This was the big weekend, folks! The weekend of the historic International Male Issues Conference in London!
Wait, that’s not right. International Male is the clothing company with that famous catalog. I meant the International London Men Conference. No, that’s not it either. Oh, wait! The International Conference on Men’s Issues in London. I’m pretty sure that’s it. Catch the excitement on the conference’s official Twitter hashtag!
Now, it’s true that the event this weekend did not draw a ton of media coverage.
Or any, actually: As of Sunday afternoon, a Google News search reveals that the only media outlet, and I use that term loosely, to report on the conference was Breitbart. Last fall. (The conference got a brief mention in the Jewish Chronicle online, and someone mentioned it in a comment on The Guardian’s website.) Indeed, media interest in the event was evidently so tepid that the organizers cancelled their press conference at the last minute.
The lack of media interest might have something to do with the fact that the conference organizers — led by political failure Mike Buchanan of the Justice for Men and Boys party — refused to give out press passes to the event, instead demanding that reporters shell out £265 for the privilege of hearing a bunch of idiots talk nonsense about the supposed oppression of men.
Not even the prospect of getting autographs from “Janet Bloomfield” and/or Paul Elam was enough to lure the media there.
But one wily media outlet was able to sneak a photographer into the event — We Hunted the Mammoth, the very blog you are now reading.
And so I present to you these EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS of ICMI16 from our man in London. Who might possibly be a cat.
Wait, is that Tiger Woods? Sitting next to Rod Stewart? With Ozzy Osbourne, Madonna, and Sean Connery behind them? Except that none of them look quite right?
Sorry, folks, I think this is just some picture of a bunch of celebrity impersonators.
Wait, is that Austin Pow…
Never mind, it’s more celebrity impersonators. Besides, I can’t imagine that this many people made it to the ICMI.
All right, that’s just a bunch of dudes dressed as Abraham Lincoln.
And that’s a bunch of people dressed as Albert Einstein. What the hell.
THESE AREN’T EVEN PEOPLE!!11!
I’m beginning to think that our photographer didn’t actually go to the ICMI at all.
Luckily, one Youtube doofus who did attend the conference posted this footage of some of the conference goers milling around awkwardly outside of the venue.
https://twitter.com/6ame/status/751795513549328384
Ah well. At least that’s more than the zero who attended their conference last year.
I’m starting to think this song should be Mark’s theme. Well, him and all sorts of other people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLpy4S4NUMo
(If you’re a Tangerine Dream fan, yes, it’s that Peter Baumann.)
“Taking industrial work, support positions in the military and even the white feather were because those were the only roles offered to support the war effort…”
There’s a flaw in your argument. Women still don’t enlist in nearly – even remotely close – to the same numbers as men, they’re fighting the draft for women and surveys have pointed out that, while women want to be in the military, they don’t want to serve on the front lines in combat – because vagina. Sounds a lot like the sham of marriage to me. “Have men die on the front lines while women take up the rear positions – forcing more men to the front lines.” If that’s not marriage for men – I don’t know what is.
It’s reverse psychology: If women pretend to hate marriage – more men will want to get married thinking there’s something in it for them. If women pretend to want to be in the military – men will cuck themselves into preventing women from serving on the front lines in combat – because men are naive to the ways of women.
It’s all so simple. Why can’t most men see this?
What surveys? Where? Link.
@Mark
If we promise not to marry you, will you go your own way?
Here, Mark, let Mark show you how it’s done.
@Mark, you are aware 100 years later combat roles are only just being opened to women (at least in the US, some countries are ahead and behind), less positions being open resulting in less joining is a pretty easy argument to make.
Because it’s a conspiracy theory that ignores the actual facts in favor of manospherian talking points that have been proven time and time again to be complete lies?
I imagine everyone is going to get bingo with your use of “the draft” and “cuck”, though.
“Ooh, good point, pitshade. Though I’m not sure that explains why Mark doesn’t know about the suffragettes who died fighting for the right of women to vote.”
Yeah – that was one brutal tea and crumpets party. Oh the bloodshed (no pun). All that protesting and hate of men must have caused a massive swoon – resulting in the fainting couch.
I’m tired of these Marks giving Marks a bad name. Really, Not all Marks are like that: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/27/1387990/-Mark-Ruffalo-My-Response-To-I-Am-Not-A-Feminist
Some are even feminists! OMG
@Mark
What surveys? Are you willing to pull them up or are they from your rear you call “common sense”? How interesting that you constantly push on the draft and say “women wouldn’t want to be on draft but if they on draft they’ll just go to backlines and take r jobs”.
I seem to have missed the survey where people are vulnerable to reverse psychology after the age of 5. “Naive to the ways of women” oh after thousands of years, the idea of having a conversation with the opposite sex scares the racist nerd angrily clutching his copy of Atlas Shrugged.
And your constant use of “cuck” like a chicken. Do you even know what “cuck” even means. Also
>Using your sexual fantasies
>As a way of internet discourse
>Ever
There isn’t that easier to understand in your /pol/ addled brain? I even used the greentext format to highlight your silliness.
You come here to try to prove your ideas are truths yet you immediately insult your audience’s fight to have basic voting rights when before only the property owning white man could. It’s like you don’t even know how to market.
Funny, I can’t recall a single war that was fought for women. I’m pretty sure most men went to war and killed each other in droves because the ruling elite told them to, or at least offered to pay them.
Oh, Mark. It’s okay that you’re ignorant of the history of the suffragettes’ struggle. The trouble seems to be that you don’t want to learn. Is it arrogance on your part? Or are you afraid that you won’t be special any more if you learn about women who were and are braver than you?
I actually hardly use my fainting couch, I must donate it to the Manospherians who need it so badly.
“What surveys? Where? Link.”
Do you own research. It’s called “Google”.
I’m also pretty sure nobody is asking him.
“Funny, I can’t recall a single war that was fought for women. I’m pretty sure most men went to war and killed each other in droves because the ruling elite told them to, or at least offered to pay them.”
With women sitting in the rear – mercilessly and sociopathically sending their sons off to war – in the hope that women’s lives would be spared the horrors men must face for rights.
Nah nah nah. You don’t get to come in here, spew rubbish and demand that others do your homework for you. You make the assertion, you come up with the proof. Or it’s reasonable to assume you don’t have any to start with. This is our space and we go by the rules of reasoned debate here. Thems the breaks.
Now. Link or GYOW please.
Ah, the ever-classic “Go support my position for me!”
As I’m sure other people will say, it’s not our job to do your research for you. If you want to convince us of what you’re saying, you need to provide the evidence. EDIT: See, sunnysombrera already beat me to that. XD
Personally, I’m just hoping he pulls out the argument for which this blog is named next.
Pretty sure their mothers had absolutely zero say, governments send soldiers to war and decide who to allow to join. Legit not sure if you knew that…..
@Mark
>States something as fact
>Ask for proofs
>nuh uh you do it
It’s called “Burden of Proof” m80.
Oh look, I “Googled It”, and it says here that since you state a position it’s up to you to do your own homework, or would you argue with the philosophers and courts of such a basic tenant of logic?
@Smart Mark (references)
1)WRA? There’s a reason I call these people conspiracy theorists. They use equivocation of terms to entrench a ‘both sides’ argument
2)In so much as WRAs are even a thing (not at all), I’m not one
3)Yes! Get outta my chamber! The reason echo chambers are bad is cos people don’t leave them. I hang out elsewhere, online and otherwise. This is not my only cyberspace. I get out! We don’t need you to come in
Bingo! I got bingo!
If women don’t want to serve on the front lines, then why have so many women been petitioning to serve on the front lines, and why are so many women already serving on the front lines?
Reverse psychology?
And where are the fathers of said sons in all this, eh?
“…Because nobody is forcing you to get married, Mark.”
Marriage is a word useful in my lexicon for research purposes only. I’d never be stupid enough to get married. Force me to get married? It would have to be a torture worse than marriage – and few things are that bad for men besides front line combat. I’m worried about the men that haven’t yet been awoken to the destruction to be found within marriage for men – hence I support WRA’s position when it comes to the annihilation of marriage.
@ColeYote
Let’s not use lack of marriage proposals as an insult. Even though Mark likes to think it’s an insult because he throws the “unmarried at 35” crap at women here all the time (that was Mark, right? It’s hard to keep the trolls straight), it’s really not the terrible thing it’s made out to be.