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.
Chivalry does deserve a bit of treatment, because chivalry, or the chivalric code, is a code of conduct associated with the medieval institution of knighthood which developed between 1170 and 1220.
The Code of Chivalry, as it stood by the Late Middle Ages, was a moral system which combined a warrior ethos, knightly piety, and courtly manners. There was no historical version of chivalry for women because women were not permitted to be knights. The term literally means ‘horsemanship’.
However, there is a lot of evidence that the concept of chivalry was mostly poetical – it was a theme for stories, rather than having any true legal authority. In other words, it was mostly romantic fantasy. The novel Don Quixote is literally about this, and a form of critique of the concept. Some individuals cleaved to it historically, but they did so as a discrete act.
Women being the focus of the chivalric ideal is a modern idea, with its roots in Romanticism. The wider form of Chivalry, even in the 18th and 19th centuries, was a form of masculine communication and social behaviour, aimed at other men. The early suffragettes were decidedly against the concept of chivalry, and fought against it because the basis of chivalry as understood by moderns is that it is a celebration of male virtues that only men can possess.
In other words, there’s no modern feminine equivalent because feminists have always fought against it, and non-feminist women are told only men can have it.
No one here is your darling, buttnugget.
No one is trying to marry you.
No one is pressing you into service of any kind.
Women controling what happens to and in their own bodies is not them having more rights than men. Men who can conceive do have the right to decide for themselves when and if they decide to complete a preganancy.
You couldn’t make sense if you tried.
Mark, a braver (or at least a more honest) person would’ve responded with something more substantial than your screed(s). You’re assuming facts not in evidence. If piling up unsupported assertions is what you need to do in order to maintain your self-image and get through the day, please find a better coping mechanism.
Look folks – I’ve given you doctoral-level knowledge on the facts of life. So far, all you’ve given in return was man-hating and shaming. I know the facts I’ve given have driven a stake through your vampire-like, cold feminist hearts. The real question is – just how much more ignorant are you going to get to justify your stupidity?
Mark is signing off. Good day, ladies.
yeah right.
Doctoral-level knowledge?
Only if you assume “PhD” really does stand for “piled higher and deeper.”
Sheesh. Mark would never have made it through the grilling I got for my thesis.
Trolls just don’t even try anymore.
Most doctorates are awarded in recognition of academic research that is publishable, at least in principle, in a peer-refereed academic journal.
You are welcome to return when you can quote which studies you have cited, have a lovely day.
Jesus, it’s still here?
@Steampunked
I think that will be another thing we’re suppose to research our selves
You came here, uninvited, seeking our attention. The answer to that question is pretty obvious, dontcha think?
Stick the flounce or I’ll feed you to a Scagdead.
I suppose we should count ourselves lucky that he didn’t accuse us of being sparkly vampire-like. *shudder*
@ Vickie P
It seems that at Mark’s school you can just tell the examining board to “google it”.
@Victorious Parasol:
If the past two years have taught me anything, it’s that MRA-types and GibbleGoops (not that there’s really much of a difference between them) all have an intense fear of anything resembling honesty and actual factual information.
@ Alan
Hah. Even if Google had been around back in the day, I can’t imagine any of my professors letting us get away with that.
In the world of Mark’s brain, do defendants get away with telling a judge that they don’t recognize the authority of the court?
@dslucia
That does seem to be the case, but I keep hoping to find the exceptions to the rule.
Got it right beat for beat. Watch as he uses this conversation in another forum as the desperate preacher to deaf ears to his fellow misogynists.
If Mark sticks the flounce, I’m juuuuust too late for this appearance. Too bad, because that last post was his funniest in ages.
I’ve gone from perceiving “Mark” as his name to reading it as a descriptor of his vulnerability to being deceived.
@Fabe – I admit it’s not hard to notice that he ignored anyone who quoted research, but I’m used to MRAs being rather afraid of cited facts.
We have the same issue here with the Brownshirts who mostly make up the non-custodial parent’s party who are campaigning for equal access to children. That in itself is already enabled by the courts – it is very hard NOT to have equal access to your offspring with the other parent unless you have been listed as a sexual predator or are otherwise seriously violent.
For some reason they never really like being shown that information. Mark seems to suffer the same condition.
If we ever find a cure, we should get a Nobel.
If at any time I ever start thinking I made the wrong choice in supporting feminism (which is, like never going to happen), Mark is there to remind me that, no, in fact I haven’t.
Thanks Mark! This white knight thanks you for always making a fool of your ideological brethren by being so foolish yourself.
I will now attempt to discern what PhD stands for.
Presumptuous half-witted dunce?
Pocket hamster dildo?
Penis-having dudebro?
Partially Hydrogenated dingleberry?
Perilously hairy doofus?
This is fun!
Isn’t it a sad and cynical view of history to assume that the women and men who fought for their rights and their countries were unloved and unappreciated? Look at the letters between John and Abigail Adams, for one. History is full of love stories and bravery, not just disposable males and selfish females. However, if one possesses a nihilistic, us vs them worldview, then I guess it’s more apparent.
Also, when did this men vs women thing become the oppression Olympics? They mock feminists and “tumblr-tards” for having a victim complex, but their gynocentric conspiracy theory makes them the ultimate victims! I guess everyone needs to believe that the world wronged them if they are always miserable and dissatisfied with life.
Paranoid and highly dubious?
A doctorate you say!