Something weird is going on.
Yesterday, A Voice for Men’s Facebook page was temporarily suspended. I’m not sure how long it was down, but by the time I discovered Paul Elam’s announcement of the suspension late last night, it had been restored.
Elam — who apparently decided to come out of retirement for the occasion — declared that the suspension
appears to be the work of censorious feminist ideologues working in a modern Facebook environment that favors their agenda.
Mike Buchanan — the head of the UK’s ludicrously unsuccessful Justice for Men & Boys party and a longtime AVFM pal — declared in a comment on AVFM and in a post on his site that the censorious feminist ideologue responsible for this dastardly deed was a woman named Rose S Garston, a self-described “thorn in the side of MRAs” who had taken credit for the suspension in a post on her own Facebook page.
As proof, she posted a screenshot of the note she got from Facebook informing her that her complaint had led to AVFM’s suspension. Garston also took credit for getting the Exposing Feminism Facebook page taken down.
So, case closed then, right? Well, not exactly.
Because “Rose S Garston” does not seem to exist.
True, a Google search of the name shows there was a woman of that name born in 1903 in New Haven, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this almost certainly dead person is not the one posting on Facebook.
The rest of the Google results link to “Garston’s” Facebook page, to several comments “she” made elsewhere using “her” Facebook account, and to and assortment of MRA and Alt-Right sites that picked up Buchanan’s post.
“Garston” scrubbed “her” Facebook page of most of its contents sometime last night, but an archived version of the page — linked to in Buchanan’s post — raises even more red flags.
The page portrays “Garston” as a “fat acceptance” activist as well as a feminist. But to my eyes it doesn’t look like the page of a real feminist or fat acceptance activist. It looks like the work of a troll.
For one thing, there’s the matter of the picture purportedly of Garston that sits atop the page — showing a young woman holding a sign explaining why she supports fat acceptance. I don’t doubt that the person in the photo is a real fat acceptance activist; a Google image search shows that the photo was originally posted two years ago on a Tumblr blog devoted to fat acceptance.
But it’s also appeared on a zillion other pages since then, including a number mocking fat acceptance. It’s on Know Your Meme. It was used in a Youtube video called “The Fat Acceptance Movement is Bullshit.” Internet-famous fat-shamer (and fat person) Matt Forney used it in a post on “Fat Acceptance, Cultural Marxism and Identity Politics.”
It’s literally the first image that shows up if you do a Google image search for “fat acceptance” — making it the obvious pick for a lazy troll looking for a picture of a fat activist to pretend to be.
Then there’s the Facebook post from “Garston” in which “she” sets forth “her” views on the subject.
Stop the fat shaming. Fat is beautiful. Fat is healthy. It is the patriarchy that has dictated women must all be skinny as rakes for the viewing pleasure of men. Fuck that. You want that donut? That chicken burger and fries? That 15inch pizza? Then, go for it. Get it down you. Enjoy 🙂
Word of advice though. Being fat wont stop men catcalling you. At my heaviest I was 717lb and men would still catcall me when I was in my mobility scooter buying groceries.
Really? Really? If this was written by anyone other than a troll, I will eat my cats.
Assuming “Garston” is not the honest-to-goodness feminist fat acceptance activist “she” purports to be, then who is behind the account?
Could it be Elam himself or some other AVFMer trying to gin up some attention and sympathy?
I doubt it. Not that Elam wouldn’t stoop this low. He would. But I don’t think that Elam has the imagination to come up with something like this. And I doubt he would risk getting his Facebook page permanently banned in order to stir up a fake controversy.
No, I suspect it’s the work of someone who doesn’t much like feminism, or fat acceptance, or AVFM.
Could it be the work of some longtime fat-shamer like Forney or Roosh? In addition to using the same picture that Forney used for his post dissing fat acceptance, “Garston” also posted a screenshot from a Dr. Oz show about a 700-pound woman. As you may recall, Roosh made a bit of a spectacle of himself during an appearance on Dr. Oz to discuss his own fat-shaming campaign.
So … maybe? Probably not, though.
Regardless of who did it, if the point of this apparent trollery was to cause a headache for AVFM and to stir up animus towards feminists, well, it’s succeeded at both.
Over on the Men’s Rights subreddt, the regulars worked themselves into a self-righteous frenzy over what proved to be a very short-lived suspension.
Someone called NixonForBreadsident got 97 net upvotes for a comment decrying what he saw as
a co-ordinated effort to render anything against feminism on Google, Facebook and other social media. As in they’ve literally had meetings to push this agenda.
This is a major fuckup on their side though, the world has been steadily getting pissed off by feminism and the one thing that unites people is when you censor content.
NOTHING is too big to fall. Remember that.
Our old friend ThePigmanAgain declared that
this is very bad news. The hammer is starting to fall all over the place and one has to wonder how long it will be before the PC fascists who run FB start to ban ordinary members who also happen to be MRAs.
r4ks4k was a bit more succinct, saying only
Well then f**k facebook.
The original comment did not contain the asterisks, of course.
I have no idea how this whole thing is going to shake out.
Your move, troll. I guess?
I thought Jason was banned? I thought he was flouncing anyway? Guess bot!
Typo and it’s staying because Jason sounds so much like a bot.
@Jason I would go to 7-Eleven or McDonald’s if I wanted something completely standardized. Your services are not needed, so you may need to consider another line of work.
Well, I need something to do while my ores smelt in Minecraft, so….*cracks knuckles*
This makes it sound like you’re going to give a definition.
But I suppose asking men to not treat women like shit could be comparable to nazism if you treat treating women like shit as an important part of your “masculinity”.
Citation needed.
And no, Ass Data doesn’t count.
Seriously, prove to me that “most feminist women” hate men and want to see them in internment camps.
Please.
While I can support “misandry”, because it’s mostly a reaction to women being treated like shit by men and not trusting them any more (myself included), I don’t support male disposability, therefore, I will ask you again for a source.
Feminists don’t run the government, bruh. We can’t censor you.
Facebook can shut down a page because they’re a private company, and in order to use their service, you have to follow their rules.
AVfM broke their rules, they got their page taken down. No feminists involved.
Believe me, if we did control the government, you’d know. Because women and men would have better birth control, family courts would be more fair because they wouldn’t assume that the mom is more nurturing because female, there’d be better resources for men to get help when they’re suffering from depression or when they’re sexually assaulted and they wouldn’t believe that the only emotion they were allowed to express is anger.
But you know, we hate the menz apparently.
Look dude, you and your ilk have been predicting this for years now.
Wake me when it actually fucking happens, okay?
Again, not “censorship”. Facebook is not a government institution, and even if they were, AVfM and other manospherians are subject to the rules that Facebook states you have to follow in order to use their service.
Even if they’re really spotty about actually enforcing them.
(Protip: Gish Gallops don’t work that well in a forum setting. Because we do have time to sit down and address all your points. 😉 )
1. Most alimony is paid out to the spouse (of any gender) who makes the least amount of money. Since men tend to make more money than women on average, they tend to pay more alimony. However, we’ve been making strides to make it more gender neutral since the 1970s, since it used to be that it was always the husband who payed (I imagine because it wasn’t until the early 60’s that women were starting to get into the workforce).
Though, I’d like to see some figures on the “90%” statistic, since you’ve pulled a lot of other “facts” from your degree from Bullshit University.
2. Women are discouraged from working more dangerous jobs, and if they do go into fields where they have a lot of workplace danger, it’s usually a hostile environment towards them.
Men are also more likely to take more risks with their safety, especially since women are more likely to be extra cautious in an environment where their every move is scrutinized by their peers and bosses.
As for the war statistic: Women weren’t allowed to be in most combat roles (and still aren’t in some places), and it wasn’t until December of 2015 that the US finally said that women can be in all roles in the military.
Before, women were relegated to nurses or other support roles in the military, keeping them far away from the front lines, because the men in charge believed that women weren’t suited for combat, or would distract the male soldiers on the front lines.
However, you’re not arguing for equality here, you’re arguing for parity.
I don’t know why you think that more women dying in combat would suddenly make this better, unless you just want to see women die.
3. Actually, men and women attempt suicide at the same rate.
Men just use methods that work better, since women are socialized to be quiet about it and not inconvenience anyone. So, women would more likely go for pills or something not as messy as say, shooting themselves in the head.
However, this is one of the few issues that is actually an issue that the manosphere hits upon. Men do need better access to mental health facilities and assistance when they need it. Too bad the manosphere only likes using suicidal and depressed men as a cudgel and a shield against feminists instead of actually wanting to help the men they claim to care about so much.
4. Another actually good point that needs addressing! Men do receive harsher sentences on average than women, but that’s because male judges perceive women as being weaker and not being able to last as long in prison. Female judges are actually very egalitarian in their sentencing.
So, are you saying you want more female judges? Because they do give men and women the same sentencing, rather than a male judge, who takes it easier on women.
Oh, but that’s even before we get into racial disparity with sentencing.
5a. Men’s health: (Cis) Men, on average, are treated better by the medical system. Women are waved off as being “hysterical” a lot of times by doctors. When we’re sick, we’re not believed as often as men are.
In fact, did you know women and men have different symptoms for heart attacks? Most likely not, because we’re only taught men’s symptoms.
I’ve also heard stories of cis women having their appendixes burst, and just thinking it was a period cramp.
Oh, and Viagra, a pill just used to give cis men an erection is covered by health insurance, but we’re still fighting to get birth control, which has tons of health benefits for those of us with uteri, covered.
5b. Men’s education: While it is true that more men are forgoing college, it’s only because men are able to get higher-paying jobs without a college degree, but instead getting vocational training. Women are going to college more because it’s the only way we’ll get jobs that can support us, and again, we’re discouraged from going to those kinds of jobs that vocational training could get us.
As for K-12 (1st year through 13th year for our UK readers), boys are more often than not allowed to talk more and are graded more leniently by male teachers, and don’t even really bother to try with female teachers, are treated more leniently, and aren’t held to stupid dress codes to “not distract the girls”.
5c. Men’s welfare: Men are generally treated better in society as a whole. You’re not taught that it’s okay to interrupt you, you’re not taught to not go out at night, or to always carry pepper spray or other means to defend yourself, and if you’re a target, you’re most likely being targeted by a man.
Unless you just want to talk about men’s shelters, which is a common topic amongst the manosphere. In which case: Go fucking fight for funding like feminists did for women’s shelters. Go do some activism instead of sitting here and kvetching that we’re not doing it for you because we “hate men” or something.
And there you have it: this is what it’s all about. Not about helping men, oh no, that’d require actual activism! Nope, it’s all about hating feminists and blaming them for all your problems!
Because that’s easier than actually doing some fucking work for the men you claim to care so fucking much about and then claim that we hate, huh?
Oh, good. Someone decided to post a summary of all the bullshit we’re here to mock in case someone needed a refresher.
I hate when that happens!
They did it to destroy YOU!
They – the US Congress – removed Glass-Steagall – the firewall put in place after the 1930s great depression – the Wall Street/Congressional deal to strip most Americans of wealth. When did this happen? Under Slick Willies watch! YOU – SICK FUCK – WERE DESTROYED BY DEMOCRATS! BILL – THE INTERN RAPING CLINTON – FUCKED EACH OF YOU MANY TIMES OVER!
Which president signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall into law? Bill Clinton in 1998! A FUCKING DEMOCRAT! Well intentioned Democracks also forced through a mandate for Freddie and Fannie to submit to sub-prime borrowers (doomed people that had no hope of repaying shit). Fannie and Freddie were ordered to give at least 50% of loans to sub-prime borrowers (note “sub prime”). Wall Street tycoons seized the opportunity granted them by Congress and created the Credit Default Swap. Why? BECAUSE GLASS-STIEGALL WAS REPEALED BY CLINTON! What’s a credit default swap? It’s a bet that the sub-prime borrower won’t repay their mortgage. It’s a bet against the borrower that the borrower will default. EASY MONEY!
Do you remember when the PTL Club shamed its members into giving more and more? Do you remember the outcome? The progressive and conservative parties are lead by the likes of the PTL club leaders. That’s why Bernard and Donald dominate the political landscape in the good ole US of A today. Bernie represents forcefully transferring wealth from those that earned it to those that didn’t – and the Donald represents those that want the users in the Bernie party, the Clinton Party, the Baker party and the communist/socialist/marxist party dead or deported.
Let’s deport the users. Let’s deport all feminists.
Now days – women want free student loans – free healthcare and many months off work to have babies. What the fuck does that tell you? Get ready America! You’ll be Venezuela in no time! Women will usher in the PTL club for all!
Oh, Jason, Jason, Jason.
@Jason
How dare this Jason person dream these big dreams? The feminazi conspiracy has specifically outlawed any spending on men’s health. Since the feminazi revolution, not one man has been on Medicare or Medicaid. The Centers for Disease Control have conducted no research into diseases or disorders that affect mostly men. Education? None. They don’t even get to go to kindergarten. Ha, ha! And welfare? Pffft. We just don’t care.
Jason is clearly a deep thinker and a Very Serious Male Person. He must be silenced–at all costs.
Jason, honey, your mom is calling you to dinner!
@Freemage
Maybe you’re right.
On the other hand, I’m of the opinion that until they’re ready to deal with abuse, many victims of abuse won’t admit to the pain. Nah, they’re tough enough to take it. Because it’s hard enough being abused. Admitting that you were abused–even to yourself–might be experienced as a profound humiliation. Why add insult to injury?
Your comments read exactly as expected. Thank you. I used to think I was crazy. Now I know better.
It does have a deterrent effect. One execution prevents approximately 5 murders. The research was published in the Journal of Law and Economics, October 2003, pp 453-478. Commuting a sentence from death to life in prison results in ~5 extra murders to occur, while removing a prisoner from death row for some other reason (for instance, finding that the person was actually innocent) results in ~1 additional murder.
I think it’s well-established that at least a few innocent people have been lawfully executed, and you won’t get any argument from me that it’s a deep, deep problem.
You need to take the deterrent effect into account. I don’t think the death penalty is good in any form, but it’s especially not good in the racist form it takes in the US currently. However, it does deter, and I don’t think it’s a good look to argue that the families of the five extra people who were murdered due to a commuted sentence should just suck it up as the fair cost of doing justice.
The key thing, really, is that deterrence does not require the convicted to be actually guilty of a crime. In fact, if this is our primary metric that means that we shouldn’t spend a lot of time or money trying to be 100% that we have the right person identified. That’s just a waste when the deterrent effect kicks in regardless of the guilt or innocence of the executed party. Find a plausible suspect, convict, and execute! Any rational person should view this as unconscionable, but that’s what you get when you prioritize deterrence over justice.
So, yes, deterrence works, but that sort of operates against the pro-death penalty argument rather than in its favor.
Shorter Jason: “I didn’t actually read your comments, but I’m going to pretend I know what they said, and they said that I was right and you’re all mean.”
Well – Thank you for giving me a voice here. I know I’ve outlived my stay. Jason needs deleting.
I’ve liked and not liked some of your comments. I’m sure you’ve felt the same. As far as I’m concerned – people that lay claim to entitlements based on gender are FUCKING CRAZY!
Women’s compassion for men is the equivalent of the Nazi’s compassion for the Jews.
I have women as much as I hate the Jew haters.
I HATE women as much as I hate the Jew haters.
Women’s compassion for men is the equivalent of the Nazi’s compassion for the Jews.
@PoM
I had read that it statistically didn’t deter crime. Huh.
It’s good I never said that, then. Again, I was under the impression that the death penalty was not a deterrent. And by the same token, telling the family of an innocent man killed to ‘make an example’ of someone that it’s the cost of deterring more crime is shitty too.
Over all I agree with you. The death penalty in the US, like many things is pretty damn rigged against black people.
I’m sure you have, because lots of people say it. It gets into newspapers, because journalists don’t fact check “common knowledge.” It was believed to be true for a long time because people studying it using law enforcement tools didn’t find a correlation, but applying economic principles instead did find one.
And it’s good that I never said that you had said that.
Hm. Mind pointing me toward the study in question, if you have the name of it? I doubt it’ll change my mind, but it’s still best to be informed on the facts.
This is it folks. It’s the ground breaking, earth shattering experience you’ve all been wait for.
Trust Jason. Jason love you:
Was the study only about commuting death sentences? Did they compare executions vs. commuted sentences vs. not having the death penalty in the first place? Do murder rates go up when a country or US state gets rid of the death penalty? Why do places with the death penalty not have lower homicide rates than places without it.
I too would like more info than the name of one single study that’s unlinked. How does commuting a sentence cause extra murders? Is it the death row prisoner doing the murdering or they unrelated? If they’re unrelated, how can the cause be attributed to commuting a sentence. It’s not adding up for me.
The fuck is Jason on about now?
Jason, honey, double posting won’t get you more attention. Mommy’s on the phone.
??? I already gave that to you. Scroll up.
You doubt it will change your mind about what? Whether there is a deterrent effect? One has been found – a small but measurable one. If a peer-reviewed study can’t change your mind about the existence of the effect, that gets a hard side-eye from me.
Whether the death penalty is a good idea? It’s not meant to change your mind about that. The authors didn’t make that argument, or any normative argument at all, and I gave you a good reason why it should not make you start to think that the death penalty is A-OK. So I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
That you apparently don’t understand how much care newborns require or the fact that the real world doesn’t revolve around what employers want? It’s borderline anti-family values.
I didn’t link it because it’s paywalled. You can read the abstract on the journal’s website here:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/382603
A few relevant bits about how they obtained and used their data. Quoting everything relevant would mean quoting the whole paper, but this should answer a few of your questions.
eta: meant to include this also: