Earlier this month, A Voice for Men published a post by its founder, the reliably odious Paul Elam, with the lovely title
Bill Cosby’s victims? Or just a bunch of drug whoring star fuckers?
In it, Elam suggested that Cosby’s 46 (so far) accusers were nothing “a bunch of greedy women who commoditized their bodies like groupies” in order to get drugs from the comedian, indulging in an age-old transactional sort of sex that Elam referred to, with his customary delicacy, as “gash for stash.”
I didn’t think AVFM’s ongoing, er, coverage of Cosby could get any more ludicrous than that. Then yesterday a post by Jonathan David Farley appeared on the site with the headline:
Cosby deposition shows he loves women and women love him─and the liberal media hates it!
As it turns out, Farley spends little time meditating on Cosby’s peculiar version of “love.” The bulk of the post instead offers a highly selective “reading” of Cosby’s deposition to prove that the “liberal media” is lying about Cosby:
[A]t no point in the purported deposition transcript does Bill Cosby admit to drugging women in order to rape them. But a dying newspaper industry seeking easy clicks can hide behind the fig leaf of Fallwell v. Flynt─newspapers can basically lie about public figures with impunity─rather than present confirmed facts.
Naturally, this being AVFM, the post offers no evidence whatsoever that the “liberal media” is lying.
It’s just a teensy bit hypocritical to attack the media for allegedly not “present[ing] confirmed facts” when you present none yourself.
Farley starts off his post with this claim:
The media is breathlessly reporting that “Bill Cosby Admitted To Drugging Women In 2005 Deposition,” the implication being that he gave women drugs without their knowledge to knock them unconscious and then have relations with them.
Farley’s evidence for this assertion? He provides none.
Which makes a certain kind of sense, because that’s not what the media has reported, “breathlessly” or otherwise. Sure, a few careless headlines did in fact declare that Cosby had admitted to giving women (plural) drugs and having sex with them.
But most serious media outlets were in fact quite careful about getting the details exactly right, reporting that Cosby had admitted only to procuring drugs with the intention of giving them to women, and that he had only explicitly admitted to giving the drugs to one woman.
Here are the top ten results you get when you search Google for the phrase “Cosby admitted.”
As you can see, all but one of the headlines, from an assortment of major media outlets including the BBC and the Washington Post, report what is in the deposition exactly. The only outlet to declare, incorrectly, that Cosby had admitted to drugging women — plural — was Fox News, not exactly a bastion of the “liberal media.”
That said, it’s certainly true that plenty of people believe that Cosby actually gave women the drugs he got in order to give them to women.
Hell, even Farley’s boss at AVFM, the aforementioned Paul Elam, thinks so, writing in his post last month that Cosby had “probably” used “his fame, fortune and pharmaceuticals to grease the wheels of his sex life?”
Farley also tries to insinuate that the deposition itself is somehow unreliable.
Question the source: the document was created by one of Bill Cosby’s accusers. It makes far-from-objective statements like “[Bill Cosby’s] testimony become [sic] more and more unbelievable” (page 20).
While the document that Farley points to was prepared by a lawyer for one of Cosby’s accusers, not even Cosby’s lawyers are suggesting that the extensive excerpts from Cosby’s deposition that appear in it are distorted or fabricated. While his lawyers aren’t happy about any portion of Cosby’s deposition being made public, they don’t deny that Cosby said what he said.
Ironically, Farley himself blatantly misrepresents what’s in the deposition:
The anti-Cosby articles insist that none of the accusers are in it for the money, but the deposition reveals how false this is: The hostile lawyer asks, “Mr. Cosby, did you believe that T—— P—– would go to the press with her story when you sent her the money?”
There is zero evidence in the deposition that any women demanded money from Cosby, though there’s no question that he sent money to some.
In the deposition, Cosby admitted that he’d offered money to the plaintiff in the case. But he explicitly denied that she or her mother had demanded hush money from him — or that he’d ever claimed that. As the defense attorneys summarized what he said:
Defendant testified that even though both Plaintiff and her mother told him that all they wanted was an apology, he called Plaintiff’s home and spoke to her mother to offer money for Plaintiff’s “education.”
And here it is in Cosby’s own words. Or, rather word.
Q. So, you did not believe that [name redacted by DF] or her mother wanted money from you at the time they made the phone calls to you?
A. No.
While nothing in Cosby’s deposition proves that he’s a woman-drugging serial rapist, it certainly seems to back up a good number of the allegations made against him, and at the very least reveals him to be a sleazy adulterous creep.
But the main conclusion that Farley draws from it all is … this:
The old saying is still true: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
Clearly, Farley has a much bigger problem with the facts — not to mention reality itself — than the “liberal media” he’s criticizing.
And an even more screwed-up definition of “love.”
Elam
Makes me physically sick.
Fess up, dude…you never studied journalism in any formal sense, did you? Because if you did, you’d know that what you just said there was a bald-faced lie. If a news outlet lies about someone, that outlet is subject to hefty defamation lawsuits. Hardly “impunity”, especially since punitive damages can run into the multi-millions of dollars. Hence the frequent use of hedgy words such as “alleged”, “accused”, “believed to have…”, etc.
If anyone is lying for clicks, it’s the shameless shitheads of AVFM.
Farley’s describing this as a case of “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” doesn’t even make sense in the context of his OWN assumptions.
I mean, if he’s right in thinking that all these women voluntarily AGREED to have sex with Cosby in exchange for drug supplies, then there was no “scorn” involved. He got the sex, they got the drugs, transaction complete and everybody’s happy.
According to Farley, none of the women now accusing Cosby were ever “scorned” by him at all. So how is this an explanation of their “fury”?
It’s possible Bill Cosby truly thought he was only being an adulterous sleaze and “bad boy.” In the 1950’s and 1960’s people did tend to think that consent was implied if a man was alone with a woman he wasn’t related to and she didn’t physically resist. The drugging probably would’ve made people think someone is just naughty or whatever.
Though that’s not an excuse, just an example of how rape culture works.
“The old saying is still true: Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.”
Yes, well, when you tell a woman you’ve been grooming for weeks, months or years that she no longer exists as far as you’re concerned once you’ve had your way with her, it does tend to tick her off. That’s a fact and there’s no denying it. Though it’s possible that this reaction may be due to a character flaw on the part of the woman, still it’s a fairly sure thing, and a smart man would comport himself accordingly. N’est-ce pas?
I’m pretty sure this is the real reason that older MRAs are MRAs; the sleazy shit they used to be able to get away with is now considered (correctly) to be rape.
Maybe so, but it’s not applicable in this case. For one thing, the accounts of the women themselves are remarkably devoid of “fury” at being “scorned”, and instead are notably replete with dismay at having been drugged and abused. Not one of them is mad at Cosby for not leaving his wife for her. On the contrary, they all are mad that he got away with administering a noxious substance to them, and then inflicting grievous bodily harm while they were under the influence.
Scorned women: Try and find them, jackass.
I just remembered when i was listening to an NPR story about this case a pretty big fucking detail this guy is glossing over.
Not that it SHOULD change anything, but these women often times weren’t even seeking out Bill Cosby. Bill Cosby would have his agent or some assistant reach out to the agents for these women and arrange meetings. They weren’t clamoring for Bill. Bill was using his influence to arrange meetings with women he knew to be in desperate situations.
History Nerd: I have to disagree. I think Cosby knew exactly what he was doing. Maybe people got away with this kind of shit more back in those days, but there is no way they didn’t understand exactly what they were doing.
He may have twisted it around in his own head as somehow consensual, but I agree with marci above. I don’t think he did do that. I don’t think he was interested in consent at all, indeed actively disinterested in consent.
It’s entirely possible that some percentage of these women or the yet unknown women who have not come forward would have willingly had sex with Cosby*. It’s not unknown for people to trade flattery for advancement and that includes physical flattery and back in the day he was an attractive guy. But that doesn’t seem to be the kind of thing Cosby was interested in. He didn’t just want to have sex with these women; he wanted to rape women. His particular, nasty kink was ‘having sex’ with incapacitated women, i.e. raping them. He robbed even those who -might- have been willing to have sex with him of the power of consent. The twisting in his head was probably more likely to do with convincing himself that this was somehow a ‘non-violent’ rape. Poisoning and sexually assaulting people isn’t non-violent even if it doesn’t leave a physical bruise.
*I think it’s more likely that the particular women who have come forward weren’t interested in having sex with him, but that there are more women out there who were and are suffering from conflicted thoughts about their own willingness pre-poisoning.
I literally physically gag when I read “gash for stash”. I don’t feel there could be a more vulgar phrase.
I agree. Those kinds of phrases really demonstrate the hatred these men actually feel for women. A man who respects women and cares for them would never use expressions like that, even ironically.
I had a feeling about that too, but extend that to them being generally terrible and controlling towards women, and now that it’s strongly looked down on by society they’re throwing a tantrum about it and claiming oppression.
I wonder why the younger MRAs are MRAs? It can’t be as simple as “the hot high school girls refused to date me”?
@ sunnys
A lot of it is bog standard radicalisation.
“You have problems and feel like you don’t belong? Here, let us explain why it’s all these people’s fault”
A famous example: when the News of the World ran a story about Jeffrey Archer’s alleged financial dealings with an alleged prostitute, which allegedly took part in Victoria Station, this led to a legendary libel action (legendary not least because although Archer won, he was subsequently jailed for perjury and perverting the course of justice and had to pay back the damages with interest).
But the twist is that he didn’t sue the NoW, he sued the Daily Star. And why? Because the Star ripped off the story lock, stock and barrel – but while the NoW had been incredibly careful to make sure that every allegation was meticulously qualified, the idiot who wrote the Star‘s equivalent ended up stating outright what the earlier story was only hinting at. Which is a really stupid mistake for a professional journalist, editor and newspaper to make, but there you go.
@Alan
Ah. That makes sense. So when a 21 year old MRA starts ranting about feminist divorce courts and child support rape it’s not his actual experience, he’s just parroting his “mentors.”
It has surprised me before when a guy barely out of college or even high school starts talking like that. Like, how are you even OLD enough to believe that things are the way you think they are? You haven’t even started to experience life and had, what, a handful of relationships at most?
Suddenly I’m extra glad that Elam has set his “counselling” rates so high. Means he’s less likely to corrupt more young minds.
@ weatherby
I have to be careful here as I used to provide legal advice to News International so there are professional issues.
The points you raise though are interesting. You probably already know about ‘Reynolds Privilege’. You might also want to have a look at ‘Chase Levels’ in defamation law (basically ‘he is a suspect’; there are good grounds why he’s a suspect’; ‘he did it’)
Reynolds privilege is slightly different now under the latest defamation act. In the old days you had to take all reasonable steps to check out a story. Now though, the duties are less onerous if there’s a genuine public interest in reporting the allegation.
[Of course it’s axiomatic that ‘public interest’ is *not* synonymous with ‘of interest to the public’]
Actually, young (and thus impressionable) guys do also seem to get into the MRM via PUA. Which is a movement that teaches the same shit – women aren’t really people, they’re vapid and privileged, yada yada. So when their shitty PUA tactics fail, because they’re shitty, the young guys head to Misogyny Central because they’ve already been taught that their struggles and failures and bad feelings are the fault of women, particularly feminists.
Thoughts? Corrections?
@ sunnys
Modern terrorist organisations have a lot in common with gangs and cults in their recruitment processes. They seek out the vulnerable and lonely and offer them a surrogate family.
The recruits often have no interest in the gang’s ideals originally; or even much of a clue about what the gang stands for. The most common reading material for British Jihadis are things like “Islam for Dummies”. In effect they’re empty vessels that people can fill with hate and poison.
Take a young man who’s at a loss. Give him a bit of a welcome and support and then provide an explanation as to why someone else is responsible for his woes. It’s no surprise when they then parrot the rhetoric.
Warning: rant incoming.
There are a lot of organisations and movements that prey on young men at this stage of their life. Many of those groups want to use them for money. Others want to use them to kill people.
My disgust at the sort of bottom-feeding scum who rely on such tactics does not diminish my acknowledgement of the fact that they do it because it works. It’s an easy tactic, if you’re okay with exploitation and objectification. In fact, if you’re okay with exploitation and objectification then you would need a good reason *not* to do it. Society is set up in such a way as to provise you with a ready source of cannon fodder. Love bombing works.
This is part of why I’m a feminist: this system stems from the same patriarchal place as the objectification and exploitation of women does, and will endure until such a time as we genuinely create a more consent based culture.
Fuck the patriarchy. I and my fellow men are nobody’s cannon fodder.
@sunnysombrera
I sometimes run into Swedish guys with these misogynistic attitudes, and interestingly enough they parrot the same talking points and vocabulary as the American ones do – including talking points which have no relevance to this country, and English words directly inserted into otherwise Swedish sentences. I feel like this is good evidence for the “parrot the mentors” theory.
@Alan
I see. Makes me feel kinda sad in that case. Sad for the young recruits and also angry at the cults/gangs/MRM for quite literally preying on them.
They’ve filled up those lads with hate and rage that will spoil the way they live life for years to come. I don’t feel sorry for the oldbies – like I said, they’re just assholes who are upset that they can’t get away with asshole behaviour any more. They seem to honestly believe it’s their right to treat women and minorities how they please (hello, abuser hotline?).
I must admit I’ve never had any real life encounters with ranting misogynists. They’re probably aware they’re only safe to rant online. There was one rather amusing incident where I was in a pub during lunch break and just wanted a sugary drink, so I ordered some Coke. As I was rummaging in my purse for change I found a tenner that I had forgotten about and pulled it out happily exclaiming: “ha! Wonder where this money is coming from!”
A middle aged guy next to me immediately grumbled: “Husband or boyfriend I expect.”
I was wearing business dress at the time.
I didn’t say anything but in retrospect oh I wish how I could have said “That’s right, and I also wear suits for fun!” Don’t you hate it when you think of witty comebacks only after the moment has passed?
In French this is called l’esprit d’escalier because of the way it always hits you on the stairs after you’ve left.
@ sunnys
On the positive side, this is why it’s often possible to de-radicalise such people. Offer them an alternative explanation, backed with evidence and they’ll often realise they’ve been taken from a ride. This is especially the case when someone who fell for the same trick as them acts as mentor (hence the effectiveness of ex gang members, jihadis etc doing the teaching).
The potential ‘temporary’ effect of such radicalisation is recognised by some terrorist groups, especially when the motivation for the recruit is anger. Hamas for instance require a suicide bombing recruit to apply multiple times over the course of at least a year before they’ll expend resources, and risk security, by training them up. This is to ensure that someone who say wants revenge for something that happened to them doesn’t change their mind when the anger diminishes over time.
As to your friend in the bar. If it happens again just respond “Life insurance payout actually, but I’m now a widow once again. Want to hook up? We could go skydiving” and see how they react.
@dhag
Interesting. Must admit, in the UK there are no problems with military draft and widespread circumcision at birth. As far as I know. Suicide rates and such are as much of an issue though. Don’t know about divorce courts and stuff.