So it turns out that Toronto poster promoting A Voice for Men (by snottily taking down to women) wasn’t actually an official AVFM production. Or at least it probably wasn’t.
Even the folks at AVFM are a little unsure on that point. But one thing is clear: AVFM thinks the poster is AWESOME!
Here’s what amounts to an official statement on the subject, from AVFM’s Facebook page.
I suppose they have good reason to be thankful, since the Toronto poster was a good deal less perplexing and offensive than AVFM’s typical posters and memes.
So, what the heck, let’s treat this development as an excuse to look at some recent memes posted on AVFM’s Facebook page. I don’t know if all of these are AVFM originals or not, but their appearance on the Facebook page is pretty much the equivalent of an endorsement.
You’ve already met Ms. Bathory, above. Now let’s meet a straw feminist, in the form of a stock photo of a crying woman that AVFM and other MRAs love to use, and a fake quote that has about as much relationship to reality as, well, AVFM does.
Huh, because no genuine rad fem I’ve ever met has been shy about identifying themselves as a rad fem. And non-rad fems aren’t exactly shy about criticizing rad fems.
I think one of the problems here is that MRAs tend to regard all feminists as radical feminists, because generally speaking MRAs know about as much about feminism as AVFM’s Paul Elam knows about good parenting. (Which is to say, approximately zero.)
And now for something completely different.
Just kidding! It’s more of the same, in the form of what you might call “straw history.”
That’s … not what “rape culture” means. Nor does the concept have anything to do with the Klan, or the Women’s Klan, or the lynching of black men. A fail on all counts.
Then there’s this.
Take it away, Mal:
Let’s end with a thought from AVFM’s grand poop, Paul Elam. The font may be a little unexpected — not to mention nearly impossible to read — but the sentiment is pure Elam.
You guys might want to consider appointing that “individual” in Toronto your permanent poster-maker. That poster of his was terrible, but at least you could read it.
@ Rabid Rabbit
A not particularly accurate and over sensational account here. Also it’s the Daily Mail so not exactly sympathetic to some of the victims.
***HUGE TRIGGER WARNINGS***
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363078/John-Sweeneys-artwork-Did-serial-axe-monster-murder-5-women.html
Interestingly enough, there are a number of scholars who believe that Bathory actually was a victim of the patriarchy (framed for crimes she didn’t commit) http://www.rejectedprincesses.com/princesses/elisabeth-bathory
Paul Elam’s diary looks like an inventory item in a 90’s adventure game.
I’m going out to bat for Elizabeth here. Please remember, as lawyer, it’s not what I personally believe, just what case I can put before you the jury.
So, bearing in mind I just have to create a reasonable doubt (we’ll use the movie test here, not the real one), consider this:
1. Elizabeth was a very wealthy and confident woman. She was very unpopular with certain sections of the Hungarian elite.
2. The man appointed to investigate the allegations stood to gain personally in the event she was convicted.
3. The same man initially claimed she had been caught red handed by him personally. This was later proved to be untrue.
4. The witnesses were under the custody of the investigator for a long time before the trial. They were generally low ranking peasants and staff.
5. One of her staff testified that she was innocent, despite the fact the staff member had everything to lose by this.
6. The initial evidence was that she claimed 650 victims. it was shown that she could not have been responsible for nearly all the deaths alleged. In the end she faced the 80 remaining counts only.
7. The investigation concluded she should not be tried (admittedly more for political reasons than anything else).
8. It was the King who insisted she should stand trial. The King owed a fortune to Elizabeth. This fortune would not have to be repaid in the event of a conviction.
Now members of the jury, in light of all that can you be *sure* she is guilty?
If it was a show trial, why were its records sealed for centuries? What’s the point of a show trial if you don’t put it on display? Why hide it away to protect the reputation of the artistocracy unless there’s something disreputable to hide?
If you’re trying to frame someone for financial reasons, why would you want people being able to examine the evidence?
Dammit, WordPress refuses to play nice with me on mobile. I *think* I’m on my regular account now.
Anyway, if we manage to name a single male mass murderer, will they admit that “gynocentrism” isn’t a thing?
WORDPRESS I HATE YOU. Gah. All comments made by people named katz are me, for the record.
@ Paradoxical Intention:
That always annoys me when MRAs bring up Bathory and fail to mention that she killed other women. It’s like their trying to mislead others who are unfamiliar with the story into thinking that she was some kind of “evil radical feminist who killed men.”
Edit: *they’re. -_-
MRAs have trouble identifying “radical feminists” because they think women wearing pants and voting is radical. It always cracks me up when they refer to Anita Sarkeesian as a radical feminist.
Seems to me, if you can’t steal a red car, then by that same logic you can’t have female serial killers, only serial killers. You don’t get to yell “FEMALE! FEMALE! LOOK! AWALT!” when they’re a perpetrator, then try to sweep femaleness under the rug when they’re the victims.
Why do I have an urge to stab that diary with a basilisk fang?
“Dear feminists…We’d love to work with you to bring about a utopia of peace, harmony, and love, except that you’re hateful, bullying pond scum. Namaste, bitches.”
Nice consistency of tone, there.
“We are not living under the patriarchy because this woman and some other women killed people so stop labeling yourselves as the victims! But we are living under the matriarchy/gynocracy because feemales’ butts and boobs or something or rather”
@Shaenon:
Exactly that. It’s as if they don’t understand that “radical” doesn’t simply mean “refuses to compromise” but actually means they stand for different positions. One can be a moderate radical feminist or a hardline liberal feminist.
Then again, if “words mean things” was an argument that could make any headway against MRAs, we’d have to start by teaching them the meaning of the word “no”.
Not only that, but someone who may have been framed by multiple men who were looking to get rid of her for various reasons.
And if she wasn’t framed, she still only killed women. Not men.
Sure they can. Because it suits their narrative. AWALT, unless they’re actually not, in which case, they’re disqualified by existing.
It’s like their goalposts are on a really shitty segway that can only go forwards and backwards with no brakes.
Yup, but we’re the bad people because we quote them to themselves. Forcing themselves to hear their own voices.
They hate that. It’s almost like the guilt is too much to bear, but of course, I don’t think they truly know what guilt is. They’d rather just force themselves to believe that they’ve done right by the world instead of believe that they’re not very nice people.
But, that’s humans for ya.
I was a little mad that somebody ripped off that awesome Henry Fuseli painting about night terrors, but now that I think about it, it could be interpreted as a satire conveying the fact that xenophobes construct elaborate fantasies to justify their fear and hatred: really, an excellent message for the woman-blamers of the manosphere to send.
I love that you can actually tell that something isn’t officially from AVFM because the design is kind of OK.
Y’know, looking at that Paul Elam letter one…their line spacing is shit.
Like “I think this was either done in MSPaint or by someone who has the most vague understanding of PhotoShop” shit tier.
These guys could really benefit from some sort of PhotoShop class, but of course, me being a feeble feeemale with a bachelor’s degree in graphic design, they won’t listen to lil’ ol’ me.
AVFM should use this as a commercial. Better way to attract women members.
Paradoxy, maybe if you graphically designed them a sammich?
As for the Bathory thing, are AVFM now fighting for 17th century men? Pretty sure that’s not necessary, guys.
Yay for Bathory controversy! I always liked the idea of her innocence, but I didn’t know there were serious grounds to suspect she was framed up.
I always wanted to write a story about her, in which she would be some sort of super cool Wiccan priestess or something, and guys were worried her young followers were getting all uppity and pretentious…
I’m thinking of some full moon ritual with naked dancing under the moon and pools of menstrual blood that freaks people out and starts the legend.
I might write it some day….
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzvhacQwld1qzrfff.gif
Ok, now I feel I have to say something. Elisabeth Batory WAS NOT a serial murderess. The number of people that the meme claims she killed is pulled out of the ass also- according to the fable popular in Europe, the number of victims would be around 300 (all of them women BTW). Except, that it is all a big baloony.
Elisabeth Batory was a Hungarian countess that held around 1/3 lands of her country, which made her powerfull as well as rich. So rich, that she could freely lend money to other Richy Riches of the time. One of her debtors were the Habsburg family. Now, so it happened that the said Habsburgs were preparing for a war with Elisabeth’s cousin, Gabriel Batory and it was quite obvious which side she would take in that conflict, her influence probably being decisive for the outcome of the whole thing. The Habsburgs figured out that by eliminating her, they would nt only secure victory for themselves, but also wouldn’t have to hear “yo bitch, where’s my money?” ever again. So they had her arrested, accused of murder and locked up in the cell, where she died 4 years later without a trial.
Since then a colorfull tale had grown around this story, which became so fictionalized, that it took a lot of debunking and critical analysis from historians to estabilish at least some truths. In fact, there is both financial (there is a whole turist/book/movie business based on the tale of “The Bloody Princess”) and political pressure (the antagonisms between Hungary and Slovakia) to NOT debunk these stories.
What we know for sure as far, is that all those who tesstified against the countess did so under torture, and even then none of them claimed to personally witness the murders, or even to see the bodies. In fact, the confessions vere so frail and contradictory that they didnt even make for a good case in court so the trial never took place, as I mentioned before. The accusations of witchcraft/vampirysm are a much later invention (100 years after her death) and were made with the intention to further discredit her family.
On the other hand, we do have some proof that she could be mentally ill. Also, she was quite nasty to her serfs- but that was not in any case out of ridynary at her time. These people were regarded as cattle- as long as you shot your own, everything was hunky-dory. These things in no case speak for her being a murderess, let alone killing hundreds of people!
So, sorry to dissapoint the manbabies, but LOL, yeah, it was a plot against a woman whose biggest fault was that she had money and power.
Re: That Letter
Reminds me of this one (again, for Brits of a certain age)
Don’t put any weight onto that. It was common in the Middle Ages to not admit testimony from the peasantry unless it came under torture.
The number of witness against her was … overwhelming. This conspiracy would have had to encompass hundreds of people. That’s not how actual conspiracies work.