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.
The red car meme has so many layers of WTF…
It would make “more sense” (very loose definition of both words) to show two cars of different colors, and then a man and a woman.
It would still be a stupid message with no truth in it, but as the meme looks right now it seems like it’s comparing the woman to the car.
Which still makes sense in MRA land, only the memes are supposed to hide their awful (ha ha, yeah right).
And boomshanka to you, Alan!
@POM I am completelly aware that it was a common procedure to use torture as a “truth serum” and its use was not limited to peasants. But there was a reason to why it was employed- because if you fricking torture people they are bound to confess exactly what you want. This is the case today and it was so in the middle ages. So the number of witnesses does not matter, if the confessions were forced out. Also, as I remarked, no-one actually saw the bodies, not to mention famous blood baths that she allegedly used to take. You have to also remark, that Elisabeth didnt cut a popular figure among her subjects. She was cruel, no one is denying that. So the possibility that they would tell unheard-of stories about her is very probable. Still, doesn’t make those stories historical truth. Similar thing happened to Vlad Dracula- people hated him so much (deservingly), that in effect most things we know, or think we know, about him are exxagerations ore pure fables.
I never said it was a conspiracy. It was a plot to eliminate her from the political scene. And such plots happened throughout the middle ages and later all teh time. Just think of how Mary of Scotland met her end. She was imprisoned and, later on, executed by her cousin, Elisabeth, the excuse for was a crime which was completelly impossible to prove that Mary commited (although there are no reasons to believe that she didnt). Catarina Sforza- more or less the same story (although she was released in the end). These things happened all the time and they did not need a complicated net of conspirators. And in the end, none of them had anything to do with the alleged crime itself, rather with the political interests of parties involved.
I am not defending the honour of Elisabeth Batory (although she was a relative of one of our kings 😉 ). When younger, I was reading the stories of her famous blood showers in popular-history books with flaming cheeks and was really fascinated by this extraoridinary “criminal”. But then I grew up, looked at some historical literature that is actually writen by real researchers and based on credible sources, and the story just doesnt hold.
For hundred of people to be coordinated in taking down a woman, when this would benefit only a small fraction of that number and the vast majority would not see any gain from it, and for none of them to breathe a single word about it afterward until their deaths … yeah, that describes a conspiracy You may not be willing to apply that word to it, but that’s what it is in general parlance.
I’m not defending testimony under torture, but it’s flat untrue to claim that testimony under torture is always a lie and it was invariably done to coerce false testimony. It was done because it was believed at the time that testimony made under torture was true. Artemisia Gentileschi, a contemporary of Bathory, was required to undergo torture in order to testify against the man who had raped her because, as a woman, she was believed to be inherently untrustworthy. That doesn’t mean her accusation was false or that her testimony was an invention. It means that the justice system of 16th-17th century Europe was fucked the hell up.
It would be pointless. I think, to debate to what degree inquisitors (understanding people connected with the middle ages/reneissance justice system, not the Holy Inquisition 😉 ) believed torture to be appropriate measure for delivering the truth, and for what part it was motivated just by cynicism and despotism. However, yeah, I think we should always call bullshit on the testimony of someone who was coerced- as we do in contemporary cases. For this particular subject let me quote a review paper published last year in Studia Europea Gnesnensia : “It is relevant to remember a letter written by priest Janosz Ponekinusz, adressed to the palatine [Ferenc Turzo, the main accuser of Elisabeth, on behalf of the Habsburgs- my comment], describing what should be confessed by the witnesses. According to him, the interrogation should be led in such a way, taht the men who were being questioned will accuse the countess of forcing her victims to eat human flesh and being possesed”. And, later “[…] despite the tortures those interrogated confessed, that they have never personally witnessed their lady doing any of those bestialities, but that they have heard that she killed, or injured someone”. The translation is mine, sorry, Middle European humanists still insist on publishing in their own language, to my grat annoyance btw.
Still, I do not agree on what you write about this being some kind of impossible-to-pull-up conspiracy. As I wrote before, these things happened all the time, no miracles were needed. It would have been easier to just discretely put some poison in someones fauvorite beverage, but it was simply not always possible, therefore all the crazy intrigues, some of which I remarked above.
As for your skepticism regarding why people would testify against her and not retract what they have said later- most of them were indeed peasants, they could go around trumpeting that what they have said is not truth, nobody would care (also, I can imagine very well the reasons why they wouldnt do that). And AGAIN- these people really hated Elisabeth, and may have even been happy to accuse her of something or the other.
Only other people who testified against her were no other as aforementioned Ferenc Turzo and his clients. Being affiliated with the Habsburgs, I think its clear what they intended to confess (and that they had interests in it). And, surprise, surprise, they were not tortured!
So, what you’re saying is that because the justice system of the time required Artemisia Gentileschi to give her testimony under torture, we should disbelieve everything she said, and adhere to the position that we don’t think she was raped and everything she said was a lie.
That’s what you’re saying.
That’s complete nonsense. You’re willing to say “oh, it was another time” when it comes to beating the shit out of peasants, but apply modern standards to the testimony those peasants later gave. You’re intellectually inconsistent and dishonest and there’s no point going any further with you.
I believe calling me names/being offensive is highly unnecessary. Also, a really dick thing to do, since I did not write anything close to offensive.
You are trying to compare someone who was defending her own stance under torture and people who had to make accusations of someone else under torture. These things are dramatically different and its really unfair to put together for the same evaluation. But ok, we have numerous examples of women (and some men) that confessed under torture to flying on broomsticks and having sex with the devil. I dont know about you, but it seems like kinda bullshit to me. Still, some of them were indeed strong enough to still not comply, en example of what I just quoted above, if you would bother to read it.
You insist (I dont know why) to talk about Artemisia. Well, I am not arguing about her story ( I do not have enough knowledge of it), I am making an argument for Elisabeth Batory. It would be, you know, polite, to at least read my arguments concerning the STORY IN QUESTION, and not get totallu upset just because I did not relate to one paragraph that you wrote.
I find it interesting that the AVFM memers brought up such a hugely debated historical figure, when they could have brought up the 1920’s murderous women of whom the system let off much of the time.
Even if that was one of the clearest examples of Patriarchy backfiring, we know dozens of women who killed multiple men each.
Even if Bathory killed every one of the alleged 650 people, that’s pretty weak stuff when it comes to being a medieval warlord. Raymond de Toulouse, Stephen Marshal and Guy de Lusignan got vastly more of their own people killed than that, and their names are hardly a byword for cruelty.
Might I suggest that the reason we regard her as particularly bad is because her victims were alleged to be mostly young women, and patriarchal societies regard women of marriageable age as being valuable objects?
Really, that car thing makes ZERO sense!
Also, even if she did kill 650 people, and bathed in their blood, there is a little patriarchy involved. Inspite of her being a powerful leader, the ingrained system tells her the only value she had was beauty, then acts appauled when she does everything she can to maintain that value.
Also, because she herself was a woman, and women are supposed to be deferring and demure and perfect in every way, not violent like a man.
(If anything in this world is genuinely misandristic, it’s patriarchy. And MRAs. But I repeat myself.)
I think that expressing certitude about distant historical events is always a bit fraught with danger. We can speak of probability and likelihood, perhaps, but that’s about as far as it gets in the era before recordings of various sorts coming into play–we are at the mercy of oft-inconsistent and unreliable narrators, rarely disinterested or objective in their own rights.
After reading the differing comments here, I’d conclude it was highly likely that Bathory was guilty of cruelty against her subjects, and also that this cruelty was magnified, distorted and sensationalized by her opponents in order to make it easier to take her down.
@freemage @GosiaG that was my take on Bathory as well, after studying her years ago. I love the discussion here! (Not sure why it’s getting a little heated, @POM?)
I like that last clause. No one’s getting away with jacking your ekranoplane or hydrocopter!
That whole “let’s work together” sentiment is really confusing to me.
Because, based on their behavior, they obviously don’t want to do that and yet condemn another group for not trying. It’s like how bigots fault those promoting cultural tolerance for not also tolerating their bigotry.
A friend of mine, who recently came out as gay, had to deal with a barrage of homophobic shit from former friends and even a college professor he looked up to. He supported making gay marriage legal across all states – so, of course, he has to deal with people who are trying to convince him why that was a bad thing. And, somehow, totally not homophobic.
It’s, like, what the fuck do these people expect? That people who support gay marriage are just going to agree with them – due to this disingenuous “we must all work together!” nonsense? It’s even more aggravating when they become aggrieved over having their position called out as being homophobic. It was bad enough one person “warned” my friend about the “dangers” of the “gay lifestyle” while nonetheless taking offense at being called a homophobe.
As far as Elizabeth Bathory goes: if all her victims were young women, MRAs using her as an example of “female privilege” doesn’t make much sense. It’s like when Islamophobes completely forget that the majority of victims from the actions of violent Fundamentalists are also Muslim or at least live in the Middle East (thus non-white), all so that they can worry about all the poor widdle white people…
Freemage:
Isn’t magnifying, distorting, and sensationalizing the cruelty of your opponent to make it “easier” to take them down the way you’re supposed to do it? Just basing that on everything I see from both extremes of this issue.
Women Should be respected all over the world. There should be some universal about it.
http://transformthechange.com/blog/why-women-should-rule-the-world/
http://philadelphialawyerpersonalinjury.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/2014.3.4.sandwich.jpg
How’s this look?
I think it’s fitting for the MAYUNLY types, because men like knives, right? I mean, I wouldn’t know, because I’m a delicate little feeemale, but men like things like this, yeah?
Okay, so this blog post doesn’t sit well with me, so let’s go over it:
1. Women are Good Multitaskers
It’s true that there is a study showing that women are better multitaskers than men are, but I don’t think this is a reason why “women should rule the world”, just because a study of a limited group of people showed that women were, on average, better at multitasking.
Some women have mental illnesses that prevent them from paying attention to things, some women are physically incapable of doing more than one thing at a time, depending on the task, and, let’s face it, there are more than two genders.
2. Fiercely Loyal and Protective
Holy shit, are we talking about the vague concept of “women”, or Hufflepuffs?
3. Women are Appeasers
Yes, women should rule the world (but only if we fit the prescribed gender role for women of being emotional appeasers). [/sarcasm]
4. The are mostly clean Freaks
[sic]
Look! More generalization based on gender!
5. Women are Smart and Hard Working
No shit, Sherlock. Many people are “Smart and Hard Working”, gender doesn’t play into this. (Unless you count the fact that many women feel they have to work twice as hard in order to “prove” they’ve earned their position.)
TL;DR: The entire article is based on some fucked up benevolent sexism and generalizations based on gender stereotypes.
So what the article is actually saying is that hardworking, intelligent Hufflepuffs should rule the world? Paradoxy, do you have a viewpoint on that?
Naturally I would agree with that sentiment. I mean, what better leader of the world than someone who is willing to be hardworking, and fiercely loyal to it?
So, naturally, I would like to announce my candidacy for the position of Matriarch for Life of Planet Earth, with Katie’s blessing, of course.
“What we know for sure as far, is that all those who tesstified against the countess did so under torture,”
Ah the good´ times of the Patriarchy, when even the wealthiest did not have to worry about those horrible First World problems!
Paradoxical:
THANK you for addressing that article. The only nitpick I have with your critique is where you mentioned there are more than two genders. While this may be the case, the article is discussing women, which is a sex, and there are only two sexes.
Other than that, that article seems so bad that after reading only a couple of the “reasons” I was thinking: “Is this some kind of way-too-well-thought-out troll post by some MRA-type “proving” how “inferior” women are what with all the bad grammar, spelling, and ridiculous arguments?” Because honestly, it’s beyond normal bad.