So there’s a LIVE debate tonight between Matt Binder of the Majority Report with Sam Seder and a fellow you may have heard of by the name of Paul Elam. Since Elam evidently refused to debate on the Majority Report — for some reason he doesn’t like to debate people when he doesn’t control the venue — Matt Binder agreed to debate on A Voice for Men, with Dean Esmay as the, ahem, neutral moderator. It’s at 6 PM Eastern.
I expect some shenanigans.
Here’s the video that inspired Elam’s debate challenge:
Here’s Matt’s video accepting the challenge:
Check out Matt’s other videos on Men’s Rightsers and our dear friend Stefan Molyneux.
Why is the concept of objectification so hard for so many men to grasp? It’s really not that complicated.
“I’s not really a woman, it’s just a picture of a woman!” = not objectification, somehow.
Should we get into how it’s possible to take photographs of women that aren’t objectifying, or would we just be wasting our time?
Got to run, but here’s a very illuminating and depressing analysis of objectification and gender in Rolling Stone magazine covers.
Short overview with helpful pics:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/12/30/gender-sexualization-and-rolling-stone/
Full article under “media/analysis”:
http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/news-media/objectification-sexualization-women-rolling-stone
Note for the clueless – the fact that Rolling Stone pretty much never features photos of women that aren’t objectifying is not an accident.
Strikes me as a wee bit dicks-on-table for my liking. Two guys out to ‘destroy’ each other. Where have I heard that before?
I’m pretty sure it is an accident when Rolling Stone does feature photos of women that aren’t objectifying though
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone gets fired on the rare occasions when that happens.
My stepmom has a chihuahua and a pomeranian that she puts down pee pads for. She and my dad otherwise keep an immaculate house. Yet it always smells like dog pee. And they don’t notice it because they’ve just gotten used to the smell. I imagine it’s this way for the AVFM crew and weird, dysfunctional behavior.
Otherwise they’d know that their PR “director” engaging in nonsensical twitter wars and hyping events by stating they may not happen isn’t exactly standard operating procedure. Now if that was part of the “building anticipation” tactic in Detroit it might explain why they could only draw 150-200 attendees despite moving “to a larger venue to accommodate the overflow”.
And otherwise they’d know that a “debate” where the moderator works for one of the debaters isn’t exactly kosher. Anybody think Esmay’s choice of topics won’t put everything on a tee for Elam?
Maybe all the whole lot of them need is to step out of their cesspool for a bit and get some fresh air so they can realize the source of the stench.
I found this site after a couple run ins with self identifying MRAs: a high school acquaintances Facebook page, a couple posts on a music site of mine (where the notions were correctly and roundly ridiculed) and most disturbingly by a longtime friend of my brother’s who is way too deep in this stuff.
In two of the three cases there’d be a couple points I’d find myself cautiously agreeing with (“yeah, I can see how male victims of spousal abuse don’t have as much support as they probably should” or “yeah, the male rate of suicide is very concerning”) but in every instance eventually an avalanche of misogyny, women blaming and straw man (or just flat out misunderstood) feminism would have me withdrawing in disgust. In the third instance the dude just posted a YouTube clip about MGTOW and the Matrix and how women were useless etc etc. Personally I prefer the third approach. Just let me know right off the bat that you’re so bitter and/or misogynistic as to discount half the population and we can call it a day instead of first trying to convince me that your views are reasonable.
Two of the guys were recent divorcees and the third was a lonely and frustrated college kid. I get being torn up about a divorce and/or custody. And I can sympathize with struggling to find your way as a young man (or young woman) whether straight or gay. It can be a rough time in anyone’s life. But feeding into the negative feelings and adopting the stances of horrible people won’t help you or anyone else.
“I’s not really a woman, it’s just a picture of a woman!” = not objectification, somehow.
Except I didn’t say women. I was also thinking of ad campaigns featuring Brad Pitt vs an actual interview with the guy.
Never mind – meta-stuff and semiotics is like catnip for me at the moment, which is a trap I sometimes fall into when I’m trying to break a system down and analyze it.
If those guys go full tilt rabid attack on this cute kid, we get to say they don’t have sufficient “compassion for men and boys” either, right?
I believe debating them gives their positions too much credit. “there’s an evil feminist cabal” is just as ridiculous as “we never landed on the moon” or “the protocols of the elders of Zion isnt a hoax”
Did you look at the more recent Rolling Stone covers? See how the women are semi-dressed, barely dressed or nude? The full bodies shots, where the faces aren’t centered and their bodies lay prone? The overall “fuck me” porn vibe?
See how the men are usually fully dressed, often in suits? The focus is on their faces’ expressions and they’re often sitting or standing distinctly on their own?
No? Nothing? Nada?
While male fashion iconography, thanks to particularly Calvin Klein and Abercrombie & Fitch, has grown more sexual in the last 10-20 years, female fashion iconography has grown more hyper-sexual at the same or even at a faster rate.
Distinct gender roles are being hammered like an anvil in commercial photography and I have trouble grasping how some people don’t see it and/or don’t think it matters either way.
“there’s an evil feminist cabal” is just as ridiculous as “we never landed on the moon” or “the protocols of the elders of Zion isnt a hoax”
Stick a label on something from the outside (“feminists”, “Muslims”, etc…) and you can convince yourself that there’s a cabal. Start looking at most of these groupings from inside the border, however, and you realise there’s as much chance of a cabal controlling them as there is of getting cats to square dance.
I thought their tag line was “Compassion for men and boys who agree with us.”
As for the debate, I am going to watch it. Sadly, I assume it will be like any other time I have seen Elam talking with someone in front of a camera:
Elam: (talks for five minutes without making a point OR making too many points for anyone to respond to)
Other Person: Yes, I agree, and–
Elam: (talks for another five minutes)
Repeat, repeat, repeat.
https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/487341626818560000
https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/487341312208023552
I can’t believe this is actually going to happen.
I didn’t mean to embed the video. i was trying to post the links. oops
@ brooked
Here, have a cushion, you’re going to need it after banging your head against the “what is objectification and why is it not the same thing as sexual attraction?” wall.
Anyone want to provide running commentary on this? I can’t watch at the moment but I’m curious.
They’re just getting started now. Paul gets to start.
So this debate is going to be about Matt’s tweets?
Paul: Feminism erodes any possibility of meaningful debate. Binder made a “cultural slur” against Molyneux. (Huh?) How dare you link Elliott Rodger to us! Feminists conflate us with PUAs. Feminists are disgusting. Rodger killed mostly men. Feminists make political capital out of tragedy. Binder played factual hide and seek. Binder is about an agenda.
Matt is on trial for his postings about the ucsb shooter
Matt. Rodger’s manifesto demonstrated hatred of women. (He’s stupidly asking Elam questions, giving him time to answer.) (Gives Elam even more time during his time.) Binder reads a quote and Elam compares it to a psychopath. Elam claims quote isn’t from a MRA. Binder points out that the quote is from Molyneux.
Elam is totally interrupting Binder’s time. Elam calls him juvenile.