The self-described “Men’s Human Rights” site A Voice for Men is a hate site trying — admittedly not very hard, or convincingly — to pose as a human rights organization. In reality, as I and various other writers have documented in considerable detail, it’s an organizer and amplifier of hatred, directed at feminists and women more generally.
Much of this hatred is directed at specific targets, mostly though not always feminist women who have offended A Voice for Men’s founder Paul Elam. The aim is generally to terrorize feminists into silence.
I’ve written at length about AVFM’s campaigns of vilification and intimidation in the past; for a recent example as well as numerous links to discussions of past examples, see here.
Today I will look at some of the specific tactics that AVFM uses against its targets – providing, in each case, a recent example.
This, in other words, is how AVFM’s Hate Machine functions. [TRIGGER WARNING for abusive language, discussion of abusive tactics]
TACTIC: Professional Ruin
Example:
Stacy, if I find out that there was a link between your report and [another AVFM foe’s] own vendetta that endangered Sage, I swear that you will never work in peace again. I will follow your activities and call out every lie that threatens the livelihood of decent men, until people stop citing your publications and you tearfully watch your degree gather dust in the closet. I have the resources and the connections to make that happen, and I will use them if you so much as tell one more goddamn lie about a man you don’t know. Covering your ass will only make me work harder to expose your sins. …
We’re still looking into your history, Stacy. …
Just know that I always will learn more. If you think there is something, and I mean anything else in your conduct on Kennesaw State University that will embarrass you, then you better send Sage Gerard an email and try to make things right, because I will publish all of your mistakes. …Admit you were wrong like an adult, or pack up your desk.
Source: Post by Paul Elam of A Voice for Men.
Explanation: Elam threatens to ruin the career of a woman who reported to campus police that she felt intimidated by KSU Men founder and AVFM ally Sage Gerard. He provides no evidence of any connection between her and the other AVFM target mentioned.
In the last two paragraphs I quoted, this threat becomes a form of blackmail, with Elam threatening to dig up more “dirt” if the woman in question doesn’t apologize to the man who originally caused her to become so concerned about her personal safety that she called campus police. See below for more on blackmail.
TACTIC: Offering cash bounties for personal information
Example:
Stacy Keltner is a fraud on the run. There is a $100 reward to whoever finds a picture of her that we can verify. KSU students, if you happen to see Keltner out in public, grab a quick shot on your phone and send it over. You would be helping end corruption on your campus, and offsetting the cost of your tuition and supplies.
Source: The same post by Elam.
Explanation: Elam has offered cash bounties on a number of occasions in order to encourage those who have personal information on his targets, or those who might be willing to search for it, to send it to him. In the past, the bounties have ranged as high as $1000.
In this case, he is searching for a photograph of a woman who has evidently gone to great lengths to avoid having her picture posted on the internet.
TACTIC: Inciting an online mob
Example:
If you need more convincing, I invite readers to contact you via your public contact info. We will notice if you delete that, too.
Hundreds of people here have donated to Zen Men, the organization your people have been messing with, and I figure they may want an opportunity to explain how they feel about your disrespecting their contributions to gender equity. Oh, and just a tip: The supporters will not threaten you. They will most certainly be angry with you, but you are not in any physical danger. You never fucking were. Just keep that in mind if some odd troll sends you a message you want to believe we endorse. Use your brain and try listening to thoughtful dissent for once in your miserable life.
Source: The same post by Elam.
Explanation: After vilifying his target at length – calling her “filth,” and “one of the most egregious, repulsive and vindictive professors on Kennesaw State University, if not Georgia or the United States” – Elam calls upon his readers to contact her en masse, knowing full well (as he admits) that some of these messages may well be threatening. He also mocks and attacks her attempts to protect herself by removing personal information from the Internet.
TACTIC: DARVO (“Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender.”)
Example:
Stacy, you used fear to recruit thugs to attack a single student you personally do not like by proxy. …
You need to understand that there are people out there who will literally beat a man bloody if they believe that he is some kind of threat to women. Look at the murders carried out where victims are men falsely accused of rape. Perpetrators of this violence won’t investigate. They won’t even think. They will simply beat him until he is broken, and bleeding. You put Sage, an innocent and intelligent young man with a future, in a position where he has to keep looking over his shoulder every time he walks on campus.
Source: The same post by Elam.
Explanation: The woman in question did not “recruit thugs to attack a … student.” She called the campus police because she felt threatened by that student. AVFM is attempting to portray the frightened woman as the aggressor. The student in question was not charged with anything, nor was he attacked by the campus police officer who responded.
AVFM frequently uses what some psychologists call DARVO in an attempt to portray victims as aggressors. When women who claim they’ve been attacked or threatened call the police, AVFM often recasts their call for police protection as an attempt to inflict “violence by proxy” on innocent men. AVFM also uses DARVO to cast itself as a victim.
IRONY: Tara J. Palmatier, a therapist with close ties to AVFM, has argued on numerous occasions that women who claim they have been abused by men may be using DARVO tactics to smear them. In one post on AVFM, Palmatier suggests that so-called “high conflict individuals” are likely to resort to “smear campaign and mobbing tactics when they target someone … .” Ironically, this is a perfect description of AVFM’s own preferred style of “activism.”
TACTIC: Blackmail
Example:
If you choose to stand by your dishonest image, I will dig through all of your connections, your history and your publications, then email your colleagues and superiors all of the reasons they should consider working with other people. I’m sure the network of anti-feminist YouTubers and bloggers looking for content would also have a field day if I pointed them to ISD’s publications. …
Tom, if you and your buddies own up to your crap like grown-ups and make amends with Sage, then I will back off. …
Staying silent is not going to save you.
Source: Another blog post by A Voice for Men’s founder Paul Elam.
Explanation: Blackmail is defined by the Macmillan Dictionary as “to make someone give you money or do what you want by threatening to tell people embarrassing information about them.”
In this case, Elam is threatening to dig up dirt on KSU professor Tom Pynn and pass it along to his colleagues as well as to a group of videobloggers known for their harassment of feminists, unless Pynn recants a previous statement claiming that AVFM is a hate group. No, really: It’s a hate campaign targeting a man because he called AVFM a hate group.
Elam is angry that Pynn wrote an email to KSU Men’s former faculty advisor in which he stated that the Southern Poverty Law Center had declared AVFM a “hate group.” While this is not technically true – for one thing, websites do not meet the SPLC’s definition of a “group” – it is also true that the SPLC included AVFM in a report on misogynistic websites, describing in some detail AVFM’s doxxing and harassment of women, which at the time included setting up the phony offenders registry called Register-Her to smear feminists, and offering bounties for personal information on the site’s foes.
TACTIC: Revelation of deeply personal information
Example:
A simple text search reveals something very interesting. [Target of harassment] was at [identifying info redacted] the same time as [name redacted], a woman who was brutally murdered in a random attack by a deranged psychopath who received the death sentence for her murder. [Target of harassment] and [murdered woman] were friends. Further investigation reveals that [murdered woman] had fought with a friend before she was murdered, and the relationship was never repaired. The friend was left to grieve and to live with the knowledge that her last words to her friend were unkind. [Target of harassment] is quoted in the newspaper article, but she is not the friend who testified at the trial. The entire faculty is described as being traumatized and in shock at the murder.
Is [Target of harassment] the friend who was mean to [the murdered woman] before she died?
Source: A blog post by AVFM’s”social media director,” who posts online as “Judgy Bitch” and “Janet Bloomfield.”
Explanation: There is no possible justification for posting this. It has no relevance to AVFM’s “charges” against the woman. It’s clearly intended to use the facts of a murder case to hurt someone whose friend was brutally murdered.
Irony: “Bloomfield,” a staunch supporter of and practicioner of doxxing, posts under a pseudonym.
Note: Due to “Bloomfield’s” posting of personal information, I will not post a link to her post or the name of the targeted woman. I will provide the link to journalists and others with a legitimate need to see the original.
TACTIC: Social media harassment
Example:
Source: The Twitter account of Jack Barnes, a contributor to AVFM and co-host of that site’s Blue Collar Red Pill Radio show. Link to tweet.
Explanation: Barnes threatens endless “harassment” of feminists unless and until they are completely silenced. Barnes directed his tweet at cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, the target of a massive, several-years-long campaign of harassment online.
In an earlier Tweet, also directed at Sarkeesian, Barnes joked about the death threats that at one point led her to flee her home.
This bit of nastiness was retweeted by four other AVFMers. This is typical: Twitter harassment from individual AVFMers – there is no need for the ironic quotes around “harassment” – is almost always amplified by a squad of other AVFMers eager to flood their target’s Twitter mentions with a flood of insults and abuse.
AVFM’s Twitter army was once led by the AVFM “social media director” who posts online as “Judgy Bitch” and “Janet Bloomfield.” But she has been banned from Twitter, evidently for her “targeted abuse” of feminist writer Jessica Valenti, which included the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods about Valenti.
As Barnes and other AVFMers have made clear, this sort of harassment and abuse is likely to “continue and accelerate.” AVFM’s hate machine will not stop, Barnes contends, “until no one will openly admit to being feminist.”
That’s not going to happen. So it’s up to us to document and denounce and do what we can through all legal channels to shut their hate machine down.
Reblogged this on The Shoops Roost and commented:
Grab yer popcorn and sit down for Dave Futrelle’s latest evisceration of Men’s Rights bullshit.
Wait…thoughtful dissent from AVfM? Hahahahahahahahahaha.
going through the threads here, I’ve recently done some battling of my own with MRA’s on deviantart. The one in particular who I’m having a little internet spat with is one of these “hitting equality” guys who believes Paul Elam is a great human rights champion. If that little guy is anything to go by, we’ll never be able to breath freely until all the Paul Elam’s of the world are just a memory.
Just because Paul is running his own cause doesn’t mean that he can’t still do damage before his time is up.
So blog about this, spread the word and talk as much truth about the MRA’s as you can.
I don’t know, I’m just stunned by David’s post here and the inhumanity of it and the sheer evil. I can’t think of anything else to say to this evil.
Me too…although it’s hard to tell the cops from the robbers without a program, sometimes. And I say this as one who LEARNED self-defence, and knows exactly where and how to hit a guy that would put him in hospital, even if he’s twice my size. Even if he’s as big as Paul Elam, who claims to be six-foot-eight (I’m five-six on a good day).
The only time I ever did hit a guy, though, it was before I learned self-defence (and the confidence that comes with it). He was a boyfriend who kept teasing and razzing and pestering and even physically prodding me even after I told him to cut it out, several times. So I smacked him upside the head — once. It was a light swat, not even as hard as kittens hit when play-fighting. His response? DRAMA! He claimed that the slap made his ears ring, but it was the noise, not the impact itself, that did it. I know, because my ears were ringing from the noise, too. I did not set out to injure him, and I didn’t. It was just to make him stop, because I was worn down to a frazzle and couldn’t take any more.
It shocked and embarrassed me, because I’m generally very much in control of myself, and I don’t want to give any credence to that old “bad-tempered redhead” myth. I always saw myself as a terribly meek little thing; certainly I acted the part. I’ve actually swallowed a lot more abuse than most people would ever take, all so I wouldn’t have to get that extra layer of shit about my hair. And also because my parents kept telling me not to react to bullies, not to give them that satisfaction. Ever since I was a kid, I’ve had to bottle up my anger and do nothing about it. Girls are constantly being told not to hit. We even get told not to be angry! So I was ashamed that I actually got mad enough to do that. Ashamed that I’d “let” myself be goaded to violence, because I’m not that kind of person; for me, that sort of thing was the last of last resorts. And then mad at him all over again for being such a fucking jerk that he couldn’t even respect the word “enough” when it came out of me, and ashamed at myself for that, too. He made me feel like the weakling and the villain simultaneously, and even to this day, that just fills my head with fuck. It makes me almost hate myself. (Which in fact is what I did do, a LOT, when I was with him. But it’s quite socially acceptable for women to internalize their anger and direct it only at themselves!)
Why do women get ashamed of their anger, even when it’s perfectly understandable, while men are encouraged to wallow in it, escalate it, and even take pride in that, even when it’s totally irrational and stupid? I’m pretty sure that anger-shaming is a kind of control strategy. He did that on a regular basis; he liked to undermine my self-esteem with all kinds of cutting remarks phrased as teasing, and then when I got predictably pissed off and told him to fuck off, he’d put on a hurt face and claim he was “only joking”, that I “shouldn’t be that way”, and that it wasn’t respectful for me to tell him off. And yet, somehow it wasn’t disrespectful for him to ignore my boundaries and keep prodding at me long after I told him I’d had enough. He even slapped my butt, which I absolutely HATE, and I told him so, and he kept doing it anyway because he thought that was “funny”. I lost count of the occasions when his “good-natured” provocations reduced me to tears. Do women cry tears of rage? You bet we do. Tears are the only rage we’re allowed, and even that is often not allowed. Being told not to cry when I’d been prodded into that much of a fury really got to me. And yeah, he told me not to cry when I was doing it out of sheer anger and frustration, too.
And then, after months of that, one time I got really mad, and lashed back the only physical way I knew how at the time, in a relatively weak, typically “feminine” way. And then he acted like I’d tried to kill him, when all I wanted was to make him STOP.
Even now, I cringe remembering all that.
I’m pretty sure MRAs don’t cringe when they try to goad women, though. You can practically hear the fapping every time Paulie goes on about how much he’d love to smack a woman around, no matter how much smaller she is. There’s something undeniably evil and perverse about that.
A question: why is doxxing people necessarily bad? Why not expose people who are using pseudonyms to harass and threaten people, not to mention actually inciting violence?
Not trying to derail, just feel I must be missing something fairly obvious (beyond Don’t Stoop to Their Level arguments, which I don’t find convincing).
A quick follow-up: I didn’t read the entire thread to date, and I’m really just asking for some reference links. I’m pretty sure this question has been addressed elsewhere; I was just personally startled by so many people disavowing identifying people who specifically advocate violence against others (even if it’s wink-wink-nudge-nudge).
I’m off to bed, but thanks in advance to anyone who responds.
@Bina:
There’s no such thing as the ‘right’ to hit someone. Anyone. So why does equal rights mean being allowed to punch people?
They seem to have a thing about the ‘right’ to abuse/rape/torture (mentally and physically)/generally treat women like shit. And then wonder why women aren’t interested.
I’d use the “Would you like having that done to you?” approach but that would require them to think of women as being in any way like themselves (i.e. people) and having an ounce of empathy.
@Bina:
Just read your last post too. I’m sorry someone treated you like that, that sucks enormously.
The worst I’ve had is never being able to do anything ‘right’ – to the extent that when she would go away for the weekend I’d secretly do laundry in the hope I could get away without her noticing/criticising. She always did and the response was always criticism. I can feel a rant coming on but I’m not trying to make this about me – so I’ll just say I understand what it’s like to have someone ragging on you all the time with no ‘win’ scenario allowed, and I sympathise.
For what it’s worth I’ve always loved red hair, it adds colour to the world and I have no idea why people are so damn weird about it – some kind of ‘socially acceptable’ racism I guess.
I have a younger brother. We were allowed to wrestle and play rough with each other on two conditions: 1) No hitting, kicking, or biting; and 2) both people had to be having fun. If one of us stopped having fun, the other person had to stop.
While my brother was still smaller than me, I got some warnings on the side to remember that I was bigger than him, so I had to be careful not to hurt him. By the time he caught me up and grew bigger than me, we had an established history of respecting each other and I never had to worry about him hurting me.
But yeah, my parents never once told my brother “You can’t hit your sister, because she’s a girl.” They said “You can’t hit your sister, because that hurts, and it’s mean to hurt people.”
I think part of the reason discussions of male/female violence gets so weird is that, okay, in theory, it’s a pretty level playing field. Men should, in general, be more careful, because in general, they are bigger and/or stronger than the women they’ll meet—but otherwise, an eye-for-eye theory makes sense. Women can be abusive, and in such a case, a man has a right to do what it takes to get away. Women can attack in a way that may cause death or grievous bodily harm, and in such a case, a man absolutely has a right to defend himself and incapacitate his assailant. It is possible for a larger, in-shape woman to have a significant physical advantage over a smaller, out-of-shape man.
But that’s theory.
In reality, acts of DV (including murder) are overwhelmingly committed by men. Random acts of assault against women are overwhelmingly committed by men. If a man and woman are in a fight, chances are good that he can hurt her a lot worse than she can hurt him.
So when the “is it really worse for men to hit women” discussion comes up, it feels weird, because it’s happening in a completely different universe than the one we actually live in. And because of the crew most eager to talk about it, it frequently results in (often times on purpose) downplaying male abusers, and vilifying any form of physical pushback that a woman might give.
(And of course, it’s still an important discussion to have, because male victims of DV really exist and they deserve all the support in the world. It’s just not a 50/50 thing, which is where MRAs miss the boat and start getting creepy about it.)
Me neither. I guess when she volunteered to be AVFM’s Twitter pest, Paul Elam told her, “We can’t have a social media director only known as ‘Judgybitch’. It’s a human rights publicity transparency thingy. You have to at least get a nym that looks like a real name.”
To which JB responded in her mind, “That shouldn’t be a high bar to pass, Mr. Male Backwards.”
*comes to check on thread*
*reads “since of entitlement” in own reply*
http://imgur.com/QPEOT0g
I can think of a few occasions in school where if I’d been allowed to strike the bully and get away with it, they’d have left me alone. Obviously I’m not condoning violence, but considering that I was bullied regularly and a fair few teachers did nothing to help, I sometimes wish I’d had the option to at least just slap them once or twice. Sometimes that felt like the only solution but I knew that if I did I’d be dragged before the principal because God forbid a victim use force when backed into a corner.
There is an interesting debate to be had about inter-personal violence generally (it’s a bit of an area of expertise for me for various reasons)
To very much over simplify though, to understand why there’s a world of difference between violence against women and violence against men (whether from women or other men) is to bear in mind the contrast between actually attempting to harm and posturing.
Violence against men is nearly always ‘ritualistic’; violence against women is real.
[Does that make sense?]
@Alan:
I think I see what you mean. Men are more likely to do actual damage, women maybe cause pain but not much more?
I take it there are statistics covering that?
@ lith
It’s more that male on male violence almost has a ‘display’ element to it. Now of course, people can get hurt, but the aim of the violence is usually to achieve some sort of dominance and status enhancement. We talk in terms of “posture and submission” in the trade. A phrase that crops up a lot is “the monkey dance”; you can probably guess the implications.
Male violence against women takes two main forms. As a form of coercion and control; especially to get women into more vulnerable situations. But also to inflict actual real harm. There isn’t the ritualistic element to it. A fight between men almost has unwritten rules, and often it’s either actually or tacitly consensual (“Right you, outside now!” “You’re on”).
With violence against women it’s almost paradoxical in that the woman is both not seen as a “worthy” opponent entitled to the “respect” that a male may give a male opponent, but also as someone who must be “punished” for having the audacity to challenge a man.
There are all sorts of figures flying around but there hasn’t been a lot of controlled studies. It is something that’s well known (if not well understood) in the “applied violence” field though.
Interesting. I think I get the idea but I’ve been staring at the same problem for several days now and it’s starting to curdle my mind.
Something like the difference between a wolf fighting for position in the pack and a wolf making a kill during a hunt?
As much as I hate to be associated with this site, I have to say that, beneath the hatred in some of Elam’s pieces and the comments, there are many, many valid points. Most of them the result of the male gender role, but not by far enough and in a credible fashion addressed by mainstream feminism. Listen to Warren Farrell, Janice Fiamengo, and Christina Hoff Summers for more reasonable voices of what are basically dissenting feminists rather than the ideological opposite. In fact, I often get the impression they are even more in favour of rejecting the burden of the male gender role than feminists.
I also do not think it is fair to accuse them of inaction – as I understand, they are working on a number of issues such as ERA and men’s shelters. But as we can all imagine those issues do not enjoy much political support.
All I can hope is that, as this movement settles in and becomes less radicalised, there will be more frank dialogue between the men’s and the women’s movements. Men’s problem are simply the opposite side of the coin, and we have only really been working on one side these past decades.
Spot on.
IntRA species violence is very rare; even venomous snakes wrestle rather than bite (cf, the ritual male on male violence we’ve been talking about). Only in intER species violence do animals try to kill (whether for food or territorial reasons).
Hmm, that raises the very interesting question as to whether men who hurt women do literally see them as a different species! Maybe we’re onto something there?
Really? But then male-on-male violence would have to be considerably less severe than male-on-female? I cannot think of any statistic that would support that view. Are men not, despite a good number of sad exceptions, programmed to protect women rather than men?
@ Swedishbitch
It generally is.
Consider how common male on male violence is (just go to any town centre at kicking out time) and then look at how rarely anyone actually gets seriously injured. Even the severe injuries are usually non intentional (in the legal sense of the word). There’s a whole genre of law reports called “one punch manslaughter cases” (i.e. someone gets hit and cracks their head on the pavement).
It may be that men who want to hurt (rather than protect) women are the aberration; I would like to hope so, but it’s interesting to compare, say, knife attacks on men and women. Stabbing men is rare in itself (it’s usually a slashing attack) but the median number of knife wounds is very low (it’s often just one) whereas for women it’s something like 17 wounds and not uncommonly in the high tens. That perhaps gives some indication of the mindset of attackers.
@Alan:
I guess a lot of guys are brought up to believe women are utterly different from men, just look at the books about all of the differences.
It’s ridiculous when most of the – actual, not culturally programmed – difference is biological, and hardly something MRAs object to.
@ lith
“and hardly something MRAs object to.”
I got the impression they objected to EVERYTHING related to women!
Alan, interesting. There is certainly a marked difference in kind, mindset, triggers, and intent between male-on-male and male-on-female violence. We know quite a bit about the latter, at least from a feminist/patriarchy theory perspective, but less about the former, and very little about female-on-male (not including self-defense). Excluding psychopathic acts of both genders, you are certainly right that MoM violence is often about competition, measuring who is the strongest, and revenge, whereas MoF is more about control, frustration, perceived inadequacy, and the like.
But the fact remains: males are much, much more likely to engage in severe violence towards other men than towards females. Both genders express a strong gender preference for women in most studies I have seen. So the subordinate species train of thought I cannot really make sense of.
And how would you characterise the nature of FoM violence? It appears to be as prevalent as MoF, but of course MoF is on average more severe (making up up to four fifths of spousal homicide across the world), so that the FoM problem, while underappreciated due to gender roles, is minor in comparison to MoF. Surveys also indicate that females indicate self-defense as the primary motivation considerably less than males. How does that fit the potential model?
@ Swedishbitch
Ooh, this is such an interesting discussion; I could go on about this for hours. But I’d better not or everyone else on the site will get bored!
To take just a few of your points and give some very brief thoughts:
I’d say a principle difference between MoF and FoM violence is the matter of necessity. MoF violence may occur for many reasons (control, anger, humiliation etc.) whereas FoM violence generally is about self defence or defence of another (e.g. kids).
Now I note to myself I’m only considering serious FoM violence there. You see, I don’t consider a slap or a single punch against a guy as being meaningful. I suppose that’s a whole other topic as to why that is.
With spousal homicide it may again be about the lack of options. A man who wants out of a relationship can pretty much do so at will. He’s perhaps more likely to have financial resources to find another place, he probably doesn’t have primary childcare responsibilities and, realistically, there’s usually not the same element of control.
For a woman it may be that the only possible way to end the relationship and escape is to kill.
Ok – do you have any studies that covers both MoF and FoM equally, with the same questions and a statistically relevant sample, in support of that hypothesis? I know of many cases that would NOT fit, but they are of course anecdotes and their sensational nature may mean that they are proportionally overrepresented in media; and the studies I see mostly focus on MoF only.