making half what then men make and threatened to walk. Because fuck guys, seriously? (I assume they got what they were demanding as the contract issues are all settled)
Granted, I don’t hate the one they killed off, I just liked her least. Also, plot.
@Katz
Teehee. At least Colbert & Penn didn’t compare themselves with MLK/Gandhi.
A side note; I just noticed that the initials for MRA London bears a resemblance to a Manbooz troll of yore. Was Mr. Al someone from the group in question?
Well, he claimed to live in Boston, so unless he’s moved or was lying about that, too … 😛
Interestingly enough Mr C and I had a conversation this afternoon about the events in London (the murder, not the MRA drama wank). We knew about what happened because, unlike some people, we get our news coverage from actual news sources rather than sites devoted to mocking misogyny.
And, as usual, Little Joe is oblivious to the number of David’s minions who are also British. It’s not all about America, here, laddie.
Don’t you have to be spinning a drop spindle when you invoke the Magnum Nomen?