Selling out

To GMP Re: Erika Jarvis

To: Tom Matlack and Lisa Hickey,

Dear Tom and Lisa,

As a fellow writer and website manager in the realm of sexual politics, it is my pleasure, both personally and professionally, to offer this letter of recommendation for Erika Jarvis.

I hope this recommendation comes at an advantageous time to GMP, as I am aware that you have recently purged a great deal of content from your site and may be seeking to fill the deficit.

Ms. Jarvis is a talented young writer with a flair for language and creative outcomes to her writing. She is not afraid to tackle tough subjects and then to remove all traces of her work when it is politically or financially expedient. Of course, that very fact brought both of you to mind immediately.

As an example of what I am talking about, Jarvis recently wrote an interview with me for the Toronto Standard. It was a good, balanced piece that covered different perspectives, using a critical, mostly objective pen. It drew a lot of traffic to Toronto Standard and was listed at the top of their “Most Popular” section.

When feminist ideologues objected to the piece, however, she asked the Standard to take it down without hesitation. This apparently happened after she got threats from feminists who preferred that she toed their line, ideologically speaking. The capitulation was a brilliant move on her part. Not only did she save enough face with the sisterhood to remain viable, she ensured that her name and this story will remain out there far, far longer than it ever would have if she had just left it alone.

Tom. Lisa. You know this is your girl.

In fact, I am thinking you might want to consider her for a management position. The reasoning is simple. In my discussions with her, Ms. Jarvis presented as a talented and intelligent woman with a high degree of integrity. Her questioning of me was fearless, while her reactions to my answers were conspicuously balanced and thoughtful. She literally brimmed with credibility.

That is why when her piece was removed from the Standard, it did not even dawn on me that it was at her behest; that is how much I actually believed her. And while the Standard is still responsible for the article coming down, the fact that she pulled this off behind a façade of journalistic integrity should put her on your short list for management. More than a keyboard jockey, this girl is. It is like she was born to work with Matlack and Hickey.

And as a last appeal on her behalf, I hope you will consider that you may well be one of her few remaining options. Given the fact that she wrote in the manner she did about me, AVfM, the protest in Toronto (which you somehow missed covering) and then pulled it down because feminists said, “fetch,” she has painted herself into the same corner as GMP.

The only writing role left for Jarvis now will be that of aggrieved, MRA hating, blindly biased feminist. It is the only way left for her because they will not let her have anything else. I know how much you both identify with that position, and how well you have taken to it.

I think, now that she has learned the limits that must be placed on the truth, she will prove to be an integral and invaluable member of your team.


Paul Elam, publisher, AVFM





  • 86

    Unbelievable, which is to say, situation normal.

  • Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

    Journalistic integrity for sale! Tarnished, shop worn journalistic integrity for sale!

    In the Standard’s article, Ms. Jarvis commented she was surprised by how Mr. Elam treated her as an equal. In light of her recent behavior, it’s no wonder she was surprised to be treated like an equal. She is not.

    If GMP won’t have her, I see a bright mommy blogging career in her future. Maybe she should contact that Karvunidis woman. They’d make a fine pair.

  • 86

    Well, for completion, someone should ask Jarvis if she can expand on the feminist backlash she complained about, and provide examples….

  • Steveyp333

    What actually went on here? All I’m gathering so far is that after some threats from some feminists Ms Jarvis elected to pull the article.

    Who were these feminists, and what form did their threats take? Were they staff at the standard threatening her career? Anonymous death threats? they certainly weren’t anywhere to be seen in the public comments.

    This is all deeply disturbing. Someone behind the scenes is trying to censor men from having any say at all in the media. I want to know the who, how and why of it all

    • Paul Elam

      I would tell you all that, as I have asked Ms. Jarvis to elaborate. But I am not holding my breath for an answer. If she is going to tear down her own work, she is not going to finger the people who pushed her to do it.

      She is not answering my email.

      • Adam Catalyst

        I would love to know this. Won’t hold my breath either.

      • TheBiboSez

        Is there ANY scenario wherein Jarvis’s personal credibility or journalistic integrity can be salvaged, or is she just another craven bitch? I can imagine several scenarios wherein she can come out sort of ok, at least to those in the MRM or the nonfeminist public.

        #1 – The “Toronto Standard is Lying” scenario – they might be falsely claiming that they pulled the article at her behest in order to deflect criticism of their own journalistic integrity. Jarvis seemed proud of her article and the work that went into it, and knowing how amoral corporations can be, this seems possible.

        #2 – The “SPLC edit rejection” scenario – as the days passed, Jarvis became more and more aggitated at the bogus and shoddy “SPLC” addendum that appeared falsely under Jarvis’s own name. A woman of red-pill integrity, Jarvis demanded that the entire article come down rather than have her name linked to that crap. The Standard, recognizing their error (or not), agreed.

        If I were Jarvis, I might have done that, although I would make no secret of it. Even experienced authors are discomfitted by well-intentioned editors, and the SPLC addendum was clearly false and in bad faith. Jarvis might be hesitant to toss the Standard under the bus; she shouldn’t be.

        #3 – The “feminists boxcut my boyfriend” scenario. Although a fearless woman of integrity herself, Jarvis pulled the article because of credible feminist threats against not her, but rather, her loved ones. This is a somewhat far-fetched scenario, but still possible – in my opinion, a person of integrity thinks twice when their principles put innocents in harm’s way, and feminists usually wait to attack the loved ones until their main target fails to crumple.

        #4 – The “continuing story” scenario. This is a variation of scenario #3 wherein Jarvis and/or the Standard recognized that the REAL story here is the feminist backlash to the story, and they decided to stoke the fires of both the feminists and the MRM by pulling the story to see how each side would react. Jarvis’s personal credibility gets smashed by her journalist integrity in this scenario, but we’ll see.

        For the time being I will temper my anger at Jarvis because I think that is the wise thing to do. Feminists, who are not wise at all, always up their attacks when they sense weakness, so they will be piling on both her and the Standard.

        Now, as a man, I admit this whole thing is triggering my protective instincts for Jarvis, but as a red-pill man, I can resist them until more evidence is in.

        So, Erika, what is it going to be?

      • harrywoodape

        I submit that the whole article was a piece of cheese. She flattered the hell out of Paul, likening him to Fidel Castro and painting him as a revolutionary. I think when she told Paul it was “too complicated for a hit piece” she had something else in mind.
        The whole thing could have been a way to try to get MRAs to visit Toronto Standard site and they get IP’s etc. It could have been nothing but an attempt to gauge the MRM and AVfM. What would follow now would be some monitoring of MRAs in Canada and possible disinformation.
        Make no mistake, if you end up on the radar of the radical feminists they have close connections with media and police and government and they play to win. They are all in bed together at the top.
        The only answer is to keep standing up and to keep fighting for the truth to get out. We ARE the new media…,the media that matters…citizen journalism 2.0. The media that exposes the truth about the mainstream media.
        But remember…as we learn about them…they learn about us too.

    • Adam Catalyst

      Go on Twitter as a starting point. You can find evidence of the backlash in all kinds of places outside of the Toronto Standard website.

      • Paul Elam

        Would be very nice if a supportive reader would compile that for us. :)

        • Adam Catalyst

          I know, I know, I’m being lazy. :)

        • Dannyboy

          She has turned her twitter account to private now. Gonna take a lil more digging but am sure we can find out the who’s

    • harrywoodape

      What went on here is mainstream media censorship in Canada about men and men’s issues. This is how it looks. Write an article that even shows basic humanity in a men’s rights activist and it will be squelched. If it isn’t then the reporter will have a very difficult if not impossible task of finding a job in mainstream journalism. The official narrative HAS TO BE…women are victimized by men, men don’t exist unless they are causing violence to women. They like men silent and going to work and accepting whatever they decide to put on us.
      The mainstream media has been doing this for decades. It has programmed so many of us because it is a lifelong sustained campaign of ensuring the masses…see things the way they want us to see them. It is not the mainstream medias job to report “truth” at all. THe mainstream media’s job (at least in Canada) is to peddle it’s agenda to the public…the agenda of it’s owners. Elite class and the corporations and banks that they own and do business with.
      If you think i am a wacko conspiracy nut (that’s exactly what the media would say for sure…please do your research and homework.
      Edward Bernays, Bertrand Russell, Joseph Goebbels etc.
      You don’t need a totalitarian regime to have censorship and propaganda…you just need a more sophisticated way of getting the public to believe they are still free while they read and watch the crap that they have been indoctrinated since birth to believe is real and true about the world. Messages such as…government knows best are common but they also realize it needs to be more sophisticated and so the media has much coverage to phony debates and propagates its own brand of dissent. The dissent the media supports is evidenced by the close connections between media scribes and activists like Vanya Krajina.
      When the Erika Jarvis lady said “this is too complicated for a hit piece”…she is right. What men’s rights people are starting to realize is that mainstream media is not ever going to print the truth about men or men’s rights and that for decades it has had a direct role in promoting and spreading the lies about men. For a reason. It isn’t that the poor, stupid media doesn’t realize it is being led by radical feminist ambitions…it is completely conscious and in bed with radical feminism because the mainstream media is…what the elites want you to hear…and it ain’t the truth. It is the elites that control all aspects of society and think that destroying the family is a good idea…for them. They have set up huge industries to help accomplish that goal.
      They kill stories at the local level that look at feminism critically or try to address men’s issues or societal issues that they don’t like.
      If they don’t kill it..they resort to their well studied playbook of ways to change or obscure the story so it doesn’t go anywhere or doesn’t make sense.
      I have seen how they edit out gender when it goes against the narrative they want to give society.

  • laotzu12

    Paul, may we trouble you for the full story? I wold hate to jump to unfair conclusions.

    • Paul Elam

      Sure, I have linked the background piece (which is also at top of page) at the bottom of the article.

  • Andres

    i haven’t used this kind of language in a while, but I feel compelled to say: “Well, shit. Who would have thought THAT?”

    Either she doesn’t give too much about journalistic integrity or the threats by those feminists must have been harsher than I am comfortable imagining. I’d love to hear Erika’s side of the story.

    • Paul Elam

      In the words of TyphonBlue, let her “woman up” and tell it. If she wants us to hear her side of the story, I will run it here unabridged.

      • Andres

        Looking forward to it, even though I won’t hold my breath for an answer either.

      • Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

        Depending on the kind of fence, straddling both sides of it could prove to be more painful than just choosing one side and sticking to it.

        The side of truth may be painful, but at least you can look at yourself in the mirror without having to use Barbara Walter misty lens filters.

  • Tawil

    Got to say i find it irritating that Jarvis wasn’t forthcoming about the fact she had pulled the article. Or why.

    The recommendation of her for GMP seems on the money given her ability to present as an honest and open journalist whilst simultaneously engaging in (undeclared) obfuscation.

    Goodness me, what a mess her effort is turning out to be!

    • Dean Esmay

      I predict claims that she got threats and harassment from us. If she doesn’t claim it, someone else will. Even though she got almost nothing but civil comments and treatment from us, as the record of the article and all the comments on it showed.

      It’s the usual state of affairs.

      • Adam Catalyst

        Gawd, I hope you’re wrong. I think the article, with its comments intact, really speaks volumes about the men’s movement in a positive way.

        • mongo

          I suspect it was the comments that played a key role.

          Why do a hit-piece on the MRM when the mob will do it for you? Only, not only did the mob root for the other side, they rooted so loudly in favour of the ‘bad guys’ that they made your position dangerously popular.

          Time to roll out “I felt afraid”, deposit the whole story in the nearest memory-hole and wait for a better day.

      • 86

        She’s already mentioned the “feminist backlash… illuminating”.

        Any claims of AVFM harassment should first deal with what she meant by the illuminating feminist backlash.

      • The Wooly Bumblebee

        Sadly, I tend agree Dean.

  • Kimski

    Awesome turn around of recent events, Mr.Elam. Somehow you just keep bouncing right back on top no matter what happens.

    Perhaps Jarvis were just trying to create a new form of coutume for feminist journalists with her article: First you do a piece on the MRA, then remove it quickly to show your allegiance to feminism, and you’ve got yourself a career spewing out the usual dogma. You don’t even have to be good at it. Any hack will do as long as they stay with the program.

    I just knew something was wrong, when the usual defenders of feminist bigotry were suspiciously absent in the comment section of that article. But then again, I don’t trust too many people these days.

    • Paul Elam

      Thanks Kimski, but it is not rocket science to keep coming out on top. We are the ones dealing in the truth. We are the not the ones who have to pull articles and duck questions and/or lie in order to make our case.

      No matter how much money they have, or social influence it will always fall flat in conflicts with us and they will end up taken down a notch each time.

      Attacking lies can feel like a David and Goliath battle in these times, but I needed remind anyone how that one turned out.

  • Tawil

    The greatest terror for women is the game of inclusion-exclusion that the female collective plays. Girls suffer this ‘game’ from kindergarten onward.

    Basically it works like this- an individual woman must do what the group expects, or she will be banished and be on her own. Every woman knows the hidden rules, and she has suffered banishment dozens of times by the time she matures….. and the fear gets inbuilt.

    So it only takes one feminist to say, “We think you (Erika) shouldn’t be doing what you are doing” to set off that primal fear of abandonment to the void – that experience of sitting all alone in the school yard, depleted of sisterly compliments, hugz, status and support.

    But there’s a third option for the brave- Zeta. AVfM actively embraces women who have stood up to thier primal fear of abandonment by their sisters.

    • typhonblue

      “Basically it works like this- an individual woman must do what the group expects, or she will be banished and be on her own.”

      Women are their own worst enemies. It’s always been women who’ve kept each other down.

      • Factory

        “Women are their own worst enemies. It’s always been women who’ve kept each other down.”

        Sounds familiar….

      • Bev

        The ability to “network” a double edge sword.

      • 86

        Over at the SlymePit, I read a signature that I think was attributed back to AVFM (maybe even to you?)

        misogny: the radical notion men could hate women worse than women hate women.

        • Steve_85

          It’s been around for quite some time. I doubt anyone really knows who said it first.

          I’ve been saying it for years, and I know I didn’t come up with it.

        • Astrokid

          “Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another.”
          H.L. Mencken

    • Kimski

      Spot on, Tawil.
      How the fuck can you present yourself as ‘strong and empowered’, when it all depends on what the group you identify with thinks?

      Sorry, but I simply have to repeat myself here…Lemmings.

      I hope they succeed in finding that cliff to jump off, that they’re so desperately looking for, and preferably sometime soon.
      -Or grow the fuck up, whichever comes first.

      • Steve_85

        I’m hoping for growing up, but I’m betting on the cliff.

    • UKMan

      Oh well – I could have forgiven her if a blood-painted pentagram on her door, or maybe an impaled voodoo doll or something prompted Jarvis to duck back behind the parapet and run for the hills, but current evidence points at a sheep wanting to appease the in-crowd for fear of exclusion?

      Self-oppression of the worst kind – you don’t even need a patriarchy for that shit.

      • Skeptic

        Jarvis is now living behind the Lace Curtain. It will be a great day when we see folks tearing that down the way the Berlin Wall came a tumbling. And that day grows closer with every person switching on to the MRM. Ironically Jarvis herself exposed for her cowardise will quicken that process. Too bad she’ll now go down in history as a Stasi enabler, instead of a liberating ‘Lek Valensa’.

      • TheBiboSez

        All the while dancing sky-clad and painting in menstral blood, they were heard chanting…

        Yamma yamma yamma YAM MA. Misogeny.


        • Kimski

          Blank eyed stare, divided by miniscule micro-seconds of reflection, and moments of self-imposed sheer glee.

          This is what a brainwashed member of the herd looks like while hating, and should have been attached with a federal warning:

          “Feminist dogma can be devastating to your ability to think for yourself.”

        • Shrek6

          TBS, please, I nearly suffered a hernia from that droll piece. I laughed so hard, because it reminded me of the brainless twits we have in govt in Australia, from the PM down. All these Emily’s List members speak the same crap as the moron in the youtube video.

          I need to go have a break now and give my belly a rest.

    • Shrek6

      Hey Tarwil,

      What you seem to be speaking of is a ‘Petticoat Mafia’!

      “You do what we tell ya t’do or one of the sistas will pay ya a visit!”

  • laotzu12

    Call me naive or slow to respond, but I’d very much like to hear Ms. Jarvis’ reasoning. In her mind, it might not have been bullied so much as convinced she was supporting an evil-doer, or some other ego syntonic rationele. Paranoia and assumptions are understandable, but I’d prefer knowledge and understanding.

    • Brodehouse

      I’d have to agree. While I can totally understand Paul’s frustration (and he likely has more information than I do), I’d like to at least hear from Ms. Jarvis directly before I paint her as a coward. We painted her as a victim before we had all the facts and it kind of blew up in our faces, let’s not imitate the knee-jerk wagon-circling of our detractors. I’d submit that a little prudence and an offer to speak her mind probably betters us in the long run.

      And if she chooses not to, no big whoop. We’re in the same position we were yesterday morning. I don’t want to be forcing the red pill down anyone’s throat. If she’s not ready, there’s no way we’re going to make her ready. The abuses of bigots are the only thing that will open her eyes, if at all.

      • Paul Elam

        Not seeing any of this. And sorry, but if I hear one more “lets not be like them” reductivist, nauseatingly oversimplified caution I am going to throw up on my monitor.

        I have written directly and honestly on this series of events since it started.

        I am the only one, between Jarvis, and The Standard and myself, to have acted with integrity all the way through.

        She wrote a decent piece, which I acknowledged. The piece was removed, which I reported on, aiming at Toronto Standard management. They are still culpable. It was their decision to take it down, not hers.

        And I cannot fault myself for not knowing it was at Jarvis’s request, as when I questioned her she did not include that little morsel in response.

        The article, her emails citing feminist backlash, and her finger pointing at Standard management are all indisputably on record here. So there was no real error in presenting her as a victim of feminist harassment.

        She was victimized by feminists, but It is still on her how she reacts to it. And the evidence is right in front of you that she elected to side with the people who pushed the backlash.

        Do with it what you will, but I will still tell you I find the “lets not be like them” a load of bullshit.

        • Robert St. Estephe

          I have alreadty thrown up on my monitor from having MRAs telling me to tone down and outright censor. I had one reddit Mangina Rights Activist (definition: a male who thinks the “M” in “MRA” stands for Mangina) advised me to take down vintage text “How Women Gained Power from Mass Murder of Husbands” since the story reveals that among the scores of men murdered by a female operated murder syndicate for hire there were one or two actually nasty husbands among the innocent husbands in large number, and in-laws, and fathers, and mothers, and sons and daughters murdered by the women involved.

          I get “retreat” prompts as well, from time to time, in this very comment section. Hell, I don’t even use cuss words in my writing and cringe at the “‘F’ the feminists” toss-offs when I see them here and elsewhere. And I do understand that there are some TV-heads out there with the idea that “rape the b.” is an incisive witty retort to a marxist feminist. These fellers are being dummies, but I agree that we need to keep up the “in their face” approach. Strongly and relentlessly.

          But Elam is right. Nice don’t work. I say full steam ahead. We have an entire culture and economy that needs to be repaired. There is no more time to waste. We need to get these looser gyno-utopian spolied brat authoritarian zombie conformist peer-pressured cowards exposed and sidelined as quickly as possible so we can get back to working together with grown-ups (of both sexes) to help the kids have a decent worlds to live in. Peer-pressure conformism is what was at the root of the “just following policy” Nuremberg defense. Not acceptable.

          Full stream ahead — with Captain Elam!!!

          • Dean Esmay

            Oh for God’s sake. Really? You should take down a story on organized female crime syndicates that murder because some of their murder victims may have been bad people? Oh gosh, why don’t we go through the list of everybody who ever got killed in a Mafia hit and ask if any one of them had it coming? Chances are at least a few did somewhere along the line. For that matter, why don’t we go through the list of all 11 million Jews, Gypsies, slavs, gays, Catholic priests, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. murdered by Hitler and ask if there were one or two bad people who went through those ovens? Law of averages says there was probably at least a handful. Odds are the Nazis gassed at least one child molester somewhere along the line. And so, what, that would justify what happened?

            People are fucked in the head. THEY WILL NOT SEE WOMEN AS ADULTS. Is the entire species incapable of this or what?

        • scatmaster

          Do with it what you will, but I will still tell you I find the “lets not be like them” a load of bullshit.


          Pretty disappointed in Jarvis but I should not be surprised.

          I tend to lay low when it comes to activism save giving money when I can and when I get my car running properly the decals that Stephen sent me will appear around town.
          I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer so when I stick my head out I feel pretty strongly about something. Well I stuck my head out and got it cut off.
          I have been engaged with Barbara Kay over the last few days via email on this.
          I now have to apologize for wasting her time. I guess I will have to look at it as a teaching moment and do my activism in the aforementioned ways.

        • Brodehouse

          Sorry Paul, I’m not trying to reduce something complicated. Actually the opposite, the thing I’m worried about before making a judgement here is that I don’t have all the pieces. As what happened initially, Jarvis tells a lie of omission (she says she suffered backlash, and that she was upset about the addendum, but never explicitly says why they took down her article) and we all made the logical connections. And then the Standard disagrees with that chain of events and… has she responded at all yet?

          So I can totally understand the frustration at having your chain pulled by a false story, especially from someone who at that point appeared to be on the level, or having to rely on she-said she-said (I guess it-said in the case of the standard). And hell, who knows if it’s even over. It’s why in this specific case I would want more information before judging. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating ‘slowing down’ in any grand way, there are problems that remain every single day that we know all about, and I’d never agree with being ‘nice’ over being ‘right’. I just don’t want to make a stand if I don’t have a foundation based on facts, doing it on someone’s lie of omission is spinning a wheel.

          (would love to say more but late for work..!)

          • Brodehouse


            I’ve reread what you said Paul, and I do want to apologize for the previous comparison. It was a low blow, and I apologize.

            I still would like Jarvis to speak publicly about what’s going on here before I form a judgement. It’s too hard to ascribe veracity to either her or the Standard’s bare sentence of information and have any idea on what’s actually going on.

        • limeywestlake

          Now and again, I find myself wishing that we were more like them IN SOME RESPECTS. Indeed, if we were more like them, we would probably be organizing ‘consciousness-raising circles’ on every major university campus by now.

      • John the Other

        “We painted her as a victim before we had all the facts and it kind of blew up in our faces.”

        No, we didn’t paint her as a victim, and no, it didn’t blow up in our faces. Your history is factually false.

        She got a little push-back from her local femmies, and folded up like a cheap deck-chair. She tweeted that, as well as emailed Paul to say so.

        This behaviour exhibited by a “journalist”. Cowardice is the only word applicable here, and she’ll probably have a profitable career writing spin for whatever corporation pays her, but journalism is clearly not for her, as that requires a backbone.

        Concerning you not wanting to shove the red pill down anybody’s throat, why the fuck not, is there something wrong with you?

        Best regards, John

        • Brodehouse

          Perhaps ‘blow up in our faces’ is not the best wording, but as scatmaster said, ‘stuck our neck out and got it cut off’. I certainly felt like Jarvis had been done wrong until I heard the Standard’s defense, I’m big into free speech so censorship gets my dander up. Now I feel like Jarvis has been misrepresenting herself, but wait, I’d like to hear what she has to say for herself first. Once any party has proven to be misrepresenting truth, I put the skeptical glasses on and now I want more details before making a judgement. Though for her earlier lie of omission I’m going to be suspicious of Jarvis’ side, I still want more details before I make a judgement (though I agree with Paul, ultimately probably only going to receive silence). I won’t wait forever and a day but I will show some due process. We have the right to answer our accusers. So… where are you, Erika?

          You mentioned she tweeted about the backlash, did she tweet about her reasons for retracting the article (I’m not a twitterererer)? Because I would love to hear it from the horse’s mouth. If it’s something annoying or cowardly like “I just decided it wasn’t ‘right’ for me to talk about” then absolutely, JtO, let’s flank and lead the van into their lines. It’s so much easier to shatter people’s arguments once they’ve made them. And if she never decides to respond, in an age of unlimited information proliferation, the silence will indeed be deafening.

          Lastly about forcing the red pill down throats, they’re just going to throw it up. I’d rather make the blue so unpalatable and show how it’s disconnected from logic, reason, empathy, human rights, that they spit it up and reach for the red of their own accord. Maybe the flowery language gets in the way of real meaning; not making allies of people who don’t quite ‘get it’ yet. Erika seemed like she was capable of reason and could see Paul’s examples as ringing true, but she was a blue-piller all the way and forcing her into a box she wouldn’t fit just was not going to work. Despite my nattering, I actually think Paul’s reference to the GMP is extremely apt; a place for people to ‘care’ about men’s issues through the comfortable fog of feminism.

          But I still want to hear her side of the story regarding the Standard because that’s just fair, innit? If it sucks, let’s show how it sucks.

        • limeywestlake

          Awesome. My thoughts exactly. Take your low blows elsewhere, please, Brodehouse.

    • Paul Elam

      Then for you, all she will need to do is remain silent.

      • laotzu12

        Good point Paul, but to be fair, we are not privvy to her emails to you citing feminist backlash, so you are operating from intel that I don’t have access to. We come at this with different styles: you are a political activist. I’m an empiricist. Reserving judgement and ferreting out information are things that come naturally to me. I actually like your style better: it has more joi de verve to it, but every Malcolm X needs his MLK. (and I am NOT comparing myself to MLK. But the two roles are symbiotic.).

    • rake

      Yeah… No.

      Downvoted for:

      “In her mind, it might not have been bullied so much as convinced she was supporting an evil-doer”

      Point is, she went into the interview already convinced that Paul was some sort of baby-microwaving monster, as revealed by her surprise at Paul’s candour, reasonableness, and lack of misogyny, as well as her astonishment at – shock! – being treated, respectfully, as an equal. All of which completely overturned her explicitly stated prejudices going in to the interview.

      In fact, that was a major reason why she got grudging thumbs-ups from the commentators here and on her article: she admitted – to a degree – that her assumptions about Paul and what he stood for were wrong and, furthermore, managed to publish a not-completely-negative portrait of one of the MRM’s leading figures.

      That’s the problem here: not that she thought Mr Elam was an “evil-doer” (because that was precisely what she thought of him before the interview) but that she owned up to being mistaken in her Party-approved opinion, and admitted in e-print that MRAs are not, as it turns out, raving crazies and that they might actually have some valid arguments and concerns – thereby flatly contradicting the accepted mainstream narrative as defined and policed by feminist gatekeepers.

      That’s the thoughtcrime, bro, and [imo] that’s why she withdrew the article – she publicly stated that 2+2=4, and The Party can’t have that, because 2+2=whatever The Party says it is.

      Do you understand, Winston, do you love Big Sister, or must we increase the voltage again..?

  • malcolm

    Oh well, it would appear that standing by her work required more courage than Ms. Jarvis possesed. Not terribly surprising.
    Back to the warm embrace of the sisterhood it’s a little too cold standing up for the rights of men and boys.

  • Adam Catalyst

    I have read some of the hatred, vitrol, and threats sent Erika’s way in public forums, from some disturbed sounding women. If we assume that the threats sent to her privately would have been worse, I do not blame her for removing the article. The MRM is not her cause, and I don’t believe she is obligated to endanger her career or personal safety for it. She did her job, she tried to write an article that transcended her personal biases. I still commend her for that.

    • laotzu12

      do you have any links you can share, Adam?

      • Adam Catalyst

        Sorry, I don’t. I was one of, if not the first person to write a comment on the Toronto Standard article. A reader with the user handle “Zuzu” or something similar called me a member of a “hate group”. I wanted to know more about who this person was, and started doing some background research on Twitter. From there I eventually ended up in a few different places where there were some comments that disgusted me. I would have dug deeper, but I actually stopped researching because my lovely partner, who was reading along sitting on the couch with me, was so horrified and ashamed of some of the feminist responses that it was actually physically upsetting her.

        • typhonblue

          Might be a job for Agent Orange!

        • andybob

          “…but I actually stopped researching because my lovely partner, who was reading along sitting on the couch with me, was so horrified and ashamed of some of the feminist responses that it was actually physically upsetting her.” Mr Catalyst

          If your girlfriend was so horrified and ashamed by exposure to evidence of feminist violence and hatred, then she probably has some illusions about the essential goodness of feminism that she is eager to maintain.

          How many times have we been confronted by people who claim that feminism is essentially a movement about fairness and equality? There may be a few bad eggs hovering around around the fringes, but they have no power or influence, so it is ‘unfair’ to focus on them in a discussion about feminism.

          The research you conducted in the presence of your girlfriend was a perfect opportunity to demonstrate to her what feminism really is: a massively influential hate movement that relies on violence and intimidation to undermine the rights and welfare of men and boys, and those who advocate for them. One of the vital components to their success has been the ability to masquerade behind a veneer of altruistic respectability

          Your girlfriend’s reaction was somewhat disturbing. Why did she feel ashamed? Did it simply dawn on her that buying into the masquerade that feminism is good has enabled feminists to wreak such havoc – or is there something more insidious? Perhaps she has done something in the name of feminism that really hurt somebody.

          It sounds like you were manipulated into curtailing your research into feminism by your lovely girlfriend – lovely girlfriends are very good at that. Big mistake. Rather than white-knighting her delicate sensibilities, you should make her as uncomfortable about the truth about feminism as you possibly can. Dispelling whatever illusions she may have about ‘good’ feminism will help your relationship in the long run.

          • Raven01

            It could also be a sexual analogue to “white guilt”.
            Especially when considering preference for group identification over individual identification.
            In which case the guilt is more stupid than sinister.

          • Adam Catalyst

            I’m usually a very level headed person, but this post enrages me. Writing baseless negative assumptions of my partner is completely out of bounds.

            “If your girlfriend was so horrified and ashamed by exposure to evidence of feminist violence and hatred, then she probably has some illusions about the essential goodness of feminism that she is eager to maintain.”

            This is about as logical as saying that because she is horrified and ashamed by exposure to the violence of the KKK, then she probably has some illusions about the essential goodness of the Klan that she is eager to maintain.

            “The research you conducted in the presence of your girlfriend was a perfect opportunity to demonstrate to her what feminism really is: a massively influential hate movement that relies on violence and intimidation to undermine the rights and welfare of men and boys, and those who advocate for them. One of the vital components to their success has been the ability to masquerade behind a veneer of altruistic respectability”

            This sounds very patronizing to me. I am not her father. I am her equal. She is smart enough to make up her own mind about things, and I speak freely about my beliefs whenever it suits me.

            “Your girlfriend’s reaction was somewhat disturbing. Why did she feel ashamed? Did it simply dawn on her that buying into the masquerade that feminism is good has enabled feminists to wreak such havoc – or is there something more insidious? Perhaps she has done something in the name of feminism that really hurt somebody.”

            She is an extremely sensitive person, and can become emotionally overwhelmed when witnessing hatred and bigotry against any other human being. She is a very feminine woman, and feels ashamed when other women act do despicably in the name of their femininity, particularly when it is against men.

            “It sounds like you were manipulated into curtailing your research into feminism by your lovely girlfriend – lovely girlfriends are very good at that. Big mistake. Rather than white-knighting her delicate sensibilities, you should make her as uncomfortable about the truth about feminism as you possibly can. Dispelling whatever illusions she may have about ‘good’ feminism will help your relationship in the long run.”

            I can’t even begin to respond to this highly offensive paragraph. You write I should “make her as uncomfortable about the truth about feminism as you possibly can”. This sounds even worse than patronizing, this sounds like brainwashing. Why on earth would I want to treat my loving supportive partner like this? She was upset, so you think I should have rubbed her face in it? I don’t treat my equals this way, and expect and receive the same level of respect.

            If you read the Toronto Standard article and comments, you will find she was the first female to voice her support for men’s rights, and the first female poster to call out other posters misandry.

            Up to this moment, I have always enjoyed coming to AVFM at the end of the day and sharing it with my girlfriend on the couch, but I don’t want her to see this. At this moment, I am ashamed to be affiliated with andybob and the people who “liked” his comment.

            My partner respects your rights more than you have respected her.

          • Adam Catalyst


            I’m highly protective of the people close to me, whether they are my partner, team at work, or my hockey team. I’ll go through the wall for these people. That’s me. And yes, I am offended that you are insinuating that my partner needs to be schooled by me in the destructiveness of feminism. Your assessment of my relationship couldn’t be farther from the truth. I would never share my life with a manipulative feminist or emotional terrorist, and your implication to the contrary is disrespectful to me as an individual.

            If I were truly in an unhealthy relationship with a manipulative feminist, your comments may have been insightful and helpful. But as it stands, you’ve made your comments on the basis of erroneous assumptions.

            This has nothing do do with me trying to protect my girlfriend from your comments, which she ended up reading herself. Your comments offend me, because they are rife with the exact sort of sexist assumptions and baseless generalizations that characterize the worst of the men’s movement or feminism. If we are going to prevail for the true equality humanity deserves, we need to be better than this. We need to respect men and women alike, asking questions, sharing and listening instead of making assumptions about each other. Even the best of intentions can’t transcend the need for this basic respect.



        • Bev

          ” my lovely partner, who was reading along sitting on the couch with me, was so horrified and ashamed of some of the feminist responses that it was actually physically upsetting her.”

          A common response. Not one that would give you assurance for your future however.

          • Adam Catalyst

            “A common response. Not one that would give you assurance for your future however.”

            I’m not sure what you mean.

          • andybob

            Mr Catalyst,

            In the words of Dr Elam, welcome to the house of pain.

            You have taken my comments as an insult to your girlfriend. They were, in fact, meant as a warning to you not to establish an unhealthy dynamic in your relationship. Living in fear of your girlfriend becoming “emotionally overwhelmed” every time something may upset her is a stressful and unrewarding way for you to live.

            For an emotional terrorist, it is paradise. Please peruse Dr Palmatier’s excellent site for details about how to identify red flags. Rushing to protect your girlfriend from a comment from a total stranger on a website is a very bad sign that you intend to devote your life to wrapping Pookie in cotton wool while walking on egg shells around her.

            It is very nice that you read MRA blogs together. It indicates that she probably has a good deal more inner strength and resolve than she’s letting on. Most women do. Being feminine does not necessarily mean that she’s a flake. Give her a chance to prove it to you – and to herself.


        • limeywestlake

          Feminism physically upsets me, too – funny that.

  • Dannyboy

    And so evaporates any respect I had for that ‘journalist.’
    I am sure your parents are proud of you Erica.
    You folded like wet paper in the face of adversity to a just cause.
    Something to be proud of.
    Your career will live, but your integrity sustained a mortal wound.
    Your documented now, members of the MRM will leave comments on articles you write for any newspapers and bring up your lack of journalistic integrity.
    It will haunt you for the rest of your career.
    I wonder if Erica considered that when she willfully chose to capitulate to tyranny.

  • keyster

    She was naive to have so much journalistic integrity and lack of bias. Now she knows. Mess with Feminism Inc’s narrative and you tarnish your career for life. Stick to the talking points, better yet make it a “hit piece” and you’re “on the team”.

    Bullies win for a reason.
    Fear and intimidation is a powerful weapon.

    • Paul Elam

      Sometimes when you win, you lose. :)

    • Steve_85

      Bullies only win until someone breaks their face. Not many willing to try anymore though.

      • Skeptic

        Bullies – the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

  • SeaforthCJ

    I’m disappointed with myself for not seeing this possibility, I thought I’d had all my idealism burned out of me long ago, and yet there I was in comments suggesting we extend help to her when I already knew that she had hidden her email.

    Excuse me, there’s a white knight in my basement I need to have a word with.

  • Mateusz

    I’d just want to hold off before crying of betrayal and denouncing her just yet. For one, it’s not really a secret to most of us how powerful feminism can be.

    As much as I’d have preferred her to stand up to all they threw at her, and not back down, I can’t really blame her for being hesitant about putting her career on the chopping block. It’d be a bit much asking her to sacrifice herself for a cause she’s just learning about.

    Yeah, it’s an act of fear, but I can’t really blame her (I’m just talking about her actions after publication. Her actual article wasn’t bad, but had flaws of its own). She was bullied (presumably), and being scared for loss of livelihood isn’t the worst human fault.

    Either way, I’d want to hear from her before jumping to conclusions. Until then, I’m disappointed, but not too much ready to revile her as a coward, all things considered.

    • Paul Elam

      Sacrificing herself for a cause she has just heard about? Nah, that is not the case at all. If she were to sacrifice herself at all it would be for journalistic integrity, not the MRM, which she never claimed to advocate for.

      Writing, unless you sell short mind-numbing rounds of schmaltz to greeting card companies, takes guts. You have to be willing to take the stones thrown at you. Speaking as someone who has had everything, including the kitchen sink, lobbed at his head, I have no sympathy for people who want to play at journalism till it gets real.

      And I am not even saying she is the main problem, but just a symptom.

      There is plenty in front of you from which to draw conclusions, and very fair ones. In short, you have already heard from her, though you may not be willing to listen.

      • andybob

        Dr Elam is absolutely correct.

        Erika Jarvis, young, ginger journo from Tasmania, has sabotaged her own personal and professional reputation by requesting the burial of her article. For a brief, shining moment, she flew in the face of established feminist dogma and earned the most respectful attention she has ever received in her life.

        Today, she is dismissed by all as a flake. Shame.

        The “illuminating” blowback she received from feminists should have been her next story. Imagine the parallels she could have drawn between her own experience with feminists and the U of T protesters. The publicity would have offered her some form of protection – these bigots hate that kind of spotlight.

        I can imagine what happened. Someone – probably her family – urged her to protect herself. She panicked and complied by taking what seemed like the easiest route. As Ms Typhonblue points out, you cannot run from bullies because it only emboldens them – and paints an indelible target on your back.

        The saddest part of all is that Ms Jarvis probably thinks that her actions will make the femistasi forgive and forget. She will have to be as convincing as Jessica Mason-Paull that she truly loves Big Sister before that will ever happen.

      • Turbo

        Agreed, on the face of it she has caved in to pressure from various sources. We are unaware of any serious threats from rampant feminist groups, although Ms Jarvis does express surprise at the feminist backlash. We do know there are extremely violent feminists.

        I am not sure any of that matters anyway. What matters is the way this has played out, and any way you look at it, it’s a win for AVfM. It has shown once again that there are forces out there that do not want fair and differing opinion, whilst we retain our position as holders of the moral compass, truth and compassion.

        Another win for mine.

  • typhonblue

    A warning for Erika.

    Bullies are emboldened when you back down from them; you’ve just shed blood in a shark tank.

    • gwallan

      Yes. The predator always recognises it’s prey, particularly when the prey has been previously damaged.

  • Raven01

    It turns out she is just a “could have been” and won’t even make it as a has been.
    With a picture being worth 1000 words I will truncate my post and share this:

    And completely off topic this as well:

  • 4thtroika


  • Easytiger

    A coward is a coward is a coward.

    And real journalists are never cowardly. Frightened at times, like the rest of us? Certainly. But courage is not the abscence of fear; it’s resistance to it. Integrity takes real balls (and ovaries).

    Time for Ms. Jarvis to investigate a new career, methinks.

  • Jay

    Perhaps there is one thing we are missing in all of this. Perhaps we are missing that Erika Jarvis may have been told by the Toronto Standard that the article will be removed, but it is best if she removes it at her own behest to save her reputation within the organisation. Much like an employee about to be sacked can be given the option to resign. For the benefit of both the employee and organisation.

    The fact that the editor added the note about the SPLC at the end of Erika’s article adds credibility to the line of thought above. Hence the Toronto Standard felt badly that this article was popular and disagreed with their ideological position (pro-misandry, pro-feminism), and outraged misandrist feminists. Therefore they needed a mechanism to delete the article, and the best one was to get the author herself to delete it.

    • Raven01

      She is a free-lance not an employee.
      So, no they didn’t tell her to request its’ removal. They having paid for the work weren’t likely even obliged to remove it at the authors request.

    • Wilf

      That was my reading of the situation – at bit like a government minister resigning (“to spend more time with his family”) instead of being sacked (and the reason for the sacking being made public).

  • TigerMan

    WTF? That is from the gutter – please take it back it has no place here!

  • Not buying it

    @Old Joe
    Ask you’re mom to change your diaper, you stinking up the joint hear with your childish mumblings.

  • typhonblue

    Since we’re engaging in Wild Mass Guessing…

    Maybe she did this in order to spread the story further afield and make it even more powerful.


    • andybob

      I don’t think Ms Jarvis would be that sophisticated. The poor girl suffers from Tasmania.

    • scatmaster

      Memories like the corners of my mind.
      Misty water colored memories

      or some such drivel.

  • donzaloog

    That was an impressive bit of cowardice and manipulation by Ms. Jarvis. She’ll definitely be right at home with the GMP.

  • Ivo Vos

    @Brodehouse :
    Question : If ‘she’ was a ‘he’, would you have reacted in the same way ?

    • Brodehouse

      Yes. It’s not that “the Standard is silencing a WOMAN!” that got my blood up, it was silencing anyone altogether. She could be Erik Jarvis and it would make no difference. But I would still want Erik to respond before I made a judgement. And I would still hold him accountable for a lie of omission.

      We could have saved a lot of time if she would’ve laid all the facts out in her initial email. “I asked for it taken down and here’s why”.

  • Mike Buchanan

    Another possible explanation for Ms Jarvis’s retreat occurs to me (hopefully I’m not repeating the same theory someone else already has!)

    With each year that passes, feminists must be increasingly fearful of more female journalists finding the courage to speak out. Fearful of a ‘mass protest’ so to speak, of an alternative herd forming, to which women can turn instead of the feminist herd. What better way to provoke the ‘fear of group rejection’ others have alluded to, than persuading a little-known female journo to print a piece, then (as agreed in advance) swiftly withdraw it? This says to genuine potentially courageous journalists, ‘If you side with the MRM, or individual MRAs, you’ll be considered a traitor to the women’s movement… and you’ll lose your livelihood.’

    I share the sympathy with other commenters on this and other pieces about the livelihood issue. After all, most of the commenters on this site use pseudonyms for this and other reasons. I only have the luxury of not needing to use a pseudonym because I’m retired and so have no job to lose.

    My instinct tells me that Ms Jarvis (along with her feminist backers) was stringing AVfM along from the outset, but I’d most certainly have been convinced myself in their position. These things will happen. I think we can draw more positives than negatives from this story, even if it develops no further.

    Even if she was genuine, Ms Jarvis looks fairly young, and young female journos have more to lose than older ones.

    So, if not female journalists at this stage in the game, which women CAN we expect to be our ‘natural’ allies in the fight against feminism? We’re increasingly finding support for our campaigns f(and the forthcoming party) from a group of women with more reasons than most to be our allies in fighting the good fight – mothers of boys.

    Mike Buchanan


  • dragnet


    But so necessary.

  • rake

    Another golden nugget from the article addressing teh good manginas:

    “…the protest in Toronto (which you somehow missed covering)”

    Since I don’t usually dignify that site with my attention, except when its disingenuousness is drawn to my attention, I was unaware that GMP had neglected to mention an attempt to shut down an event dedicated to men’s issues.

    So thanks for highlighting that notable omission, Paul. Especially notable, given their mission statement. Quote, emphasis mine:

    We are a community of 21st Century thought leaders around the issue of men’s roles in modern life. We explore the world of men and manhood in a way that no media company ever has, tackling the issues and questions that are most relevant to men’s lives. We write about fatherhood, family, sex, ethics, war, gender, politics, sports, pornography, and aging. We shy away from nothing.

    You’d think the U of T debacle would be front page news at GMP, if the above statement was remotely sincere…

    *btw, just searched GMP for “Warren Farrell” (and “Toronto” for good measure) for myself and… nope, no sign of the Toronto story.

  • gateman

    Erika, I suggest you have a read of Erin Pizzey’s latest autobiography and learn what courage and character is all about.

    This Way to the Revolution : An autobiography.

  • Cumbria

    Feminists are such bullies!!! What are they afraid of? The truth???

    Good grief – Erika, I had high hopes for you. Please grow a backbone and hope to see you back on the scene soon.

  • limeywestlake

    Just sent:
    Ms. Jarvis –
    I am very disappointed at your lack of courage in your pulling of the Paul Elam article. You were, for a little time, seen in a positive light by men’s groups across the world. It is such a pity that a reflexive cowardice ultimately dictated your actions. I hope that you have occasion to think deeply about what you have done and what and who you are accommodating. From a British father of 2 young (human being) boys…

  • Rick Westlake

    You know what ‘Old Joe’ is gutter-slang for?

    You just proved it. Get out of here.

  • Raven01

    Off colour isn’t the issue.
    If it were humourous and relevant you might have a case.
    That was entirely sophomoric.
    Nice try at blame shifting like a feminist btw. It did not fly.

  • scatmaster

    Umm, it is court martial.

  • Astrokid

    In my discussions with her, Ms. Jarvis presented as a talented and intelligent woman with a high degree of integrity. Her questioning of me was fearless, while her reactions to my answers were conspicuously balanced and thoughtful. She literally brimmed with credibility.

    That is why when her piece was removed from the Standard, it did not even dawn on me that it was at her behest; that is how much I actually believed her
    Paul.. I am LMAO at this. The leading MRA, with decades of experience in psychology, got conned by a young woman. Where does that leave the rest of us mere mortal MRAs?
    I think a re-reading of Arthur Schopenhauer and dissimulation is in order. And next time, let GWW handle the interviews. :-)

    • Robert St. Estephe

      You make a good point about dissimulation, but my guess is that it is more complicated. Peer pressure in the feminine sphere operates differently than in the male sphere. If only we had the specific details of the probable threats of life-long ostracism that Jarvis was, I imagine subjected to. It would be valuable information.

      Alas, we will probably never know.

      Thank goodness we have Pizzey, who has documented how feminine ostracism (naturally collectivist-authoritarian) operates.

      I doubt Jarvis was conning. I think she just got her “woman” buttons pushed in woman terms by women who she perceives she cannot afford to cross.

      Bottom line, I think, is cowardice.