Ally Fogg: liar’s harem

A few days ago Ally Fogg wrote an article about domestic violence for “Free” Thought Blogs. Save a couple of stupendous blunders betraying his motivation it was a pretty decent piece. It was so good, in fact, that it actually marked a policy shift at FTB, which is to seldom if ever deviate from the feminist narrative of any subject, much less something as incendiary as the subject of intimate partner violence.

Still Fogg did the basics of what he was supposed to do. He laid bare the laughable canard of men being the sole perpetrators of domestic violence, exposed the tip of the iceberg on feminist backlash against research, and researchers, in dissent from the feminist narrative, and proffered the need to revise our approach to the problem of violence with research-based, fact-driven solutions. In other words, Fogg said what MHRAs have been saying since before he could spell DV.

I should be happy, right? A quasi-feminist is admitting some of the facts. His ideas have been published (and remained standing) on a blog known for extirpating all noncompliance with ideological feminist doctrine. A comment section that has almost approached thoughtful has emerged at FTB as a result. So am I happy?

Uh, no. Not even close. Nor should anyone else be if they have even a remote interest in ridding society of the real problems that have prevented us from developing and implementing a sensible model for addressing violence in the home.

Fogg’s first fail flops in early, when he attempts to define the root of the misunderstanding by drawing from Kate Millett’s 1970 Radfem opus, “Sexual Politics.”

Excepting a social license to physical abuse among certain class and ethnic groups, force is diffuse and generalized in most contemporary patriarchies. Significantly, force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical violence. Where differences in physical strength have become immaterial through the use of arms, the female is rendered innocuous by her socialization. Before assault she is almost universally defenceless both by her physical and emotional training. Needless to say, this has the most far-reaching effects on the social and psychological behaviour of both sexes.

Please note Millett’s use of the term “patriarchies.” Let it sink in, because as you read through Fogg’s agenda ridden analysis, you won’t see it mentioned again. It is as though he never noticed it in the first place, despite the fact that patriarchy theory forms the critical foundation for the feminist narrative on domestic violence and most of their other ideological talking points.

Opting away from addressing the core issue, Fogg simply regurgitates perspective that has been addressed here and other places for a number of years; that being a look at the work of Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz and Richard Gelles, how their research pointed to gender symmetry in intimate partner violence, and how their findings resulted in death threats and a tsunami of academic backlash – assumedly from feminist ideologues.

I am sure this might have wowed the crowd at FTB, as they are a rather insulated group thanks to their mindless allegiance to the edicts of PZ Myers. But there is nothing new here, and nothing ultimately useful from Fogg’s rather lackluster attempt to catch up to, co-opt and modify AVFM successes in changing the public discourse about domestic violence.

Again, what he fails at most miserably, consciously or not, is in understanding that it is feminism’s Patriarchy Theory that is at the root of feminist disinformation about domestic violence (and most everything else) in the first place. Patriarchy Theory, which embraces the idea that all social and legal power was conferred upon men, as a class, at the expense of women, as a class, is no more rational or provable than Millett’s completely vapid statement that, “Significantly, force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical violence.”

This is the incontinent elephant in the living room that Fogg doesn’t notice, and why he instead opts to sing old songs for a new crowd, and attack a few people while he does it. We can call Fogg’s approach “rehash and bash.”

The bashing is just as important to the theme as the rehashing, and ultimately reveals his motives. In Fogg’s penultimate paragraph he links to an article of mine he defines as “violently misogynistic.” To wit:

My contempt for the feminists who have actively obstructed efforts to help men is matched by my contempt for those men who seek to actively undermine women’s services with sneering, paranoid references to a ‘domestic violence industry’, or violently misogynistic reactions to any perceived provovation[sic]. Two wrongs do not make a right.  

Nor do three, Mr. Fogg. Let me explain, even as I sit chuckling at the idea that a man has expressed contempt for me doing something I have never done, and for which he knowingly offers a red herring as proof. Oh yes, it is particularly comical given the fact that he is doing this in the middle of an ostentatious nobility fit intended to dramatize his good character.

Three years ago I wrote a satirical, and somewhat belated response to an article on in which the staff of that publication and their readers were having a grand old time bragging to each other and backslapping over who had been the most physically abusive with their male partners.

It was the most disgusting display of domestic violence glorification I have seen, before or since.

I wrote a particularly provocative response to it, in order to demonstrate how that sort of mentality might appear in a scenario where the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. In it, I made some overtly graphic references to the violence and proclaimed that we were declaring a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

Now, I knew at the time the possible reaction to this kind of satire. And as the fumbling Fogg has just linked to it again, three years later, it seems my call on the reaction was not far off the mark. So, when I wrote it, I was sure to include a few words which were completely accurate, if not wholly traditional in satire. I said, in reference to the proposed violence and the “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” the following:

Now, am I serious about this?


I know, it is sort of like opening a carton of milk for a kid at recess instead of letting him figure out how to do it on his own. Such are the needs of part of our audience in the realm of gender politics. I will let you decide who needs the extra help, but I might suggest that some of the candidates for said assistance are those “Free” Thought Bloggers who were just shoveled a load of Ally Fogg’s bullshit that my article was a serious, misogynistic call to violence and an attempt to undermine services for women who need them.

Fogg is out here now, “advocating” for men’s issues, complaining vociferously about the antics of disingenuous ideologues, yet falsely painting other advocates as violent misogynists and, quite stunningly, denying that a multi-billion dollar industry is an industry.

Surely there is a reason?

Of course there is. It is the same reason he tacitly takes shots, though much less nasty ones, at Gelles, Steinmetz and Straus, by calling the notion of symmetry “nonsensical,” and generally painting the erudite trio as myopic for even believing in something as silly as domestic violence in the first place.

It is the same reason he has been insulting to Peter Lloyd for suing a gym for the very straightforward issue of charging him the same money as women to work out there, but then forcing him to do what amounts to a perp walk out the front door every day so that women can have the place to themselves, free from his self-esteem deflating view.

Indeed there must be reasons why no one from Paul Elam to Peter Lloyd to Richard Gelles pass muster with Fogg.

My guess is regressive, hierarchical, banty rooster masculinity that could only be made more comical with a codpiece and a chest toupée. A poster boy for biological determinism, Ally Fogg wants a harem, and he intends to get there by being the One Good Man.

He is not the bad, bad man like Peter Lloyd, who would disallow women’s special privilege over men at the gym (read: retail sector). He is not like that bad, bad man Paul Elam that would speak the truth to women without considering their feelings first and whether or not it set well with them to hear it (emotional/interpersonal sector).

He is even better and smarter and oh so much more socially conscious than the people who totally (and quite bravely) debunked the patriarchal explanation for domestic violence in the first place. In fact, if you just listen to him, The One Good Man, you will discover that there is not only no such thing as a domestic violence industry, you will indeed find that domestic violence itself is not even a thing.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

What Ally Fogg is counting on is the same thing that male feminists and white knights have been counting on for ages: duping women into believing he is the alpha dawg, for realz. That is same-same speak for The One Good Man.

He wants to show the world, particularly the world of vaginas, that he is The One Man to whom they can safely listen. Like a 3,000,000 year old artifact of a pre-modern climber in the male hierarchy, Fogg is preening for position and stature. And like most men who spend life in craven pursuit of female approval and attention, he requires scapegoats to get the job done.

That is why he chose a male-bashing, ideologically driven pro-feminist forum that panders to the likes of Rebecca Watson, Ophelia Benson and pretty much anyone else peddling a gynocentric threat narrative. He fits with that crowd like Dr. Phil fits with Oprah’s girl-audience.

He imagines he is a part of the new paradigm (indeed he apparently fantasizes that he is creating it), all while he is oblivious to the fact that his shtick, including the lies, is ten years behind the learning curve and as old school as a ram looking for a head to butt. He is likely not aware that he is butting heads with his own ghost. Not to worry though, scoring points with pearl-clutching women out of thin air is neither new nor so shopworn that it won’t still get some play. Though I do expect we will eventually see a one-up as followup article from PZ not too far down the road. If Fogg gets traction with the FTB crowd, Myers won’t long stay silent. He will be there with the “real, real, real” story on intimate partner violence. It will be alpha wars, a secular death match.

Here’s the rub. Fogg senses, and quite correctly, that the days of the old feminist narrative are coming to an end. He is betting that even the readers of FTB are starting to smell the coffee, even if it is the pedestrian, cheapo brand from the corner market. He knows that the vacuum left in formerly occupied space of feminist thought must, to one degree or another,  correct misguided feminist dogma, thus his pointed but ineffectual attacks on their ideas and tactics.

He wants to be the correction, but his lead-in is just more toxic fakery. He advises us that two wrongs don’t make a right, and then proves it in spades.

He is recognizing, as apparently is PZ Myers, Lisa Hickey and every other ideologue slipping market ground because they don’t know what the fuck they are talking about when it comes to sexual politics, that a change in direction is needed.

Fogg’s biggest mistake is in that he is clueless about how and why things are actually changing. If he had said clue, this website would not be on his target list, and neither would people who actually know the subject matter. He certainly would not be spreading lies about them.

Men like Fogg are typically, however, far less interested in what is actually happening than they are in making themselves appear as though they are in the driver’s seat. Thus he is trying to establish himself as an expert on the new phenomenon, as a member of the vanguard — as The One Good Man.

What all this boils down to, as we continue to untether ourselves from 50 years of feminist agitprop, step around the occasional patch of semantic quicksand and bullshit from people like Fogg and begin to clear the rubble from a war of the sexes that was entirely concocted and waged by feminist ideologues, is that the only thing that will pull us out of the miasma of gender hatred will be a new social contract between men and women. It will require women developing a stomach for the truth, and men developing spine enough to speak it, even to women who can’t stomach it.

Truth. Critical word, that. And so is spine, Mr. Fogg.

Men like you, subscribing to lies, telling them, and disingenuously fucking other men over for the sake of female approval, are precisely why we are out here now, cleaning up the mess.

  • reyeko

    “the female is rendered innocuous by her socialization” yeah right.

    MEANWHILE in reality boys are being drugged into compliance and people like Nicole Doucet(Michael Ryans ex-wife) for just one example of thousands get off scot-free for attempting to hire a hitman.

  • Alexander Hunt

    It’s funny. I can kind of hear this Bob Dylan song. Something about people gathering around wherever they roam…

  • Dr. F (Ian Williams)

    This bloke says about himself and his blog the following;

    “This blog is dedicated to exploring gender issues from a male perspective, unshackled from any dogmatic ideology. Ally is often accused of being a feminist lapdog and an anti-feminist quisling; a misogynist and a misandrist; a mangina and a closet MRA,”

    The man has himself covered doesn’t he? I can see him sitting on a dozen fences at the same time going, “Nyar nyar. You can’t get meeeee because I got no strong thoughts about anything so there!”

    Hmmm, Seems to me it’s his thinking that isn’t strong, and not just the thoughts themselves. The etymology of his name reveals a man who sees bugger all in a thick fog trapped in a dead-end alleyway.

    • Fredrik

      I remain, as always, utterly contemptuous of the post-modern pride of people who present themselves as if they stand above the partisan fray of filthy politics. In allegorical reality, they are as transparently adolescent as Achilles in his tent, trying to rage-quit a battle that won’t let them (and get laid instead) — but with pretensions of intellectualism, which just makes it worse.

      It’s one thing to decide that two parties are not enough to properly represent one’s point of view, as AVfM has. It is no great stretch to imagine that there are more than two sides, which would only take one dimension. But to claim that you don’t have any position on a particular axis? Piffle and poppycock.

  • crydiego

    Great analysis Paul.
    The frozen river is starting break up and the rats are scouring around for the safest ice. They just don’t hear the falls up ahead; yet!

  • re-construct

    Giving American law enforcement “federal pork bloating dollars” for male domestic violence arrest statistics, and no “federal pork bloating dollars” for female arrest statistics is problematic.

  • Mark Trueblood

    Many gender ideologues complain that “the Patriarchy” renders women powerless. Yet, these same gender ideologues are happy to push the primitive notion, shared by much of humanity, that women aren’t fully capable of being violent on their own volition.

    If society is to evolve, women must no longer be regarded as lady-vessels who can’t be held responsible for their actions. They must be regarded as adults fully capable of the full range of human action, from the best to the worst.

    I believe that women are adults. It is such a sadness to me that only a small minority do.

  • AJ Moving On

    This guy says there’s no “domestic violence industry”? Really. I can attest that there is. I hope some woman lies on him and he goes through that grinder. Then, he’ll be a believer.

  • Dean Esmay

    I suspect our very presence allows Ally to move the rabid ideologues toward the the factual, logical, humanist point of view (the argument that there is no domestic violence, there is just violence, is somewhat silly but I suppose defensible) while simultaneously striking a pose to throw us under the bus, irrespective of the fact that for literally decades now those of us talking about these things have been routinely ignored and smeared; we finally get loud and obnoxious, and now supposedly we’re the problem because we’re loud and obnoxious, but somehow we’ve suddenly made it safe for people to speak about this issues by saying they’re not “one of those angry MRA guys.”

    Whatever works to change attitudes, I guess. If the aggressively ignorant FreeThoughtBlogs crowd can be made to acknowledge factual reality in some fashion around this issue, there can be more progress. So I guess I wish Ally luck there.

    I rather suspect they invited Ally because they’re still embarrassed about the Thunderf00t fiasco, they know they did wrong, they know there’s some seriously damaged ideological thinking going on, and they have to find some non-feminist, non-gynocentric way of discussing the issues. I’d tell Ally he’s slumming but I suspect he knows it. Either that or he really is as thick as he comes off here. Either way the red pill seeps out, so it’s a net plus I guess.

    • Room101

      “they know there’s some seriously damaged ideological thinking going on, and they have to find some non-feminist, non-gynocentric way of discussing the issues.”

      Many people might not have developed a good counter argument to feminism(or any ideology for that matter), but they know when they are being repackaged the same old bullshit they have heard 1000 times before. They might not completely understand the agenda, but they know there is an agenda there.

  • DeclanLyons

    I can’t wait to see if PZ does actually respond to Ally Fogg. PZ, R. Watson and O. Benson all spoke at the Empowering Women Through Secularism conference in Dublin this weekend and I don’t think it sold many tickets.

    Less than a week before the event was due to start the tickets were still being sold at the early booking price and free scholarship tickets were being offered to applicants.

    I might have even attended myself if it weren’t for two reasons: The three FtB idiots and the fact that there was no mention of addressing women’s rights in the third world.

    So PZ might be heading home after seeing how badly a conference, which was ostensibly about first-world women’s issues, was received, and to a fairly positively-received article on men’s rights on FtB. Let’s see if begins to see the light or if he digs his heels in, put his fingers in his ears and starts saying la-la-la-la-la to himself. My money’s on the latter.

  • wtfwhatever

    Read in the comments of that post where he explains why he doesn’t think there is a “dv industry”.

    His answer speaks to a lot of ignorance and naivete.


    Why do I object to the phrase “domestic violence industry”?

    1. Because it inaccurately implies that those involved are part of a business, rather than the non-profit sector.
    2. Because it implies an element of manufacture which is (with very rare exceptions) untrue.
    3. Because it echoes the nasty rightwing smear against most charities that those involved are in it for their own ends / financial reasons. Virtually everyone who works in DV services (and similar) could have a lower stress, higher paid career elsewhere, and they do it because they believe in it.
    4. Because it is a self-destructive grenade. The exact same accusation can be (and occasionally is) turned against those who make efforts for male victims. So it becomes corrosive for everyone who genuinely cares about the issue.

    the difference with the Military-Industrial Complex is that the arms trade / military imperialism is absolutely central to the current global economy. Big-picture politics are intimately wrapped up with the economy of war. That’s not remotely true of DV services.

    To my mind, anyone who rants about “the DV industry” is less concerned with making sure everybody gets the help they need and more concerned with making sure some people do not.

    • sasha

      Indeed. “Why do I object to the phrase “domestic violence industry”?Because it inaccurately implies that those involved are part of a business, rather than the non-profit sector.”

      Last year Sandra Horley, the CEO of Refuge – the UK charity that is the successor to the shelters established by our own Erin Pizzey – received a total pay package of £190,000, including £70,000 pension contributions.

  • Booyah

    The implication that DV is not an industry is totally laughable.
    The feminist narrative of handing out heaping serves of misandry while “combatting” misogyny is proof in itself for anyone with half a brain.
    Misogyny breeds misandry. Misandry breeds misogyny. Its a viscous cycle. By tackling only misogyny and upping the ante on misandry, feminism guarantees that the misogyny business share will grow and there will be much repeat business. Repeat business is the holy grail of modern business practices.

    If it wasn’t only about the $$$$$$$$$$ the feminist narrative would rationally tackle misandry to actually REDUCE misogyny. Instead ideologues in plush government positions holding degrees which are worthless outside this sexist industry shout “Show me the money!” and happily increase man hate to increase misogyny and to ensure the survival of their fat paychecks. A discerning glance at their practice shows that they care less than nothing for the victims they supposedly wish to help and instead reveals that they delight in creating more….

    The government trade in profiting from misery, whilst ensuring the business model grows is so sickening it makes me lose all hope in this society. When the government has become one of the demons that it purportedly protects its citizens from, we have some very large and real problems.

  • Tom Golden

    Incontinent Elephant! That one got me laughing. Great stuff Paul.

  • rocelot

    Hmmm……. If its institutional disorder you’re fighting against why do you continue to focus on hit pieces on petty insignificant individuals who’s significance extents exclusively to the radical fringes of an ignorantly assumed correct ideology?

    • crydiego

      I think you make a good point but I think of it like chess. You must first work your way through the minions to gain field position before bringing out ones queen.
      When the other position falls it will be swift because there will be no place of safety; checkmate!

      • rocelot

        No offense but that chess analogy is terrible. Chess is a fair battle between two equal opponents. But to continue with it. They’ll never run out of pawns, never underestimate the stupidity of others, you may be able to defeat all those idiots but that doesn’t mean they’ll run out of idiots. Nor is their a singular queen or king to kill/capture. We are talking about institutional disfunction and ignorance on a global scale. Finally there are rules to chess, well I see no need to fight fair. I’m not above hit pieces, they should just provide something beyond personal attacks on insignificant writers because its institutions and ignorance that are our enemies, not individuals.

        • crydiego

          You bring up some good points, however, it may take me awhile to get over your picking on my analogy.

    • Suburban Fieldsman

      rocelot, why do your comments seem to have such a superior tone? do you believe that you are superior? If this article is just a hit piece on a petty insignificant individual, why do you bother to comment on it? Isn’t that a waste of your time?

      I think guys like Ally Fogg are a sort of self-delusional PUA – he want’s to get laid, and he wants that pat on the head too, so he wears a particular mask. Writing an article which exposes him and spurs discussion about such bullshit in general helps offset the false narrative he likes to spread. Also, it’s kind of like Bill Cosby’s spoiled milk in the refrigerator – for some reason, you just have to take a sniff even when you know it’s spoiled. After reading several of your comments rocelot, I guess that’s why I continue to read them.

      • rocelot

        People constantly consider my tone condescending, I don’t know where it stems from. My bluntness? My sarcasm? My critical nature? My vocabulary? Take your pick. However I do wonder why someone (at least attempting) to make a critical analysts generates such heat? Last bastion for free speech indeed.

        Ally Frog is just one man, who gets at least some of it. Trying him down but leaving the system that creates such people untouched only at best hurts Ally Frog.

        As for Mr. Cosby. Okay never much cared for the guy (before my time.) Also the thing about best before doesn’t mean bad after.

        • Paul Elam

          Oh, of course, it must be your vocabulary, or some other positive trait about you.

          To borrow from my own article: Yeah, that’s the ticket.

          I see Mr. Fogg has responded over at FTB, to lukewarm responses even for that place.

          I will address him again in due time. Onward to other matters.

          • rocelot

            Would you rather be spontaneous or impulsive? Cunning or crafty? Witty or a smartass? Do you have a varied vocabulary or do you just talk over people? Words have no morality, you attach your own positive or negative connotation.

            Also stop referencing yourself, you’re not charismatic enough to be so egotistical.

        • Typhonblue (Asha James)

          Free speech does not mean the right not to be criticized.

          • rocelot

            Your right. Seems almost obvious. But that doesn’t guarantee that people will acknowledge such criticism. If your willing to say I’ve been weighed, I’ve been measured and I have been found wanting. What makes you think you haven’t? Casting judgement from the moral high ground is impossible, no such position exist. I’m not a religious man but there was always one quote from the Bible I appreciated; “judge not lest you be judged.” But alas you’ll continue to ignore those how challenge your assumptions. So say I’m pro-censorship or whatever. You’re just going to hear what you want to hear. Enjoy your fallacy.

          • robertcrayle


            Criticisms are not “pronouncements from a superior position”. They are judgements from an _equal_ position – in fact the most equal position there is, as every person is just one person. Criticism and doubt work because they ERODE peoples ability to dismiss out of hand.

            Dismissals are people’s emotional matrix excising “evil bad wrongthought” before it can be thought about to protect the brain from a foreign intruder – like the immune system can protect the whole body. Repeated doubts affect people because they can feel shame at not conforming to a prevalent view – the “group” view. It is how criticism – sarcastic, caustic, blunt, rude doubt – allows people to doubt themselves – and opens up the mind to possibilities.

            In short, being nice is what we would be doing if we really wanted no-one at all to listen.

        • Paul Elam

          @ rocelot

          Drivel. You’re not even making any sense at all. If you have a real point of dissent then make it. If not, STFU.

          That is all.

          • rocelot

            So I’m either with you or against you. This is why you’re going to lose.

    • Paul Elam

      My compliments! You manage to pack a great deal of nonsense into very few words.

      One, it isn’t even close to rational to assume that all of everything I do will be focused on “fighting institutional disorder.”

      I have written pieces here about my father, an uncle, assorted other essays on a variety of topics, including dozens of news and radio announcements.

      I write a lot of different pieces addressing a lot of different problems, and some pieces addressing no problem at all.

      And I wrote this piece to respond to a bit of yellow journalism that happened to target my character as a human being.

      Is that an issue for you? That I choose topics for myself not of your liking? Did you think this was some sort of l jukebox?

      Crydiego said you had a good point. I have to respectfully disagree. I don’t think you have a point at all. Seriously, I have not seen a comment in a while that had less of a point than yours.

      • josephrobertson

        Also I think rocelot is missing the larger point of the “hit-piece”–which can be found by reading between the lines, or just paying more attention–that this is also talking about a larger trend….

        It’s pretty clearly discussed in this article that more and more people are going to be posturing for men’s issues now that feminism is losing its death-grip on the discourse of sexual politics; and as such it is extremely important that people like Paul, who have been raising awareness about men’s issues for years, keep a critical eye on those people who may attempt to co-opt and monopolize the discussion for their own personal gain.

        Again, this should be plainly obvious from even a cursory reading of the article, so to criticize it as a myopic hit-piece is quite disingenuous.

      • rocelot

        But you’re good at what you do. Mr. Frog is inconsequential, you seem to understand that. No matter how logically you argue some people will just hate you and try there best to defame you. Your defending your character when it isn’t necessary. You haven’t changed the opinion of people who have read your article and you haven’t changed the opinion of people who never will. I’d love nothing more than to do what you do (but I’d imagine radically different.) However I have enough troubling keeping a roof over a head and food in my mouth. So watching an organization I support, campaigning for something I believe in, start engaging in petty squabbles while blowing smoke their your own asses pisses me off. AVFM is becoming too insulated, biased (politically speaking), and self aggrandizing, to be vanguard of mens rights people here seem to think it is. Your not a jukebox but hey DJ change the fucking song. If you keep going like your going AVFM is just going to plateau. Sorry I hope for something better than that.

        • Gordon Wadsworth

          Write an article. If you have good ideas that you feel aren’t being addressed then put them out there. In my opinion, constructive dissent has the potential to strengthen us. Finger pointing, however, won’t particularly help us.

  • MrScruffles

    “Significantly, force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical violence.”

    Maybe Jodi Arias should have used that as her defense.

    “Where differences in physical strength have become immaterial through the use of arms, the female is rendered innocuous by her socialization.”
    Which is why the following countries:

    Employ female soldiers.

  • Room101

    “And like most men who spend life in craven pursuit of female approval and attention, he requires scapegoats to get the job done….Men like Fogg are typically, however, far less interested in what is actually happening than they are in making themselves appear as though they are in the driver’s seat.”

    Sadly this is all too common. Men can be their own worst enemy. All too often we will gladly throw another man under the bus not just for female approval, but also just to get ahead, while we accept any shitty situation foisted on us as our responsibility to ‘deal with’ by ‘manning up’.

  • David H. Fucktrelle-Male Feminist Extraordinaire™

    “I might have even attended myself if it weren’t for two reasons: The three FtB idiots and the fact that there was no mention of addressing women’s rights in the third world. ”

    Women from the third world don’t matter. They don’t attend womyn’s studies courses taught by H. Skeezer.

    Remember, if an upper middle class white womyn like Amanda Marcotte is offended, it is because you are a privileged misogynist…

  • AllyFogg
    • Paul Elam

      The interest is much more in the mentality that drives it. I see even the pro feminist FTB crowd is kind of iffy on you. I will write a response in a couple of weeks. Very busy these days, doing activism and all that.

      Enjoy your pats on the head, and try not to wet the rug.

    • STONE

      You are precisely what Daneil Dennet would call a “murky.”
      There is nothing interesting in your writing for those who care about truth and believe that one can get closer to it. I can see how your writing might be interesting for those who are steeped in a culture of flippant frauds and who just don’t know any better.

    • Typhonblue (Asha James)

      I would like you to address the actual article Paul was satirizing. Yes, Paul’s piece had a great deal of anger but here’s the context:

      A group of people who are often legally and always socially exempt from being held accountable for their violence wrote a triumphalist piece celebrating their violence against the group of people who have few to no legal protections against said violence.

      The original article was beyond disgusting and entirely non-satircal.

    • crydiego

      Ally, until you said it I had no idea you were so interested and involved in the rights of men and boys. You obviously have a great knowledge of feminist history and philosophy so I look forward to any future posts.

  • robertcrayle


    We all take an interest in your writing. The ultimate compliment to it is a combination of the attention it receives from us (and many others) and the mental enjoyment of thinking, criticising, and responding to it. People who say imitation is the highest form of flattery has never had the sheer pleasure of thoughtful, caustic criticism.

    What I’m trying to say is, we’re your new biggest fans! We actually may be able to learn from each other and grow greatly. I look forward to your next article on these subjects.

  • boston86

    Sometimes I just want to hug you, Paul Elam!