The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive is almost over! Please donate, if not for me than just for the chance to SPITE THE HONEY BADGERS! Thanks!
The ongoing tragicomedy that is the Honey Badger Brigade’s Calgary Expo lawsuit continues to get even more tragicomical! Well, not so much the “tragic” bit, just that “comical” part.
The last time we checked in with the Brigade — that GamerGate-loving, feminist-hating gang of mostly lady YouTube blabbers — they had filed some sort of legal document charging the people in charge of the Calgary Expo with some kind of bad wrongness for tossing them out of the aforementioned Calgary Expo back in April.
They also charged The Mary Sue, a website in the United States that actually has no power over the staff of any expos in Calgary or indeed anywhere else in Canada, with somehow contributing to or causing the expulsion.
Well, The Mary Sue has responded to the Brigade’s legal filing, and the response is a doozy. Happily, the Honey Badgers have put it online for us all to enjoy.
The Mary Sue’s lawyer begins by pointing out that they are — ahem! — headquartered in New York, which is pretty clearly not located in Alberta, Canada, where the lawsuit was filed. (I am reliably informed that Canada is actually a whole other country from us.)
Then The Mary Sue’s lawyer gently reminded the court — and, more to the point, the Honey Badgers — that TIME MOVES FORWARD, not backwards, and that an article that appeared after the Honey Badgers were tossed from the Expo could not have caused them to be tossed from the Expo.
In regard to breach of contract, this claim is not just unfounded, but it is simply impossible based on the timeline of events. The Mary Sue could not have induced the Calgary Expo (“the Expo”) to evict Plaintiff because the aforementioned article was published after Plaintiff’s eviction.
Yep. Apparently the Honey Badger’s fancy disbarred lawyer got the dates mixed up. But hey, the law isn’t about these little details.
There’s more to The Mary Sue’s response, but that’s pretty much the best bit, in this Time-Space continuum at least.
Yesterday, Hannah Wallen of the Honey Badgers — she’s the one who isn’t Karen Straughan or Alison Tieman — posted their official response to the Mary Sue’s letter. It did not mention what we can only call the Honey Badger Time Paradox, but instead tried to distract readers with some new charges against the dastardly Mary Sue.
Mary Sue claims a lack of involvement in Calgary Expo’s choice to expel the Honey Badgers from the event. However, in response to questions on twitter following our expulsion, the expo’s staff referenced The Mary Sue’s article about the event.
Ok, but the Mary Sue article was published after the expulsion, so it could not have caused the expulsion.
The Mary Sue’s prior and existing relationship with Calgary Expo is further demonstrated by an April 15th article promoting the Mary Sue sponsored cosplay contest which was to take place at the event.
Ok, but the Mary Sue article was published after the expulsion, so it could not have caused the expulsion.
Mary Sue weekend editor Sam Maggs was the first person to respond to Britany le Blanc’s first tweet objecting to “MRAs in the audience” at the women into comics panel.
Ok, but the Mary Sue article was published after the expulsion, so it could not have caused the expulsion.
Sorry, Ms. Wallen, but your little sleight of hand is no more effective than this dude’s not-quite-flawless disappearing act.
Just a reminder: the Honey Badgers raised more than $30,000 to cover the legal costs of their patently ludicrous lawsuit.
In my last post I noted that
MRAs and other antifeminists … have wasted literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on causes and projects and people that have pissed away their money without accomplishing anything of value … .
This would be one of those causes.
If you’ve got money burning a hole in your wallet, here’s a much better option:
I haven’t checked out any of their shows, I’m afraid. I’m not really into internet radio. I had to be dragged kicking and screaming into listening to Night Vale, for example.
Now that we’ve discussed whether groups are more than the sum of their members, let’s talk about what a subgroup is.
I work for Corporation X. Corporation X is large and multinational, meaning that it is composed of a large number of different teams. Each team is permitted considerable latitude in what it does, so long as we provide support for one another where we can, and so long as we work for the overall ideological end goal (that is, the enrichment of our shareholders.)
My team was founded by Corporation X, has that corporation’s symbols on our letterheads and email signature lines, and its website is paid for by Corporation X. We were formed because we offer a unique and valuable angle of approach to the overall end goal, one which we can perform better than other teams. To this end our day-to-day running is largely autonomous.
Would you agree that we are a subgroup of Corporation X?
If so, would you agree that when the Honey Badger Brigade were founded, they were similarly a subgroup of A Voice For Men?
Before you answer, look at
this link. This is the very first episode of Honey Badger Radio, which is on the AVFM radio network, with their branding and their logos, and with a big “brought to you by.”
Yes i think they were a subgroup of AVFM when they started. I admit I didn’t realise that at first.
Again, I admire your honesty in admitting that. Kudos; it takes courage to back away from a closely-held position.
You’re evidently a listener of HBR and enjoy their work; you definitely know far more about them than I do. At which point would you say they broke away from AVFM? Was it a gradual thing, or was there a definite point at which the relationship ended and the Honey Badger Brigade became a separate group?
This is about the last place one would be successful at recruiting new honey badger radio listeners.
It’s not quite as bizarre as the men who advertise their PUA blogs here, but it’s close.
I’m not sure really, I’m guessing it was gradual but I don’t follow AVFM and I never hear them talk about AVFM on their shows. I do know that in March they were saying on twitter that the HBB is not part of AVFM and is a separate group after Margaret Pless wrote an article saying they were were an AVFM subgroup, Margaret Pless has carried on writing articles since then saying that HBB is an AVFM subgroup which is dishonest.
have you ever listened to the any of their shows? I think they are awesome! They sometimes have feminist guests on as well.
So HBB broke their ties with AVFM before March? Okay, that’s good to know.
I didn’t know that, and I do follow AVFM. Many of the people here follow AVFM, and didn’t know that. There wasn’t a publication or press release or anything like that, as far as I’m aware.
(For a reference to how it’s usually done, look at Noah “Spoony” Antweiler’s departure from Doug “That Guy With The Glasses” Walker’s website. Yes, there was a lot of behind-the-scenes acrimony going on on twitter and other places, but there was also a public press release on the page itself written in neutral language, so that fans who don’t follow the minutiae would be aware.)
This being the case, I think it’s a little forward to accuse Pless of being dishonest about it, when the breakup itself wasn’t announced. Pless is a busy woman and has a lot of other things to dilettante about; we can’t expect her to follow the back-channel discussion of every group on the web.
You know more about this than I do. Do you think the people at AVFM agree that the HBB stopped being a subgroup, or do they still think of HBB as part of their group (as the masthead indicates?) Do you think it was a mutually agreed breakup, or it was a one-sided decision on the part of Straughan, Tieman and Wallen?
I don’t know really. I’m guessing it was one sided and the HBB knew they didn’t need AVFM and was better off being separate. AVFM would probably want the HBB to be connected to them because they are popular and a lot of people have lost interest in AVFM, that what I think.
Maybe Karen and Alison have fallen out with AVFM or Paul Elam, that is the vibe i got from the way they both want to downplay ever being part of AVFM.
@ Orange Tango Drinker
Well done for admitting your mistake. I do mean that, its part of how we all grow as people.
However, please stop telling us to check out their show. We’re not going to. We’re not going to be convinced by their disgusting positions, so there is literally no point.
I can definitely understand that Straughan and Tieman might want to downplay having worked with Elam; I have very little time for the man myself, and if I had got my start from him I would want to downplay it too.
From what I’ve heard in this thread, it sounds like they are genuinely better off without AVFM, too. If they make good radio and you enjoy them, then I hope they continue to thrive.
However.
Straughan has said, according to that snippet you directed me to, that the Honey Badger Brigade “were never really part of AVFM.” As you’ve pointed out, this is untrue. I’m not going to call Straughan a liar – as you point out, wanting to hide one’s involvement with AVFM is an entirely reasonable thing for anyone to do – but it does make her an unreliable source in this matter.
(This doesn’t make her a bad person: lots of people are unreliable when faced with emotive or personal issues. It just means that we have to look elsewhere for hard evidence. Unfortunately, there isn’t any. Again, this isn’t inherently a bad thing; messy breakups often devolve into he said/she said and it can be difficult for outsiders to tell who did what, and so we need to tread carefully rather than believing one person completely. The best thing is usually to look for reliable outsiders who have no vested interest in helping either group.)
Would you say that this sounds reasonable?
So,went to check out the first HBR show and the ad that played before the video was one for Dr. Pepper. This comment section was a Klein bottle before that…
Its not just one show, they have 6 different shows.
“*Sunday Rantzerker* Like MST3 but with more beer, ribs and fury
*Monday Nerdcast* Topics of interest to fandom
*Tuesday Nerdrevolt* Covers the neo-puritan invasion of nerd culture
*Wednesday Ragening* Let’s get angry!
*Thursday Honey Badger Radio* Gender issues with a twist
*Friday Fireside Chat* Introduces new perspectives”
They sometimes have feminists on for the friday fireside chat. Like these ones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXoh_fJkDjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcDr-t_8k4U
yes what you said is very reasonable.
Thank you.
So, as you said, we’re going for accuracy. We care about accuracy. In the interests of accuracy, we therefore need to ask two important questions:
– If Tieman, Wallen and Straughan have now left AVFM, then do they have the right to continue to call themselves the Honey Badger Brigade? As you pointed out, that group has an identity separate from the people who run it, and was founded as a subgroup of AVFM.
– Alternatively, if they have not left the Honey Badger Brigade, can they still be included within the umbrella of AVFM until such time as the two organisations formally part ways?
I’ve changed my mind, I think I was wrong. The people in the group do matter. I think it makes total sense for them to keep using the honey badger name after separating from AVFM.
I agree with you on that point, and I think Kat and dhag85 (in particular) would also agree with you on that. However, it’s a difficult issue and we know very few facts about it. I think we’ve all seen that to be the case. This is why we all took issue with your initial insistence that the two groups are entirely separate.
Can you also see why a lot of people were uncomfortable with you calling Margaret Pless dishonest for making the assumption that the Honey Badgers were still part of AVFM?
For what it’s worth, there is a relatively neutral authority who knows a lot about this issue. He had this to say about it earlier in this thread:
EDIT: You know much more about this than I do, so I’d be curious to hear what your view is of the following hypothesis. My hypothesis is that Straughan and Tieman dislike AVFM, and in particular dislike Elam, but are wary of burning their bridges because it may be useful to reestablish a working relationship again later – and because Elam is a snake and is known to be spiteful to people whom he feels have betrayed him. As such, I think they’re trying to downplay the AVFM involvement in their careers but do it in such a way that they can later un-downplay it if it becomes necessary. This means leaving their names on the AVFM masthead and burying their disclaimers about AVFM within radio shows that only fans like yourself – who can be counted on to take their side in the matter – will probably listen to.
Does that sound likely?
I think currently the most accurate terminology would be to refer to the HBB as a splinter faction of AFVM, since they were previously associated but have since broken away.
Groups can have identity separate from their members, but when the leadership of one group is drawn from the membership of another group and they’re in the same field, then the separation between them is pretty much a legal fiction. If the HBB were an anime club instead, the argument that they’re separate but just happen to share members would be much more convincing.
Yes I can see, I think I just didn’t explain myself properly. Margaret Pless wrote an article about 8 months ago saying that the HBB were part of AVFM and Alison told her back then, she made a bunch of tweets about it under the HBB twitter account that they were a separate group so that should have been enough but Margaret published another article a couple weeks ago saying the same thing. She also argued with Alison again on twitter over her saying they were part of AVFM and has not added a correction. Even Paul Elam tweeted her and told her they are not part of AVFM. So why would she still insist on saying they are part of AVFM unless she is being dishonest?
Separate from AVFM they may now be, they still have gross toxic views as can be easily proven by searching this site for them. Having feminist guests on once in awhile isn’t going to change that.
Yes that is what I thought as well. Also Hannah is still part of AVFM so that would be another reason they dont want to bash them in public.
This is interesting; I’d missed this. Could you link me to the tweet, please? I don’t disbelieve you, it’s just odd to find Elam being supportive to people unless it’s to his immediate benefit. (It also means that him keeping their names on the masthead of AVFM needs to be cast in a different light.)
https://twitter.com/AVoiceForMen/status/672920995095793666
here it is
They would have more feminist guests but not many feminists want to talk to them. They have had 5 feminists guests that I can think of, but one of them is kevin logan and he has been on 4 times.
They say there want to talk to more feminists but most feminists want nothing to do with them.
Wow. That certainly is, um, very Elam. Even when supporting someone, he’s an asshole.
I just reread Pless’s article about the Honey Badgers. She doesn’t ever say that they’re currently part of AVFM: she says that they were an offshoot. Which, as you and I both agree, is true.
Calling her “dishonest” for that and insisting that the Honey Badgers were never part of AVFM, however, is unfair. After our earlier conversation I think we both understand why Straughan has attempted to downplay her links to AVFM, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an attempt to downplay the truth.
(Margaret, if you’re reading this, please understand that I’m of the opinion that you can judge a person by the quality of their enemies, and on that basis you score very highly.)
Personally, while I love Kevin Logan deeply, I would not appear on Honey Badger Radio if I was asked to. I can therefore understand why they find it difficult to find feminists to come on the show.