Want a daily dose of irony from Paul Elam?
Paul Elam is trying to force Pauley Perrette, an actress, to apologize for using the Holocaust in a poem she wrote reflecting on a movie by writing angry screeds claiming Perrette used it as a metaphor for her divorce. Elam wrote a long screeching rant at her lawyer while completely ignoring his own group’s use of the holocaust metaphor, in much more sinister ways.
Elam whinily asks:
Did she also need to insult the victims, survivors, families, friends, and descendants of the Holocaust of Nazi Germany?
I’m a Jew and I found nothing wrong with Perrette’s poem. However, I find a lot wrong with how Elam and his friends use the Shoah to attack women and feminists.
Karen Straugn, a female MRA, routinely attacks men who disagree with AVFM by calling them holocaust deniers. I wrote about this about a year ago.
It’s no surprise Elam has also forgotten about the many times his group have compared themselves to the Jews by calling feminists, feminazis and there’s several articles, one of which is called, ‘Of war criminals and academic gender ideologues,’ comparing a feminist professor to Goebbels.
From yet another article on AVFM, a recent one from June 2014, claims feminists are bent on a ‘male holocaust.’
The feminist process of destroying men and maleness will not necessarily follow a defined plan. It does not have to! To this very day, historians continue to debate whether there was ever a direct order given for the Final Solution, or if the Holocaust was the result of cumulative radicalization within the totalitarian, anti-Semetic state bureaucracy of Nazi Germany. ~Adam Kostakis
I think the most disgusting article on AVFM is this one where Elam wrote about Jews being ‘inferior to Aryans’ and that Jews have a ‘genetic defect.’ Elam claimed it was a response to a radical feminist blogger where he used the Jews as a way to highlight man-hating but it’s much more sinister than that. Elam’s site is filled with articles using the Holocaust to push his hateful agenda.
I suppose I could just ask Paul his own question along with his own words to Perrette’s lawyer:
This extreme insensitivity by Ms. Perrette is offensive to the memory of the six million Jews slaughtered, as well as the actual Holocaust Survivors and Jewish communities everywhere impacted by articles regarding this shameful and degrading reference by Ms. Perrrette.
Paul Elam typically doesn’t remember what he puts on his site from one day to the next. During a Vice interview he was read pieces of an article he’d written just a couple months prior. Elam gave a perplexed look into the camera signalling he had no idea what the interviewer was reading. Priceless moment @10:41
Elam’s attempt to bully Pauley Perrette into apologizing for using the Holocaust in a poem is nothing more than another attempt to harm women and gain some attention. Underlying all that, in my view, is Elam as abuser wanting control and dominance.
It seems Elam’s attempt to clean up his image is failing. After AVFM’s conference in June there was a distinct shift away from targeting women on the site. As a writer who monitors the site I noticed this immediately. I think he’s realized the only way his site gets media attention is by singling out women online for abuse.
Let’s face it, his message that it’s for ‘men and boys’ is false. The only thing he’s ever done is target women and then use the few women in his organization literally as a human shield to deflect criticism of misogyny.
In just a couple days he’s managed to publicly attack two women, the first being Jill Filipovic, a political writer for Cosmo, and now Perrette.
While I think Elam behaves like an abusive spouse there’s another component to his harassment. I think Elam’s attention seeking is a result of deep insecurity, especially around women. He abuses women on his site to elicit donations too. The more frenzied he makes his followers, the more it ‘appears’ as if Elam is doing ‘something’, the more money he’s able to collect for his personal pocket.
I hope Elam is more careful about opening his big mouth because eventually his own foot manages to make its way in there.
Mantears Ahead: Paul Elam Calls John Hambling and His Girlfriend ‘Clowns.’ UPDATE: Hambling Responds
‘They’re clowns, says Paul Elam in his new video addressing the split between himself and John Hambling. ‘He’s a 3 year old with a 150 iq.’
Elam dances around in this video trying to explain why John Hambling and he had a falling out. The first thing I noticed is that Elam refused to use John’s girlfriends real name in the title of the video. Paul says ‘she has her hand up his ass and is working his (John Hambling’s) mouth like Jim Henson’ and is ‘crazy.’
Paul is much more keen in this video to address pre-emptively the criticism from other MRA’s who see this bickering between them as harmful for their ‘movement.’ They see it as harmful. We see it as pure lolz.
Elam implies that Hambling and the ‘Relational Aggression Queen’ are trying to undermine him. I told y’all that Paul has a very large, yet fragile ego. Paul claims Diana contacted AVFM members saying ‘Paul, is gonna be dead soon’ which Paul took as a direct threat to his authority.
According to Hambling the fall-out was due to him criticizing Judgybitch and Stefan Molyneux. Elam admits that he’s sticking up for Judgybitch, who is a tradcon Hambling doesn’t like. In fact, Elam said he’ll choose Judgybitch over John ‘any day of the week.’
Diana Davison has made at least 3 videos disparaging Judgybitch. This one is called ‘Vagina Takes Over Men’s Rights.’
This last one is called ‘Feminist Lunatics Running the Asylum.’
Paul claims John was a tremendous asset from the beginning of AVFM and wrote great articles that got people angry, which Paul thinks forces dialogue. John was good at fighting and he fought everyone, including other MRA’s while he ‘white knighted’ for Diana.
Paul discloses that Diana was in another relationship with an MRA and then moved in with John. Paul moves nervously in seat.
After hooking up with Diana John got worse. Paul seems to be blaming Diana because she’s a woman and not John, for his own actions. Surprised?
The big fiasco between them, as Elam explains, was due to Elam not wanting John to speak at the 2014 St. Clare Shores conference. John and Diana run COCK (Community Organized Compassion and Kindness). Paul didn’t want John there pushing his organization over AVFM because he thought COCK was silly and not a real human rights organization.
I find that hilarious since AVFM isn’t a human rights organization either. It turns out Paul was more worried about people like Anne Cools getting a whiff of Hambling’s COCK and never coming back.
There’s more. Apparently John and Diana think married men can’t be MGTOW but Diana claims a married woman can be? I didn’t quite understand Paul on the MGTOW issue and frankly it’s dumb.
What I do know is that Elam is very frightened of losing the MGTOW audience he has and caters to them because they do make up a large part of the Manosphere and a large chunk of cash. Elam has since published a book on Amazon about MGTOW.
Paul also claims to have a business adviser who advised him that some people will have to be weeded out to attain the next level. Paul seems to admit he’s kicked John out.
Elam insults Hambling throughout by implying John is ‘choosing’ to be controlled by his girlfriend. This will set off some male tears in the Manosphere. No MRA likes to be accused of this because it counters traditional masculinity wherein it’s men who control women and not the other way around. It does lend credence to the fact that AVFM does everything it can to uphold conservative values while appropriating feminist language.
Oh and if you’re wondering where the ‘relational aggression’ references come from they’re standard MRA misogynist talking points wherein they claim women are just as violent as men by coercing others to violence. Men don’t take any personal responsibility for their behaviour in MRA circles. Like their godfather Warren Farrell all men’s behaviour is due to women’s sexuality. Men are just idiots who think with their dicks and AVFM agrees.
I’m sure this isn’t the last of this manfight.
UPDATE: Hambling’s made a response video. Paul turns out to be a liar? Surprised?
Elam is trying to keep his clicks and his source of revenue by making this new video about MGTOW, because John and he argued over what MGTOW is. Paul is an opportunist and can’t let John Hambling have any percentage of the MGTOW audience.
So here is Paul, trying to undercut John and keep his audience.
Jill Filipovic reported on Paul Elam’s cloning of an international Domestic Violence campaign website called ‘White Ribbon Campaign.’ The campaign was the Canadian response to the murdering of 14 feminists by Marc LePine at Ecole Polytechnique in the 80’s.
MRA’s insist they have nothing in common with Marc LePine but anyone who follows Paul Elam and his rag-tag band of male supremacists, knows the anti-feminist misogynist rhetoric is frighteningly similar.
Elam has dubious reasons for cloning the website, most notably to spread false information and to make money.
If Elam wanted to dispell any connections to LePine he certainly wouldn’t clone a campaign meant as a response to LePine’s male violence against women.
Paul Elam is making money off cloning the site and is now claiming that the official White Ribbon Campaign is suing AVFM and is imploring other MRA’s to send him money to fight the legal battle. I don’t know if there is a legal battle and it might be another attempt of Elam’s to recoup monies he didn’t make in his last quarterly fundraiser in which he asked for $25K and only got about half.
It’s not the first time Elam has lied to his MRA audience in order to squeeze money out of them. In the summer of this year he lied about feminist death threats so he could ask for legal monies which never went anywhere except his own pocket where he admits every cent goes.
In his latest rant he attacks Filipovic
The only thing different today than yesterday is that we get to add another name to the list of known scumbuckets infesting the mainstream media.
We now welcome Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan magazine to the ever-growing circus of fools with press passes and the equivalent of a fourth-grade education.
He never really makes an argument for why her piece is wrong. He just screams about various things like ‘ideological corruption’ and asks silly questions that contain logical fallacies like this one, which assumes that because those people have some sort of authority (in itself questionable) it means that AVFM’s done nothing wrong.
Perhaps the opinion of the woman who started the battered women’s shelter movement in the UK in 1971 would count? How about a former member of the board of directors for the National Organization for Women? How about the first Black female to become a senator in North America and the founder of the women’s shelter movement in Canada? How about clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, and academicians from across the Western world who have specialized in these problems and decided to stand with us and support our mission?
Windbag Elam must know the only ‘research’ available on his fake clone site is the Fiebert bibliography, which isn’t what people mean when they ask for peer reviewed research. The Fiebert bibliography has been criticized for its reliance on faulty methodological research using the CTS by Straus, which fails by eliminating the context of violence between partners.
Paul Elam doesn’t engage in activism. That would require a few elements. First he’d have to actually DO something for his cause, which he now admits isn’t about men and boys but is about destroying women’s rights. His recent mission statement outlines this.
Elam is aware he’s done nothing. In this rant he maneuvers around the question by asking another question. This is his strategy when faced with the accurate criticism that he’s actually done nothing except harm any potential men’s movement.
When people ask what we are actually doing about the problems faced by men and boys, my answer falls along the lines of another question: Don’t you think that making sure people even know men and boys have unaddressed problems might make it more possible for people to actually “do” things?
The only thing Elam has ever done is use his website the way the SPLC has accurately reported. AVFM is simply the mouthpiece of Paul Elam. In fact, many MRA’s have been removed from the site because Elam doesn’t take criticism very well at all. John Hembling used to be Elam’s right hand but has outed Elam as unwilling to handle any criticism of his tactics.
Elam pours through the comments on AVFM looking for any bit of minor disagreement or disillusionment from his audience. He will shame those men to give him money or simply say ‘what have you done for men?’ which is quite funny because Elam has done nothing and it can be argued he’s set men back. Even in this article you can see Elam screaming at another MRA who calmly suggested that the stunts Elam pulls just set men back. Elam called him a ‘pussy’ over and over again. CLICK TO ENLARGE IMAGE
Elam is angry that Fillipowich named him and his audience ‘so called’ men’s rights activists. Again, this ties into the fact that Paul thinks he’s the only men’s group on the planet and more importantly that he thinks he’s the only one actually doing something for men. His ego is boundless and extremely fragile.
Lastly, Elam subtlety threatens Jill and others with some kind of doxxing. Elam regularly releases personal information of women he targets.
Lastly, I would like Cosmo (and any white ribbon group) to produce proof of two things. One, that I do not have an explicitly legal right to do precisely what I am doing, and TWO, if we do a background check (and we will) of your alleged experts, will we find a heavy ideological leaning that our long-time experience assures us will result in irrational bias?
The entitlement here stinks. Cosmo is not your legal team. Threatening to dox them or any aspect of their personal ‘past’ is yet another threat towards women in a long tradition of Elam doing anything he can to harm women whether online/offline or both for exposing him.
Paul Elam is flailing around like the gamergater’s to find someone to attack for his own failures. I don’t know how this will end but you can be sure Paul Elam and AVFM want attention desperately and are willing to harm their own ‘movement’ to get it. That’s the supreme irony of Paul Elam’s temper tantrums.
The beginining of this video sums up Elam nicely
Elam had more to say about Jill during one of his Youtube shows. He says some pretty misogynist things about her. He thinks her position at Cosmo is merely about ‘nailpolish’ and not as a political writer.
Not I. Definitely not I.
I watched the movie ‘Snow White and the Huntsmen’ the other night. Even the title is creepy and as the title states, it’s about a man ‘hunting’ a woman. The movie is full of misogyny and follows a simple plot line that pits women against each other over men.
Beautiful queen has a beautiful Princess and then dies. King goes out looking for younger model Queen and finds one. New Queen kills King to have that evil feminist power which resents men choosing beautiful young women through strict adherence to Patriarchal gender roles. New evil queen locks step-daughter Princess away until just after puberty, when she’s ready to be fucked by men. The evil queen is never fucked by men and hence all that’s wrong with the world.
Princess escapes and runs into evil forest because since evil Queen has come into power all ‘nature’ is ruined.
Evil Queen employs downtrodden drunkard male whose wife was murdered to go hunt Princess in the evil dark forest. He finds her and the adventure begins because Princess wants Prince. Efforts and such. Huntsman brings Princess to Prince while subconsciously starts falling for her.
Princess dies and eventually gets awoken from death by Huntsman’s kiss and then kills evil bitch Queen. Peace ensues.
That’s it. That’s the great creativity of the 21st century.
There’s so much to discuss here but let’s start with the ‘beauty’ element which is what this male narrative is about. In the movie masculinity is constructed traditionally. Men want to fuck young looking women who are beautiful. This is why the King thinks with his dick and marries evil queen who understands men want beauty to the point where she murders other women to keep her looks but more importantly to gain power.
The whole setup is what we see today. Women do impossible, harmful things to themselves so they appear fuckable to men. In so doing, women have no way out because to stay beautiful she must harm other women. She must compete. Nothing much has changed. It’s the classic ‘girl fight’ over male attention.
It’s why there are things like the hashtag #WomenAgainstFeminism and female MRA’s. A few women side with men to garner the benefits of Patriarchy.
In the movie, there’s a colony of women living peacefully without threat from the evil queen. Do you know how they’re able to live? By scarring their faces so that the queen has no competition. If that isn’t a commentary on women’s liberation from gender then I don’t know what is.
I imagined living in that colony, away from the male gaze, how wonderful it would be but it gets ruined because the Huntsman brings the ‘pretty Princess’ there and the queen’s male army kills most of the female colony. Reminder: the second you try living without gender you will be destroyed. That totally sucked.
Then you’ve got the fucking up of nature. When the evil queen comes to power nature takes a dive into darkness. The metaphor of woman as nature is well documented in this movie. Nature is only beautiful when women adhere to male beauty standards, to gender.
Pretty princess trots around the land with lots of male dwarves, huntsman and Prince while the white stag bows to her. All males fall in love with the beautiful ‘ready to be fucked’ woman. Nature is supposed to be fuckable: to men. Men sure do love to fuck with and dominate nature and nature is a woman.
Meanwhile, nobody likes the evil feminist queen who represents the truth. She realizes men are foolish and weak and that the whole system revolves around their dicks. She resents men, rightfully so, but of course nothing will be right in the world until she’s killed and the hand who must hold the knife is another woman. All hail Patriarchy!
So the story ends with the young beautiful Princess murdering the truth, the woman who knew the game from the beginning. ‘You can’t take my heart,’ the younger woman says to the older one. What it really means is ‘you can’t take my gender role, bitch.’
If only the evil queen and the pretty princess got to spend some time away from the male gaze. Imagine the things they’d talk about! In the end I’d like to think they’d rule side by side after a solid week of consciousness raising. The pretty princess would realize that men are only after her because they want to fuck her and the evil queen would turn into an educatress for all women in the land.
Nature would be left alone by men and protected by women. Women would stop the earth from going to pieces under male rule as it’s doing right now.
I’m sure many a man enjoyed that movie of two women fighting each other over who’s fuckable and who isn’t. I’m sure they all thought of themselves as heroes when they’re really cowards who can’t handle truth and nature on its own terms.
Like the dwarves love of the princess, male MRA’s look up to feMRA’s like Karen Straugn as a sex object while calling feminists ‘ugly dykes.’ They don’t realize she’s not interested in them but I suppose it doesn’t matter when they can put a knife in her hand to wield against other women. I suppose that’s the supreme irony.
Female colony not submitting to gender and Patriarchy=destroyed. Woman who will be fuckable to men and lie to them=on a pedestal. The crone who knew the truth=exterminated.
This is how simple the whole 2 hour movie was. The fact that our culture is still relying on those silly tropes means radical feminism has to become louder and more accessible.
I do have hope that we are achieving this. The London Feminist gathering shows some promise and I’m told Gail Dines made a big imprint.
As I keep saying, in order to solve a problem we have to name the problem. Male violence against women is achieved through many avenues and I think gender is the symbol of this.
Gender or ‘femininity’ is what holds us back. Women who cater to male standards which there are two: fuckable or invisible, support the idea that there are only two ways to be viewed in the world. Neither of them are healthy. Women are either hypersexualized/pornified or silenced. We only exist as a fucktoy not even for our own pleasure or we are nothing.
There are many ways to bring gender to its death. Many women choose to live in a female-centric culture. Women like myself have chosen that. Others choose to live genderless and refuse to conform to it. I remember what it was like to be fuckable in the male gaze. I much rather like my status now as a middle aged woman. I don’t have to deal with so much male attention and I purposely don’t wear makeup in my day to day life for that reason.
I’ve conducted my own experiments where sometimes I put on makeup. I get inordinate amounts of male harassment. I’ve decided that I’m safer walking around without makeup and tight jeans. I wear a simple knee length skirt (black) with a black leather fringe coat and maybe some day I can afford some black riding boots. Hell, I’m a motorcycle maven who rides with no man. I almost bought my own Harley Sportster but that’s a story for another time. That was the 80’s.
Anywho, what do the rest of my blog audience think about gender expression? Have you done experiments like me? Where do you think you exist in the male gaze? Fuckable or invisible? What do you think are ways to eliminate gender? How was the feminine gender role enforced on you while you were developing into women?
Legal action seems imminent by the official White Ribbon owners against Paul Elam who cloned the site to spread false information and make money.
Paul has announced that all the money he takes from his fake website will go to legal fees. He’s managed to find a way to swindle even more money from his minions. He really is a scammer and as usual nothing is done for men.
All donations to this whiteribbon.org will be placed into our legal war chest to defend those rights.
We appreciate the support of people who believe in the moral correctness of our actions, and we pledge to vigorously fight any attempt to abridge our free speech or any other Constitutional rights.
Except this isn’t about free speech. It’s about stealing a brand, calling it yours, and scamming. Bravo Paul.
REAL WHITE RIBBON SITE. www.whiteribbon.ca
Donate to them and let them know Elam sent you.
AVFM has been pretty quiet lately in the sense that they’re not targeting individual women and harassing them from their site. Don’t get me wrong, they’re still the biggest woman hating club in the Manosphere. I’ve taken the liberty of perusing some of their ‘articles’ and want to share with you some of the misogyny they say doesn’t exist.
In this article ‘Gorillas in their midst’ written by Stephen Jarosek (aka Codebuster) he’s talking about wimmin being responsible for domestic violence because mothers train children in the first 4 years of life to be violent. Of course he cites no actual peer reviewed research but says this:
Matriarchal subcultures are often the source of violence. Irrespective of which part of the world you come from, many women choose thugs because, coming from the same abusive upbringing, thugs resonate with their own abusive natures. Like with like, and all that.
Sound like Elliot Rodger and their very own Stefan Molyneux? Of course you’d be correct that MRA’s are all about women dating ‘nice guys’ in order to rid the world of violence. Here’s AVFM’s own Stefan Molyneux, who spoke at their conference, on women being the destroyers of the world because they date assholes.
Let’s throw some more of Jarosek’s misogynist ramblings into the pot with this little ditty about how Muslim women who aren’t allowed to drive yet are wielding so much power over the menfolk.
Muslim women are not the wilting wallflowers that feminists prefer to portray them as. They may not have the same “rights” as their men, but there is every reason to interpret their purported absence of rights in the context of their privileged, protected status on the pedestal and men’s servitude unto them.
One of the common themes among MRA’s is that men protect women. This comes directly from Warren Farrell whose entire shitty book is built around the idea that men are violent because they’re protecting women. Every single male act of violence towards women is somehow the result of women. He never states why women need men to protect them or what men are protecting women from. It’s simply a nice traditional male fantasy book where dudes can think they’re saving the world from femapocalypse as heros.
Jarosek reminds us of PUA theory is critical to how to manipulate women.
PUA Game is actually an attempt to harness the submissive–dominant narrative with the intention to manipulate women. Summarizing the main implications of the submissive–dominant narrative, as it applies to female psychology and the spontaneity with which women often pair with troglodytes
Blaming women for male violence against them is nothing new in AVFM misogyny land.
it is the man who knows himself better than the woman knows herself, and her only option is to defer to the knower and the doer.
Only option huh? I suppose when a male is threatening to beat you you don’t have much choice. That violent male though is totes the fault of women because somehow women are wiring the brains of their children to be violent. It’s a nice neat little circular trick to blame women for male behaviour.
Further to the absence of risk in women’s indulgent, provided-for lives, choosing a thug can provide spice to an otherwise predictable routine, it annoys over-controlling parents and sends a clear message for them to back off, and it draws attention to oneself as an innocent victim.
See how that works? Men overtake women violently whereby we don’t have a choice ie. rape but in the end it’s really about pissing off your parents! In the end the woman is a victim but she’s the one to blame for the whole thing!
Male violence against women is men’s fault. No amount of backtracking to infancy and mombashing is going to erase that. Men choose to be violent yet Jarosek comes full circle and blames male violence on women.
Many a brute is instinctively aware that a good thrashing can bring his errant spouse back into line, and he realizes that she won’t respect anything less. Of course, the odds are that he probably learned this first from his primary nurturer and the context in which he grew up.
Essentially, MRA’s think that male violence is due to women choosing to date violent men. This is, of course, circular. There is no logic to this at all.
The funniest part is Jarosek completely ruins his misogynist argument. We’ve seen MRA’s try and claim other men’s accomplishments as their own. MRA’s like to see themselves as Elliot Rodger saw himself: superior.
America’s Founding Fathers understood some very important aspects of human nature when they framed the US Constitution. They understood, for example, the importance of personal responsibility.
Exactly. Men who are violent are doing out of choice. Male rapists are held fully responsible when they rape. Male batterers can’t use ‘but my mommy made fun of me’ as a defense as Jarosek is claiming.
MRA’s aren’t known for self awareness or comprehension. It’s hilarious that Steve countered all his bollocks with his own hand. That’s a special kind of joke we rightly laugh at.
No MRA’s allowed.
I’ve had a couple minor surgeries in the last couple weeks so I haven’t been posting as much as usual. I had an ovarian cyst that needed to be excised. It’s not malignant but it was bothering me a lot.
This week we’ve seen a lot of male violence come to this blog.
Last night I was watching biographies about male rock bands. Even music is male dominated. The way the industry is set up is through a male model. I found some of the music I loved under question for this reason. When we think of sex, drugs and rock and roll we immediately think of men.
Makes me wonder what a female centered rock and roll would look like.
I love this video:
AVFM has a nice little banner on their front page
First, let me remark on how misogynist it is to put this on a men’s rights site where the readership is mostly male. I find it as a warning to women who visit the site that there are rapists among MRA’s and this is how to prevent getting raped by one of them. However true that is we also must remember why Paul Elam would put such ‘advice’ on his site. It’s there because MRA’s blame women for being raped. This is also another bombastic attempt for attention, which it will get.
The rape prevention advice comes from a military man with a Youtube channel called Orthrus. He has a few videos dealing with this subject. I sat down and watched them. From the outset Orthrus compares being raped to women being in a minefield. I found that metaphor quite telling.
A minefield is something unknowable to anyone walking through it. There is no way to really tell which step is going to be the one that kills you. I think it’s a great metaphor. We women can’t know which men are rapists and which men are not. Sorta gives credence to the fear we feel trying to live our lives. ‘All men are potential rapists’ fits the metaphor of the minefield.
When MRA’s cry about rape prevention posters, claiming it’s not fair that women see all men as potential rapists, they simultaneously promote this idea on their website. Why are they whining when they are telling us clearly that women must fear all men as women must navigate the unknowable minefield?
Orthrus tells women that we are responsible for being in that minefield and then wonders why women see his ‘advice’ as victim blaming. Women know that if they’re raped people will ask them ‘well, did you do this? or this?’
Orthus says young girls don’t understand the psychology of rapists or what to look for and that women can see it coming. He also doesn’t seem to understand that people lose their ability to consent when they are incapacitated and uses a typical MRA analogy of a woman purchasing items while incapacitated as being ok so why can’t a man rape her too? He’s angry about rape culture and being called a rape apologist. Then he goes on to say he might be a little sociopathic because he has no sympathy for victims of crime. AVFM is batting 1000 on this guy. Rape destroys everything about society, he concludes, and rapists are animals who he wants to kill and yet somehow women should be able to stop them.
In his video titled ‘The Psychology of a Rapist’ he starts by saying he’s not a rapist because he has a conscience and admonishes us women that we shouldn’t assume any guy can rape us. How does this work when we’re in a minefield? How can we see underneath that soil to see that mine so we don’t step on it? Rapists are narcissists and entitled he says, and most men aren’t like that. When you tell girls any man is potential rapist, he claims, they can’t focus on who the real rapists are, which he says are rude douchebags. You look for the assholes who are rude. ‘Don’t hang out with assholes.’
It’s so simple right?
The next video, ‘Don’t Walk Right Into It,’ he divides acquaintance rape into date rape and asshole acquaintance rape. AAR’s touch women’s bodies in public and laugh at women when they complain. AAR’s do not respect personal space of women and you shouldn’t confront them alone. You can’t tell him he’s a piece of shit after work. You can’t slap him because that’s ineffective violence and women use that too much and get beaten down afterward. He wants what he wants and he’ll do anything to get it, especially when alcohol is involved. Does this sound utterly ridiculous to you ladies? This guy seems to think this is how rape happens!
I have a feeling Orthus hasn’t ever experienced being a woman nor a woman being raped, not by the asshole acquaintance but by the guy who never gives off a single sign he’s going to rape you. ‘Women think they’re independent and can do whatever they want,’ he says.
He addresses date rape in the next video titled ‘Date Rape and the Bonding Process’ which is 20 minutes long. High risk behaviour is the fault of women. Yes, ladies. It’s our fault. Young girls going to parties with drinking is women’s fault. One of the men at this party is a psychopath and the rest of the men are idiots who drink and then rape, he explains. This is where we know all men are potential rapists and we women are correct in this thinking because we know regular men will rape. We have no way of knowing which man is the rapist. Get this, he says he’s insulted as a man because women shouldn’t treat all men as potential rapists!
Ladies, I think we see where this is going. It’s our fault for drinking with men and it’s our fault for assuming that any man can be a rapist. It’s a no win situation for us, as if we didn’t already fucking know that. We know that in every rape women will be blamed. That’s rape culture. This dude just doesn’t seem to understand that but he promoting it.
The bonding process of date rape is important he says.
He uses a ‘combat environment’ scenario to describe how women need to be alert to rape. I think that’s an apt analogy because women are always on alert around men but of course this same man is offended by that because most men are good men, like him. He describes a typical teenage scenario where a girl hangs out at her boyfriends house. He instructs her not to ‘encourage him’ sexually because if she does he won’t be able to understand the word ‘no.’ See where this is going? This, to him, is the bonding process where teenage girls get close to their rapist, even though they don’t know if he’s a rapist, she’ll soon find out that he doesn’t take no for an answer and she sat on the bed next to him which was a wrong move.
This is a minefield for sure. Women and girls are in combat 24/7. This is the way we live. He sees that but insists we can somehow see a rapist a mile away and he’s not sympathetic to us because it’s on women to figure this out in his crazy fucktarded scenarios.
In his final video ‘Conclusions’, he says he’s done it all for us. Now we women know how to avoid being raped but of course the disclaimer is there that ‘sometimes we can’t avoid it’ and ‘these are complicated issues.’ That should’ve been the whole video in 30 seconds. Women don’t know which men are rapists. Regular guys can be rapists. We women are in a minefield. We live in combat situations.
Imagine if all women could carry and men could not? I can imagine that world. I can imagine just being able to shoot and ask questions later.
Men can stop rape, if they want to, but they don’t want to.
Orthrus is a dummy. Elam is a dummy. All MRA’s are dumb.
This post was accidentally posted earlier than intended. If you saw it a couple days ago, that’s why.
They’re offering $5550- though to figure out if an MRA did it. It’s hilarious. On one hand they blame feminists and then raise money to find out if it was truly an MRA. I guarantee you the one who wrote it was male. Guarandamntee that. Men like threatening violence anonymously to a woman. Welcome to being a woman online. Oh and AVFM knows the cowardly MRA dude isn’t going to come forward so they say their money is ‘safe.’ What better way to let us all know it’s an MRA than by offering thousands of dollars for info? Smart move AVFM. You’re admitting this is an MRA. Everyone knows it’s a batshit crazy MRA too.
David Futrelle over on We Hunted the Mammoth researched the phrases used in the long death threat letter to Anita Sarkeesian. The letter was written by an MRA/Red Piller. These guys are part of the Manosphere. The Manosphere is an online collection of websites including the men’s rights reddit where men go to blame women and feminists for their shit lives.
You can read the death letter to Anita here.
Paul Elam at AVFM is claiming that feminists wrote the letter, which is hilarious because nobody but MRA’s use those phrases. Basically, AVFM is mad that David has exposed the hatred and violence endemic at AVFM and the rest of the Manosphere.
There is no doubt whatsoever that this email was written by a feminist posing as an MHRA. The entirely fictitious character, who is supposed to have written it, conforms so closely to the feminist mischaracterization of MHRAs as dangerously violent psychopaths who dream of brutally silencing women that it could only have been written by someone whose goal was to maintain and embellish this outrageously slanderous threat narrative.
Nice try AVFM but no dice. You are a bunch of violent psychopaths. Nobody second guesses that. AVFM’s new weekly shows featuring a different MRA and their ‘wake up call’ to the red pill give you all away. For the last 2 weeks I’ve heard 2 separate MRA’s talk about their domestic violence charges and their anger management problems.  Al Martin, violent male with anger issues Christian Chassion, puts his hands on woman in a walker, throws objects at g/f, gets DV charge
AndyBob, the author of the lameass AVFM attempt at deflection had this to say about the letter:
“I’m giving you a chance to stop it,” the email author added thoughtfully. Even for an entirely fictitious MHRA psycho, I thought that was terribly decent of him.
See what kind of male violence we’re dealing with? It was terribly nice of the guy to say he might not murder women! A feminist did it though? Don’t make me laugh.
The rest of AndyBob’s screech-fest is diversion after diversion throughout bits of misogynist screed about Anita’s appearance and of course the predictable ‘she’s lying’ excuse. As usual, with misogynists, it’s a woman’s fault for getting attention because some porn addicted gamer MRA decided to threaten endless people with death because a woman criticized a few video games on Youtube.
So is her uncanny ability to time these damseling episodes for maximum effect, publicity, and fiscal reward.
I don’t think people are worried about money at this point you dumbass. I think we’re more concerned with you crazy fucks who spread this kind of misogyny to the point where the woman can’t speak without getting death threats.
Andybob uses the excuse that while Lepine and Rodger were misogynists they also killed a few men. Who cares? That’s not what motivated them to kill. Andy’s attempts to make Rodger and Lepine not fit into AVFM and the Manosphere are incredibly lame since they all have the same things in common: hatred of women and feminists. He even says Rodger wouldn’t be welcome at AVFM because he was a ‘pussy beggar.’ Nope. No misogyny there!
Two of the reasons why feminists posing as MHRAs are so easy to detect are the style of language they employ and the fact that their purported representation of MHRAs has the unmistakable tone of caricature that frequently devolves into the realm of pantomime.
I know you’re delusional Andybob but there’s nothing pantomime about it. Lepine hated feminists. AVFM hates feminists. This doesn’t require much of a leap.
here isn’t the slightest hint of articulated performance in the glib and terrifying words of genuinely deranged psychopaths like Elliot Rodger and Marc Lépine.
Except that they’re MRA words and phrases. David Futrelle proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The only commonality between the anonymous email, Marc Lépine’s suicide statement, and Elliot Rodger’s manifesto is that none of them were written by MHRAs.
I know you think if you repeat that to yourselves enough times you’ll actually start believing it. Everyone knows MRA’s have ZERO self-awareness. The commonality is a deep hatred of women. Wasn’t it AVFM that published endless articles on Anita Sarkeesian? Yep. David did the work you fools.
Who has a history of making death threats via emails to venues hosting talks on potentially contentious issues and has a vested interest in publicly demonizing the MHRM by maintaining a false threat narrative through attempted character assassination and misrepresenting everything we stand for? If you answered “feminists” without sneaking a peak at the key below, congratulations, you are no longer a newbie in the MHRM.
Yep, a bunch of feminists got together, used your exact phrasing, and sent this letter to Utah in order to ruin your reputation. Is this going to be used to distinguish old from new MRA’s? You guys are a joke. We all know about your obsession with Anita Sarkeesian. We know you’re just desperate to do damage control. We all know that another Rodger is in the making from your camp.
While you might like to talk to yourself and tell yourself it ain’t so nobody believes it. I notice you say that at the end of your ‘lookee over there’ rant. We all know it’s one of you misogynist freaks. You might be dumb enough to think it’s not one of you but the rest of the world has an IQ.
UPDATE: AVFM released a video of them calling the University to see if the threat was real. The threat was real but they decided not to DO anything with the school that got it. This got AVFM to declare the threat wasn’t real. LOL. They can’t even comprehend that the cops aren’t going to shut down a school that easily. The cops don’t want to get people panicked and the threat was REAL.
It makes me wonder why AVFM is so concerned if it was a feminist that masterminded this whole plan? The motivation is to denigrate and further seed the hatred against a woman for daring to speak out in a feminist perspective about video games. It’s more about trying to discredit her.
Once again AVFM does a silly stupid male thing and outright lies.
ROKS is the the largest radical feminist shelter organization in Sweden fighting for equality and succeeding. They have excellent representation in Parliament through Margareta Winberg. Here are 2 shows on ROKS. The program was probably made by a man who is upset that the feminist influence is changing Sweden for the better, for women’s rights. However, some women have a hard time changing perspective as well. You can see the effect of this in the women who posture and gain financial advantage from male MRA’s when they’re just your average run-of-the-mill misogynists. Male MRA’s hold up the handful of women in their ranks as an attempt to legitimize their woman hatred.
Some women in the show below claim men need help breaking their violence against women through specific programs to help him see what he’s doing is wrong. According to ROKS, and I’m assuming people here, men know they’re doing wrong. They’re making a choice to violate women. This is a key distinction between those who see male violence as a gendered issue of power and those who see male violence as something wrong with him, as if it’s a unique disease. It’s not unique. It’s men acting out their power and control that our gendered society expects. Women are truly the ones who need the help to leave men and to understand what he’s doing he’s doing by conscious choice.
ROKS sees male violence against women as a part of Patriarchy, as a power imbalance, and they make educational policies and social services for women based on this key point. They even incorporate monotheistic philosophy to explain male violence, comparing men to God, in the sense that men strive to be like God (hence why God is an invention of men), like an omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent being that is above nature, which is then considered woman. This is literal in monotheistic patriarchal religions and metaphorical. It’s brilliant and it plays out on how men order nature and how men see and treat women.
The tv programs below are biased, in my opinion, against ROKS. Like I said, probably made by a man who doesn’t understand any of this and who’s never had to consider his privilege. ROKS admits the struggle for women’s liberation will be hard and violent because men do not want to give up their power.
I want to move to Sweden and be among these women. They have a chant that I loved: ‘Macho macho bye bye!’ I love these women. They are amazons. They are the future. We talk about what a female focused egalitarian society would look like on this blog while it seems ROKS is making this happen.
This first episode, which is actually 2 in 1, starts with something I found confusing so I’ll explain. Two young women went to a women’s shelter and somehow there were threats by male satanists/pedophiles against them. The shelter organizers moved them around to keep them safe from these threats of organized pedophilia and satanist rituals meant to harm these women.
One of the women thinks that the shelter she went to was trying to brainwash her to think men are evil. I found it incredibly unbelievable that a women’s organization would move girls and women around over an empty threat. We know on this blog that men are capable of great violence so if I was running a shelter and threats were called in against the women I’d move them too to get them out of harms way. It’s just logical to believe male threats of violence because it’s right in front of us: prostitution, pornography, male violence against women.
The second episode, running concurrent to the first, is better and clearer. It really explains ROKS positions and how these women are trying to change society.
I really want to know more about ROKS. Men don’t like ROKS so to me that means they’re doing something innovative and good for women. Gunilla Eckberg has worked with ROKS too and she’s brilliant in her analysis of prostitution.
Can we do something like this in Canada or the US? I think it can be done but the major problem is the capitalism our societies worship. Sweden is a very socially aware country. I think Canadians would be better suited for the changeover. The US has to get to the point where they actually care about the social welfare of all its citizens and not the lucky few.
Canada has mediocre social services, especially since the Tories came in, they’ve been slicing all women’s services. However, our collectivist mindset is present whereas in the States it seems non-existent.
After reading Witchwind’s blog post, which is here, I’ve learned a lot about how this needs to be implemented. I think it must start with small villages. As V said, the wealthy women have to start putting that money to that kind of purpose. They must lend their hand to the majority of women who are still not at that level. Once there’s a momentum it will be hard to stop.