So Susan Morris, the Conference Manager for A Voice for Men’s allegedly upcoming “Men’s Issues” conference this year. has posted a rather puzzling statement attempting to answer questions she’s been getting from AVFM readers “concerning there being fewer speakers on the programme this year and the ticket price being higher.”
Morris — described on the site as “a British woman, an experienced general and event manager in public service” — assures potential conference goers that, “contrary to the headline which I saw somewhere, the ticket price has not been set at $649!”
And that’s true. If you go to the conference’s website, you can see that, in fact, full price tickets to the event are only $645.
That is FOUR WHOLE DOLLARS LESS than the amount reported by the scurrilous press. And … by Morris herself, later in her post.
But hey, she suggests, only suckers will be paying the full $649.
The Early Bird Discount ensures that if you purchase your ticket by the 30th of April, you will only pay $399. Buy it between 1 May and 30 June and you’ll still get it at a good discount, at the price of $449. The price will increase in $50 steps until it gets to the buy-at-the-door price of $649 and we expect very few, if any, to do so. In fact, that price has been set to deter people from doing so, so that they don’t hold up those people who have been entered into the pre-registration system and only need to book in.
Morris also insists that
Contrary to the efforts made by our detractors to blacken our name, the ticket price is not aimed at making a profit but breaking even would be nice.
Yeah, it’s not like AVFM founder and chief donation-receiver Paul Elam ever said that he hoped to make some actual profit from the conference. You know, except for that time he said he “hope[d] to make some actual profit” from the conference.
So what’s to blame for the higher price? Apparently, it’s largely due to, er, time-traveling protesters from Detroit?
Last year, you may recall, a group of Detroit-area activists held a protest several weeks before AFVM’s conference was scheduled to happen in that city. There were no protesters at the event itself.
This year, the conference is being held in Elam’s hometown of Houston. But evidently — at least in the fevered imaginations of AVFM’s brain trust — that won’t stop last year’s protesters from driving 1300 miles from Detroit to Houston to protest this year’s event. At least that’s what Morris seems to be suggesting:
The protesters from last year have already vowed to shut us down this year and though we know they will not achieve their aim, they will still be protesting (as is their right, of course). Security and safety of our attendees, speakers and volunteer staff will always be of prime importance and so, to avoid a repeat of last year’s emergency appeal for funding, we have built into the costs additional but reasonable security cover.
Aside from “security cover” from time-travelling protesters, what will attendees get for their $649 — sorry, $645 — that no one is really expected to pay?
Fewer speakers!
“Last year,” Morris writes
in our naivety and enthusiasm, we overbooked the number of speakers for the two day event. During the conference it became clear that the programme was too full and did not allow sufficient time for decent length talks followed by full question and answer sessions. This year we have arranged ten speakers.
Greater punctuality!
And this year we will ensure that we start each session on time.
Longer lunch breaks! And afternoon breaks!
We have extended the afternoon break and the lunch time and we will be opening the doors each day at 8am. So, provided you arrive early, you will have over eight hours across the two days to mingle with other attendees and to network. And that’s not including the time spent at the evening events, socialising and networking with other like-minded people over dinner or pizza.
Dinner is an additional $20; Pizza is $15. But the time you spend eating is ABSOLUTELY FREE.
A larger number of unpaid staffers than you would think would be even remotely necessary for an event of its size!
Another factor which people tend to forget is the cost of flying in the speakers and volunteer staff and accommodating them all. Between speakers, panel discussion members and staff, we’ll have some forty five people there.
Free taxi service!
We’re arranging an optional taxi service to collect you from your hotel and take you to the venue and then to return you afterwards.
Wait, scratch that, the Taxi service will cost you an additional $15!
But talking to the cabbie is INCLUDED IN YOUR TICKET PRICE.
And finally, FREE ACCESS to an actual BRITISH WOMAN — namely conference manager Susan Morris herself.
I shall be flying in to Houston from the UK. It will be my first flight, a long one around ten hours and I can’t say I’m looking forward to it. But the end result will be worth it. I am looking forward to meeting as many of you as I can.
Because why not fly your conference manager all the way from the UK at the conference-goers’ expense? Sure, makes perfect sense!
I wonder if a single person has bought a ticket for the conference yet.
Wait, did I get that backwards? Should the male readers have no trouble, but the women be completely unable to tell the diff?
Not sure. Anyway, there should be a discernible difference in what the rate of correct identification is between (cis) men and (cis) women.
I’m going with the second one.
Curious. My husband and I occasionally have disagreements*about colors, usually shades of green and blue. He’ll describe his gout medicine as ‘the blue pill’ when, to me, it is unambiguously green. After twenty years together, we’ve agreed to disagree as long as we both know what we’re referring to.
We are both completely capable of seeing schmutz on a bathroom mirror, despite having Y chromosomes. Perhaps the fact that neither of us expect a woman to come along behind us to clean up our messes is a factor.
*Note: Not arguments or fights, just disagreements. We tend not to fight about things.
Teal. For godsakes.
Well, it was a controversial book.
Here’s a fun color test for anyone who is interested. For what it’s worth, I got four wrong in the green spectrum.
http://www.xrite.com/online-color-test-challenge
Also, here is some interesting information on the genetics of color blindness. Red/green color blindness is controlled by genes on the X chromosome, which is why it is more common in males. Blue color blindness, however, occurs equally among men and women.
http://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/inherited-colour-vision-deficiency/
@ej
Holy shit, I have perfect color vision.
…
It’s green.
@kirbywarp
Re: Rebuttal from Uranus
Good stuff. Very entertaining.
“Gray then proudly tells us that Bonnie will sometimes “casually say, ‘When you feel like talking, I would like to spend some time together. Would you let me know when?’” Gray argues that this is the correct approach, for through approaching him in this way “she can test the waters without being pushy or demanding.”
But of course. We cannot have a good wife seem, or, god forbid, be (gasp) pushy or demanding. That kind of rebellion spells doom to marriage and human civilization as we know it (no, really — just read Dalrock & Co.)
“We learn that when a woman has criticism or advice for her significant male other, she should bind her feet, put her head down, and walk on eggs without producing nary a crack!”
Damn right.
“Well, what Gray actually says is that a woman “should definitely not offer criticism or advice unless he asks. Instead she should try giving him loving acceptance. This is what he needs, not lectures.”
Such sweet and fragile things, these men creatures. Handle with care or they may break or dissolve. Women, OTOH, can totally withstand husbandly advice, criticism, direction, and outright pushiness and demands — why, that’s the proper order of things (it’s called male headship — just ask Dalrock&Co.; also any and all redpillians — right, Kate?)
It is a wonder that any non-doormat woman marries, ever. And how my own marriage has survived those 30+ years without following Gray-sian advice is a mystery alright.
Not to try to mildly impress or anything, but each one of my eyes perceives color differently: the left one sees decidedly warmer tones than the right one. So while that square is totally teal with both eyes open, it’s more greenish when I look at it with left eye only, and bluish with the right. Talk about inner conflict.
@Aunt Edna
I actually have the same … issue? Problem? I don’t really see it as a problem. My left eye sees things more reddish-brown, and my right in shades of white/blue. I tend to think of my right eye’s vision as “correct.”
Oh, but that square looks the same color in both eyes. The difference is only noticeable when I look at something that is pure white.
@ Aunt Edna
I have that too! Wonder what the explanation is.
Apparently my color vision is perfect. Hooray!
@Alan
I always assumed there was some kind of difference between the proportions of cone cells in my eyes. Like maybe one eye has relatively more red cones and the other has relatively more blue.
That sounds plausible. I’ll ask my optician. We’ve had a similar discussion when we’ve been using that machine that flashes dots in your peripheral vision; that’s all about cones and rods.
@Aunt Edna @PoM @Alan Robertshaw
I’ve noticed that my vision is darker, blurry and tilted in my left eye but that’s probably because I have cataracts and a lazy eye, so what would I know, but that might be why old 3D glasses had red and blue lenses. They always have the right lens as red and the left lens as blue (when looking into them).
What…what was I trying to say?
@ GBnB
Are you familiar with the works of Monet? You might find some of the theories about his particular style interesting.
@Alan Robertshaw
You telling me his impressionism style might be because he had a lazy eye or other assort vision problems?
The different perception thing intrigued me so did some googling.
POM is correct, it’s a cone distribution thing and apparently quite common.
http://i.giphy.com/Cd7LTWyD5U5YQ.gif
@GBnB
Yup. The theory is he was trying to paint accurately what he saw but had cataracts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1551703/Cataracts-the-key-to-Monets-blurry-style.html
@Alan Robertshaw
Oooh, that makes sense, especially if you few many of his older works compared to his newer ones. You can definitely see a color desaturation and less details in his work.
On the subject of vision imparities, Vincent Van Gogh may have been color blind.
Ha! There goes my attempt to mildly impress with what turns out to be a common quirk. But yes, it seems many people have these differences.
Van Gogh, color-blind? Now that’s impressive.