So, that happened.
The debate between Matt Binder (from the Majority Report) and Paul Elam (from A Pile of Money for Paul Elam) went off yesterday. I can’t say it went off without a hitch, because it was actually quite hitch-full. Indeed, it was kind of a disaster — at least for one Paul Elam.
Paul’s the one who wanted the debate. He chose the topic, he chose the format, he controlled the venue. And he lost the debate rather spectacularly, grimly reading a succession of prepared statements while Binder shot down his arguments with common-sensical one-lines and raised issues that Elam didn’t or couldn’t address.
Binder rattled Elam early by presenting him with an unattributed quote that sounded virtually identical to Elliot Rodger’s misogynistic rants and which Elam dismissed as something that no MRA would ever say; Binder then revealed that it was a quote from Stefan Molyneux, the MRA “philosopher” who was one of the featured speakers at AVFM’s recent conference. (Indeed, it was a quote that I highlighted in my first Misogyny Theater videos on Mr. M.)
Then, after Elam read off a list of all the various women who have associated themselves in some way with AVFM, Binder knocked the wind out of him by asking, quite simply, so what?
The most surreal moment, in a debate full of surreal moments, came 39 minutes into the debate. Binder had spent much of his previous two segments discussing an assortment of issues that the Men’s Rights movement largely ignores, even though they primarily affect men, and men of color in particular — from stop and frisk policies in major cities to the deaths of American soldiers in wars overseas.
But instead of answering Binder’s question –why hasn’t the Men’s Rights movement actually tried to do something about these problems? — Elam instead read his prepared “closing statement,” responding not to anything Binder had argued but to the arguments Elam, writing the statement before the debate, had assumed he would make.
And so, after hearing Binder passionately argue that the MRM needs to fight for the rights of men in prison and for the lives of men sent to fight and possibly die in wars, we heard Elam beating away on a straw man, declaring — after calling him a bigot — that Binder
has been led to believe, quite falsely, that gender justice mandates the summary rejection of all men’s problems in favor of a view that can only see men as the problem.
The debate, such as it was, lurched to its conclusion in an assortment of miscues and technical glitches a few minutes later. Dean Esmay, the incompetent and often ineffectual “moderator” of the debate, rocking back and forth on his chair in a darkened room, eyes mostly closed, plaintively asked Binder to send him “that particular story” on stop and frisk in New York city that Binder had referred to earlier in the debate. Esmay, defensive and exasperated, explained that
we are an all-volunteer organization and we don’t see every story. I’d like to see that story from Matt, please do send it to me.
Binder, incredulous, pointed out that stop and frisk has been in the headlines for years, as Esmay, visible in a small box at the bottom of the screen, rubbed his head as though he were developing a migraine. Esmay repeated his request, saying that
we cover a lot of stories; I’m just asking for you to send me that.
There were then a few uncomfortable moments as Esmay and Elam tried to figure out how to close down the Google Hangout that was hosting the debate.
Esmay: “Are we off?”
Binder: “Still says ‘live’ for me.”
Esmay: “Paul?”
Elam: “Yeah, I’m still having problem with the button.”
Esmay laughs.
Elam: “Isn’t that wonderful?”
Long silence. Esmay rocks back and forth on his chair.
Esmay: “Just close the window.”
A few moments later, he did.
I think we may need to have another AVFM graphics contest, incorporating what I think should be AVFM’s new slogans:
“I’m still having problem with the button.”
“We are an all-volunteer organization and we don’t see every story.”
A Voice for Men is clearly not ready for its closeup.
A miracle gifted by the benevolent hand of Keanu-Jesus!
Keanu-Jesus hears even the prayers that you forgot to mention.
I’m pretty sure this is the only thing I’ve ever seen with Gary Busey in it that I didn’t hate. The Replacements was wonderful, but I didn’t care as much for the baseball/bookie one.
Ok coming in super late (as usual), but this drives me up the wall. @apep:
I’ve said it here before, and will keep saying it. My dad has never been a looker. He’s short, has been bald and grey since his early 20’s, has had a prosthetic hand since his early 20’s, has always had bad teeth, has always worn glasses. Nothing wrong with any of those things, but he certainly never got in the Gosling neighbourhood as far as looks. Married twice, once to my mum (a model at the time, super gorgeous) and now to my stepmum (also a very attractive woman).
How did this happen??? Not money. Charisma? Maybe, though he’s no Clooney (sorry Dad). Or maybe it’s because he’s a nice guy with a sense of humour who treats people well. He has interests. He cultivated a personality. TRY IT. It works.
My mum is still very attractive, BTW, and her new hubby? Skinny, overbite, slight physical deformity from polio. Intelligent guy with lots of interests, lots of fun to be around. It’s almost like personality trumps appearance for a lot of people!* Wow! Amazing!
(Also? Men have standards too, you know. It really does take more than a vagina. *Amazing fact alert*)
I have a vagina. Does this mean that Keanu-Jesus would joyously tumble into my bed if I was to merely inform him of this fact? Mr C isn’t going to like that, but my inner teenager is delighted.
Real professional tone you have in your comments section. Talking about sexy actors is essential to feminism, apparently.
Shut up, Woody.
If there’s any quality that’s essential in the comments section of a mockery blog it’s professionalism. Woofy finally made a comment that didn’t mention any of the AVFM staff, though! I think he deserves a biscuit. Not an expensive one though.
You’re welcome to join in, Woody. Who’s your favorite sexy actor?
“So to recap, what does a woman have to do to attract someone? Have a vagina. What does a man have to do? Look like Ryan Gosling or have George Clooney’s charisma or have lots of money.”
GYOW, and it’s a non-issue.
Please, Woody, GYO fucking W. Any time now. We’re waiting.
Professional comment section!
15/07/14
Dear Woody
RE: Professionalism and sexy actors
Thank you very much for your comment dated dated 14/07/14 regarding professionalism and sexy actors. We very much regret your dissatisfaction with the professionalism shown in this comments section, and your concern about the relationship between said comments section an the essence of feminism.
As it is extremely unlikely that either of these matters will be amended to your satisfaction in the foreseeable future, we must with regret ask you to shut up, Woody. You may find you also with to fuck off as you shut up, but be aware that we accept no liability should you choose to do so.
Hoping this finds you in good health,
Yours sincerely,
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
The fact that a conversation about men who the women here find attractive was what finally prompted Woody to break his “no comments that aren’t about kissing the asses of the AVFM staff” streak makes me feel like my contribution to the contest really summed up the true essence of the MRM.
That is the most professional letter I have ever seen in this comments section. Now we just need to design official WHTM letterhead…
Truly, I have to wonder why a MGHOW would be so concerned that people are discussing sexy people. Seems like they should be on a higher plan, unconcerned with the topic.
If we throw in some more sexy actors will it make him amusingly petulant? Because I have more. Although I was kind of enjoying seeing one of my theories about the universe play out, which is as follows – the sun rises in the east, some day we’re all going to die, and pretty much every woman who’s attracted to men who was born between 1965 and 1985 has at some point in her life thought about fucking Keanu Reeves.
(Not sure I’d be any use on films, as I think the last one I saw was *The Hours*)
I do recall seeing, about ten or fifteen years ago, a suggestion that, of men who spent a lot of time in the gym, straight men tended to build up their upper bodies more out of proportion than gay men (I don’t know where the bi men were supposed to be), who maintained balance by attending to their legs as well. It seemed as if there might be something in it, but my sample size was far too small to be conclusive.
I can also recall not being allowed to be (or to try to be be) pretty when I was young, which suggests that at least a few new options are available to men; it’s not all getting worse, as whichever MRA who complained about standards being imposed on men suggested.
(Unless she’s asexual, of course, but even then she’s probably engaged in aesthetic appreciation of him in a non-sexual kind of way.)
@ DJC
I call those guys who build up their upper bodies and ignore their lower bodies toad men, because that’s what the overall shape reminds me of. It seems to be particularly common in LA.
Truth!
I’ve read a lot of novels in which it’s a sign the person has been in prison. Escape from LA?
I look at some of those bodybuilder types and think “For the love of God, put on a bra …”
Escape from the Gym sounds like a better idea to me, but, as previously mentioned, big muscles aren’t really my thing.
July 14, 2014
Dear Woody
We are vastly interested in your supposition of the professionalism required in blog comment sections, as mentioned in your comment, posted at 20:41 on July 14, 2014.
It greatly bereaves us, the “Amalgamation of David’s Socks Mastered by the Ferrets in the Cat Suits in the David Suit” (henceforth referred to as ADSMFCSDS), to hear that you have concerns about our level of professional behavior in this comment thread.
With regards to the claims that ADSMFCSDS did egregiously and openly discuss the supposed ‘sexiness’ of male actors other than Ryan Gosling or George Clooney, we offer no apologies at this time. Such a discussion is a clear consequence of a rogue ADSMFCSDS comment glitch, also known as troll-module error (TME). We will desist the conversation once it has been established that the TME is resolved and acknowledges varied female preferences or the TME has been successfully removed from the ADSMFCSDS system.
With regards to the supposition that ADSMFCSDS represents all of Feminism, ADSMFCSDS would like to refer you to the nearest college of convenience, with a strong educational curriculum on the modern feminist movement, which significantly predates the creation of both the blog “We Hunted the Mammoth” (henceforth referred to as WHTM) and the ADSMFCSDS and which is currently a much larger and more global movement than the patronage of WHTM.
If you have further concerns, we ask that you send them to ADSMFCSDS’s complaint line, which can be reached by speaking into a tin can linked to another tin can by a bit of string.
In the spirit of professionalism, we would like to note that further actions on your complaints can be expected in the “near future” — known in the professional world to mean “probably not any time in this lifetime”.
We hope you continue to have a lovely time, enjoying the ADSMFCSDS.
Sincerely
ADSMFCSDS-module-contrapangloss
Ack! Spent too long typing, and ninja’d quite well by Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III.
Actually this may be a super efficient way to tell MRAs from regular sexist dudes. Most men, even if they’re pretty sexist, seem to react to women talking about wanting to fuck men with great enthusiasm, presumably because they’re thinking that a woman who’s interested in sex is a woman who’s more likely to fuck them than a woman who’s not interested in sex. MRAs and other assorted manosphere types, however, always seem to react to women talking about wanting to fuck men with a combination of rage and disgust.
It’s a tell, is what I’m saying.