A couple of days ago, Men’s Rights rageoholic Paul Elam angrily denounced journalist Tory Shepherd as a liar for saying that his A Voice for Men website “regularly calls women ‘bitches and whores,’ which it does not.”
Now, anyone who has actually read his website for any length of time knows this is patently false. As if to underscore just how baldly Elam was lying in his post three days ago, the site today ran a post attacking her with this headline:
Apparently, the new line at AVFM is that they don’t call ALL women bitches and whores, at least not on a regular basis, so that’s practically the same as calling no women bitches and whores. Shepherd, in a column yesterday, quoted this rather tortuous, but revealing, explanation from AVFM “managing editor” Dean Esmay:
We do not regularly call women as a class whores or c**ts… we will on occasion call a woman, like Tory Shepherd or a man like (University of Wollongong lecturer) Michael Flood a whore, a c**t, or a bitch… yes, we use heated rhetoric.
Ah, well, then that’s perfectly fine!
I do have to applaud AVFM for its brilliantly counterintuitive PR strategy here. Just a few days after learning that the proposed Male Studies initiative at the University of South Australia may be dead in the water — except for a couple of courses about men’s health — in part because two of the proposed lecturers have connections with the misogynist extremists at AVFM, AVFM is doing everything in its power to live up to its reputation as a haven for misogynist extremists.
All this said, I remain a bit confused about exactly what has happened with the Male Studies initiative at UniSA.
The school, for its part, says that only two courses on men’s health were ever approved. According to the school, the other proposed courses were rejected in 2012.
But the point man at UniSA for the Male Studies initiative, an associate professor at the school’s Centre for Rural Health and Community Development named Gary Misan, seems to have been laboring under the impression that the school was going to go forward with more than one course, describing himself on his official web page as “program co-ordinator for a new suite of courses in Male Studies at UniSA, the first of which will be offered in 2014.”
Roy Den Hollander, one of the controversial lecturers with ties to AVFM (he’s written for them), was also under the impression that his course was going forward, and has apparently been preparing for it. According to Shepherd, who spoke to him after the controversy broke,
US “anti-feminist” lawyer Roy Den Hollander said yesterday that he was preparing a course that looked at how the law favours females when it comes to employment, crime, domestic relations, property, divorce and illegitimate children.
“The course is really looking back at 200 or 300 years of history and how the law treated guys and girls – and it treated girls more favourably than guys and it still does, maybe even more so.
Mr Den Hollander also stood by his claim that men’s remaining source of power was “firearms”. Asked whether he thought that was “extreme”, he said that it was true that it was “really the only area that they control in society now”.
Miles Groth, the Wagner College psychology professor (and sometime AVFM contributor) who seems to have developed the courses, also seemed to have thought that they had been approved — and then cancelled. On his Facebook page, according to the Sydney Morning Herald, he complained that “[t]wo years of preparation and the support of the university from the start now seem to be jeopardy because of unnamed critics making erroneous accusations.”
And AVFM itself trumpeted the alleged Male Studies program in December as “[t]he Biggest Single Advance for Men and Boys in 2013,” declaring unequivocally that
the first degree program in MALE STUDIES begins in 2014. It is supported by the University of South Australia and will be available to students worldwide.
According to the male studies folks, in other words, there was a male studies program approved and ready to go, but after word got out that some of the principals were tied to AVFM, the program was unceremoniously dumped.
But according to the school, there was no male studies program to begin with, just a couple of men’s health courses.
So either all these male studies people are completely delusional, or they may have taken some vague encouragement from school officials as a promise, or the school isn’t telling the whole truth.
I suppose we’ll find out.
NOTE: Just a note on the derogatory language discussed above. There actually isn’t anything wrong with sex workers. The term “whore” is really only problematic when used as a slur.
I think people are trying to dismiss the circumstances that cause the lifespan difference too quickly. If, on average, women are healthier and safer than men, then obviously that will show itself in the life expectancy. And the only study that compares the lifespans when circumstances are truly the same (Klosterstudie) concluded only negligible differences.
So lets not try to use biological determinism and pretend that there’s nothing to do and it’s totally not an issue that needs addressing. I’d give anything to be able to turn back the time and help somebody perhaps still be alive. We have to take everything into consideration. To just shrug it off with “well hormones” or “I thought it was iron” and move on, is just horrible.
Oh and David, has it occurred to you that exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society, hinders rather than helps female empowerment? Of course not. You don’t care about helping women (or men for that matter). All for “The Cause” no matter how many people you hurt in the process. As long as you have your flock of sheep desperate for more emotional masturbation, your little ego gets a boost with every cheap lie you come up with. If it turns you on to think of women like helpless cattle enslaved by evil male tyrants, fine. Just stop trying to make it a social and political reality.
Stop lying. You’re hurting men and women when you do.
Men actually are often less healthy than women in similar circumstances, because they are often less likely to watch their diets or see a doctor when there are signs of a problem. Toxic masculinity at work.
“Watch their diets” is such a loaded term and I shouldn’t have used it when I didn’t have time to elaborate. What I mean is that, in many cases, women and men married to women (who are often eating their wives’ cooking) are more likely to eat vegetables and other sources of essential nutrients than . I’m certainly not advocating some calorie-counting, fat-shaming way of interacting with food.
…are more likely to eat vegetables and other sources of essential nutrients than unmarried men.** I should just stop trying this morning.
How is posting MRM drivel, conscientiously linking to it so that we can appreciate its original context, and mocking it for being laughable “a cheap lie”? Are you saying that David invented all the sites that he linked to, and that he is in fact Paul Elam in a kitty outfit?
He’s also Price, and all of the FeMRAs. And probably everyone on r/mensrights too.
(Not Fidelbogen though. I don’t think it would be possible for anyone else to write that badly even if they tried really, really hard.)
“”Oh and David, has it occurred to you that exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society, hinders rather than helps female empowerment?””
This site isn’t going to exaggerate anything. It’s a purposeful mockery site. As in, point and laugh. Har de har har. For serious assessments of the problem, there’s science, and it paints a scary enough picture.
“”If it turns you on to think of women like helpless cattle enslaved by evil male tyrants, fine. Just stop trying to make it a social and political reality.””
Ah, the Glibertarian version of social justice. “If every individual woman ignores the oppression they face as a group and just jump through the extra hurdles placed in their way, they will have equality! What are they complaining about? Are they weaklings who can’t rise on their own? You just want to destroy meritocracy and have a world ruled by parasites!”
I mean, the ambiguity of the sentence “Paul called women b****s,” which, when he said he didn’t, was clearly referring to women as a class. You obviously didn’t find evidence to the contrary or you’d have posted it (and I KNOW you tried to find it). He never denied having called individual women b*****s which is what you quietly swap that sentence out to mean when you pretend to have caught him being a hypocrite. You know very well which he was referring to but sell it to your dumb followers as if it’s something else.
You need to find examples of Paul calling all women or women as a class b*****s or find examples of him calling them that BECAUSE they’re women but you didn’t.
What you did was the equivalent of pointing to a feminist who once called a man an asshole and present it as if they called all men assholes and is a misandrist. It’s dishonest and makes women feel like there’s more misogyny than there actually is.
But since Karen GWW’s last video, it’s clear that misogyny is nothing like as rampant and normalized as you people try to propagate in order to capitalize on it with victim-privilege.
Have a great day!
@kitt33
Are you arguing that Paul Elem isn’t a misogynist? Good luck with that.
Aw hell, I can’t help but laugh when they tell us that not all women are bitches. It is theoretically possible to defer to men enough that we won’t call you bitches (on an easily-revocable basis of course) so how can you possibly suggest that we’re misogynists?
auggziliary: Bingo. Theoretically, calling someone a “dick” or a “prick” is similarly gendered, but it’s almost always used as a milder curse for someone annoying or rude, than using feminizing or female-centered slurs.
Slurs are about putting someone in their place. When that “place” is on top, the slur has a lot less power.
Quoting Paul Fucking Elam verbatim is “lying” and “exaggerating the extent of misogyny in society”? Mocking AVFM’s bullshit is “hurting the cause”? Well, maybe it hurts the Men’s Rights Bowel Movement, but that movement deserves to get hurt.
Newsflash: Nobody really cares about her silly maunderings except maybe you. They don’t make anything clear except that she and her very small coterie of followers are all willfully stupid. And, ironically, they confirm that misogyny is even more widespread than most people realize, if a woman can internalize it to the degree that she does, and rationalize it as “egalitarianism” or “humanism” or whatever the fuck you clowns call it.
Nobody is “capitalizing on victim-privilege” here. Take a look at the header: “Misogyny. I mock it.” That’s what this site is for, and you fell right into the trap.
Please feel free to take another pratfall, I’m bored!
“You need to find examples of Paul calling all women or women as a class b*****s”
‘Bitch’ is already an insult to women as a whole, genius.
Well, y’know, kit33 is just trying to point out at that Elam calling “women as a class b–ches” is the equivalent of calling African-American’s as a class “n—ers” or gay men as a class “f—ots” or lesbians as a class “d–es” or Hispanics as a class “sp–s” and on and on. It’s not prejudiced if you call everyone of that particular group a slur and only make exceptions for one or two “good” ones.
Oh wait. That is the exact definition of prejudice.
It’s funny. If they were really as misogynist as you so desperately want them to be, then it’d hardly be necessary to lie about them. It’s not helping women either. Perhaps you like feeling victimized and that’s why you make up fantasies about it so you can masturbate to them. Not that there’s anything wrong with that particular kink, but a lot of women don’t share it and would rather not have it shoved down their throats, especially in politics.
Not to mention what it must do to young girls constantly being told they’re part of a hated class. Well, I suppose it produces people like you lot.
It has been shown that people will join in propagating something they know to be false when the masses around them do the same. Fortunately, feminists aren’t everywhere and you can escape if you want to. But, like with any addiction, you must make the conscious decision to leave the victim-circlejerk behind you and venture out into the world and face the challenge of meeting people outside of your comfort zone.
Good luck and all the best.
“Who are we going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?”
I’m curious how many threads tedious GWW fanboy is going to leave a “that’s me, signing off!” message in.
Guys, kitt33 is making my horizon expand! Help me! The truth is too much. They even know everything about my sexuality.
David has a flock of sheep? So he is a writer and a shepherd too? How does he find the time?
Well, I’m glad kit33 is here to tell us that, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, and our own experiences, women do not face systematic or societal oppression or prejudice. kit33 knows this because its The Truth. So I guess we just have to pack it up, now, feminism is over and Manboobz is pointless because kit33 says its not needed. Thank you, oh Wise One!
Also, kit 33 thinks we should all masturbate to our fantasies of oppression.
You stay classy, kit33.
Wait, wouldn’t the cat suit scare off the sheep?
kitt33 said: “Good luck and all the best.”
I’m almost certain your well-wishes are insincere, kitt33. If so, why make them? Why provide more evidence that you shouldn’t be trusted?
If anything, it makes the source material look better through omission.