Rulez for Paul’s 2nd Annual Neckbeard Ball, PLUS Paul Promises More Online Bullying of Women

The first Men’s rights conference has come and gone like a fart in the Universe. The media has done its job once again only to meet the drama queens bitching and moaning over at AVFM. If it wasn’t Bucky Turco they blamed for not knowing Dean’s two kids were autistic, they were bashing Jessica Roy for being too young, ‘pimply faced’ and for just getting out of a ‘gender studies course.’ Tara Palmatier called Monica Hess of the WashPo a ‘rat.’

Alienating the media with these tactics isn’t a good idea since Paul depends on it for his 100K/year schtick where he thinks he’s changing the world with his misogynist rants yet continues to stoically say he’s helping men and boys. Paul loves to rile the media up because it truly does get his pockets jingling. The more outrageous it gets the more money he can get. As long as there’s some feminist enemy somewhere in the world, Paul sleeps well.

In an attempt to control the media Elam announced in a video he’s going to fix this wascally problem of ‘pimply faced twerps who only report lies.’ Lies! I tell you! He likens the mainstream media to a Kindergarten class where he says he’s going to use ‘positive and negative reinforcement’ to get them to behave for the second conference he’s already planning.

‘We’re used to scumbags these days. We need to have a contest for the scummiest of the scum and obviously Turco would win that this time without any effort, but it seems like we may need to have the golden banana award for yellow journalism that we put out once a year to coverage [snip]’~Paul Elam

His solution? Here are the qualifications you must have in order to interview listen to droning rhetoric byanyone at AVFM or any of their members at the next Neckbeard Ball:

  • 50 years old or over
  • no pimples
  • straight white male
  • no personal bias
  • hates feminists and women who look/sound like feminists
  • ask relevant questions
  • bitter and resentful toward women
  • has never taken a gender studies course
  • wants to be on the right side of history
  • will pay full price for the ticket

Ok, I took some liberty here. The ones in bold are Paul’s actual demands for what kind of journalist he’ll let in to next years con to interview AVFM staff and members. It’s gonna be a pretty empty press con at the rate he’s going. The picture will be a lot clearer though: a AVFM panel wankers talking to the wall in the back and listening to the sweet echo. Now that’s how you do men’s rights cons.

Paul also announced a potential fist fight with Adam Serwer of MSNBC after making the claim that Serwer looked like he wanted to fight and obviously didn’t want to be there. To this little inventive threat narrative Paul replied:

‘Next conference he’ll get his fucking wish.’

Ya right Paul. I can see you trying to fight. It’ll probably look like some sort of kangaroo boxing with you falling on your balls. It’s always good to want macho violence at your conference that supposedly focuses on men and boys amirite?

Paul has a conspiracy theory about why the media just never reports the hearty goodness of the men’s rights movement:

‘…the mainstream media is just an advertising arm to sell products to women. Part of the… knowing that women control  most of the spending in consumer culture and appealing to their resentment of men, to the feelings of… to the garbage they’ve been fed in gender studies programs to what they’re doing on a feedback loop with themselves about men about their existence in the world, is that the way you sell stuff is by making men look like buffoons and making women look like deities.

And the press media has gone hand in hand with this and they’ve gone right straight to hell in a handbasket because they know that for one minute if they got up  and starting telling the truth, if they came in and covered the conference honestly, it would start costing them female consumers who don’t want to hear the truth. ‘


Finally, Paul and Dean say there will be more doxxing and abuse of women (aka what they call ‘activism’).

If I get a whiff of a group of people that is out there meeting secretly that wants to kill black people, or Jews, or gay people and i find out who you are, guess where your names will go? The front page of my website. Every time.

Somehow I don’t think Paul cares about Jews. If he did he’d be doc dropping Hamas members. No. We know who he means. This little linguistic trick of ‘sounding inclusive’ is just that, a trick to make himself sound like an equal opportunity doxxer.

The protection of privacy is something that I do believe in but there is a limit to it.

The limit is wherever Paul wants it to be. Just the other day the men’s rights subreddit was doxxing a young woman on twitter who responded to someone about a kickstarter to get rid of white men. Her tweet was obviously an answer to something preposterous but the MRA’s went ballistic, found out she was a law intern, and doxxed her on 4chan attempting to get her harmed.

Paul continues:

 ‘When you’re advocating illegal violent acts against a group of people and AVFM finds out about it, and guess what? If you happen to call yourself ‘men’s activist’ and you are advocating violence somewhere against women and we find out who you are, we’ll put your name on the front page and shame you with the rest of them.

This is something we’ll never retreat from or apologize for.’

Not one MRA has ever been doxxed and the minions sent to bully that I’ve ever seen, not even the ones who have advocated violence on the comment sections of AVFM articles and I know they’ve done it because the mod comes in to explain why he had to remove a comment. I never hear a single word about that MRA.

At least now we know he’s going to continue to bully women and that he’s still more interested in that then say, men’s and boys issues.

Dean offered this lame justification of doxxing as an aside

‘…that was still not for the purposes of harassing them that was for identifying people who were actually advocating for really horrific shit.’

Dean Esmay thinks radfemhub, a small online blog, contains ‘high profile public celebrities, who were advocating horrible things.’ I’ve yet to see one thing even remotely serious enough to warrant doxxing of anyone but I do think it’s rather strange that Paul Elam couldn’t tell the difference between an Elliot Rodger quote and an MRA quote by Stefan Molyneux. Something tells me that if AVFM members had come across Rodger, they’d never dox him. They’d recruit him like they did Molyneux.

It’s not about men and boys. It’s about AVFM endangering women online/offline. It’s the only activism they know. VIDEO BELOW


N.B. The SPLC labelled AVFM a hate site, not a hate group which Dean Esmay parrots loud and often all over the internet. What Esmay leaves out of course is that last bit about them being a hate site. If you remind him of what they really said he’ll launch into the next rant about the SPLC not being a good source since the FBI dropped them (which they actually didn’t).


24 thoughts on “Rulez for Paul’s 2nd Annual Neckbeard Ball, PLUS Paul Promises More Online Bullying of Women

  1. It’s truly amazing. Everyone else is wrong but them. Not just feminists, but all news media and blogs from CNN to MSNBC to Al-Jazeera to I have never seen such a pity party in my life, but I suppose all I can do is sit back and enjoy the white whine. Speaking of which I did a Part II of my piece on Ramzpaul. More links between MRAs and white supremacists.

  2. I think your blog is cherry picking. You also do a lot of hasty generalizations. The idea that you know if Paul is a racist just by his remarks is indicative of someone who has far more confidence in their ability to determine racism than is logically possible. You also presume to know the reasoning behind these men’s actions.

    Your blog also incorrectly interprets what they’re saying sometimes. For example, you write Dean said “Serwer looked like he wanted to fight and obviously didn’t want to be there.” To which Paul replied “Next conference he’ll get his fucking wish.”

    What Paul actually said was “…it was clear he didn’t want to be there at all, and he just wanted to hurt somebody in some fashion.” to which Paul replied he’ll get his wish. This either means Paul will let Serwer hurt someone, which doesn’t make any sense; or he won’t be at the next conference, which unsurprisingly, is exactly what they were speaking about before, not letting all media in.

    Then after this you state you can see Paul trying to fight, saying he would be poor at it. Essentially suggesting we shouldn’t pay attention to him because he may not be a competent fighter. He didn’t actually say anything about fighting.

    Another incorrect interpretation is your list of media qualifications Paul apparently has. He didn’t even say all of the bolded ones. He said they should have interviews with reporters old enough to understand the issue. He didn’t say someone with pimples or who took a gender studies course couldn’t attend, he was using those terms to insult people who he thought had no idea what they were talking about. Admittedly, very immature on his part, but not conditions.

    Paul’s “conspiracy theory” about why the press never report the hearty goodness of the men’s rights movement is essentially saying the media doesn’t sell what people don’t buy. This is the only part of your blog that actually references a specific issue instead of criticizing various aspects of the speakers themselves, and your response is a “*sigh*”.

    I find it astounding that I can read you blog about the conference, and although I was very informed of your opinions of the speakers intentions, I learned very little about the conference itself. Why not speak about Karen Straughan or Erin Pizzy or Warren Farrell or anything they said?

    This blog has nothing about the actual issues. The entire thing is an ad hominem fallacy against certain people. To be honest Dean Esmay and Paul Elam seems like doughbags. If the only criticism you have of the conference was them, then the MRA must be doing a lot of other things right.

    • What I find interesting is that you haven’t read a single post of mine about the conference and insist I should speak about it. You realize you’re commenting on a post NOT about the conference? This tells me you’re an MRA just looking for a place to wallow around. You’re totally welcome to the fainting couch reserved for MRA’s. It’s over in the corner. There’s some smelling salts there too just in case the fainting is really severe.

      • I don’t insist anything. Admittedly, I made a mistake. If I knew your post was simply criticizing two men who are part of the MRA, but the post was not about the MRA, I would not have commented. I’m critical of some of the things these two guys say too.

        But since I did comment, I’d really like clarification about how you thought Paul was asking for a fight as opposed to meaning he won’t be allowed in next time.

    • “He said they should have interviews with reporters old enough to understand the issue.” The young ones understood, they just don’t believe it, or live in the 50s…

      “… he was using those terms to insult people who he thought had no idea what they were talking about. Admittedly, very immature on his part, but not conditions.”

      Very professional… And this is your mentor? A sixty+ year old man who complains of others immaturity by proving his own? Must we start referring to you all as ‘Squeaky’ for you to understand the damage you do to your own cause by following him?

      • I wasn’t saying his logic was correct in only thinking older people could comprehend the issues. I was simply stating that the conditions listed were not his conditions.

        I noted what he said was immature. Which also suggests unprofessional. I never said he was my mentor. You’ll notice I actually mildly insulted them myself in my post several times. I did note Karen Straughan Warren Farrell and Erin Pizzy as more appropriate people to pay attention to.

        I have known about Erin Pizzy, Karen Straughan and Warren Farrel for some time, and I had no idea who these other two people were until this blog. I have a dim regard for them. I agree they are damaging our own cause.

        I stated in my post that I don’t believe ad hominem attacks to be useful, yet you use them in your response to my post. You may use them whenever you wish, but they don’t help your argument.

        I mentioned what I see to be several errors in the post. If you could comment on them I would appreciate it.

        I am specifically concerned about the fighting comment. Sometimes when someone wants to find something badly enough, like threats of violence, they will find it in a place where it does not exist.

        • I think you may have a distorted view of what ad hominem means… Still, attacks to the man are appropriate in this instance. They are his own words which condemn. He takes full responsibility for the site he spreads them on… In fact to hear him say it he has total control and others merely assist him. Which appears to be entirely true.

          Pizzey has been a laughing stock in England to all but far-right for decades, Elam co-ops her teachings nearly word for word. Ferrell went from occasionally intelligent conversation to claiming mothers were why young men murder. (Even when it was the father who kicked the Rodger’s creature out of the home…) You of course have the right to follow him… we have the right to consider you intellectually inferior if you do so. Goodbye.

  3. They are looking at everyone who disagrees with them as a danger… Even the younger ones on their site who want reform. Apparently anyone with common sense is now a spy.

    The only one who appears to have any sense at all is the so-called ‘journalist’ husband (Has he written anything beyond a couple straight-to-the-$5-bin Amazon ‘novels’)? Did I miss something or does he appear to not actually belong with a group like this…? The video would indicate he was behind keeping things from journalists at the conference, however… So… Who knows.

  4. I’m just listening to the vid for the 1st time right now. I don’t know how far I’ll make it. Why do they joke about DV, if they are against it and if they supposedly have so many men in their group who have been victims. Survivors of DV don’t think that stuff is funny, at least, I find it nauseating. If they were really against DV, instead of promoting it, this wouldn’t be a joke.

    Equal with these men… impossible! I think they know this and this is why they are worried. Any actual equality under the law will in reality mean inequality for men because they are simply not capable enough, not intelligent enough and not up to the task. This is why they never stop threatening, harassing, raping and killing women. This is why they can’ just live their lives and let us live our lives in peace.

    OMG! – these guys are just like republicans. Tokenism is not diversity. One black dude who is being paid to be there. One Asian dude who is being paid to be there. A handful of white women who are benefiting in some way financially from being there. All of these people on your panel does not make diversity. I saw the crowd and apart from the mostly white male reporters who covered the event, everyone there was a white, male, usually with a case of severe alopecia, at least, those who weren’t wearing baseball caps. It was not a diverse crowd, at all. It looked like a redneck convention – could have been a gathering of hot rod enthusiasts, or beer enthusiasts, or some other gathering of mostly white, suburban dick-danglers.

  5. Also, regarding tokenism as Paul is talking about it – men don’t have to worry about being assaulted by women at conferences. Also, women are not trying to infiltrate men’s conferences. On the other hand, this men’s group has stated that they are trying to infiltrate even online gatherings of women to harass and dox. They said this at the end of their conference.

    Women are not threatening men. Men – in particular these men – are threatening anyone who disagrees with them, especially women.

  6. No one has ever been hurt by these men (and some really horrible women) advocating violence against women?

    There is evidence to the contrary all over the place. It exists on this blog and elsewhere.

    People – meaning women – have been hurt and are being hurt right now. If you don’t think women are people, then maybe what they say is true – no one has been hurt.

  7. Fox ran fake footage of protestors – twice! I linked to those in my comments on this blog at previous article on the conference for anyone who missed it.

    Also, the USA Today article was written by the spouse of one of the paid hate-mongers of AVfM.

  8. Re: The over 50 age requirement.

    What I saw of their audience seemed to fit this requirement. There were a relative few younger men in the crowd compared to the old bald and balding white dudes I saw.

    Re: Feminists threatening men. I think it’s easy to understand why members of a class of people who have been raped a bunch of times by members of a class of people – men – who have dominated every aspect of society and enslave us and continue to try to enslave us, might engage in discussions about how to stop the violence. This violence must be stopped. Andrea Dworkin talked about this – and used Malcolm X’s phrase, “by whatever means.”

    But, for the most part, this business of the menz engaging in fantasies about women attacking them is based in their own twisted sexual fantasies. It is not happening anywhere except in their minds.

  9. Dr. T! LOL! Complains about a journalist mispronouncing her name, then mispronounces Serwer’s name in the next sentence… Very funny! These people are comedians! Disgusting – I can’t stand to look at them! But, they’re funny.

    Dr. T really needs to get educated about the effects of sexual objectification on women and especially young girls. I think we all understood her just fine the first time – she’s an idiot. This is absolutely pandering to men and men’s views of women and girls. I’ve been living with this hideous shit my whole life – as I’m sure many of you have. As a woman, she knows better.

  10. At about 35 minutes in – Esmay really doesn’t get that using gendered and sexualized slurs at people is, in effect, “going after women.” It is sexist.

    Really, I’m thinking maybe he should get some of those Bubba teeth from the Halloween Store in lieu of fixing his dental problem – it would really fit his personality.

  11. They clarified the meaning of “evil empire” and it’s even worse than I thought. According to Esmay in this vid, somewhere after the 35 minute mark, it refers to the “multi-billion dollars” received by domestic violence shelters and their belief that feminists have made up “domestic violence.”

    This corresponds with Karen Straughan’s statements and the statements of others elsewhere of what Men’s Rights really means – and it’s exactly what it sounds like, what it has always been historically. It is the belief that men have that they have a natural and should have a legal right to beat and rape their wives and children. This is called “corrective discipline,” by the MRM. And, yes, it is domestic violence. Of course, if you just say that feminists invented the idea that women have the right not be be subjected to beatings and rape by men, then, yes, feminists invented it and named it “domestic violence.”

    This might be considered a lie by omission. But, more than anything it is a re-assertion of what “Men’s Rights” have always meant – for instance, the legal right to beat your wife everyday of the week but Sunday.

  12. At 45 minutes in, Esmay tries to claim that they didn’t say what we all heard when we heard one of the women at this conference (broadcast live for all to see or, at least, hear) say that campus rape is just another word for regret and is a get out of guilt free card similar to a get out of jail free card in monopoly.

    We all heard her say it. We all understood what she meant. It was very clear. No one – no journalist or anyone else – needs further clarification.

    None of these three horrible people in this video have degrees in Journalism, I take it.

  13. Pingback: Monday Update | Mancheeze


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s