Woah! Just wanted to pass along this news from the Motor City Muckraker:
A controversial conference for a men’s rights group in Detroit appears to be in jeopardy after a fallout with downtown’s Hilton DoubleTree, which planned to host the event from June 26-28.
The inaugural conference at the DoubleTree has been canceled for unknown reasons, and organizers of the first International Conference on Men’s Issues haven’t said yet whether it will be moved to another hotel and conference center.
“At this time, they are not booked with us,” Larry Brown, manager of the DoubleTree, said this morning. He declined to elaborate on the cancelation.
There’s nothing on A Voice for Men about this latest development, though Esmay hinted during his Fox News appearance that they were possibly going to reconsider the Doubletree. But as of right now, AVFM is still selling tickets, as if the Doubletree convention is still a going concern.
Are they going to try to book the convention elsewhere? Or are they going to take the $29,000 they raised for “security” and, I dunno, send Esmay to a better stylist?
One other, ah, interesting detail in the Motor City Muckraker story:
When asked Tuesday whether the event would be moved, an organizer responded: “The DoubleTree GM (general manager) actually said that he has ‘feminist phobia’ and sort of laughed but in a nervous way. So its being discussed.”
It’s questionable whether this conversation ever occurred because the general manager is a woman.
Yeah. Seems like a lot of things about this convention have been pretty questionable from the start.
UPDATE: Well, one thing’s a bit clearer now, though. I called the Detroit Police and they confirmed that the Doubletree did indeed report to them that it had received threats. Who sent them, we still don’t know, but I think we can all agree that whether the threats came from some misguided feminist or “progressive” or from an MRA trying to stir shit and make feminists look bad, whoever made the threatening calls is a shithead who deserves to face the legal consequences for what they did.
UPDATE 2: According to the Detroit News, Elam says they’ve got another venue:
“We have scheduled another venue and will make an announcement on the site this evening,” group founder Paul Elam said in an email Wednesday.
So far no announcement on AVFM; I’ll post about it when there is one.
So you’re saying you ARE perfectly ok with calling someone a child-abuser. Because this is what Elam actually said:
Elam is not accusing David and Jessica Valenti of supporting policies that allow child abuse to continue as part of some over-the-top rhetoric, he’s flat out calling them accessories to child abuse and likening them to Casey Anthony. The title of the piece is “Valenti, Futrelle and other child abusers.”
Yes, he is calling them child abusers.
Yes, that is a serious accusation.
And you’re perfectly ok with that?
RE: Alejandro
At worst, it could be sexual assault, but it is not rape.
I feel like I should frame this on my wall for being the Platonic Ideal of Creepery. Do you even see yourself, Alejandro? When you start quibbling on the exact line between rape and sexual assault, that’s… questionable.
I tried but they told me I’m so hot the reaction would get out of control.
…ew.
Alejandro is also apparently OK with a “seduction” guide promoting sexually assaulting women as long is it isn’t rape.
But pulling a fire alarm at an MRA talk? Oh the misandry! The worst thing ever!
Are we reading the same thing, because it says very clearly that they are “defending policies … that result in widespread child abuse”. Yes, I agree the title is very misleading, as I said way above, and no, I don’t think using such a misleading title is “perfectly ok”. But there is a big difference between that and lying.
That’s a shame. It would have been a much better use of your unique talents, too. Oh well…
RE: Alejandro
I don’t think using such a misleading title is “perfectly ok”.
And yet, here you are defending it as rhetoric. Sure, buddy.
ROFL….So let me see if I got this right, do you think a man who pulls out his penis in the presence of a woman just raped her??
No wonder feminst claim that ne out of every five women will get raped in her lifetime or some complete BS like that. They obviously define rape as “anything sexual I don’t like”.
Alejandro,
Anyone who does a Google search for my name will run across a headline saying outright that I’m a child abuser. If they don’t read the article they will assume that means actual child abuse. I suspect that’s why AVFM put that in the headline. It’s an attempt by them to poison my reputation with a false accusation without leaving themselves open to libel suits by making a specific false charge in the article itself.
Oh sure, because “just pull out your dick and put it in her hands” is definitely the end of sexual assault that shit promoted, no possible way was there anything in there about how to put it in other parts of her without getting permission first. PUAs would never rape, only commit sexual assault!
Those are the same crime in this state btw.
And the only people who use criminal offenses in rhetoric are people who mean that the person/group is promoting/doing something that they consider to be X crime, or a synonym thereof. E.g. “pro-lifers” calling everyone at planned parenthood murderers or “baby killers”, or Elam calling feminists child abusers — both amount to “this thing you do results in X crime, thus you are committing X crime”.
But hey, it’s just rhetoric man, it’s all cool.
I should’ve hit refresh first, this one is as dumb as a box of rocks.
‘No wonder feminst claim that ne out of every five women will get raped in her lifetime or some complete BS like that. They obviously define rape as “anything sexual I don’t like”.’
Well, that confirms it. You don’t know shit about feminist research on rape.
Uh, yes, thats almost exaclty what I said earlier:
” It is clearly stated in the AVfM article that they consider them “child abusers” in the sense that they support policies that (according to them) lead to child abuse.”
You are a little slow, aren’t you?
Alejandro,
Cornering someone, violating her personal space and whipping your dick out and putting it on her is sexual assault. It is a crime and it is morally wrong. That advice was part of the ‘always be escalating’ PUA philosophy so it is pretty clear the intent is for the reader to draw a line between point A which is sexual assault and point B which is an escalation to “sex” that isn’t sex at all but actually rape. That is why it was called a rape manual.
Learn critical thinking.
I agree and I think thats a very shitty and misleading thing to do.
In the same way, anyone who only reads the headlone about that “rape manual” will assume that they actually made a manual about forcing yourself on women or using duress to make a women have sex with you.
Well Alejandro is a charmer, isn’t he? Enjoying himself having a nice little theoretical argument about the semantics of rape vs sexual assault, whilst demonstrating all the empathy of a paper clip.
Adds Alejandro to that long list of unsafe people.
I don’t get your point at all. If youdo end up having sex with the woman after that “move”, then the woman was obviously up for it. Is not sexual assault, but simply sexual activity. It can’t be rape unless the man used force after the woman resisted, or if the woman is so drunk that she doesn’t know what is going on.
This is a little off topic on the kickstarter thing, but this guy explained it very well:
http://www.blackdragonblog.com/2013/06/30/what-is-sexual-assault-and-what-is-not/
Dou you have dictionaries on the list of unsafe objects too? Because I don’t think they consider rape and sexual assault as the same thing either.
Alejandro, you are being disingenuous.
When a manual combines
with
and you really claim not to see that this is proposing coercion instead of consent? Yep, it’s true, you really are a rape-apologist asswipe.
So in your little universe, if a male threatens a female but doesn’t use physical force, it’s not rape?
May all your floors be covered in lego blocks, you’re a rape apologist as well as a sexual assault apologist.
Oh, so a woman has to RESIST for it to be rape. Glad we cleared that up. Silly me, thinking that rape was sex without consent. That the mere absence of willing, free and capable consent made it rape. /sarcasm
Really, Alejandro, you have come on here to mansplain rape on a blog where a number of the commenters are rape survivors? You pisspot of an asswipe of a carbuncle on the ass of the owrld!
Note to self: bookmark this page to point to, next time some misogynist argues that everyone knows what rape is and that campaigns like “Don’t be that guy” are not needed.
Dear gods, you really are pathetic.
I note that Alejandro has so far chosen to ignore the boxcutters example in the list of AVfM lies intended to make feminists look bad.
If I am touching a woman and she makes no attempt to resist in any way, how on earth can that be considered rape? Am I suppossed to stop and ask her to sign something saying that she agrees to sex for it not to be considered rape?
Seeing how easy the word “rape” gets thrown around here, it would not surprise me if all female comenters considered themselves victims of rape in one way or another.
If I could put the word ‘this!’ in big flashing red lights I would.
Listen Alejandro you disgusting piece of shit rape apologist, isolating someone and pushing yourself on her until she gives into sex out of fear that you will become violent if she says no is rape. It is coercive.
You still haven’t even agreed that sexual assault is immoral. I don’t even have words for how terrible you are.
And no I’m not clicking on whatever shitty blog that is you linked to. I know what it is and is not legally (and morally) sexual assault and the quotes that Titianblue provided qualify. It’s really creepy that you have rape apologia links ready to go.
Do the whole world a favor and never, ever allow yourself to be alone with a woman. If you can’t figure out that sexual assault is wrong and sex without clear consent is rape, you are definitely not a safe person to be alone with.