Feminists to “Boycott” Men’s Conference

by W.F. Price on June 25, 2014

The Spearhead needs your help to stay online. Without support soon, the site cannot survive as a resource open to all visitors. Please contribute financially to maintain men’s journalism as a viable opinion and news outlet. Anything helps.

In a stunning admission of defeat, feminists are urging fellow-travellers to boycott the AVfM-sponsored International Men’s Conference in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. One can sense a shifting of the tide – a loss of initiative – as instead of confronting, challenging and shouting people down feminists have scattered into the woods. It’s really pretty funny that they’re calling it a “boycott.” Hamster much?

Their continual promotion of violence through their writing should not be tolerated. Actions such as proclaiming that October’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month be renamed to “Bash a Bitch Month,” saying women don’t just desire but beg to be raped and their hosting of a manifesto by Tom Ball that calls for the firebombing of court houses. We are not in opposition to real issues that men and boys face in our society but their hatred for women that they are using those issues to hide behind.

We have had numerous people reach out to us to let us know of the very real danger we could be in by protesting. Due to concerns for physical safety we have decided the best way to oppose the conference that is now going on in St. Clair Shores is to keep our distance. With AVFM’s history of attempting to provoke protestors, harassing individuals by following them to their cars or home, and filming or photographing them in order to release their private information online we don’t feel that protesting at the VFW hall could keep people reasonable safe.

While there may be others who decide to protest the conference, we want to make it perfectly clear that there are real concerns for safety. If you are planning to protest the conference, please make sure the people who are coming are informed enough about the kind of vicious tactics that AVFM has used to derail and trivialize the response to their own ideology.

This is actually a pretty significant development. Of course, anyone with any knowledge about women’s nature could have predicted that once men actually started to stand up for themselves this would happen, but in my life I can’t think of one example of feminists retreating in such an ignominious manner. It’s sad that it took so long for men to finally make a stand, but better late than never.

I suspect that one of the reasons feminists are hiding is that they are afraid one of their own will actually be arrested or justifiably smacked down for some especially stupid threat or attack. This proves that Paul Elam’s tactic of announcing his willingness – actually, desire – to trade blows if it comes to it was pretty savvy. If you announce that you won’t fight back, then people think that gives them a license to attack you — it’s human nature. For example, the Christian admonition to “turn the other cheek” is frequently misunderstood as requiring Christians to helplessly submit to attacks, whereas it was actually a highly contextual piece of advice in a legalistic society. It’s a warning to people to avoid falling into the trap of provocation.

One thing that I have observed in my studies of gender politics is that supplicating to women does not win men favors in politics any more than it does in a pickup scenario. However, women will always say that it does. Conservatives, for some reason, fall for it, and believe the stories about how they need to supplicate in order to win votes. But all one needs to do is point out that AVfM has never supplicated, yet the organization enjoys a great deal of support from women (even a little too much for my tastes). How could this be possible? Obviously, it’s because women generally admire men who stand up for themselves, whereas they despise those who don’t.

The only men’s movement that will ever get anywhere is an unapologetic, and even sometimes a little savage, movement.

Now that one has finally arrived, I think I’ll enjoy sitting back and watching the opposition scatter to the winds until all that’s left of it is a few blabbering, clueless male feminists wondering where all their female allies disappeared to.

{ 50 comments… read them below or add one }

TFH June 25, 2014 at 14:06

Why not a ‘girlcott’? Isn’t the term ‘boycott’ misogynist?

I tell ya, they are getting soft…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 71 Thumb down 3
TFH June 25, 2014 at 14:11

The only men’s movement that will ever get anywhere is an unapologetic, and even sometimes a little savage, movement.

Ooooh yeah! Dig it!! Be Macho, and be Savage, and that way, men will prevail in the end…

These are lessons from 25 years ago, from unlikely sources that others dismiss as not having value.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
RICanuck June 25, 2014 at 14:16

a manifesto by Tom Ball that calls for the firebombing of court houses.

That quote is a true exposure of the contempt that North American women hold for men. We should not get angry with them, but we should not be afraid to call them out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
TFH June 25, 2014 at 14:24

The ‘Fat Lady’ is deleting comments on the linked article in seconds. What a commitment to ‘equality’ and ‘liberalism’ and ‘human rights’ that the ‘Fat Lady’ (who shall hence be referred to as ‘Umber Hulk’) is exhibiting…

On a morality scale of 1 to 10, these people rate as ’1′.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
freebird June 25, 2014 at 14:34

Fatty fatty 2×4,can’t get through the bedroom door!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
JT June 25, 2014 at 14:39

“But all one needs to do is point out that AVfM has never supplicated, yet the organization enjoys a great deal of support from women (even a little too much for my tastes). How could this be possible? Obviously, it’s because women generally admire men who stand up for themselves, whereas they despise those who don’t.”

Bingo.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
aaron June 25, 2014 at 14:39

Nice of the protesting misandrists to unintentionally provide additional promotion for
the Men’s Movement.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
keyster June 25, 2014 at 15:00

You could not find a more genteel, cordial, even nerdy, group of guys than AVfM. The feminists quote mine blatantly sarcastic content, meant to provoke thought in a “gender reversal” context and claim AVfM is “violent”.

They’re losing the propaganda war – because teh interwebs – and they don’t like it. Not to mention the Left in general is teetering, starting with their Messiah in Chief and his incompetence of leadership (ie- disinterest in the job of President, except for the perks).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 62 Thumb down 3
crypter27 June 25, 2014 at 16:06

The only problem I have with the men’s movement as it stands is they’re trying to lobby the same criminal government that oppresses them. For state privileges that women currently have ,instead of demanding the government get off their backs and demand their constitutional rights be restored. Its nice that the feminist backed off and its nice they stood they’re ground but I haven’t seen any results yet.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
djc June 25, 2014 at 16:31

Wait! Isn’t that a good thing?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
djc June 25, 2014 at 16:33

What I meant was the “Feminists to “Boycott” Men’s Conference” thing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
TFH June 25, 2014 at 16:34

djc,

Wait! Isn’t that a good thing?

It is a very good thing. They have been exposed as bluffers, and are now just generating publicity for the conference. I bet people who have never heard of it have now heard of it as of today.

Furthermore, maybe AVfM can save the $25,000 they raised for security and do something else with it (like a short documentary film or something).

So yes, since women don’t understand cause and effect, it is good.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price June 25, 2014 at 16:35

@djc

Of course it’s a good thing. It’s also pretty funny, and great for motivating men to come out of the shadows and stop being so timid about supporting their interests.

cxj June 25, 2014 at 16:55

“Boycott…”

That word, I don’t think it means what you think it keans! The idea behind a boycott is not to buy something you otherwise would have bought to protest the company making it, because you believe they are doing something unethical. Feminists were NEVER going to support a men’s conference, they had no support to withdraw, and this was in no way a boycott. MRAS refusing to attend would be a boycott, not feminists.

LOL @ leftist dummies and their hilarious lack of understanding of even the most basic principles of markets.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 48 Thumb down 0
justlooking June 25, 2014 at 16:57

“The only problem I have with the men’s movement as it stands is they’re trying to lobby the same criminal government that oppresses them…”

Actually, lobbying the government is the right thing to do. The real reason the men have lost the gender war so far is that they have followed exactly what you advocated: see the government as an enemy. The right approach is to see the government as a tool, and to use it to achieve our goals. Or, better still, see the government as a muscular and strong but blind—like Samson in captivity. Men should carefully guide the government to the pillars holding feminism up, and ask it to “push with all your might”.
In case you haven’t noticed, the first victims of feminism are those in politics. Once they were conquered, they were then forced to do the feminist’s bidding. If we are to get anywhere, we must start by liberating the government from the grips of feminism—and that is by helping them realize that if they do our bidding, they have nothing to fear; we will bankroll their elections. And if they fail, we will use their skulls to drink wine.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 6
Uncle Elmer June 25, 2014 at 17:17

Bash a Bish Month. Now that’s funny.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Angry Harry June 25, 2014 at 19:09

“Actually, lobbying the government is the right thing to do. ”

We will do better than that. The MM will actually take over the government – by invading their brains.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 2
Anonymous Reader June 25, 2014 at 19:26

a manifesto by Tom Ball that calls for the firebombing of court houses.

Hmm. First the feminists tried to ignore and bury him, in various ways including prohibiting Wiki page about Thomas Ball.

Now, they fear his words? That’s progress of a sort.

However, the reality is this:
Feminism is the manifesto that calls for men to be burned to death, some literally as in Ball’s suicide, others only figuratively, as in millions of frivorced men. Make no mistake, though, all men are disposable to feminists. All of us.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 1
Paul Murray June 26, 2014 at 00:31

Nice to see feminism facing the same fate as Scientology – death by truth, at the hands of the internet.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
evilwhitemalempire June 26, 2014 at 01:07

“We are boycotting it because MHRAs are soooo violent and stuff.”

translation: “We can’t shut it down and we will likely be outnumbered if we try and harass them on the street so we aren’t showing.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
mrnobody June 26, 2014 at 01:32

That’s pretty funny. I’m going to be boycotting all those parties thrown by billionaires for the rest of my life too.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Opus June 26, 2014 at 02:02

“we want to make it clear that there are real concerns for safety” – she says, pretty much I suppose as there would be if one walked uninvited into the cage of an unfed Lion – thus demonstrating the usual female concern for safety over freedom or (if the threat of violence existed other than in their fervid imaginations) common-sense. For some reason it put me in mind of the two Shirley Eaton Sumaru movies: Sumara runs a State going by the name of Femina. All men are to be killed but only after Sumaru has shown our hero the extent of her empire, for there is no point if you are a woman merely achieving Supremacy; you must be seen to have achieved it and the only person worth impressing is of course a handsome man. Predictably that one man turns the tables and most of the women are killed (you see: these men are so violent) and those that aren’t don black and go into mourning.

Compulsory viewing for MRAs though Miss Eaton is not quite as hot as she was when she was painted in gold.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Cyclotron Majesty June 26, 2014 at 02:44

Lmfao. The illusion shatters. Now to move forward with shattering the rest of them. I like how they play the victim on an issue where they clearly are the aggressors acting as if ppl at the conference are bad when they get identified online or are investigated after their harassment of those at the conference. Frankly ppl should be followed and investigated if they protest this event in public because they are suspect for being the ones who threatened violence!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
alex June 26, 2014 at 05:02

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 20
artist June 26, 2014 at 07:08

Hmmmm….

“We have had numerous people reach out to us to let us know of the very real danger we could be in by protesting. Due to concerns for physical safety we have decided the best way to oppose the conference that is now going on in St. Clair Shores is to keep our distance. With AVFM’s history of attempting to provoke protestors, harassing individuals by following them to their cars or home, and filming or photographing them in order to release their private information online we don’t feel that protesting at the VFW hall could keep people reasonable safe.”

In other words, they fear their own tactics may be used against them.

Sweet!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
The Brass Cat June 26, 2014 at 08:40

They have a very limited tool box to work from. They’ve already pulled out the big guns–intimidation and coercion–and those didn’t work, so they knew actual face-to-face confrontation would not work. What’s left in the tool box? Lol, boycott.

Of course, they don’t even know what a boycott is, because to Feminists definitions are malleable (and evidently this leads to chronic delirium), but damn it! They’re going to boycott the hell out of AVfM.

You go girls!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
greyghost June 26, 2014 at 09:06

Only a woman cannot see the humor in “Feminists to “Boycott” Men’s Conference” I would say (to myself with a shit eatin grin) “Damn, what a stroke of luck. I didn’t want the bitches there any way.”
The women did this out of anger hatred and misandry, etc. They never would have nor will they leave a conference like this alone out of any sense of fairness or what ever. The nature of women.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Shlomo Shunn June 26, 2014 at 21:58

> “We are not in opposition to real issues that men and boys face in our society”

Really? How come feminists never manage to cite a single male problem, much less solve it?

For decades, MRAs were urged to counter feminists, to not lay down during the “gender war.” Many urged the movement to MOVE, to fight back. Alas, most so-called leaders refused. They prefered being “nice.” They hoped by doing so to avoid being called names by feminists. This led many men to lose their kids, jobs, etc. while encouraging women’s groups to pile on even more. I mean, look at all the DV, SH, CS and other laws that ream men!

Many urged Paul to be “nicer,” too. At times he’s pulled back, mostly to curb men who urged even more action. I still don’t understand his tiffs with Chapin, Angry, Harry, etc. But by and large Elam has held his own. Moreover, he has done more than just talk. He has held meetings, conferences, etc. and gone on TV.

How many other individuals or groups can claim the same?

The wonder is that men STILL do so little after so much being taken from them. If feminists offer “Women’s Studies” in colleges, men need to have “Men’s Studies.” It’s pretty simple: fighting fire with fire. If at some point both parties agree to lay down weapons, fine. But it is insane to choose MGTOW and intentional disunity as a collective male response. Yet men, for the most part, refused to carry weapons, much less march onto battlefields. It’s why feminism continues to win.

When someone wants to rob your house, it does little good to leave the door unlocked while you go on vacation.

Note, too, the “projecting” fembots do: it was not MRAs or Warren Farrell, etc. who blocked entrances, harassed attendees, stomped in corridors, jostled with and ignore cops, pulled fire alarms, etc. It was feminists like Big Red and her ilk.

You know, the folks forever talking about “inclusion” and “respecting differences” who seek to shut down all debates.

Fembots think nothing of shoving cameras in MRAs’ faces. They think nothing of doxxing, too. But man-oh-man, they hate it when they get back as good as they give.

The violence has all come from the feminist camp. They are like women who think it’s okay to slap men (after saying no one has the right to hit anyone!), then call the cops when the males either protect themselves or fight back.

Like I’ve said for decades: when men start fighting back feminists will run. Because if it’s one thing guys know, it’s war.

And, of course, I’m speaking figuratively here. Men need to take the gender war seriously and unite and fight; have full-time paid activists and lawyers; find spokespeople; and so on.

We’ll see if guys ARE finally ready to take on feminists. They might be, but who knows? I’ve seen groups come and go over the years, always choosing NOT to do what was needed to grow.

Remember: NCFM held the first “international conference” on men in 1981 at Adelphi University, outside of Manhattan. It should be as big as the NRA by now, but is barely known. It chose not to use mass media, despite having famous actors, etc. supporting it. It chose to be a tiny collection of frogs in a microscopic pond.

More’s the pity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Shlomo Shunn June 26, 2014 at 22:33

> “a true exposure of the contempt that North American women hold for men. We should not get angry with them, but we should not be afraid to call them out.”

See the problem? Somehow “male anger” is seen as dangerous. Why? Anger propels us to oppose injustice. It’s the emotion that motivates us to act. It’s the guy who holds things inside, who keeps emotions tamped down, who is likely to snap and act-out aggressively.

Alas, keeping things tamped down has been the stance of the non-moving men’s movement for decades: “Let us be nice, reasonable, rational, logical gentlemen and all will turn out well.”

In fact, feminists saw that stance as “passive pacifism” and took it as a green-light to attack men more-more-more.

I went to some fathers’ rights groups in Massachusetts in the 1980-90s. A more meek bunch you will never meet. They’d complain about anti-dad bills being presented, yet never showed up to hearings. They never held mass rallies, either. Nor did they create events to attract reporters. As a result, most new outlets viewed the men as clowns.

If I walk down the street today and ask people to name one Massachusetts men’s rights goups, they will look puzzled. If I ask them to name a single national men’s group, they will laugh. If I ask about an international men’s entity, they will think me insane.

For the most part, the “men’s movement” was limited to emails and faxes back-in-the-day. Now there are websites, blogs, and vlogs. Still, after 5 decades there is no effective lobbying for men’s rights. And few events. And still fewer pro-male spokespeople on TV.

Compare that to gay rights activists. THEIR eternal actions have made homosexual marriage more the norm today than ever before.

Now understand: I have nothing against gay rights (other than thinking GLAAD should settle for tolerance instead of pushing for celebration of their lifestyle). I’m just wondering how long the “center” can hold when gays (an admitted minority), along with illegals flooding America’s borders (not to mention endless feminist “issues”) get soooooooo much attention while half the world (MEN) is ignored!

Every time you turn around there is a new hysterical feminist concern, from “rapey rape” to “unequal pay.” Rarely– if ever– do men counter those assertions, forcibly pointing out the lies and distortions. Rarer still do men note their own issues… like how it feels to keep working at a shitty job (taken to to support a family) now that the ex tore up the marriage contract, she keeping all the benefits (obtained by using kids as meal-tickets), he getting all the burdens.

I know that guys are raised to stuff feelings of pain, need, fear, vulnerability, etc. Yet unless they overcome that socialization they will continue being sitting ducks for feminists. The latter, mostly being Team Vagina, are free (even encouraged) to emote, cry, lie and do whatever they feel like to get what they want.

I think most guys feel anger when they hear the latest WTF feminist outrage. But I think they also feel helpless to change anything, and might fear being attacked by white knights (who can be anything from randon guys to cops seeing to protect “the little lady.”). So I know what guys are up against. I just know if they don’t fight back things will only worsen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
Shlomo Shunn June 26, 2014 at 22:42

> “Bash a Bish Month. Now that’s funny.”

There is a actually something called Bash Bish Falls in Massachusetts. Perhaps it should be used to make proclamations from a la Seneca Falls.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Angry Harry June 27, 2014 at 05:47

@Shlomo

Great posts.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Phil Galt June 27, 2014 at 06:17

This sounds bad to me. Someone did not want the conference to happen, and they succeeded in running it off to a different location. And they generated propaganda while doing so. This does not feel like a win for men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price June 27, 2014 at 09:47

Many urged Paul to be “nicer,” too. At times he’s pulled back, mostly to curb men who urged even more action. I still don’t understand his tiffs with Chapin, Angry, Harry, etc. But by and large Elam has held his own. Moreover, he has done more than just talk. He has held meetings, conferences, etc. and gone on TV.

-Shlomo Shunn

I supported Paul from the start, and still do, but with caveats:

He picks a lot of fights with people who are fundamentally on his own side, and that has to stop — it put me personally in a shitty situation a few times, and eventually made me pretty angry. It seems he’s calmed down, so maybe it isn’t an issue any longer. Otherwise, he’s right for the job. No small children, no family court troubles and plenty of time for running an organization. Plus he’s not a pussy and actually enjoys taking feminists on (although sometimes he seems to enjoy taking everyone on).

He’s got a good shot at keeping the momentum going, and the opposition is turning out to be a paper tiger. I predict that AVfM and Paul will actually make a political impact. I see so much anger about family court and feminism from all along the political spectrum out in the world and online that if he keeps his focus he can’t go wrong.

HOWEVER, there must be independent oversight and critique, different points of view and a politically and intellectually diverse community around men’s issues. This is what Paul has to respect and tolerate not only for the greater good, but for the viability and credibility of AVfM as well.

TFH June 27, 2014 at 10:39

Shlomo Shumm,

I still don’t understand his tiffs with Chapin, Angry Harry, etc.

Heh….. that is all I have to say. Heh.

Anyway, Shlomo, remember that Paul does a great job in doing activism for Men’s Rights, something that was virtually non-existent before him. However, when he is not directly fighting feminists, he ends up fighting people on his own side. He has pretty much had a bickering contest with just about everyone else in the androsphere, most of whom are not known for being hard to get along with. The list is :

Roosh
Jack Donovan
Heartiste
Chuck Ross
Matt Forney
Frost
Human Stupidity
WF Price
Bernard Chapin

Who has he *not* had an argument with? Who is left? Dalrock? PM/AFT? Not many others..

So Paul is an enigma. He does activism that no one else would be doing (for which we should be grateful), but has caused more intra-androsphere bickering than almost everyone else combined. I think that only happens when there is a lull in fighting feminists, so he has to fight someone else. The best thing is for more feminists to attack him, so he will be busy fighting only them. This could be why he isn’t having more androsphere fights anymore.. as more feminists are fighting him.

Paul is at Stage 3 of the Mahatma Gandhi “Then they fight you” progression. Next up : Stage 4 “Then you win”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1
Angry Harry June 27, 2014 at 10:41

“there must be independent oversight and critique, different points of view and a politically and intellectually diverse community around men’s issues. ”

That is already the case – and growing.

“This is what Paul has to respect and tolerate not only for the greater good, but for the viability and credibility of AVfM as well.”

I suspect that Paul will continue to do what he set out to do.

People are going to realise that Men’s Issues are going to be so important to the functioning of their own societies that this … “different points of view and a politically and intellectually diverse community around men’s issues. ” will happen, and it will involve, literally, millions of people – well outside of ‘our’ control or AVFM’s control.

As such, my guess is that AVFM will continue to push in the same direction, and with the same vigour.

Well, I hope so.

Furthermore, while Paul is a huge pain in the butt for much of the time, I hope that you can gradually get back together again.

Don’t expect an apology, and don’t give one.

Because what is done is done.

Just turn up on his site sometimes, and say something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
greyghost June 27, 2014 at 11:05

HOWEVER, there must be independent oversight and critique, different points of view and a politically and intellectually diverse community around men’s issues. This is what Paul has to respect and tolerate not only for the greater good, but for the viability and credibility of AVfM as well.

Not every man in the military is special forces or an apache pilot. Not every man is this one type. The PUA, MGTOW, grass eater, the jock ,the geek, the fag (gay marriage is the best thing that could have happened to the MGTOW family man.) Even the white knight and the mangina have a role to play. But all are men that live under misandry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price June 27, 2014 at 12:40

Just turn up on his site sometimes, and say something.

-Angry Harry

Honestly, there are only a couple sites online that I post on other than this one, and they are purely for non-MRA entertainment — everyone needs a break sometimes.

But it’s good to see you around. I have to get in touch with Rob Feddrz again, too — he’s virtually my neighbor now that I’m up near the border.

People are going to realise that Men’s Issues are going to be so important to the functioning of their own societies that this … “different points of view and a politically and intellectually diverse community around men’s issues. ” will happen, and it will involve, literally, millions of people – well outside of ‘our’ control or AVFM’s control.

For sure. Mass movements take on a life of their own, and this one is headed in that direction.

Angry Harry June 27, 2014 at 13:18

@Bill

But you just said that AVFM needs more input, and your input is WELL-WORTH having. MRAs would benefit from your input.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3
Anonymous Reader June 27, 2014 at 18:26

Almost forgot: someone tell the bad-red-dye-job brigade that “boycott” includes the word “boy” which is, like, racist and sexist and toootally patriarchal.

They should be engaging in a “girlcott’….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
bob June 27, 2014 at 20:24

With AVFM’s history of attempting to provoke protestors, harassing individuals by following them to their cars or home, and filming or photographing them

Yeah, provokinmg them by saying stuff they don’t like, then filming the bat-shit responses.

All those vids of Big Red must have made some impact.

BY THE WAY: When did Paul Elam say he would ” to trade blows if it comes to it ” – was that an actual statement, or was it metaphorical as in “we’ll video-record everything”?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Shlomo Shunn June 27, 2014 at 21:22

> “I supported Paul from the start, and still do, but with caveats: He picks a lot of fights with people who are fundamentally on his own side, and that has to stop — it put me personally in a shitty situation a few times, and eventually made me pretty angry.”

He did it to me, too. I kept pointing out to his readers that men have talked and talked and talked forever… and that things have only worsened. I said men had to start fighting back, using the “arts of suasion” created by men: PR, mass rallies, conferences, appearances on TV-radio-NYTj, etc. Paul responded by telling me to tamp it down…or else.

I didn’t like the not-so-veiled threat. I know of what I speak. Holding back on a men’s site that supposedly knows being meek leads to more misandry seemed insane. Men have to more and more angry. They need to use that anger to fuel activism.

But no. To spare the feelings of milquetoasts, Paul tends to wound messengers.

NCFM has been around forever, yet few people know about it. Why? It took the same “don’t make waves” and “don’t use mass media” approach that Paul uses to kabosh those not totally on his wavelength. The results: I doubt NCFM has even 100 members internationally now. And AVFM has turned off slews of non-liberal/Democrat/socialist/ anarchist men and women.

It’s a fine line, I know. You have to be tough-minded enough to hold out against those whose views you genuinely feel will stymie your group while, and the same time, not alienating allies based on power-trips or simple fear. Not every general has to be a Patton.

Another problem…in and out of AVFM: guys want to start their own platoons instead of joining an army. Instead of AVFM posters all being on-board one ship, they float their own dinghys (!), wanting to have some “independence.” They create competing blogs, groups, etc. The trouble is, reporters are not interested in individuals, not unless they’ve written a best-seller (and are known for that). They are interested in spokespeople for large, well-known groups. When a gender issue comes up they call Steinem or N.O.W., not the Ladies Union of Podunk.

For years there have been guys like Roy U. Schenk, Herb Goldberg, Warren Farrell, Richard F. Doyle, Fred Hayward, Peter Zohrab, Rod Van Mechelen and others in the men’s movement. All did great work, but as lone wolves. They’d be collectively trumped by ONE unknown shill speaking for N.O.W.

And, all too often, they turned on each other (the all-too-familiar “circular firing squad”)….all the while howling for “unity.”

Paul is slowly breaking into the “real world” by doing TV and now this conference. It will be interesting to see what happens from now on. He has to share power or risk losing effective activists. And he’s got to get savvier about using mass media: for example, he needs on-air spokespeople who don’t look like members of Duck Dynasty or the Union of Couch Potatoes or Sour-puss Never Got Laid Wimminz.

Years ago, during the first International Women’s Conference in Beijing, I tried to get guys to unite “virtually.” I called the effort, TMI (no, not “too much information” or “Three Mile Island”!). It was, The Men’s Internetwork. The ideas was for any men’s group in the world to protest the women’s forum (and its misandric lies) by doing so under the TMI banner. The more groups that acted, the more the TMI name would be known. More reporters would ask, “What’s this TMI all about?”

The idea was, since no men’s group was big enough itself to garner attention, men’s small groups could unite and fight. TMI would allow them to get known and let reporters know that feminists weren’t the only voices per gender issues.

TMI was not a “real” group. It had no physical office or even LLC. It was simply a moniker for a cyber-effort that would allow men’s groups to get media attention.

Almost every men’s groups refused to join in.

They worried about losing members (as if they had more than 10 anyway!) or “sharing power” (as if they had any to begin with!).

It was insane, but typical of the non-moving men’s movement: here was a feminist event with a HUGE international spotlight on it. All guys had to do was step into that light and say a few sound-bites.

They refused to do so.

Things continue that way today.

I suggested, some 6-weeks before Father’s Day, that AVFM create a quick, short, simple online petition praising fathers. I suggested signers be encouraged to write, too: short, sweet, poignant messages about fatherhood. Reporters could then write about those “stories.”

I urged that all men’s groups be encouraged to join in, including groups like the NRA. The individual groups could then get coverage, contacting reporters to say they were part of an international effort. The local press would then alert men in the community that their was a MRA group to join, fund, aid.

The idea was, yet again, to create “buzz” and get signatures…and more media attention.

The petition could be stand-alone or done on the White House’s website. The results could be printed out and presented to the President by Paul or a pro-male politician. Media could be contacted to cover it.

Nothing happened.

Instead, media covered the usual anti-male shite on Father’s Day, including misadry promoted by a “feminist father.”

Again, again, again: MEN’S groups did nothing, letting feminist continue to ruin the one day set aside to “honor” a male role.

I tried to get attention back-in-the-day…changing tactics with technology. At first it was “Postcards for Papa.” Then “Faxes for Fathers.” Then “Emails for Everydad.” Each iteration was easier for men to participate in. Alas, nothing worked. No matter how easy it was to participate, guys chose beer and sports.

I think the best I got one year was 100 postcards…from around the entire globe.

My idea was simple: generate media interest and give guys an annual event that celebrated fathers, making guys feel less maligned and impotent.

I failed.

Men, who creasted newspapers, continue to think media cover “ideas.” They don’t. The cover news. Call a reporter and say you oppose feminism and, before he falls asleep, he will tell you to write letters-to-the-editor. Tell him 100 guys are going to block rush-hour traffic in front of the local N.O.W. headquarters and the reporter will be there with a crew (at which time ONE spokesperson from your group says a few sound-bite and hands out a flyer with much white-space and a few simple, clear, concise points on it).

I hoped to create a buzz like in those Hollywood scenes when sacks of letters to politicians or Santa Claus rouse the audience at the movie’s end.

But no. Guys need dynamite to ignite in their butts before they will move.

Meanwhile, men continue to complain that ever-active feminists “ruin everything for guys.” I guess the men think bullies stop on their own accord.

I’ve tried other things, too, with limited success. Every year Boston holds a city race for women’s health, sponsored by Tufts University. One year I had a dozen guys WALK the race holding a big banner (basically a white sheet with red letters made from leftover house paint) It read: “Men’s Rights Roadrunners.”

About 2/3rds of the women cheered us. A news helicopter tracked up. One guy in our crew was a Vietnam Vet who smoked the whole 10Ks.

It was funny, fun, exhilarating. We got coverage on all local news outlets.

The next year 6 guys showed.

Then none.

I also tried to get guys to win the race, then sue for prize money. The idea was to create media buzz about men’s issues. Though I contacted scores of men’s groups, not one was interested. The usual response was, “We don’t want to ruining female fun.”

Oy! What can you say about such thinking? Where was the MRA interest in creating “male fun”? Where were the men’s groups’ who wanted to create an equal men’s health race? Who was willing to challenge the city’s stance on quashing male-only clubs, etc. while supporting female-only health clubs and events?

What was really going on was shame-ducking. None of the men’s groups was willing to stand up and risk being called wimps by feminists. They found it easier to lose their kids, jobs, assets, etc. to misandry than be called “names.”

As I said elsewhere, NCFM held the first “international” men’s conference in 1981. It’s taken 33 years for another to be held…and even that had to be moved from its original location. So who knows how long a third conference will take.

In the meantime, you can be sure feminists will not only not stop their activism, but quadruple down. They’ve seen AVFM growing and it scares them. They will no more make nice than Germany did once the Allies invaded Normandy. In fact they amped things up. They not only increased the fighting, they unleashed the unholy dogs of Holocaust hell. So don’t expect N.O.W. to give up its power and perks without a fight.

Men know how to fight. Will they fight for their rights now.

[And again, for quote-miners: that's "fighting" in the figurative sense...unlike feminists who often cheer real violence done to males.]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Angry Harry June 28, 2014 at 05:59

@schlomo

With huge respect, I think that you kind of scuppered your own main argument.

You’re castigating Paul for being fairly ruthless in his bid to push his website in the direction where he wants it to go, and then you point out that zillions of different techniques and initiatives throughout the decades have failed to rally MRAs and ‘men’ .

Paul knows full well that those initiatives all failed – which is why, I presume, he failed to be interested in your ideas; as described above.

Indeed, if F4J failed – despite it being one of the most successful activist groups in recent history when it comes to media coverage – they are known all over the world – then what hope is there for the rest of us minnows, eh?

The group of speakers at the Men’s Conference that Paul was able to rally represents a coup of huge significance for the MM. An event that will have an impact for many years to come.

As such, much praise is due to him, in my view.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
freebird June 29, 2014 at 06:05

This is why I love Angry harry,comments like this one:
“Angry Harry June 25, 2014 at 19:09

“Actually, lobbying the government is the right thing to do. ”

We will do better than that. The MM will actually take over the government – by invading their brains.”

It is true what the futurist has said,the men’s voices are breaking the %10 number needed to garner worldwide recognition of the basic concept.
The word is spreading like wildfire.
Hope
Hope is that from which life itself springs.

We WILL influence powers and principalities because we hope for a decent life ans free as possible.

Let the wheel turn,the revolution will be televised.

As for Paul Elam,great guy , lots of rough edges.
Would like to see a Congressman Elam on the floor,delivering the longest filibuster is history.
Then Senator Elam chairing up the Ways and Means Committee.

Power,get some!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
greyghost June 29, 2014 at 07:30

Take a look at this http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/06/28/the-first-international-conference-on-mens-issues-day-1/
Angry Harry
It is strange how men just keep sniping at each other. The riff between Paul and Welmer was there and yet Welmer can still write in support of Paul. That is how it has to be done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Judo-chop June 30, 2014 at 02:57

I think the only logical alternative is the fembots should have a dildo party, film it, and upload it to youtube in protest!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Judo-chop June 30, 2014 at 03:01

@Bob

Here’s a great link about ‘Big Red’. She is one nasty piece of work:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVuK44kWgxk

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Thos. June 30, 2014 at 09:57

Boycott refers to Charles Boycott, Ireland’s most unpopular landlord whose practices led to the public voting with their feet and dollars to avoid his lands.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Thos. June 30, 2014 at 09:59

Dollars? Why did I write dollars. I meant pounds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam June 30, 2014 at 16:24

Dollars is fine. Even shiny gold sovereigns would be acceptable.
Meanwhile, Bill, I’m getting repeated stuff from Paypal about the site not being recognized, and I’m loth to chuck yet another over into The Boycottian “Corridor Of Uncertainty”, just in case it’s doing it behind my back (you know what Paypal is like).
I’ve done it a couple of times already and it keeps on puking up after the payment seems to have completed. It’s moaning on about contacting the site owner, unrecognized, and all that. Any advice?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
KW July 6, 2014 at 12:25

How could they boycott something they where never invited to in the first place?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: