Jessica Roy, a reporter for Time magazine covering A Voice for Men’s recent :”Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit, found herself the target of a vitriolic tirade from AVFM maximum leader Paul Elam before she even sat down to write her account of her time amongst the MRAs.
Elam, evidently incensed about a handful of sarcastic remarks that Roy tweeted during the conference, denounced her as, among other things, a “hack,” “a liar and bigot” and a practitioner of “journalistic scumtardery,” whatever that is. Commenters on A Voice for Men happily joined in the hate, denouncing her as an “airhead,” a “disgrace and a liar,” “lil’ miss hair-o’or-her-eyes,” and a “little asshole [who] will look like a right nazi in five-to-ten years time.” Amazingly, no one pulled out the c-word. Evidently AVFMers are still on their best behavior.
Roy’s “What I Learned as a Woman at a Men’s Rights Conference” appeared on Time.com on Wednesday. Far from the hack job Elam and pals were predicting, her piece turned out to be a long, thoughtful and nuanced account that, while skeptical of AVFM and its brand of hateful nonsense, displayed considerable sympathy for some of the troubled men she met at the conference, men who could benefit from a movement that truly tried to offer solutions for men in difficulty instead of encouraging them to scapegoat feminists and women.
Reflecting on her discussions with several conference attendees, Roy wrote,
When you talk to someone like 68-year-old Steve DeLuca, the legitimate need to remedy some of the issues raised by men’s rights activists becomes more evident. A Vietnam veteran who was injured in combat, DeLuca spoke movingly to me about the two brothers he lost to suicide, and the unfathomable toll the high suicide rate among men can take. There are men out there, like DeLuca and [rape survivor] Brendan Rex, who have a real stake in the movement’s success. The paranoia and vitriol of its leaders can’t possibly do anything for them.
So how did AVFM fans respond to this article? By defending their vitriol. On Time.com, several commenters denounced Roy as “bigot” and a “fascist,” and suggested that their “righteous anger” was the only appropriate response to the evils of feminism.
Never mind that the quote Markham was responding to came from a paragraph in which Roy wrote with sympathy about the suffering of male Veterans and rape survivors.
Meanwhile, an anonymous commenter received upvotes for this, er, nuanced analysis:
In a followup comment, “Guest” doubled-down, suggesting that Roy was a “stinky twit” and a “human monkey.”
Roy made clear that she learned a good deal at the conference. The defenders of AVFM’s vitriol seem to have learned nothing.
NOTE: Picture of monkey party borrowed from here.
Nope. I’m not sure why he wasn’t banned the last time.
Waitasec, wasn’t he one of TS’s flying monkeys?
I vote for a ban, he’s not going to get interesting.
Oh, ToySoldier can go piss on an electric fence. I didn’t even know the guy, and he was willing to toss me under the bus because male rape is serious business unless it happens to a feminist.
You’re all sounding like those rioting little censors in Toronto, silencing the opposition in the name of “equality.”
First, who’s anti-choice?
@ Bina: “Knowing Phil Donahue, he surely said that in a moment of sarcasm…” “And that means that, as usual, the point has flown wayyyy over the troll’s head here.”
And I was being sarcastic too, to point out how flippantly feminists dismiss the issue.
A cloudla: “The reason women commit most child abuse — which includes neglect [better described as abandonist, isolationist and opportunist malnurturing] to as , in addition to physical abuse [let’s not forget murder and between 25 % -30% of sexual abuse]— is that women are still the main custodians of children.[Oh, I’m sorry, that makes it OK then.] Not because women kill or abuse women for sport, asshat.” Apparently you missed the sarcasm too.
Learn to google, rev. We already had this exact same conversation with you. If for some reason you want to watch the re-runs you can do that by yourself.
Yeah, let’s not, child sexual abuse is a horrific thing, but if women commit 25-30% of sexual abuse, then that means men commit 70-75% of sexual abuse, correct?
And the whole point that women are the main custodians of children is that women spend more time around children, this having more opportunity.
IIRC, the studies that control for the time discrepancy find that women and men commit child abuse at roughly the same rate.
Which again, is horrible. Child abuse is horrible.
But it’s not quite the “women are eeeevilll!” gotcha you seem to think it is.
RE: Rev
You’re all sounding like those rioting little censors in Toronto, silencing the opposition in the name of “equality.”
Dude, this isn’t a public space and we aren’t the secret police. Telling you you’re an asshole on a website is not “silencing the opposition.” If so, it’s failing, because look at you! You’re still here! Blathering on! Completely unharmed except you know we think you’re an asshole, which you already knew.
[better described as abandonist, isolationist and opportunist malnurturing]
…? Why is that better than ‘neglect’? I’m a guy who was neglected as a kid. ‘Malnurturing’ just sounds like someone nurturing badly which… is not what neglect is.
*spreads hands*
RE: sparky
I’m still impressed dude is spinning “women commit 25-30% of child sexual abuse” into a sign that women are apparently the huge problem there. Dude, everyone knows that there are women who sexually abuse. This is not groundbreaking to anyone.
Do you think he imagines all women saying “mwah hah hah” before each sentence?
The explanation of the widespread child abuse committed by mothers isn’t an excuse for that abuse. It’s a way of explaining a phenomenon that MRAs would other twist to make it look like a symptom of matriarchal oppression.
You mean we’re not supposed to be doing that? Damn it! I KNEW I should have got the new version of the manual, but the old one was cheaper, and it was only from last year!
@ LBT: “Oh, ToySoldier can go piss on an electric fence.”
Toysoldier on August 4, 2014 at 4:45 pm said:
“I read the article in question. The situation was not exactly as it has been described. Futrelle did defend the bookstore and did trash the police, however, he did not appear to condone the film. His defenders, in their consistent stupidity, did fail to note that “words written like this” imply a quote from someone not the author, whereas words written like this imply the words of the author.”
He’s actually doing a better job of defending Futrelle than most of you with your usual barrage of angst driven comments. Apparently Futrelle did call it, ‘not exactly family viewing’ which is hardly condemning it either. And where’s his big libel suit like he suggested for Jessica Valenti.
@ Sparky: “IIRC, the studies that control for the time discrepancy find that women and men commit child abuse at roughly the same rate.”
Citations please. Men are more likely to murder children older than five. Most younger than five is a female acting alone and less often with a man, usually not the father. Neonaticide, child murder in the first 24hrs. is 100% women. The word was first coined by Resnick in 1969 and still doesn’t register on a spell check.
Perhaps if we even acknowledged the word we could find a way to prevent it.
Another issue wih his rewording of neglect — it ignores parent(s) who are trying, but lack the resources and/or knowledge to properly provide for a kid. Which is, of course, not what’ she hind most cases of neglect, but it’s not abandoning or isolating or opportunistic anything.
——
Elsewhere I saw a link to one of the supposedly damning articles by David. Literally the only thing of any note, besides that I find Victorian sexuality an interesting topic, was what age range meant “girls” to the author he was quoting and if he was using the same one…but even if he meant GIRLS, it’d read as him saying that using coercive tactics on prostituted children won’t help anything. Far more likely, in context, was David saying that ADULT sex workers (often called “working girls”) shouldn’t be coerced. (Note, all coercion in this paragraph is of an anti-prostitution variety, as the article was about books about Victorian sexual mores and how early feminists would try to “save” sex workers)
I have really no idea how anyone managed to twist this into some pro-child-rape nonsense. No matter how you read it David’s point seems to have clearly been that coercion is a bad strategy. Seeing how it’s two pages about adult Victorians, with one use of the word “girls” — I’m gonna assume we’re talking about adults.
RE: rev
He’s actually doing a better job of defending Futrelle than most of you with your usual barrage of angst driven comments.
So? ToySoldier is still an ass. Just because he does something arguably useful doesn’t magically erase that.
Men are more likely to murder children older than five.
But women are the big problem. Right.
Neonaticide, child murder in the first 24hrs. is 100% women.
Uh. Yes. I would kind of expect that, since aren’t women usually the ones most with an infant within the first twenty-four hours? If more men gave birth, I would expect THEM to be more likely to do so.
Perhaps if we even acknowledged the word we could find a way to prevent it.
We already have a means of prevention. It’s called abortion.
@ LBT: “I’m still impressed dude is spinning “women commit 25-30% of child sexual abuse”
No, that’s intrafamilial. Outside the home is much higher. Look at all the female school teachers we’ve been hearing about since Barbara Walters lionized Mary Kay Letourneau.
100% eh? You got a citation for that?
RE: Argenti
Exactly. There’s a WORLD of difference between, say, parents who’re financially unable to pay for a kid’s medical expenses and parents who just don’t notice their kid’s dragging around sick or injured. One is an economic problem. The other is… just creepy.
RE: rev
No, that’s intrafamilial. Outside the home is much higher.
Why should I believe you?
RE: Argenti
Oh please. Like rev’s about to start citing shit NOW.
We’ve been over this shit with Rev before. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
You first, Rev. You’ve made a whole passel of unproven claims on this thread, and haven’t backed up one with a citation.
Again, we did all this last time. Can one of the mods please make it so that if Rev wants to watch the re-runs he has to do it by himself? Thanks.
I swear, I’m really impressed. I’m seeing this dude talk about how men cause the majority of sexual violence, the majority of child murder over the age of five (when childhood after five is WAY LONGER than childhood BEFORE five), and all the while insisting that WOMEN are the big problem.
It’s almost beautiful in its surreality.
Also he thinks I should magically like ToySoldier now? Yeah, sorry buddy, a stranger who claims to be for male rape survivors but thinking I got my just deserts because male feminists lulz, I’m going to think he’s an asshole pretty much on after.
“Perhaps if we even acknowledged the word we could find a way to prevent it.”
@ LBT: “We already have a means of prevention. It’s called abortion.”
Yes I know, and readily available birth control. Doesn’t seem to be working. Look at the meth-head that dumped her six or seven newborns in the garage?
Are you like those English feminists that want child murder legal for the first year, when women murder the most children? In America the odds of being murdered is greatest during the first year of life than at any other time.
That would take care of that whole accountability thing.
Mod challenge for the irrev: he has to cite a statistic. A real one, not just some third-hand spin from something Woody would read.