If you’ve read Jeff Sharlet’s magnificent GQ account of his lost weekend amongst the “Men’s Human Rights Activists” at A Voice for Men’s conference last summer (or my take on it here), you know that some of the creepiest moments his account involved his friend Blair, a twentysomething writer who came along for the ride and ended up, by her account, being groped and propositioned by AVFM’s “director of collegiate activism” Sage Gerard.
Sharlet never mentions Blair’s last name, but Elam outs her in a AVFM post with the lovely title “GQ’s Jeff Sharlet pimps out Blair Braverman for clickbait.”
Braverman, like her friend Sharlet, is a writer. As in, a real writer, someone who’s won awards, whose work has been included in a number of anthologies, and who has a book coming out soon from Ecco/HarperCollins.
Elam must be aware of this – he links to her website, where all of this information is easily found – but for some reason doesn’t mention it. Perhaps because Braverman, less than half his age, is being published by, you know, an actual big-name publishing house, while Elam will never be published by anything more prestigious than Paul Elam Press? (Sorry, Zeta Press. Because Paul is a Zeta male, a term he made up to describe the best kind of male.)
Whatever the reason, Elam is content to portray “pretty young Blair,” whom he refers to repeatedly as a “girl,” as little more than a sort of journalistic honey trap brought to the conference in order to lure the men there into, I guess, acting like the predatory creeps they are?
He also writes that Blair, who trains and races sled dogs, “is into dogs, but I want to make it perfectly clear that I don’t mean that in a sexual way.”
Brilliant, Paul. You’re attempting to rebut a GQ piece that reveals you and your male followers to be a bunch of misogynistic assholes who are constantly saying inappropriately sexual things about (and to) every woman they find attractive … by being a misogynistic asshole saying inappropriately sexual things about a woman you find attractive.
Unexpectedly, Elam’s comrades at AVFM, in their comments on his article, eschew crude sexual comments and focus on substantive points.
Just kidding! They’re worse. Including the women.
Tara Palmatier, a clinical psychologist who has affixed herself firmly to AVFM and who co-hosts a regular Youtube show with Elam, writes of Braverman in something other than clinical terms, describing her as “a disingenuous doe-eyed (one eye slightly smaller than the other and just a smidge crossed) wannabe double agent,” adding:
Yo, MSM, next time you want to employ a “honey trap” to infiltrate the MHRM conference, spring a few more bucks for a more tempting and believable honey trap. Think Julian Assange grade.
AVFM’s “activism director” Attila Vinczer – we’ve met him before – pipes up with a weird and exceedingly creepy, er, appreciation of Braverman that may well make your skin crawl:
I sure recall Blair Braverman joining us in the lobby sporting her dark short shorts, shifting legs crossing one over the other and back again, rosy cheeks, blushing. Flirtatious? Hmmm. What other behaviour should she have had, being warned she would be raped?
One must wonder, just what exactly was their collective intention? Well, judging by the pathetic Jeff Sharlet hack article, it is clear, they were looking for that sizzle. What better plan than bring a young woman, dressed and behaving seductively provocative, to lure some unsuspecting guy like a pretty nerium oleander. We recognized the poison this pretty flower had in store and sent her packing.
Apparently all young women wearing shorts in June, and having legs that occasionally move, are trying to seduce creepy misogynistic assholes twice their age.
Dean Esmay, AVFM’s “managing editor” and “chief operations officer,” adds his two cents:
I remember noticing Blair and thinking she was an eye candy distraction whose job was to flirt with guys, and then thinking “nah don’t be sexist, she’s just nice.”
My bad. She was there specifically to be a distraction
A young woman being a young woman in the presence of Men’s Rights Activists – a clear case of entrapment!
Longtime AVFM regular “Andybob” had some questions.
I wonder how Sharlet prepped Blair Braverman for her role – apart from brushing the dog hairs off her person and instructing her to lose the goats. Did he coach her on how to drop a variety of rape jokes and references into conversations, or did she come up with it all on her own?
I’ve seen no indication that Braverman was prepped, or made any rape jokes, or attended the conference as anything other than a curious (and ultimately quite horrified) visitor. (The bit about goats is a reference to one of the photos AVFM filched from Braverman’s Facebook page and used to illustrate the article.)
GQ’s Sharlet – you know, the actual author of the piece that has the AVFMers so enraged – got some criticism as well. AVFM regular ManWithPlan referred snidely to Sharlet’s alleged “fat rolls.” Palmatier, a bit more creative, wrote that
Sharlet-tan gave me the heebie jeebies from his first cold, slimy amphibian-like approach. (Are slugs amphibians? That’s what he reminded me of.)
Oddly, none of the AVFMers accused Sharlet of trying to seduce them by crossing and uncrossing his legs.
NOTE: Yeah, I used that cartoon once before. But. come on, it’s awesome.
I’m firmly in the blue and gold/green camp, myself. By “firmly” I mean, “looks blue to me but I can’t really tell because I have no way of judging how bad the lighting / color correction is.”
But man, that’s one terrible photo. I can guarantee that the actual dress isn’t the colors in the photo.
I see blue and gold and can’t understand why the only options argued are white and gold or blue and black.
Blue and brown? That’s my guess.
But I’ve seen a pink craft fur that looked like a pale blueish purple on etsy, so…bad lighting. It works wonders.
“(Are slugs amphibians? That’s what he reminded me of.)”
Slugs are molluscs, and molluscs are an ancient and resilient form of life. They first (definitely) appeared about 550 million years ago, and today they rule the seas. If you lasted five hundred and fifty thousand millennia and ended up thronging the oceans, I’d say you were doing something right.
— “She’s into dogs, but not in a sexual way.”
— “And he’s into dog-whistling, and that’s why all the dogs in the vicinity suddenly started barking their heads off.”
That ought to get you at least an honorable mention if it doesn’t win you the internet for the day.
LOL, someone messaged me that photo, and then I go to dining commons with friends and one of them overheard someone else talking about it, and when we sit down the table next to us is talking about it. I come back home and first thing I see on Facebook is someone going, “WHAT THE FUCK THIS IS BLUE AND BLACK”. My brother calls and I casually mention the dress and he sees it white and gold, so he freaks out when I see it in blue and black.
So yeah. I see it blue and black. Scientific explanation here, actually:
http://www.businessinsider.com/white-and-gold-black-and-blue-dress-2015-2
Zeta male? So he’s saying he’s in the top 25% of men? Or just that he has no clue how the Greek alphabet actually works?
Someone on my Facebook posted the Buzzfeed article. The picture on Facebook looks blue and brownish-black to me. The picture on Buzzfeed proper looks white/gold. The one here looks blue/brownish-gold.
The key here is that neither colors nor shades are absolute–in order to work in all lighting conditions, your brain does a bunch of “pre-processing” (some of which starts in the eye itself, even before getting transferred to the brain) and awkward lighting + lighted screens = WTF.
Also, you all heard about the llamas? Today was the day the internet had a weird to celebrate net neutrality, apparently.
I’m all for it. At least this is harmless and funny.
The Business Insider article claims it’s a combo of lighting and people having different amounts of rods and cones in their retinas. It is proven that everyone sees color slightly differently, so the retina thing makes sense to me.
My friend fixed her phone so it switched all the colors to opposites on the color wheel, and then it looked gold and white to me.
Haha, that dress should be on brain games. I saw black/blue at first, but as I was reading the article, it changed to white/gold. Lol. This is also the first I’ve heard of it.
The internet has been so weird today.
I can make it look white and gold by tilting my screen forward. There’s another picture floating around with bright lighting. It looks a lot paler and the dark parts look gold.
Hrm, is it odd I see the dress as blueish (almost a light violet) and brown?
As for the article… It really bugs me they reduce her dog trainingsled racing to “being into dogs.” So smarmy. Dog sled racing takes a lot of work.
Note: In no way do I believe Braverman was a honeytrap or anything silly like that, but let’s say in some alternate world she was… It’s interesting (read:not interesting at all… more like obvious) that when a woman tricks men, she’s manipulative and clearly evil and he’s an unsuspecting victim, but when a man tricks women, he’s got good game and she’s just a silly female for falling for it.
Well it clear is lying up one side and down the other. I mean consider his statement “I remember….thinking she was an eye candy distraction whose job was to flirt with guys, and then thinking “nah don’t be sexist, she’s just nice.” He really expects us to believe that he has EVER thought 1. “don’t be sexist” or 2. that a woman other than his mother is “nice?”
This looks like a job for CAPTAIN BUZZKILL. *strikes heroic pose*
http://i.imgur.com/GOHFzKI.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ORWfnHC.jpg
…I’m trying to see it as white and gold, but I’m definitely seeing blue and black. I’ve read the explanations, but when it comes down to it, I’ve decided I’m never trusting anyone when they say something is blue, yellow, black, or white again.
Mauve and chartreuse I think I can still trust folks on.
Goddammit all my friends are seeing it as different colors now and it still looks blue and black to me.
MY RETINAS ARE STRONG, YOUR EYES ARE ALL WEAK. WEAK, I TELL YOU WEAK! WEEEEEEEEEEAK
If you wanna see white and gold, only look at the shoulder are of the dress and not the rest. Also, do it in a bright environment.
That helps trick your brain into thinking it is in shadow and adjusting the color.
Thank you Brain Games!
Maybe someone will remember this.
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2015/057/1/e/violence_in_the_llibrary_by_gckatz-d8jnxlz.jpg
I remember, katz!
Here is the explanation the fits best with my knowledge of neuroscience and sensory processing:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/virginiahughes/why-are-people-seeing-different-colors-in-that-damn-dress
Obviously, the dress looks purplish blue and gold, but is probably white and gold in bad lighting. Slugs are vegetables. Oh wait I’m thinking of broccoli.
That dude’s shirt is white and white-in-bad-lighting.
Yes, but what colors were the alpacas?
Alpaca-colored.
And other insecure dudebros continue piling on women:
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/witch-hunt-against-fake-female-hearthstone-player-/1100-6425551/
Fuck. This. Shit.