So A Voice for Men has finally responded to Jaclyn Friedman’s masterful takedown of the Men’s Rights movement:
No, sorry, my mistake. AVFM didn’t respond to her article by farting. It responded with an article accusing her of farting. No, really.
In an article with the fart-referencing title “Gone with Jaclyn’s wind,” AVFM “Honey Badger” Diana Davison tries to rebut Friedman with some really, really strained fart metaphors:
In Jaclyn’s habitat, there is a foul and ominous odour beneath the sheets. Since, according to her, the MHRM are all dogs, it is easiest just to blame the stench on them.
Ho ho!
Davison then takes the argument underground:
There are many canards in the coal mine of Jaclyn’s article about the MHRM that quite quickly die of gas.
Wait, so now Jaclyn is farting carbon monoxide?
And one more toot:
The next trouser trumpet is her insistence that the MHRM is an attack of men against women … .
The fart metaphors, strained though they are, turn out to be the most coherent parts of Davison’s little rant. As far as I can figure it, her main complaints about Friedman’s piece are that:
- Friedman calls the Manosphere the Manosphere, even though there are a handful of women involved in it.
- Friedman “silenced” her by not linking to Davison’s last dumb piece about her in AVFM, and by (gasp!) blocking her on Twitter.
- Friedman doesn’t enjoy it when AVFM commenters make rape jokes about her.
Speaking of commenters, the comments to Davison’s article are of course a joy to behold.
Paul Elam gets “firsties” with a long comment lauding Davison and further attacking Friedman. Elam picks up on the whole fart thing, describing Friedman as an “orally flatulent windbag” before launching into his version of their encounter in New York during the filming of the 20/20 piece which could eventually air sometime this millennium.
His biggest complaint about her? That she (allegedly) told him to shut his fucking piehole — not in those words, of course — and nobody puts Pauley in a corner tells Pauly to shut his fucking piehole
Before you read this, I encourage you to reacquaint yourself (if necessary) with the psychological concept of projection. And to remember that Elam is very fond of telling other people to shut up. He’s quick to banhammer dissenters in his comments section, quick to toss AVFM contributors overboard when they disagree with him, and one time he actually tried to start up his own version of a Men’s Rights subreddit where he could ban whoever he wanted.
Anyhoo, with that in mind, let’s read what he had to say about Friedman:
I tell you one thing for sure, what I saw of her emotionally shined through the brightest at one particular moment. She had said about three times that the conversation we were having was over. And then of course she re-engaged in that conversation repeatedly.
The last time she said it was over, she tried to issue it like an edict…”I said this conversation is over!”
I told her that she did not instruct me to do anything.
And that is when I saw it. Pure, raw hatred on her face. She did her best to stare a hole in me, and she had the look of someone who was quite used to doing that sort of thing and having it work.
After all her histrionic bullshit about me inspiring mass murder and poor widdle defenseless wimmins having to turn to the FBI and go into some sort of rape culture protection program because of the things I had written, the thing that got her the most, that really tuned on the faucets of anger, was that she could not tell me to shut up and have me comply — or even give a fuck.
I would bet the farm that moment was her in a nutshell.
And it fits. With all the bragging she has done about her big old smelly electronic clit and how she and her friends have bullied their non compliant sisters to the sidelines; with her crusade to censor people at facebook; her blocking Diana Davison on twitter for daring to stand up as a woman who opposed her sick ideology, the true Jacklyn Friedman, the personality disordered control freak with a huge chip on her shoulder, didn’t care about any goddam cause.
She just wants to tell people what to do.
Fuck that and fuck you, Jacklyn Friedman. If someone told you that you ever had a prayer of running shit in the MHRM, they lied to you.
Oh boy. Where to even start with this feast of revealing bullshittery? Perhaps the massive projection about the “pure raw hatred on her face” and Friedman “having the look of someone who was quite used to doing that sort of thing and having it work?”
Here’s a screenshot from a video of Elam’s in which he discussed this very encounter with Friedman. What word would you use to describe that look? (Hint: The word I would use starts with H and ends with E and is “hate.”)
And then that bit about Friedman wanting to “run shit in the MHRM?” Woah. I’m pretty sure she’d rather chew her own toes off than hang out with you guys for any length of time, even if she were running the show.
Somehow I think Paul’s anger on this point is directed at, well, every other MRA who might possibly challenge HIS supreme authority in “running shit” in the “MHRM.”
And, oh, that bit about Friedman’s “smelly electronic clit?” Smelly clit?! Uh, how do I put this delicately? When there is an odor issue in that, er, general area of a cis woman, the clit is not actually the source of it. Paul, you’ve been married, what, four times? Do you somehow still not have a basic understanding of the standard-issue cis lady bits?
And now I’ve got an image stuck in my head of Elam’s hatey face in the general vicinity of some poor woman’s vagina, and I’ve officially ruined my lunch.
I’m not going to bother with the rest of the comments. It’s AVFM. There are rape jokes. There are fat jokes. There are multiple uses of the word “cunt.”
What a magnificent “Human Rights Movement” we have here.
Sure, false accusations are an issue. We need a legal overhaul of the justice system so anybody who is innocent of *any* crime can be assured their freedom.
What I hate about MRAs is they use it as a way to be like ‘bad stuff happens to us too, so shut up about rape already!’.
When it comes to blocking, I’m not surprised they feel it’s this gross violation of their right to harass seeing as how these are the same men who think it’s cool to follow women down the street with video cameras when they’re clearly not interested in talking to them.
I understand blocking. I just hate being blocked after someone has made an argument against me and then blocks me so that they have the last word (on facebook) or so that their followers aren’t able to see my future responses (on tumblr) so they, again, appear to have the last word. It’s not that I’m not cool with them being able to choose to disengage from the conversation when they’re sick of it, but I sorta think such a behavior shouldn’t come with some argument or accusation attached to it I can’t defend.
I was once blocked on facebook by a woman who is unfortunately dating a relative of mine for calling her out on how poorly she treats my family members. She proceeded to send me a long message swearing at me, projecting her insecurities onto me, and then closing the message telling me she was blocking me because, “A real woman doesn’t start fights, but she finishes them.” She then bragged to her friends (and of course my family members who relayed the info to me) about how she “won.” I’m not gonna lie and say I wasn’t infuriated by such a cowardly move. Had she said, “I don’t want to hear this, I’m blocking you,” and moved on, it would’ve been a totally different story. But engaging someone and then not allowing them to respond is not cool.
@rjjspesh
Google “dear Muslima’. Then “enjoy”.
rjjspesh – the original “Dear Muslima” letter came up on Pharyngula, iirc, when the whole shitstorm over Rebecca Watson daring to ask men not to do something came up.
It’s far from the only example of Dawkins’ misogyny and general rich white old Oxbridge male privilege blindness. This is the same guy who says being brought up religiously is worse child abuse than being raped, after all.
Actually if you search for Dawkins on Pharyngula, you’ll probably find quite a bit of his more shittastic efforts.
@rjjspesh
Richard Dawkins is the reason the atheist/skeptic community has gone ridiculously anti-feminist, and why Rebecca Watson (ie Skepchick) is the most hated woman in said community.
Dawkin’s letter is also a superb example of the “Worse Problems/Starving Children in Africa” argument fallacy. 🙂
You can read David’s version of events here: http://manboobz.com/2011/07/06/two-atheists-get-in-an-elevator/
I think the fact that Elam is concerned that feminists want to take over the misogynists right’s movement is…interesting. I mean, it’s a fear that assumes the MRM is something valued by non-misogynists, that feminists want it’s “power”. I think it’s a massive projection on his part.
And now that I think about his schtick does seem to be equating his hobby site with the feminist movement and other actual social justice causes. Is Paul Elam’s beef not that feminists exist but that they won’t let him be in charge?
Maybe Pauly’s scared someone else will con these MRA suckers out of their money. Can’t have anyone diverting the cash from his retirement* fund, after all.
*Loose definition here, obvs, since that implies he’s been doing any work to retire from.
Tom Martin and Paul Elam internet cage match! I don’t want them to hurt each other, I just want to see their giant egos clash in argument form.
Honestly, as an atheist, Dawkins is one of the people I really wish would shut the fuck up. Not because he’s outspoken against religion (me being one of those atheists who think theists are flat out delusional and yes, I am better than you) but because he’s such a priveliged fuck. It’s pretty clear that atheism has a fucking white boy problem and fuckers like him *DO NOT HELP*.
::raises eyebrows::
Fascinating. You do know not everyone here is an atheist, don’t you?
As to the rest, I agree, I wish Dawkins would STFU. It’s not just white privilege with him, it’s enormous educational privilege and snobbishness.
Only Dawkins moment I’ve ever liked was when Andrew Denton interviewed him on Enough Rope (an interview series on the ABC) a few years back and wound up with “Last question – what’s your star sign?”
The look on Humour Bypass Dawkins’s face was priceless.
@kittehserf
Yes, I do, although upon reflection that is probably one of the things that sounded funnier in my head. So I apologize for the “I am better than you” remark.
He really is a miseryguts, isn’t he? The only thing he seems to enjoy is sneering at people.
StarStorm, thank you, accepted! I’ve done plenty of the Did Not Translate Well things too. 🙂
Cassandra – yup, he’s a totally miserable old git, at least in all his public utterances. I just hope he’s more pleasant to be around in private.
Imagine if Up was rewritten with him instead of Carl. Dug would have started biting people and Russell would have become a miserable asshat.
I never saw Up, but it’s hard to imagine it being bad enough that Dawkins sitting on the sidelines making that pruney disdainful face of his would improve it.
I’ve seen it a couple of times and like it pretty well, overall, and I like the curmudgeonly-but-kind Carl a lot. But I can just imagine Dawkins’s sourness infecting everyone else, instead of him mellowing.
If you ever do see it, there’s one scene I think worth waiting for – Carl and the villain fighting. They’re both about seventy and a big fight where knees and backs keep locking up is really funny.
On which note I’d best take myself and my dodgy knee to bed, it bein’ 11.30 here (and NO Halloween doorknockers this year, huzzah). Niters, all!
There is an XKCD about the ‘clit mouse’ but I’m demmed if I can find it.
naltia | October 31, 2013 at 6:07 am
A few corrections:
He’s not the reason. Let’s say that the existing conditions were favourable – when Dawkins stepped in with “Dear Muslima”, there was already a blogstorm in action. Elevatorgate (and the periodic re-inflammation incidents that followed) just exposed some previously hidden sentiments and polarized the “sides”. It hasn’t been about Dawkins for quite some time.
“Skepchick” is the website/blog network founded by Watson. AFAIK, it has never been her personal nickname, but I may be wrong. It surely wasn’t at the time of Elevatorgate.
Falconer: this one?
http://xkcd.com/243/
Lol? Seriously though, this “better than them” attitude is a big part of what fuels the MRM, creationists, “gay cure” groups, white supremacists… how often do we hear MRAs ranting on about the irrationality and cultishness of feminism? They’ve convinced themselves that we’re inferior and irrational, while ignoring the fact that their arguments are built on fallacies on bad maths. We don’t need those attitudes.
Besides, theists are only delusional if they’re wrong… the arguments may be questionable, but bad arguments don’t make the conclusions wrong.
As for Dawkins… I really want to believe the best of him, I really do, but I think he’s fallen prey to the better-than-themitude.
I might be able to see where he’s coming from with a religious upbringing being worse than child abuse, though. If it was a very bad religious upbringing, and a comparatively mild form of abuse (not that any is mild). There is a lot of apologism around all sexual abuse, but there is at least sympathy for survivors… so long as they weren’t abused by someone who matters to people. But you were given a religious upbringing? You were taught that a god exists, who loves you, and created the whole world just for you? Awww, diddums. People don’t think about how the darkness of religion gets into your mind, how you’re kept from sleep by nightmares of demons, or how the threat of eternal punishment can twist you up and make you an easy target for people who would control you.
Obviously very little abuse even approaches mild, and not all religious upbringing is so painful, but one is not automatically worse than the other.
Of course, I don’t know if that was his point, maybe he really was saying religious upbringing is always worse… in which case, he’s wrong. And it is possible that he meant that. Someone who’s willing, out of the blue, to tweet about how Islamic scholars have won no Nobel Prizes during an Islamic holiday, seemingly for no reason other than to pester them… I can believe that shit of him.
Dawkins really is a sad example of what privilege can do to an otherwise remarkable individual. His blinders are so huge he can’t even tell he’s wearing them. It also becomes incredibly tempting to analyze him at a distance, even if that is bad form, because of his comments about his own abuse as a child.
I’m not particularly actively religious, but Dawkins makes me want to go to church every day just to annoy him.
He’s starting to feel like the atheist equivalent of one of those annoying fire and brimstone preachers who used Katrina as an excuse for gaybashing (New Orleans brought this disaster on itself, you know). It feels like his motivation is mostly scoring points against groups of people who he dislikes and/or considers to be lesser-than, and you know that pointing out that at best his most recent comment may have been in rather poor taste is just going to result in a rant about how obviously you’re in thrall to the (whichever group he’s talking shit about this time).
Wow, David! You were blocked by Richard Dawkins! That is so awesome! *___*
me too.
Wait, what? Do they want it to be a crime to not be raped, or did they just completely lose track of what they’re arguing and why?