So A Voice for Men, having lost or abandoned the original venue for their “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit, has announced its new location: A VFW post some 18 miles away from the original hotel where, presumably, most of the conference’s attendees will be staying.
According to Paul Elam, they made the move in large part to spare conference-goers the terrible inconvenience of having to watch the no-doubt riveting presentations from an “overflow room.”
No, really.
In a post last night, Elam declared that all the media attention given to the conference
has produced is a hell of a lot more interest in the conference, and more ticket sales. So much so, as a matter of fact, that we have opted to move to a venue that will seat more people and provide more security than was available previously.
While we apologize for any inconvenience that the move is going to cause, it is nonetheless a positive move for the conference. Because seating capacity was misrepresented to us at the previous venue, we were forced to plan for an overflow room where we would pipe in live events to a monitor at reduced ticket prices.
With the change of venue we will be able to accommodate all attendees in the same space at the same time.
Naturally, the first thing some critics of Elam did when they saw this announcement was to look up the seating capacity of the largest rooms at both venues. The largest room at the Doubletree Fort Shelby, where the conference was originally scheduled to take place, seats 300, with a maximum capacity of 310. The largest room at the VFW post … also seats 300. Or maybe 350. The VFW website isn’t clear.
In other words, Elam expects us to believe that in order to avoid the inconvenience of having to resort to “overflow rooms,” AVFM moved its convention to a venue 18 miles away from the original hotel that might not even offer rooms any bigger than the original venue.
Meanwhile, in the comments to Elam’s post, one would-be conference attendee reports that the Doubletree has canceled his reservation. If Doubletree has decided to wash its hands of the conference attendees now that they are no longer hosting the conference, and Elam is telling the truth about the number of people planning to attend, this could mean hundreds of people scrambling for hotel rooms.
Still, Elam and his troops are eager to present this as a great victory.
It’s weird. You might think that this sort of reality distortion would be impossible in a democratic country in the internet age. Sure, back in Stalin’s day, the Soviet Union’s propaganda machine could present massive failure as success and get away with it – at least to some degree, at least within their own country.
In the wake of a disastrous program of “forced collectivization” of rural agriculture in 1929-30, which left many peasants dead or imprisoned and paved the way for future famines, Stalin famously announced in an article in Pravda that the program had been so amazingly successful that he needed to call a temporary halt so that everyone could catch their breath. The title of his article: “Dizzy With Success.”
The only way you can get away with bullshit this brazen is if you’re a dictator or the leader of a cult – something that A Voice for Men has increasingly come to resemble. AVFMers are expected not only to accept Elam’s leadership; they’re expected to accept his distinctly non-consensus reality – a world turned upside down in which men are the real victims of domestic violence and rape and pretty much everything else, a world in which the Southern Poverty Law Center is a collection of evil bigots and his motley collection of misogynists is the true human rights movement of the twenty-first century.
Like a lot of cult leaders, Elam keeps his troops too busy to think straight in a continual frenzy of pseudo-activism. AVFMers are forever brigading comment sections of newspaper articles and YouTube videos in little squads (AVFMers almost always travel in packs), all reciting the same few talking points.
Weirdly, the dynamics of internet discussions can actually reinforce this kind of intellectual conformity, much as Stalin’s control of the media did in his day. No, AVFMers can’t avoid being exposed to facts that contradict the shared (un)reality of their ideological bubble.
But in internet discussions you don’t have to be right in order to convince yourself you’ve won an argument. You just have to be loud and persistent and unwilling to ever give in. You don’t have to convince anyone else of your arguments so long as you convince yourself. MRAs don’t win many arguments on their merits, but they manage to convince themselves they win every one.
The trouble is that when they step outside of their regular stomping grounds on the internet, this strategy – so effective in generating ideological conformity amongst cult members – falls completely apart.
We’ve seen several spectacular examples in the past couple of weeks. First, we watched a concert organized by Canadian Men’s Rights group CAFE implode after musicians and sponsors realized what they’d been roped into; the pathetically unconvincing attempts by the group to explain away this failure were amazing to behold.
Then we saw AVFM’s Dean Esmay reduce himself to a caricature on Fox (local) news as he rapidly regurgitated standard AVFM talking points like some sort of fanatical ideological auctioneer, apparently unaware that to everyone outside of the Men’s Rights bubble everything he was saying was obviously utter nonsense.
And now we have Paul Elam trying to convince the world that AVFM changed its venue for its conference because, hey, we needed more room!
The trouble with having your head up your ass most of the time is that when you take it out, people tend to notice the smell.
But, hey, as long as the AVFMers are happy with their new venue, I’m happy for them. Janet Bloomfield, the official “social media director” for the conference, posted this triumphant tweet lat night:
https://twitter.com/JudgyBitch1/status/476822883881459712
She has assured me that this is an actual quote. The “Wayne State cunts” remark is apparently a reference to the Wayne State sociology professor who, er, debated AVFM’s Dean Esmay on the local Fox affiliate the other day. Esmay has also posted a slightly shorter version of the same quote in the AVFM comments section.
So, yes, both the official PR representative for the conference and AVFM’s “managing editor” both apparently think it’s a great idea to refer to women who disagree with them as “cunts.”
Oh, and Bloomfield also thinks it’s hilarious to joke about Elam scamming his supporters of the $29,000 raised for additional security:
https://twitter.com/BhasChat/status/476907717194702848
You can’t buy this kind of publicity, largely because as far as I know there are no PR firms that offer organizations help in destroying the last tiny shreds of their credibility.
To clarify
@ Mike and Elam: Where do you get off using deceased servicemen (and servicewomen) as a fucking prop?
Hey Mikey, I think that misusing actual veterans of war as a PR stunt to further your hate speech is extraordinarily disrespectful and disgusting. You are a disgrace to the men and women who have fought and died for your freedom to spout obvious lies and hatred. Please stop desecrating their memory.
Daintydougal,
Who were you quoting about expecting an opening ceremony performed by veterans? I couldn’t tell.
Here’s a good piece on the change of venue – http://motorcitymuckraker.com/blog/2014/06/12/odd-twist-controversial-mens-rights-conference-in-detroit-moves-to-suburban-vfw/
The comments not so much.
It is not “disrespectful” for Mike to defend the honor of men like his father from the character assassinations of feminists.
As for this whole conference thing- you can smell the panicked fear wafting from the #noMRA hashtag. We’re rising, and they know it.
Yes, it takes so much courage to use dead veterans as props for your hateful ideology. So much courage.
Sorry weirwoodtreehugger, it was a comment under elams piece linked to at the top. The author is ‘Gizmo’.
That whole “if women ran the world” thing is not something I’ve personally ever encountered in feminist circles. It’s more something I’ve overheard said in coffee shops or at work. It’s always rubbed me the wrong way, and I don’t know that any of these women would self-identify as “feminists”. It sets up a whole us-vs-them, who is the better gender thing – which is not what feminism is about.
I don’t know if you’ve been reading the same thread that I have, Woody, but no one’s been attacking the honour of veterans here. We’ve all been attacking Mikey for attempting to use veterans as a prop for his bullshit.
Maybe consider reading once in a while? I hear it broadens the mind
Citation needed that feminists are doing this, moron.
Keep telling yourself that. Please try to do it without sounding like a cartoon villain.
Citation needed dumbfuck. Who here is assassinating the character of veterans? I’ve never read any anti-veteran pieces by feminists writers. I don’t see character assassination of veterans by feminists even in internet comment sections. I’m a feminist and I used to for the VAMC as a contractor. So I managed not to call any of them evil violent men or whatever it is you think we do.
Neither of my WWII vet grandfathers were misogynists and they would not want bigots speaking for them and using them as props. So yes, it is disrespectful.
And by the way, you fucking idiot, some veterans are women.
Not in the slightest! And I would recommend, if people have the patience, that they do the same for all instances they feel it is necessary and a recommendable thing.
Honoring the sacrifice of others is a worthwhile endeavor.
Now you tell me how exactly anyone is character assassinating anyone here, and more, what Mikey is defending exactly when he posits that the graveyards of veterans will make a good backdrop for a photograph of protesters or that all women everywhere think that the men who participate in WW2 are terrible brutes.
Come on. It must be possible, right?
Eww, dude, TMI.
But seriously, every time the MRM has in any way exposed themselves to the real world, they’ve been met with bewilderment and disgust at best, but mostly they’ve been ignored. But I suppose that if you can call those instances success, you have a farily loose definition of success to begin with. So… good for you?
So come on, Woody. Where is this character assassination of which you speak? Show us where feminists have assassinated the characters of men like mike’s father. Citation needed or it never happened.
@Woody re: people as props.
When did you serve? And how are feminists attacking the character of men like Mike’s father?
And I’ve been ninja’d so many times. Bows head in shame.
I guess it’s a letter better that it was just a random commenter and not Elam himself. Either way, it’s delusional and disrespectful to expect military honors as a prize for ranting on the internet.
I’ll tell you why they think that cemetery is a great backdrop…out of context, a photo could make it look like feminists are protesting against deceased war veterans. They are just drooling at the idea.
titianblue: Chin up! Woody clearly needs to get message more than once. You know he thinks he’s the smartest thing with typing fingers, and that just isn’t the case.
The point is, Woody, feminists are not doing a character assassination on Mikey’s father. For Mikey to use his dead father, who’s a veteran, as a rhetorical stick to beat feminists with, is appalling.
“Rise of the MRAs” sounds like a bad b-movie horror film.
^ a little better, not letter better. I already had coffee so I don’t know what’s wrong with me!
Since MRAs love to claim credit for military service other men did I’m surprised they haven’t tried to apply for VA benefits yet.
1. Women never die in war – only men
2. lots of feminists are women
3. feminists hate veterans
FLAWLESS LOGIC!
weirwoodtreehugger , your pic reminds me of the video for ‘total eclipse of the heart’. I was wondering why I liked it so much!