As we have already made a part of public record, AVfM is conducting outreach and investigation into the identities of the persons involved in the violent protest against the rights of men and boys orchestrated and conducted by the University of Toronto Student Union and other antisocial elements within that institution.
To that end, one individual has already been identified, and you will be seeing a story on her here in the near future. Our search for the woman highlighted in the video of the protest continues, with some leads.
As happens with each time AVfM undertakes such an operation, I have encountered some objections from a small number of people who claim to identify as MRAs. They do not come from people I recognize, or that to my knowledge are visible in the movement, but their objections are consistent and impassioned.
Most of it boils down to generalized hand-wringing; fears of ‘stooping to their level’ or ‘surrendering the high ground.’
I have also gotten other objections, such as the idea that putting a public spotlight on these ideologues amounts to “online bullying,” as I recently heard from one dissenter.
I find none of this to be convincing, and I am not swayed in the least. But I do think, given the gravity of the work we do, that answering the concerns with my own name attached to it is in order.
First, this is not surrendering higher ground. Quite the contrary, shying away from outing these violence promoting ideologues is the approach that lacks a moral compass.
Let us consider the woman at the protest who was issuing epithets, punctuated with flying spittle, at the young man who sought attendance to the Farrell lecture. This was conduct that one detractor attempting to dissuade me from action, called “misguided.”
She was aggressively harassing and degrading a stranger, based on his sex, and for wanting nothing more than to hear about issues affecting the group to which he belongs at an institution of higher education.
Now, imagine a white student talking that way to a black student for attempting to attend a lecture on problems faced by that community. Or, better yet, a man standing there screaming “fucking misandrist scum” “pro false allegation, pro child abuse fucking scum,” at the top of his lungs, at a female student, blocking her from passing through a door where she was merely attempting to hear a lecture on women’s issues.
Would that be “misguided”? No, it would be outrageous and criminal, and the only video we would have seen of that would have been the young man being placed in cuffs and tossed in the back of a squad car. I would have agreed with the arrest.
I submit there is only one possible reason for this kind of mindless minimization of the actions of the woman in the video, even from someone claiming to be a men’s advocate.
Misandry. Ingrained, socially learned misandry; the very thing the men’s movement is supposed to be fighting.
I also submit that any men’s activist who demonstrates such complicity, enabling and rescuing of this kind of criminality is not holding the high ground anywhere except in his or her imagination. There is a distinct difference between high ground and a high horse. Some so called MRAs would do well to learn it.
Would we call the public identification of racists who harass other people based on ethnicity, or actual misogynists engaging in similar conduct with women, ”online bullying”? If you think that, I would say you have mental health issues that need to be addressed…or intelligence issues that defy amelioration.
If we are going to defeat misandry in this culture, it must begin with accepting once and for all the innate value of men and boys as much as we do any other identified group. Failing to recognize their right to be free of this kind of harassment, or by minimizing the severity of it, or by calling for a somehow different, lesser reaction to the bigotry and hatred they face is a failure in and of itself.
It is a failure of principle, a failure of understanding and a failure to the men and boys we purport to defend.
Additionally, I reject the notion that we are in any way, “lowering to their level.” To do that we would have to try to censor their free speech, advocate for the better treatment of one sex over the other, promote ideology based on lies and hatred and gleefully persecute anyone called us on it.
We would have to be the ones on a college campus harassing people for trying to address the concerns of their group.
Gender ideologues absolutely hate the light of day. They hate it shining on their ideas and on their lies. Many of them also don’t want it shining on their identities. They seek anonymity for the same reason Klansmen wear hoods.
We have a moral imperative to deny them the protective cloak of remaining incognito. Otherwise, we are helping them sink to their level, stay there, and do more damage.
I’ll be damned if I will be a party to that.
659 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Rick Westlake:
strix:
animatefire:
napocapo69 (@napocapo69):
Bewildered:
Lucian Vâlsan:
“Gender ideologues absolutely hate the light of day.”
I agree wholeheartedly. They only feel empowered to express the hatred they do towards men because they operate from a position of relative anonymity. Their fathers, brothers, neighbors, friends, boyfriends, bosses, coworkers, etc. should all know what they spend their free time doing.
Well this is going to be an interesting next few days or so.
I can understand how there are some MRAs who do not think that outing is the way to go. I am not one of them.
Forty years of tapping politely on a shoulder with a, “‘Scuse me. Can we please just behave better please?” does nothing. If anything it teaches others how better to push a flag of rotten behaviour.
OK, so we try this shaming and outing business and check the results in a while. I have no doubt when we check the “spread-sheet” the data will indicate that this is the way to go.
If in doubt, keep in mind that accountability is a pretty scary thing for these clowns in monkey suits. Fear is the de-motivator that will dissuade them when they realise it just might have been them on the front page of the most powerful MRA site on the planet.
Yeah they can seriously get-*rooted. (I am not just thinking of the poor bastard that copped a face full of that dreadful woman at the Warren Farrell protest.) We all consume feminism.
[*Fucked.]
Paul, you write, and I so agree:
“Gender ideologues absolutely hate the light of day. They hate it shining on their ideas and on their lies. Many of them also don’t want it shining on their identities. They seek anonymity for the same reason Klansmen wear hoods.
We have a moral imperative to deny them the protective cloak of remaining incognito. Otherwise, we are helping them sink to their level, stay there, and do more damage.”
The individual actors of the violent, histrionic, anti-male and anti-humanity, prejudice need to be identified and their “work” published for all to see. Let that actors work speak for itself; lets the audience judge the actions for it.
I say to Danielle Sandhu, be proud of your work, don’t hide it, it will be highlighted and critiqued here at AVFM. The veracity of your claims checked and double-checked through a much different lens than you are used to-You Go Girl!
To me, one of the larger problems when trying to counter feminism is that feminist ideology “owns” major media and has a stranglehold on the communication to a largely functionally illiterate, harried, or uninformed herd. The herd believes the feminist lies, obfuscations, and distortions because not only is it everywhere, it is a vile stew of carefully prepared propaganda produced by newly minted university “journalism” graduates i.e. Trotskyites.
Identify them and associate them with their work! Hear, hear is my vote!
A great piece, Paul.
I totally agree, that there should be no reason whatsoever to refrain from exposing them. After all, our worlds media spares no whip where exposing a suspected male is concerned; regardless of whether the allegations turn out to be true. The difference is, we expose lies and speak the truth.
Also… anyone who cries out to restrict activism I always suspect of ulterior motives. It has to be said, that feminists infiltrate everywhere.
Zero tolerance for misandrists.
If this policy ever changes, I will be going somewhere else.
You speak for me Paul 101%
I think it is zero tolerance for intentional misandry. I have been in the trenches for two years, and I still sometimes catch myself white-knighting.
zero tolerance is correct. We need to show that this is unacceptable so that the younger boys don’t have to grow up in a world where their own government and education systems despise them.
If the protesters had a righteous reason for protesting Dr. Farrel’s speech, why is that they are scurrying away and filing privacy complaints with YouTube to get the videos taken down? They know that they have been busted by committing acts of physical and verbal aggression and violence, it’s on the internet for all to see and they hate, just really hate being shown as they really are, not as they claim to be, but shown to be spiteful and violently hateful ideologues who have no real idea of what Dr. Farrel stands for. As long as someone spoke positively about boys and men, that was reason enough for the gender ideologues to get nasty and violent.
The gender ideologues and feminists have really shown us their true colors in their use of violence to stop free thought and free speech.
They fail to see the utter double standard of advocating for free speech by a demonstration that demands censorship of free speech because it was about boys and men who are not supposed to have a voice in the gender ideologues mind.
Out every single fucking one of them. If the protesters are concerned about their reputations, perhaps they should not have shown up to the protest and displayed foaming at the mouth, rabid hate and violence against peaceful people wanting to attend a lecture and learn something new.
I spent a few hours last night trying to identify the woman in question. I thought I was clever, but came up empty. None of their graduate+ level “women and gender” turned out. I failed … but I never questioned that I was right to try.
In my opinion, the only cause for second thoughts here at AVfM is in-fighting. When it is necessary, so be it, but I always feel bad about it.
“When civil rights warriors renounce violence, they do not merely turn their weapons into words. They must also turn their words into weapons.”
I wish I could find where that came from. I think it was Ghandi.
Ghandi’s writings are surprisingly cold and cruel. He made no distinction between those who actively practised tyranny and those who tolerated tyranny.
I think the same way. When given a choice between two ways of saying the same thing, I will always pick the words that will cause the most anxiety and distress. My job is to deny peace to those who practice OR tolerate misandry. No excuses. No regrets.
Very few historical civil rights movements have succeeded without force. We gave up force. “Harsh language” is all we have. So keep it harsh!
“We have a moral imperative to deny them the protective cloak of remaining incognito. Otherwise, we are helping them sink to their level, stay there, and do more damage.
I’ll be damned if I will be a party to that.”
You are absolute right Paul, I am sick of people who are a lion on the web and a kitty-cat in the real world.
To me the purpose of MRA is to help make the world a better place.
I agree wholeheartedly with PE’s post. If I may add: in my opinion one major bonus in putting this information out in the web is that it can be used as a reference when talking to ‘non red-pill’ folks, to create context, structured background and in some cases specific details, for them to understand and open up to the idea that men have rights too…
I agree with their outing 100%. They lost any right to anonimity with their criminal behaviour which was targeted specifically at men. Reverse the genders and there would have been a dozen arrests.The police don’t really take assault against men by women seriously, so it’s in our own best interest to be vigilant.
I see no need to “be nice” to these people.
Paul’s decision is absolutely necessary, for it could spread to many other areas where feminists and their enablers get away with false allegations, intimidation etc.
Anyone who disagrees with this either hasn’t been on the receiving end of the witch hunt called feminism, or is a head-in-the-sky idealist.
Because really, all Paul is proposing is to bring the same measure of contempt to these cretins that they inflicted on others. Fairness and all that.
I also submit that any men’s activist who demonstrates such complicity, enabling and rescuing of this kind of criminality is not holding the high ground anywhere except in his or her imagination
Yup.
“concern trolls” is a polite term.
I would use something stronger.
Still got some irons in the fire looking for this ideologue. We will find you.
So many facebook profiles with no headshots these days.
I don’t think it’s fair to label somebody as a troll just because they disagree with your methods. Concern trolls are those who self-identify with your argument, then try to subvert it with “concerns.” Having a legitimately different viewpoint isn’t the same thing as concern trolling.
And even if we have different viewpoints on how the men’s rights movement should proceed, we’re all on the same side. Alienating those who have a different idea of how to promote activism isn’t going to win any friends to the cause.
Mind you, I agree with Paul’s stance. I just don’t think we should be getting defensive and calling people names for holding a different opinion.
Why don’t these self-identifying MRA’s present their views and concerns here on the site?
I too look forward to seeing Shrieking Harridan Grrl join Creepy Bitter Grrl in our feminist hall of shame.
While I usually don’t promote singling out individuals, publicly, to make a logical argument that has nothing to do with individuals (we are, afterall, fighting an idea, not a group of people), I have to agree with Paul in this case.
When you’re protesting, the whole idea is to catch the eye of the public. When you make an ass of yourself while protesting, you don’t get to suddenly claim anonymity. If you don’t want to be in the eye of the public, then stay inside.
I am also very interested in “outting” these protestors, especially such a bold, in-your-face protester,to see where she is coming from.
Is she coming from the student body? Is she a misguided Women’s Studies Kool-Aid drinker, or an “outside agitator”?
The prominent Duke Lacrosse protestor wasn’t even frm Duke University, but was a professional (?) protester.
Inquiring minds want to know.
I concur with this 100%. LOL for MRAs is firmly in your corner, Paul.
How many Agents does that make now, Mr. Orange?
We’ve had some turnover over the last year. Agent Tonya is on extended maternity leave. That leaves Director Redknob (our fearless leader), Napalm Joe, and myself. Rumor has it there is another Agent out there though, not affiliated with LOL for MRAs……Agent Pink.
Well said, you puppy-kicking, kitten eating misogynist bastard. Well said indeed.
Frankly, I think it’s high time we started calling out the institutions and organizations that support these hateful ideologues as well.
I think, for instance, we should paint the UofT as a misandrist, bigoted institution doing nothing to protect male students from these ideologues (and encourage young men everywhere to avoid attending this school). I think we should be shining a light on CUPE (Canadian Public Employees Union) and their unwavering support of such hatred and censorship (they sponsored the protest, after all), and DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY of every last one of them.
And I think we should HEAVILY publicize any refusal to make amends, and be as unforgiving as possible to those refusing to recognize their mistake.
This is where the rubber meets the road Paul. We have public attention that would be well spent drawing attention to the SYSTEMIC approval of this kind of hatred.
Exactly!
Outing these feminazis is nothing more than identifying criminals. If they think they can shroud themselves in anonymity, they will continue with their violence and will get worse with it. Unchallenged means there are no lines they will not cross, even murder. They are bullies that know the police will do nothing against them. If the police did their job properly, it would not be necessary to out them.
Murder? Surely you jest.
A Feminist Killing in Florida by Priscilla Bradford, Murder-Coaching Mom – 1980
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/09/feminist-killing-in-florida-by.html
Motive for Murder: Misandry: The Death of Suat Aydin – 1984
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/07/motive-for-murder-misandry-death-of.html
Each time a supposed MRA attempts to rescue bigots from the spotlight (remember the white knighting for Karavunidis?) it comes across as little more than a shielding of phony reputation and underserved self-esteem – so vital to feminists.
As soon as other women learn that one of their sisters got pinned for her violent behaviour, she will be excommunicated from the girl clan quicker than a man at a NOW convention – her reputation smashed, socially isolated. There’s something poetic about handing bigoted females over to other females for harsh judgment.
Of course the wider community, the police and the University might have something to say about it too. A few journalists might also pick it up, and Registerher.com will hopefully find a new candidate.
Got to add, what an amazing and suitable picture…. looks like one of Dr. F’s originals!
Tawil,
This is a terrific comment you have made just now.
Also, the bits above the last two lines are kind of ok now I think about it.
You already know my stance on this, Mr.Elam.
Stay the course.
If anyone disagrees with this course of action, then let me kindly remind them that none of the bigots that has so far been exposed on these pages, has reared their ugly heads in public again.
Well, except Mrs. Karvunidis, but she sure as hell got quiet again fast after the second round, and she doesn’t come across as the brightest light, anyway.
Sort of an oxymoron in this connection, I know.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Trying to forestall the impending destruction of someone’s reputation and self-esteem, by any chance?
I understand your sentiment but think of it like this:
To make a bridge you shoot an arrow over a canyon that is tethered to some cotton string. The string is tied to thicker twine that is then shot over to the other side.
That twine is tied to rope and then cable and so on.
It’s part of the process and bit players are tomorrow’s starring attractions. Focusing on the core elements is grand, and there is nothing carved in stone that says we “must” look to them only.
Collapse the whole damned circus is the way and if raking in the support acts is the path to the central pole then so be it.
Fuck ‘em all I’ve had enough.
I’m interested in finding the person who decreed answers to men’s suicide should seek answers frm FEMINIST sources rather than MRA.
I would really LIKE to have her theories of male suicide rates to compare with Dr. Farrell’s.
I enjoy hearing from both sides – it’s the same as name calling, you learn so much more about the person or organization promoting those ideals.
Why was she trying to obfuscate Warren Farrell’s theory with feminist doctrine?
Why is only Feminist doctrine the only acceptable information source?
What were these people so damn afraid of?
What were these people so damn afraid of?
The truth
A great article Paul, name and shame all the way!
Great painting too Dr F, the colours really fit the festive season.
Hear! Hear! Bring on the spotlight.
It comes down to this, for me. I will defend those students’ right to stand there and yell whatever they want to yell, no matter how much I disagree with it. I will defend their right to put up posters wherever they want with any message that they want.
However, I do not accept getting up in the faces of students, calling them names, and blocking entrances to public buildings. Police have always done nothing when groups of people block access to public buildings. I have seen this dozens of times. They just go stand there and do nothing. Police should have the right to begin handcuffing people who are blocking the doors. If people blocked the doors to their POLICE STATION they would arrest people and disperse the crowd within SECONDS. Not minutes, but SECONDS. But, police don’t want to protect ALL of the property they are sworn in to protect from being blockaded from public access by resistance groups.
Furthermore, let’s see some police officers have their access to their police cars get blocked by a bunch of hippie college students. Would senior officers tell junior officers that “there has been a delay” and “you won’t be able to get to your police car at this time”. Yeah, I really see that going down.
Most colleges have a minimum level of respect that students are required to treat each other with. Here, we are expected to refrain from disrespecting other students. That level of name calling and physical invasion of another student’s space until he is forced to walk backward would be punishable at this university, for example. I would be willing to bet that this girl was in violation of a policy at U of T that requires her to avoid harassing other students. I know that a lot of colleges have “zero tolerance” policies on bullying. I would also bet that U of T will do nothing about it. However, if it were him calling her “false rape fabricating scum” while putting his face near hers, forcing her to walk backward, as he continued to advance forward, repeating that personal attack over and over again as he did so, I would bet that the school would find him in violation of some policy of student conduct and would likely punish him in some way. Of course, I don’t know any of this for sure, so it is just speculation.
Here, we are expected to refrain from disrespecting other students. That level of name calling and physical invasion of another student’s space until he is forced to walk backward would be punishable at this university, for example.
Only if YOU did it to a Princess or her White Knight, I’d bet. If she kicked you in the nuts, I’ll warrant the PTB would regard it as seriously as if she were house-training a puppy.
Yep Paul,
Go totally Rock n Roll on this dangerous deranged woman who had the temerity to insult one of the most wise and endearing men I’ve ever had the pleasure to meet. Sing of her actions using the tallest most powerful speaker stack you can find brother.
I read Farrel’s book – “The Myth of Male Power” and attended one of his Compassion for Men workshops back in the early 1990s. A few years later I had the pleasure of spending time with him one on one.
These were massive red pill moments for me.
He is the polar opposite of the shrieking hatemonger you rightly seek to expose to the light of day.
For anyone interested it’s possible to download a PDF document of an interview with Warren Farrel about ‘The Myth of Male Power” here –
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewmalestudies.com%2FOJS%2Findex.php%2Fnms%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F35%2F36&ei=tpnCUIOzJOf9iwK-1oDIDA&usg=AFQjCNE6yH05yPj6M5lt9EJNjvXWXN00pA&sig2=-7gGNyp5LS2yvP2Uf9M9Aw
Suggestion to MRAs – “The Myth of Male Power” book would make a great stocking filler for that wavering feminist relative.
Yep Paul,
Go totally Rock n Roll on this dangerous deranged woman who had the temerity to insult one of the most wise and endearing men I’ve ever had the pleasure to meet. Sing of her actions using the tallest most powerful speaker stack you can find brother.
I read Farrel’s book – “The Myth of Male Power” and attended one of his Compassion for Men workshops back in the early 1990s. A few years later I had the pleasure of spending time with him one on one.
These were massive red pill moments for me.
He is the polar opposite of the shrieking hatemonger you rightly seek to expose to the light of day.
For anyone interested it’s possible to download a PDF document of an interview with Warren Farrel about ‘The Myth of Male Power” here –
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewmalestudies.com%2FOJS%2Findex.php%2Fnms%2Farticle%2Fdownload%2F35%2F36&ei=tpnCUIOzJOf9iwK-1oDIDA&usg=AFQjCNE6yH05yPj6M5lt9EJNjvXWXN00pA&sig2=-7gGNyp5LS2yvP2Uf9M9Aw
Suggestion to MRAs – “The Myth of Male Power” book or audiotape would make a great stocking filler for that wavering feminist relative.
When ever anyone makes a public statement they are careful how they word it. Why? Because they don’t want it to.come back and bite them in the ass. Feminist have felt no such pressure. They know that no matter what they say no one will oppose them. That is until now. This is the most important thing we do. We push back. We call them on their bullshit. They no longer feel free to spout hate. They now that somewhere there is an MRA waiting to pounce. This is how we turn the tide. It starts with calling people out on their hate and lies. This is why internet activism is still important and always will be important. But we can’t stop there. Finding out who these people are and posting their real names and identities along side what they have done is how we win. Soon they will think twice about engaging in such blatant bigotry for they know that we will catalog their names in the library of the internet and their actions will follow them for the rest of their life. This is how the end of feminism begins. When people see that feminism carries a stench with it and anonymity isn’t an option they will fall away. The number of feminist supporters will shrink.
We are pulling the hoods of the kkk. We won’t let them practice their hate in anonymity. We must do this. If we don’t we might as well pack up our tents and go home.
I just wish I could do more to help.
Agreed 100% as usual Paul.
Off-topic, has anyone written anything on this yet?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/03/asking-men-to-leave-feminist-film
I haven’t yet but here comes my comment:
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr and Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ***ing Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
This is where the rubber hits the road. Enemies of mens rights have no qualms whatsoever and based on zero evidence of the most disgusting smears with little or no consequence. For example there are a bunch of radfems crowd flooding the #mensrights hashtag with messages like:
“reminder #mensrights are rapist’s rights. #mensrights are domestic abuser’s rights. do not support the “MRM” in any form. #killallmen ” retweeted a dozen times to keep it as a top tweet on the #mensrights hashtag.
The feminist posting that and other similar offensive messages does not get banned or suspended but others who have issued no such hate speech even in retaliation have had their accounts suspended on the flimsiest of pretexts. I have also discovered that the person in charge of suspensions and bans etc (head of twitter “safety”) is a woman. Not that in iself should make a difference but from what I have seen so far it does look like she tows the mainstream feminist line.
That’s why I said this is where the rubber hits the road as we are facing entrenched bigotry and many of the worst offenders have learned how to leverage this entrenched bias to their fullest advantage. We are facing folks who have never even heard of the Marquess of Queensbury let alone his rules. These people only know one style of “play” and that is dirty.
Many of those protestors will one day probably have roles of influence in public life affecting other peoples lives especially that of boys and men. If all they learn at this stage is that they can get away with lies and outrageous smears against those trying to redress the ignored half of their so called “egalitarian” concerns then things will only get worse.
folks who have never even heard of the Marquess of Queensbury let alone his rules.
That is a male only dynamic.
Well exactly and feminists love it the more men are trapped by that mode of thinking and action. To them it’s an easy fight because they aren’t playing by any rules ie whatver it takes to win.
Not suggesting we fight fire with fire exactly but we for sure need to unhamstring ourselves from outmoded notions of chivalry when dealing with people like this.
It’s my belief RadFems are cowards but have gotten used to getting away with far too much.
If more of them thought there might be consequences especially ones that could affect their careers or career prospects then they might think twice before acting.
Spare the rod and heaven knows how many future fathers and their childrens lives will be blighted or indeed shortened by the sick policies they may one day help inflict on us. Meanwhile some marginalised men like the guy in this video spell out what lack of concern for mens humanity is costing us.
These are the folks I have compassion for not the pampered bigots helping perpetuate these ongoing atrocities against humanity.
This is a great article. Fits my sentiments exactly. All you guys working hard at outing these people. Keep up the good work I’m hitting the Donate button again.
Got it. Thank you!
Brilliantly articulated post, Dr Elam.
The Achilles heel of young feminists today is the joy they take in wallowing in the fantasy that the patriarchy actively oppresses and undermines them every moment of their lives. They are entirely ignorant of how thoroughly protected and coddled they have been from the day they were spoon-fed their first dollop of ‘boys-are-stupid’ misandry.
Every ideological absurdity that has ever popped into their heads – or been artfully put there – has been nurtured, rewarded and encouraged. Gold stars for ‘commitment’ awarded to the most violent and extreme. These young feminists are Bubble Girls, safely cocooned in their controlled, consequence-free environments. Nothing within their experience has ever indicated that it is possible to burst those bubbles.
Until now.
Bubble Girls, meet Paul Elam and his crew. As you can see, we have the biggest pricks you will ever encounter in your lives – and we know exactly how to use them. That nose-ringed Ratbag has already had her bubble burst and is currently on the lam. There is no escape – she will be identified eventually.
It is possible that she is not actually affiliated with that particular university – she may have been bussed in, as it were, to cause havoc. Her methods seem practiced and professional which indicates that she’s done this before – often.
When she is apprehended, it will be very instructive to watch the display of hypocrisy and hysteria that follows. Jenna Myers Karvunidis dissolved into a puddle of tears and false accusations (mysterious packages left on her doorstep – probably by Fed-Ex couriers delivering her e-bay goodies, unnerved by the wailing from inside). She even sent in her hubby – the one she sneers about on her blog – to appeal to us chap to chap. Poor man.
The resounding motif of the Karvunidis appeal was that it was all so unfair. It always is. Eugenicist and gendercide enthusiast, Pamela O’Shaughnessy, also found her outing to be profoundly unfair. The charge of unfairness has also been leveled at AVFM for attempting to out the Nose-ringed Ratbag from the University of Toronto, by someone I first assumed to be the Nose-ringed Ratbag’s mother – until I remembered the white knight effect. I whole-heartedly support Dr Elam’s position on this issue. It is the morally correct position for many reasons.
What happened to the young man who tried to enter the lecture theatre was, to put it very mildly, unfair. Our sympathy and support reside with him simply because he deserves it. As you can see, that young man, and countless like him, doesn’t have a bubble to protect him. He doesn’t even have the police to protect him. He has us, and frankly, we don’t have that many weapons at our disposal to discourage or pre-empt such situations. So, we had better wield whatever weapons we do have precisely and effectively. Outing is one of them.
For those who are disposed to concern themselves with the future happiness of vicious Nose-ringed Ratbags, I have this to say. It is my firm belief that the only hope of salvation for these coddled bigots is to liberate from their bubbles. Such liberation can only be possible upon contact with the sharp and rampant pricks at AVFM. Not in my wildest fantasy would I ever expect a feminist hooligan to consider the possibility that she may be embarrassed by her behaviour because there is actually something wrong with it. If she possessed that kind of innate decency, she wouldn’t have been spitting in that young man’s face in the first place.
No. I am expecting the usual rivers of self-pitying tears designed to spur white knights to action, accusations of cyber-bullying – and, of course, the deep and lamentable unfairness of it all. That should be feminism’s epitaph: ‘It was all so unfair (sob).’
Standing dick-wielding ovation, followed closely by snickering laughter and rubbing of hands.
“These young feminists are Bubble Girls, safely cocooned in their controlled, consequence-free environments. Nothing within their experience has ever indicated that it is possible to burst those bubbles.”
I’m pretty sure that not even a global scale disaster, like massive earthquakes, tsunamis or storms, would do the trick.
They would swiftly learn to seek the protection of men, but they would still secretly despise them. What they’re doing right now is increasingly counter productive to the possibility of survival, should such an event ever happen.
We have just been Andy-Bobbed.
Andy-Bobbed
I like it.
Nose-ringed Ratbags has a, err, ring to it as well.
Yes Scatters, and the ring of which you speak of does pierce.
Oww, Pardon.
I am amazed how AVfM/MRAs can Identify these misandric asshats like they do. Good on them. Those (the misandric) losers are dangerous idiots and should not be tolerated
I don’t really subscribe to the Zero-Tolerance policy. There are some things that are so stupid, and come from sources so stupid, that they just are not worth acknowledging.
The incident in the video however, is not trivial. It is the kind of thing that should never be ignored nor tip-toed around.
Well in the comments of these articles I seem to be the only one who has a substantial disagreement with you on this issue (and nothing here seems to reference me directly). I’d naturally like to read what the others had to say first-hand.
Yep Paul,
Go totally Rock n Roll on this dangerous deranged woman who had the temerity to insult one of the most wise and endearing men I’ve ever had the pleasure to meet. Sing of her actions using the tallest most powerful speaker stack you can find brother.
I read Farrel’s book – “The Myth of Male Power” and attended one of his Compassion for Men workshops back in the early 1990s. A few years later I had the pleasure of spending time with him one on one.
These were massive red pill moments for me.
He is the polar opposite of the shrieking hatemonger you rightly seek to expose to the light of day.
Suggestion to MRAs – “The Myth of Male Power” book or audiotape would make a great stocking filler for that wavering feminist relative.
I am reading that book right now…. Its just amazing. Dr. Farrell is the best person ever to write on Mens issues.
Fucking awesome.
No wonder the marxist feminist cult members are terrified of this guy. He is calm, speaks clearly, is thoughtful and reasonable, and worst of all, he is just plain honest. Scary!
Agreed Agreed Agreed.
That lady who kept on scaring away men by calling them “Fucking Scum” should be identified and brought to light and justice.
A complaint must be lodged against her for threatening and harassing innocent men who just wanted to hear what Dr. Farrell had to say.
Just watching that lady screaming and yelling “Fucking Scum” and ostracizing innocent men was very very scary. She deserves to be in a prison and not in the society.
Clearly she was harassing innocent men and Police officers on duty.
I totally support you guys.
You are us and we are you in this.
Agreed with Dr.F on this one:
When you look at us, you’re looking at yourself. Most of us have had enough for a long time, and it looks like you agree with this.
We want an end to the star chambers, the cover-ups, the back-room deals in perfume filled rooms, the data hoaxes, the fake history (“herstory”), the court/petitioner extortion rackets, the censorship, the secrecy surrounding child abuse ordered by the courts (including CPS druggings, molestations and deaths. So of course we want the hoods off these hate-mongers and Alinskean indoctrinators.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I fully support AVFM’s stance on this, which is also much more consonant with the philosophies of civil rights leaders in the past: direct action that brings the inner tension and inner wickedness of the unjust and the corrupt out into the open, where it can be seen and dealt with.
Anonymity is the shield of cowards. Bigots of all forms hate the light of day as anonymity relieves them of the responsibility of having to explain or defend their hateful diatribes.
To suggest that the veil of anonymity not be lifted on gender ideologues is akin to abetting them in their campaign of hate.
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” Edmund Burke
Awesome article.
Awesome photo!
FTSU.
Shine the light on this one too Paul!
From one of feminists own sources I found this description of Emotional / Psychological / Verbal Abuse:
Threats and coercive tactics
Controlling what the victim can and cannot do
Undermining a victim’s self-worth and self-esteem
Humiliation, denigration
Threatening to harm or kill a pet
Isolating the victim from family or friends
Blaming the abuse on the victim
Interrogating the victim and their children
Name-calling and yelling
Comparing this list to what happened in Toronto, it appears that the feminists protestors were guilty of ALL of these crimes except maybe pet-threatening.
SO, I agree – out those assholes.
Source: http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/inbriefs/domesticviolence/domesticviolence.html
I say give credit where credit is due.
I was on the fence about this before but after this article and the comment about Feminists reporting copyright violations on the youtube videos that merely and rightfully recorded their hypocritical lynching of men in public pushed me to your side.
Absolutely. If they are ashamed of their behavior then they should not behave that way. If they are merely concerned about their privacy then they should indeed wear white pointy hoods that cover their faces, that would be fitting.
Welcome:
Stick around your eyes will be opened even wider.
These feminist chumps are nothing if not consistent. They make the same mistake over and over again. They try to discredit us in some way, and then by doing so, they attract more attention to the MRM. I hope and pray that these childish nitwits do not eventually get one of us killed. But I do hope that they keep it up. They’re doing more for us than we could ever do for ourselves.
To put this in perspective; there isn’t a college or university administration in the USA today that would allow Warren Farrell on their campus grounds to speak anywhere…even in those cute little “free speech zones”.
The Kanukafeminsts might yell and try and stir violence, but at least U of T administration allowed him to speak.
“Those who control the podium, control the debate.” – Warren Farrell
I agree. They have “allowed” Barbara Kay and some other notables to come there, but I am not quite ready to hand them a cookie as a reward in exchange for having a crumb tossed in our direction.
Remember that CAFE, the group that arranged the Farrell talk, and the others, has run into one obstruction after another trying to get a charter from the administration of U of T. They are being stonewalled so that men will have no sanctioned voice on that campus,
The administration has also failed to denounce and investigate this violent demonstration on their grounds, further enabling the culprits and contributing to a culture of violence developing on campus there.
No, no cookie for them indeed.
As Erin Prizzey said in the video posted on AVFM.
Canada is a scary place indeed. University of Ottawa which I plan to target with the stickers Steven is sending me banned Ann Coulter from speaking there. Canada is a hotbed of misandry.
I think the number one reason those feminists don’t want to be publicly named is because Canada has hate speech law’s, as well as hate crime law’s.
They may not be held accountable today or even tomorrow, but sooner or later they will be.
Hate speech laws do not apply to feminists.
The Canadian human rights commissions are full of them.
Trust me having dealt with them I know.
Blazing Cat Fur has posted on this issue as well. Hope is wife Kathy Shaidle from PJMedia and Takimag picks it up as well.
http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.ca/2012/12/shrill-backlash-to-mens-rights-advocate.html
One of the realizations Paul Elam has enabled me to see by his steadfast condemnation of feminine hatred towards men is how outrageous the dehumanization of men really is at the hands of feminism. The actions of this woman spewing such vile, overt, unwarranted hatred to the face of a man who only wants to hear a lecture in the referenced video should, in a world of genuine humanitarian interest, be overtly condemned for the obvious cruelty this woman manifests.
How can any reasonable objection be made to an effort to bring this hateful woman to account for her inhuman actions? To protest that effort demeans the fact that we men happen to be human beings of equal status to women and such denigration should under no circumstances be tolerated.
While I completely agree with Paul, I also completely understand the concerns of those who go against him on this. There is a danger, particularly from younger, less wise and more impulsive MRAs (those in the late teens-early 20s category) for things to get equally ugly once they have been unmasked.
Do they deserve mercy? Far from it. However should we be merciful and show restraint with the unmasking? If we wish to be a human rights movement and the antithesis of a hate movement, then the answer has to be an unequivocal “yes”.
Yet that is where the danger lies and where we have a responsibility to uphold- purely because our interest is in justice rather than revenge.
So what am I saying? By all means, expose them as hatemongers and bigots – ensure that everyone in their life knows of their crimes. However beyond that, the facts should speak for themselves. Noone should be getting hotheaded and resorting to feminist tactics.
I know what the older heads might be tempted to be offended at such a notion even being suggested. However this isn’t directed at the older heads. We already know in the case of one MRA who is in his teens (and in his defence, he was being a “typical teenager”) that we’ve had to reign in and redirect his anger.
Well when we start publicly outing these unstable chauvinists (and there’s no other way to describe radical feminists) we’re going to have many readers out there who may not be active, may be young and impulsive and through the net might track them down and stoop to the level of feminists (death threats et al).
So in short, we definitely need to yank off their hoods unflinchingly, however we need to do so in a way which is done on a foundation of the restraint we older heads practice, and is subsequently imparted into the younger heads of the movement.
Absolutely expose the people and who they are. Expose, expose, expose.
By exposing them you are shining a light on a very well connected and hateful bunch of lies. Nothing bad can come of it and I applaud Paul Elam and all you MRAs that are doing this valuable and important work.
Shit, do it for all the guys that have been setup by groups of these women that hate us so much and walk amongst us.
I admit I have mixed feelings about this, and while it may be late for me to be thinking about this, I am not sure your post draws bright enough lines.
Fundamentally, if this woman is over 18, then I think you are well within your rights and “propriety” to out her.
Also, if she really spit on the student then she may be guilty of a battery.
And it is also the case that frequently we hear an argument from feminists a long the lines that “free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for that speech”. And given that, well, again, your outing this woman was reasonable.
My problem is that I think that if responsibility for that speech means either losing a job, or threats from dissenters of outing, embarrassment, harassment, or worse, than I can’t agree with the argument that “free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for that speech”. That sort of harassment amounts to intimidation that can stifle speech.
And I’d rather have more speech then less speech.
Anyway, speaking of bright lines, and I am not thinking clearly, I wish I could enunciate some principles of yours that would allow me to understand when you would and when you would not out a person.
Online behavior?
Real world behavior?
What sorts of behavior?
Moderately obnoxious behavior, or threats, or what?
What age?
How would you feel if the anonymous contributors here were outed?
I do think you strengthen your stance in how you write here with your non-anonymous name.
Kudos to you Paul.
If you have a problem with things like job loss or outing as consequences for hate speech, what do you believe would be the appropriate consequences for it?
In general, I dislike labeling speech as hate speech. I dislike hate speech laws. I prefer to see ugly speech countered with more speech.
I think people that say ugly things should be countered with more speech. Outing them is one thing. Losing a job seems more like bullying then rebuttal. It seems more like stifling, than dialogue. It seems likely to build up resentment rather than progress.
I also dislike that so many people have to go through life afraid of their thoughts and words getting out — this in the land of free speech.
No wonder we all live lives of quiet desperation — we are justifiably afraid of losing our jobs if we speak our minds.
Of course, tenured profs, especially women’s studies profs get to speak their minds with impunity, but if you or I say what we feel about the abuse of women’s rights, we can lose our jobs.
At another level, I am Jewish, and when I visit forums like FARK (a site I love), I am often appalled at the amount of anti-semitism (not anti-Zionism, but anti-semitism) expressed in various threads.
Some sites would take that down — hate speech.
I appreciate that FARK lets it be seen — let people see that these sorts of hateful attitudes towards Jews, towards men, even towards women exist.
Don’t sweep ugly speech under a rug. Don’t stifle it. Respond to it. The answer to ugly speech is more speech.
That’s what I try to believe….