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.
I’ll take “what are lesbians?” for 500, Bob.
OT but I’m just in love with these two paintings by Gilbert Jackson. The neckline in the second pic’s a bit plungey for me, but damn, I want those dresses and that hair!
http://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/brunk/70/304170/H0057-L22197706.jpg
http://image.invaluable.com/housePhotos/brunk/70/304170/H0057-L22197706.jpg
Niters, Skye!
Damn, wrong link:
Second dress.
Another thing I’ve noticed about sad boner trolls is that they don’t seem to grasp that a woman’s fantasy life doesn’t necessarily match her actual romantic or sex life. That’s part of why they get so mad when we talk about male celebrities we find attractive.
The other day a Jezebel troll dug through weeks of commenting history to find a picture I had posted of Olympic swimmer Aaron Peirsol who I find very attractive. http://the17thman.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c6c5753ef00e553e3044c8833-pi
This was supposed to be some sort of gotcha. Proof that I am shallow and evil and oppress all men who aren’t Olympic athletes by not fucking them or something.
Ridiculous. I might fantasize about unattainable celebrities and enjoy looking at them. Does that mean I only date guys who look like Aaron Peirsol, Alexander Skarsgaard, or the male cast members of GoT? No! I did have a one night stand with a dead ringer for Christian Bale one time but other than that the men I’ve been with have not looked like famous actors or athletes. And that’s OK.
I guess it’s projection? These guys have a sad boner because women who look like supermodels aren’t fucking them and too few women resemble super models. They assume everyone is as entitled and shallow as they are.
Hockey is too popular with dorky Minnesota boys for me to be attracted to hockey players. All I think of is stuff like this from when I was a teenage.
For some reason YouTube is recommending GWW videos to me. Stop it YouTube!
This is why I just admit upfront that I’m looks-focused. If someone wants to think of me as shallow, sure, whatever, but other than a brief breakup a few years back I’ve been with the same man for over 15 years, and as anyone who’s been in a long term relationship will know, people’s looks can change a lot over as many years as that, so in terms of the whole ability to love another person thing I seem to be doing a lot better than the guys who’re pissing and moaning about the evil that is women finding men who’re famous because they’re attractive attractive.
Anyone care for Sam Elliot? Or is that just me?
I remember being at my younger sister’s wedding with a friend of mine. He whispered to me, “if he weren’t marrying your sister, I’d swear your BiL is gay.” I whispered back, “that’s why he gets to marry her.” She had seen her older sisters’ marriages, and there is no better bargain than learning from someone else’s mistakes.
To add another misandric and unprofessional pants feel:
Hal Sparks <3
Oops. Meant to post the video.
Most of the men I find attractive have been assumed to be gay at one point or another (even the jocks, like Bure). I no curr, in fact whatever it is that random people are reading as “gay” may well be related to what I’m reading as “intelligent, interesting person whose company I would enjoy”.
(And also possibly “washes hair and knows how to dress self appealingly” – oh noes, I’m misandering again!)
I find Sam Elliot appealing, but I’m facial-hair averse so I’ve never been able to upgrade him to sexy. And if he shaved, he just wouldn’t be Sam Elliot anymore. It’s a catch-22, that one.
@ Flying Mouse — Yeah, I see what you mean. I’m not into facial hair or older men, but somehow he just does it for me. Maybe it’s the voice.
I think Roger Allam (at least in his role as Fred Thursday) is rather gorgeous, and he’s about as far from a Hollywood stereotype as one could get. It’s partly ‘cos Thursday’s a delightful character, but partly ‘cos I think Allam’s looks are very appealing to me. Dunno why, they just are.
He also had a hat tragedy. He loved the hat (yes, a fedora!) he had in the first series of Endeavour, but it got irreparably squashed somehow. They’ve given him a new one for the second series but he thinks it’s too spiffy for Thursday. 😀
Tom Selleck in his Magnum or Three Men and a Baby days – very easy on the eye.
BTW, re our new lady troll of the failed sense of humor, wow, sexy Hitler clown. I’m hoping it’s part of the whole 4chan tries to take down Tumblr thing and there isn’t a real person who just thought it would be awesome to have a whole blog full of clown-related necrophilia.
Mmmmm Sam Elliot. I’m surprised no-one mentioned Keanu in Heat. Three of us went to see that film, and only two of us enjoyed it (both female, the other friend was male).
This is where I admit to a crush on Tim Curry in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.
But cassandra, trollady is so hip! and edgy! and a woman! It’s not for the likes of us to criticise Art.
“Also the tiny Argenti in my head just sort of mutters disappointedly when I think about it.”
Just catching up here but two things ran through my head — “aww, there’s a tiny me in Fibi’s head” and “yep, that’s sounds about right” — I don’t bother trying to talk people out of eating fish, I will mutter my disapproval if it’s done in front of me.
“And then there was River Phoenix representing for the troubled, sensitive pretty boys.”
Damn is it a shame he didn’t live long enough to grow into a proper sexy man instead of a swoon worthy 20 year old. I’m getting too old for swooning at 20 year olds to not feel creepy!
Seconding Syke’s votes for DiCaprio, Depp and Bloom. Also, Winona Ryder circa Girl, Interrupted, love the short hair! And David Tennant, especially not as the Doctor, though ideally I could have that suit and his accent.
Everyone else, please tell me if I’m boring the crap out of you, but Kittehs, I’m finding this conversation fascinating because in theory you and I sound like we’re describing very similar types of guys, right? And yet the only point of overlap so far is Kaneshiro. We’re pretty close in age too (10 years or so difference? I was born in 73), though I get the impression I’m more likely to be interested in younger men than you are. Though I guess that say putting the younger limit at say 15 years tops (to find pretty to look at, not to date – to actually date I’d be looking for someone closer to my age) that would put the lowest possible “yep, he’s hot” age at 25 for me and 35 for you, which would end up excluding a lot of people by default.
Still, I’m finding it really interesting that we can sound like we’re describing almost the same type but end up with so little actual overlap. Just goes to show this stuff is complicated.
Gah, I meant Speed and not Heat.
BTW, Argenti, I think Phoenix was more like 25 when he passed away, if that helps you feel like less of a creeper. I agree that Hollywood has yet to find anything close to an adequate replacement for him.
Also, just to throw yet more confusion into this, you know who I find super attractive who in theory I shouldn’t because he’s kind of chubby and fairly manly? Benicio del Toro. Again, it’s the eyes that do it.
Pallygirl — you can have Curry if I get Nell Campbell (Columbia)