It’s here at last! After numerous delays, the 20/20 story looking at the manosphere — and the part it plays in the online harassment of women — will be running on ABC this Friday, October 18, at 10 PM EST. Among the featured participants: the always charming Paul Elam of A Voice for Men; Anita Sarkeesian, the much-harassed feminist video game critic; and Jaclyn Friedman, the ass-kicking founder of Women, Action & the Media.
Here’s a teaser story on the ABC website which suggests that the 20/20 piece isn’t exactly going to be a triumphant moment in the history of the Men’s Rights Movement.
Naturally, the comments section over there is already filled with A Voice for Menners crying foul and spouting nonsense.
EDIT: And stop by here Friday to live chat during the show! (Well, live comment, anyway.)
That dipshit gets to talk to Elizabeth Vargas? No fair! I hope they mention his “smear campaigns”.
It wouldn’t feel right to watch this without popcorn, bon bons, and a goblet of men’s tears.
Wow, the comment section on the 20/20 post is full of outraged MRA’s. I popped over and had a hearty laugh at them. I highly recommend it. It’s damn therapeutic.
My personal favorite Roosh was also interviewed (according to him, they hammered him for thirty minutes about “rape”). Will he also claim that everything he has ever written was merely “satire?”
I have come to understand that AVFM wants to cut ties with being associated with the manosphere. The reason behind that is unknown but it might have something to do with fact that they can’t control their image as well unless they try to make themselves a separate entity. The truth of the matter on that is that it’s probably too late. The episode will likely box them into the same category and the average viewer who goes to google will see too many associations with the manospheres hate speech and just assume AVFM is the manosphere. Even if some do not associate the two as one in the same, most of them will hear what Elam is saying and recognize the hateful undertones towards women that he so poorly tries to disguise through a calm disposition and a presentation of facts. I don’t think he even realizes how transparent he is himself.
If Elam wants to try and distance himself from the Scrotoverse, he’ll have to say goodbye to Esmay, JtO, and the FeMRAs. He’ll have to find new ass-kissers and flying monkeys along with trying not sound like a frothing asshole–I think that’s just to much heavy lifting for ol’ PaulE.
Pauly’s not going to have any luck trying to dissociate himself from the rest of the Scrotoverse when he’s happy to proclaim himself as one of the leading Men’s
SupremacyRights activists, and while every douchebag troll and his brother squeals about what an important site AVfM is.So, am I the only one who finds “scrotoverse” a little cis-centric? Feel free to tell me I’m being too sensitive (for the sake of transparency: I’m cis).
Well, Elam has also tried to disassociate himself from the MRM as well by calling his gang the MHRM. He’s a control freak, that’s all that means, and he doesn’t want to be part of anything that hes’ not the boss of. But that doesn’t change the fact that these sites, these people, are all intimately connected with one another.
I had forgotten that Roosh was interviewed too.
As for Jaclyn Friedman, the 20/20 folks filmed her and Elam having a discussion at a cafe. Insofar as it’s possible to have a discussion with Elam.
They also filmed her separately, and filmed Sarkeesian separately.
Emilygoddess: I don’t think so, given their raging transphobia.
The one good thing about this upcoming story is that at least my friends will know what I’m talking about when I mutter darkly about the “manosphere.” At this point, I am afraid they worry that I’m just making this shit up.
emilygoddess – no, I don’t think so. These are cis het men who’re obsessed with their genitals and how being a man makes them superior (human) and everyone else subhuman.
One of the comments in the avfm thread:
“They better not try to use the location of Paul Elam’s residence and his private life as any kind of weapon to invite attacks, threats and harassment of him.”
But it’s completely ok to do EXACTLY THAT to any woman they deem is deserving of such terrorism.
Kittehs got to what I was I was trying to say.
Nitram – Oh the irony. But of course, women aren’t people, right? [/sarcasm]
I just assumed ‘scrotoverse’ was using the mild swear ‘scrote’ which, while deriving etymologically from ‘scrotum’ means something different. It’s usually a derogatory word used about a person who has wronged you, often someone who’s younger (“the little scrote tried to nick my phone”).
@thenatfantastic–
…um, when a word derives from a body part, then even if you use it in entirely non-bodypart related ways it’s actually deriving all power from the connection to the bodypart.
Generally, I’d say if we meant the Scrotoverse to be a real thing, a real actual non-manosphere thing, then it would be entirely problematic. To describe a group that’s transphobic in the extreme and hates women? …maaaaaybe. Because insofar as the term itself is offensive, it’s accurately describing the group it contains.
But I could be wrong on that.
Eh, I’m of a split mind on this one, but they did tell LBT that as a trans* man they have nothing to offer him! and feMRAs are always at risk of being booted, so a scrotum does seem a requirement for entry to their clubhouse.
And I think it was this thread? It’s smote. As in “if you aren’t here by the time you get this message, you will have been smote” (ah theatre!)
Smitten is probably valid, but seeing how everyone will think you mean love not a tense of “to smite”, I use smote. (Of course, I also use swum)
I am not seeing any comments on the ABC link… Anybody got a url?
I wasn’t saying it wasn’t cis-centric, I was saying I hadn’t noticed it because I assumed it was an expansion of regional-specific slang that I’d forgotten was a shortened version of the word for a body part because it’s never used in that context.
I kind of wish there was a way of knowing how much of the interview with Elam made it and how much was cut. I think when shows like this interview people they should give them a copy of the full tape. That way if the portion they air on their channel is abbreviated, the person could have a copy of the full thing, and should have the rights to circulate it as they see fit.
Did this ever air?