Monday, 17 June 2013

Okay, I really wasn't interested in doing this, but...

I kind of have to address it, because it's getting ridiculous.

For anyone who doesn't know, The Wooly Bumblbee (Kristina Hansen) is an internet atheist who found the MRM during the atheist/sceptic schism over Atheism+. She is on a rampage of epic proportions, determined to avenge her honor after being wronged by the MRM.

When she found the MRM, she started making videos (fairly accurately) bashing feminism. Or perhaps she started making those videos, and then the MRM found her.

Paul Elam at A Voice for Men liked her "in your face, I don't give a fuck" style. He published a few of her articles, embedded a few of her videos, then eventually offered her an editor position.

He did this despite several glaring red flags in videos she'd uploaded to her previous YT channel (TruthandOblivion, which got flagged down), where she used terms like, "you're the man, you have to be the adult" to a male DV victim, etc. Demonstrating she's not really sensitive to the issue of sexist male-shaming language. At one point, her husband got into a disagreement with Integralmath (Justicar) a non-MRA but MRM-friendly gay atheist YouTuber, and ended up calling him a "disgusting fudgepacker" or something of the sort. A lot of things that should have filled most of us with misgivings.

Apparently Paul wasn't aware of the red flags (he doesn't even have time to watch all MY videos, pfft :P), or ignored any tingling of his spider senses (or perhaps intentionally ignored the flags because he is constantly juggling multiple priorities). He promoted her (way too early for ANYONE, really, who was so new to the MRM) to senior news director for Canada. His rationale as far as I understood it was that the MRM needs doers as well as thinkers, and she was the former rather than the latter.

Almost immediately after that, she started making videos on her personal YouTube channel demanding that certain people (racists, homophobes, libertarians and misogynists) "get the fuck out of OUR movement", and calling out MGTOWs for being bitter, paranoid misogynists who want to blame all their problems on women (something even the most extreme MGTOWs don't really do--they blame men's problems on both men and women).

She managed to alienate so many people, Paul finally had enough and removed her from the masthead of AVFM.

At that point, she went on the warpath and released a video containing snippets of a skype call with Paul (which both parties recorded without telling the other, ha!), snippets that were isolated from any context. In response to the quote-mining, Paul uploaded the entire conversation to YT.

I had held my tongue through all of this, even having been in the position to see it coming the moment he offered her an editor's position. AVFM is Paul's website, and I'm not interested in telling him how he should run it. Several MGTOWs had asked me to make a response video to WBB over her accusations, and I declined. I know what kind of person she is, and I didn't want to step into the warzone.

But once Paul had severed ties between her and AVFM, I did make some comments--on Paul's video and on reddit--regarding how I'd seen this coming right from the start, and expressing my opinion of WBB, which I will crystallize here: 

WBB seems to thrive on attention (both negative and positive), has very sloppy impulse control, is emotionally unstable, and shows a pattern when criticized for anything she said of blaming the listener for not hearing her properly and then repeating exactly what it was she said that they took issue with ("Learn how to listen, moron. I never said X. What I ACTUALLY said was X. Idiot."). She takes up causes she thinks will get her admiration (such as the A Voice for Boys site, which she started and quickly abandoned--the URL now redirects to her personal website), and it's probably at least as much about external validation as anything else. I have watched her repeatedly engage in several of the tactics of abusive women--DARVO (deny, attack, and reverse victim and offender), especially--when people take issue with her attitudes or behavior. Witness the quote-mining she engages in, while simultaneously castigating her opponents for their "intellectual dishonesty" and "lies".

So anyway, I made some comments expressing these opinions about her and the debacle on that video of Paul's, and a few on reddit.

Paul then uploaded a 12 minute video that described the situation as he saw it, explained why he'd let her go from the site, reiterated his position that being apolitical means tolerating libertarians as well as more mainstream political philosophies, and confirming AVFM's support for MGTOW. I may have commented on that video, as well, though I really can't recall.

She uploaded a video of her and her husband playing that video, then pausing and attacking him, libertarians, MGTOWs, me, and anyone else they could think of, in one of the most infantile and incoherent examples of an ad hominem rant I think I've ever come across. You really have to listen to it to understand what I'm talking about.

I commented there, and my comments were heavily upvoted. 









When the bombardment of criticism from annoyed MRAs peaked, she disabled comments for a brief period. A day or two later, I went to see if they were still disabled, and there was a note in the lowbar that she'd uploaded the first of a new 7-video series about all that is wrong with the MRM. I thought it was odd, since I was subscribed to her and that video hadn't shown up in my subscription new upload list. So I went to her channel and discovered I was blocked (which automatically un-subs you).



The first five of her 7 videos are up. After listening to 1 through 4, I can understand why she preemptively blocked me from commenting--every other criticism (perhaps more) seems focussed on me specifically. Which means she either thinks I'm the biggest fish to fry in the MRM, or she has some personal girl-grudge with me. The latter seems a little silly and obsessive, but my comments about her probably stung, and there's not much a woman like her will not do to tear another (more popular, yes, I said it) woman down. In fact, she is so much the embodiment of every toxic woman Dr. Tara talks about in her Shrink4Men blog and Erin Pizzey describes in her material, I don't know how she passed the MRM smell test beyond her first dozen videos.

The number of logical fallacies in this series (and in her and her husband's comments on them) are too many to name: ad hominem, tu quoque, personal incredulity, slippery slope, composition/division, appeal to consequences, appeal to authority... Which is kind of laughable when one considers how often she claims to care about LOGIC and FACTS and how much she claims to hate BULLSHIT so much she HAS to call it out, good fucking grief.

Even the points they make that they have actually researched are pathetic and moot. At one point, for instance, they post a screenshot of one comment of mine on reddit where I posited that the more caesarian sections we perform today, the more we'll need to in the next generation and the next, as children who would have died will survive to carry the trait of an inadequate pelvis. They claim that because having narrow hips isn't one of the leading causes of C sections (which is true), the logic is unsound. Whether they are unable to grasp that any heritable trait that used to get you killed as a baby but which modern medicine can now help you survive is going to become more common, I don't know. But it doesn't matter how common or rare that heritable trait is now, or what place it currently occupies on the list of things that modern medicine can treat--all you need to do is ask, "Is that trait heritable? Did it used to kill your children? Can modern medicine now make it so your children survive to pass on the heritable trait?" This is not that complicated, people. 

Their "understanding" of my politics (soft-core libertarian) seems to derive from my one-time use of the term "John Galt" to describe many of the long-term MRAs who, along with mostly libertarian and non-mainstream political thinkers, kept the MRM embers burning over the last 30 years, something confirmed by Rod van Mechelen of The Backlash.


Kristina and her husband seem to think I'm in cahoots with the Libertarian Party of New York, despite me being neither a New Yorker, nor an American, simply because I spoke at their convention about radical feminism and men's rights--they claim that I'm a member or affiliated with what she calls "big L" libertarians (without ever really defining what she means, other than that it's a "bullshit ideology"). 

If I spoke at the annual convention of the Alberta NDP (which I absolutely would, if they invited me) would she claim I'm in bed with them, too? I wonder what she thinks of the fact that for a year, I was a member of The National Organization for Women (I was involuntarily signed up when I registered to attend their national conference last year). When someone in one of the videos' comment threads mentioned that I was speaking about anti-feminism and the MRM to libertarians after being invited, and would likely speak about such things to any other audience as well (which is true), and wouldn't Kristina accept an invitation to speak about atheism to a Christian group? Well, she said she'd never speak to a group with different beliefs, because to do such a thing would be prostituting herself. And then later denied insinuating I'd be a prostitute for being willing to speak about men's issues to a group whose political philosophy I disagree with. 



This, after making a huge issue of the fact that I receive money from YouTube ads (which she also uses), and accepting donations from people who value my content (again, I don't see her turning away money, even when it's been forcibly extracted from other people).

The ratings bar on most of her recent videos is nearly entirely gray, she's hemorrhaging subscribers like mad, and has deleted more comments and blocked more people over this than a young earth creationist on a rampage against Richard Dawkins. One of her new supporters is a Manboobz-wannabe radical male feminist who likes to call himself "Hannibal the Victor" who she seems to like perfectly well despite her oft-stated loathing of feminism and ideological thinkers, and she has mirrored videos made by libertarians, who she claims to detest, simply because in those particular videos they are critical of MGTOW. 





But she doesn't seem able to control her impulse to get back at people she thinks wronged her, myself included, perhaps especially. Her husband is only reinforcing her in what seems little more than an escalating vendetta against "those motherfuckers who made my wife upset". The two of them together are like, "Ms. Dunning, meet Mr. Kruger", and despite being edumicated in university, not only can neither of them construct a coherent argument, as far as I know, her husband's "job" is to collect disability, and her "job" is to collect child support and pop out kids (4 already, and another on the way). I've never been more pleased with Canada's heavily subsidized post-secondary education system than when I learned my tax dollars went toward ten years of taxpayer-subsidized education so she could earn 4 degrees that apparently qualify her to sit on lawn chairs, complain, gestate babies and live on other people's dimes. 

And as far as her criticism that AVFM has done NOTHING to help men, I'll just leave these names here: Joel Kirk, Vladik Filler, Gordon Smith. And I'd remind her where the $5000 of seed money she received for the Earl Silverman Center (a man who'd be spinning in his grave over her recent bahavior and her usurping of his name, holy shit) came from. Her criticism that I'm doing nothing to help men? Ask Tom Matty--$5600 in 24 hours from the very generous folks who subscribe to my channel (thank you all so much).

Aaaaaaaaaaanyway, they just uploaded their 5th video in the series, so I figured I'd go see if there was anything they could talk about that wasn't me. HA! It's not even a minute long--nothing but a marked up screencap of a comment exchange I had on reddit, where someone asks what my education and credentials are, and WBB's added notation, "Funny how she never answers this."



Well, this conversation happened a month ago, so I didn't recall the specifics, but knowing the kind of person I am (someone who would have answered honestly) and knowing the kind of person WBB is (someone who likes to quote-mine to make her opponents look like douchebags), I scrolled ALL the way back in my comment history on reddit to a month ago, then scoured through them looking for the comment.

And wouldn't you know it? I didn't bother answering the commenter's question, because when I returned to the conversation, I noticed that they already knew the answer. And knew it, evidently, before they even asked the question: 




Imagine, someone as "intellectually honest" and who cares so much about FACTS and calling out BULLSHIT as the Wooly Bumblebee not showing you that! Honestly, this is getting retarded. 

Incidentally, one of the most interesting little coincidences in this entire thing is that after listening to a lengthy diatribe on how I have no post-secondary education and therefore am not S.M.R.T (as Homer Simpson likes to say), I happened to be listening to a CBC radio interview with someone representing Guild Software. This transgendered woman who is Stanford educated in neuroscience said that Google, after intensive internal research into the markers of excellent employees, concluded that the quality of the school an employee attended, or even whether they were credentialed at all, was no indication of how talented and effective they would be. In fact, what this woman described as "degree-seeking" was negatively correlated with the positive value of an employee because it indicates a need for external validation rather than an inner passion and drive, and an employer was better served looking primarily at "what code have you written?" when choosing new hires. 

I'm not raising this issue because of what reflection this may have on me, as someone who is not credentialed. The reason I raise it is that despite 10 years of state-subsidized education and four degrees, Kristina Hansen's accomplishments include 1) following her hind-brain into the weeds to her own self-destruction, 2) being a rabid joiner with little follow-through, as evidenced by A Voice for Boys, 3) whining about people who she claims "do nothing" a month after they handed her $5000, 4) alienating three quarters of the people she claimed she was serving, 5) squeezing out babies, 6) collecting child support and social welfare despite having milked the system for god knows how many degrees between her and her husband, and 7) throwing public temper tantrums because no one appreciates her. 

Money well spent, by all measures. Let's pay people to get educated so we can pay them to sit on their asses and generate more burdens on society. Again, I'm so glad to know I helped pay for those four degrees she's using to sit in a lawn chair and gestate a fifth fetus with. A fifth child who makes me weep for the future of humanity, because regardless of whether you're a biological determinist/reductionist or whether you think it's all environment, you have to admit those are five fucked up kids about to be unleashed on the world.

And now, in another coincidence arriving as if by divine intervention, a notable and award-winning documentary film production company has decided to make a film about the MRM and AVFM. Oh, if only, Kristina. If only you'd just kept your mouth shut long enough and kept a lid on your personality disorder batshit fucknuttery [EDIT: Kristina has taken issue with me using the term personality disorder, as this is a psychiatric diagnosis that has not been applied to her. In the interests of accuracy, I have amended this wording in such as way as to avoid implications of a clinical diagnosis, but which still conveys my intended meaning. Thank you], you could have been one of the people interviewed for that. A shame, since everything you've demonstrated so far about what you're all about has been about promoting yourself to acquire external validation, and lashing out at people who don't give you what you're after. 

Poor Wooly. You could have been famous, if only you'd just waited it out. 

Kristina, I just want to say, I avoided raising my concerns with Paul primarily because it might have been construed as me being catty--me being one of those women only concerned with monopolizing male attention and being top dogette. Given how quickly he promoted you, I figured he was smitten and would be even more prone to draw that conclusion if a shopworn old bird like me raised concerns. And I wasn't interested in turning anything into a cat-fight over market share over this movement's mostly male cheerleaders. 

And however much power you seem to think I have over AVFM (given your statements to that effect), and how much practical power I might actually have (given my reach), I choose not to involve myself in the inner workings of AVFM, and always have. Paul has actually made more decisions based on your counsel than on mine, because I would never think to tell someone how to run their own goddamn website. Even when they hire sociopathic, toxic, abusive people like you.

You've gone off the reservation, Kristina. You're operating on emotion. In fact, I don't know that there's any other way that you can operate. And whatever your actual motivations, I can tell you what it looks like to outsiders and disinterested parties: it looks like you're the misfit attacking the popular girl for getting more attention than you. It looks like you're grinding a man (AVFM) into the dirt because you were scorned by him. You're living up to every single goddamn negative stereotype of women out there, which is all the more ironic considering your constant NAFALTing to MGTOWs. 

You are the female nature that drives feminism, even if you're not a feminist, even if you hate the ideology or what it's done to something you care about (atheism). Because when it comes to what it's done for you? You're all there. Anything that will benefit you, even if it comes at the expense (or destruction) of others, you're in. Not just in, but all-in. Even as your subscribers abandon you, even as people who used to be sympathetic to your position abandon you. You'll scream you're right until your dying breath. 

You blocked me from your channel before uploading those videos either because you wanted the attention a video response from me would get you, or you wanted free rein to attack me without any rebuttal. You wanted me to seriously engage or be silent. And I didn't bother engaging, until video #5 was uploaded, obsessing entirely about me, with nothing resembling a concrete argument, nothing defensible and nothing remotely honest. 

I resent having to address this, the way I resent having to tolerate another person's screaming infant at the next table in a restaurant. I really did not want to get into this with you, but you've left me no choice. You've got one giant hard-on for me. Given my looks, how could blame you? :P

Bu there is no way you can win. And it's not even a you vs me thing. There is no possible way you can salvage yourself from the situation you've orchestrated by continuing to engage. Your credibility in both of the communities you called your own is virtually gone. I'm just the person burdened with the task of telling you.

My advice to you is to step back and let things rest for a while. You haven't demolished your credibility completely yet. There are still positive things you could do with that $5000 you got from AVFM's readers, which I'm sure they'll be eager to keep closer tabs on now. There is still a chance that you could redeem yourself for the memory of Earl Silverman. But if you keep this up--attacking people and then escalating when they criticize you--you're only going to dig your own grave. 

Your involvement with the MRM, and this petty, childish display, is even costing you your credibility among atheists. Fuck sake, let it rest.

If you have any coherent arguments against ideologies, then make them. Make them logical and back them up with evidence. It's not enough to say, "it's a bullshit ideology". It's not enough to shout, "Ayn Rand was a racist, and so are you because you follow her!" to people who don't even follow Ayn Rand. It's not enough to say, "I'll address that in another video," and then upload a video with quote-mines taken out of context. 

Good grief, get a grip on yourself. As I said in one of my comments before you blocked me, I'm embarrassed for you. Stop acting like a toddler and show some self-control.



And for any of my subscribers or followers, if there are any concerns raised in WBB's videos that you'd like me to address, please PM me and I'll deal with them. But at this point, I'm done. I'm not going to address WBB or her apparently brain-damaged husband's criticisms concerning, "Waitresses can know things!" any further.

Edited to add:




Annnnnd here she is insinuating that I have made some claim to being an academic. While I do describe myself as a gender theorist (considering that I analyse, and theorize about, gender, and considering the title is no more exclusive or protected by some accrediting or licensing body than, say, "feminist" or even "therapist"), I would challenge anyone to find any statement of mine where I have ever described myself as an academic.

Kristina Hansen, professional "bullshit caller", calling out all the lies that exist in her very own imagination. Good grief.

95 comments:

  1. Well stated Karen!!!
    She is a nut who requires professional help.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “You know you really need some help. A regular psychiatrist couldn't even help you. You need to go to like Vienna or something. You know what I mean? You need to get involved at the University level. Like where Freud studied and have all those people looking at you and checking up on you. That's the kind of help you need. Not the once a week for eighty bucks. No. You need a team. A team of psychiatrists working round the clock thinking about you, having conferences, observing you, like the way they did with the Elephant Man. That's what I'm talking about because that's the only way you're going to get better.”

      You need a Team

      Delete
  2. Unfortunately this needed to be said, and you said it well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, Karen. Well done.

    Related:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/family-courts/eleven-billion-us-wont-save-your-marriage/

    ReplyDelete
  4. We can kiss that $5000 goodbye. Earl must be spinning like a top that his legacy has been left in her hands.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you know the sad thing Dan is you may very well be right if the last day or two have been right.

      Delete
  5. I don't have a problem with MGTOW or libertarians, they're only tangentally related and secondary issues.

    It's the primary men's issue that Paul missed the red flag re: her crapping on a male victim of domestic violence and Dean's white knighting for her. He lost all respect from me when he refused to form an opinion in preference for placating his new special snowflakes.

    Then AVfM promoted her to run the earlsilvermancenter. Paul was warned, now it's only blatantly obvious that she is unfit to help men.

    Paul can continue to play the slippery politician and pretend that none of this is his fault, but he would get a lot more respect if he took full responsibility for such a grave oversight and lack of good judgement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. "Paul can continue to play the slippery politician and pretend that none of this is his fault,"

      Sadly Paul has done that in alot of areas in the past 6-12 months. His defence of the continued usage of the term "mangina" despite the flow on effects of perpetuating that mechanism on abused men; the fact that it took a lengthy private conversation with Dean for him to wake up re the disgusting responses he and others made regarding the James Landrith article (and even his "retraction" was appallingly misandrist and ignored a significant portion of James' ordeal); the fact that he engaged in mockery which can only be described as blatantly misandrist rape and DV apologetics while blindly defending an attack on a feminist meme.

      Paul Elam was once a great MRM and forward thinker and for the longest time I respected him, going right back to when I discovered him on a youtube video he did on the Zeta Male. Back then he was about men's rights first and foremost and he was truly a great man.

      Sadly these days it's entirely about fighting feminism to to detriment of men's rights issues. I learned firsthand from personal experience with him that if there's a choice between taking an easy shot at feminism to the detriment of men's issues and avoiding said cheap shot because harming men's issues is too high a price to pay, he'll pick the former.

      Personally I hope that sometime in the future he has an epiphany, is disgusted with the path he's chosen of late and returns to his former glory.

      Sadly I don't hold out much hope for that.

      Delete
    3. so karen....when i called you a liar for characterizing paul's beliefs about WBB in a negative fashion, is that the lie, or is paul lying?

      Delete
    4. You know, I find it funny how I'm blocked from commenting on the videos, yet you are demanding answers.

      Delete
  6. Nice piece! You pwned her!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I know far too many institutionally accredited people that have no true education in logical and critical thought. It is as Neil Postman stated in "Amusing Ourselves to Death": We will end up with a system that can churn out imbeciles with high IQs (paraphrased). They read the textbooks, wrote notes from lectures, and regurgitated for essays and tests. All for a piece of paper that is under the monopolized authority of the institutions.

    Add to this that there is a certain academic ideology that prevents free-thought rather than nurturing it. Towing the line is made to look like free-thought when it is anything but. And those going against the grain will find themselves silenced one way or the other, unless they have the mettle to withstand the tide (which many don't).

    It is a wonderful thing to have the impulse and dedication to self-educate, and to do so is truly an accomplishment contrary to the jumping through hoops that we see in academia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The best professor I ever had constantly said "Never let College get in the way of your Education".

      Delete
  8. What pisses me off is what it does to future fund raising. It's good to see some of the rot AVfM was collecting oozing out the bottom, so I'm not concerned there. She never really did anything, so no loss there. It might wake up some MRAs to how few female 'supporters' are REALLY supporters, and that can't come soon enough. It might make MRAs grow a spine and remember the definition of the word 'integrity', and get back to the roots of this movement instead of trying to present as 'the New Equality(tm)', and if that doesn't happen we're fucking doomed....

    So really, on balance this whole thing is a positive object lesson. Now if the parties involved learn anything from it....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hey, while we're talking AVFM internal politics, do you have any thoughts on Dean Esmay using a forged screenshot to cover up an embarrassing mistake?

    http://manboobz.com/2013/06/15/worse-than-wrong-a-voice-for-men-resorts-to-phony-photoshopped-evidence-to-avoid-admitting-embarrassing-error/

    (Despite the URL, the screenshot doesn't seem to have been photoshopped; see the post for details.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When searching Santorum on google, one used to get hits about Rick Santorum. Then Dan Savage and his following managed to "google-bomb" the word "Santorum" enough that any search of that name would result in pages of hits defining "Santorum" as "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex".

      For a fair amount of time, when people were targeting that particular search term aiming to manipulate the algorithm, that was the most popular hit on google for the word "santorum".

      Are you going to try to assert that prior to Dan Savage's campaign, searches for "santorum" didn't primarily result in hits about Rick Santorum? Are you seriously trying to assert that google search results don't change based on what the people searching the terms click on? Seriously? Are you trying to assert that this change can't happen in a matter of days?

      Really?

      Because I have a screenshot that shows google results of a search of "santorum" now that are no longer monopolized by "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

      Is that a photoshopped conspiracy too?

      Delete
    2. Maybe that would mean something if, after having the discrepancy pointed out, he hadn't gone back and changed his article and pretended he didn't edit it at all.

      Delete
  10. Clearly you didn't read my post. There is very clear evidence that Esmay (or someone else at AVFM) forged a screenshot.

    1) Esmay claimed that the screenshot he used as evidence was made BEFORE the AVFM post was published, and his argument only makes sense if it was made before the AVFM post was published. There is clear evidence IN THE SCREENSHOT ITSELF that it was made AFTER the article was published, in response to my criticism (and that of others).

    2) There is clear evidence IN THE SCREENSHOT ITSELF that the search term he was using was not "violence against men" but simply "violence against."

    I explain all this in more detail in my post. I encourage you to read it.

    Do you really want to associate yourself with a site that engages in such blatant fraud?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Should she be associating herself with a creep who writes a daily blog about comments of other blogs and posts under many usernames to make it seem like his site has more than the nothing traffic it gets?

      Talk about fraud. Explain the plethora of your comments(many of which come from people with the same doofy sense of humor) compared to the cellar dwelling hits your site gets.

      Delete
    2. I'm not asking her to associate herself with me. I have no interest in being associated with her. I'm just asking her to actually read my post before offering her opinion on it.

      You think I write the comments on my site? I barely have time to read the comments on my site.

      Delete
    3. As much as we don't like Futrelle here, I think we need to be big enough to admit when he has a valid point. A mountain is being made of a mole hill here though, and all Dean and the author of the article have to do is admit their mistakes and move on.

      He's right. The screenshot Dean posted in his first edit is clearly a search result for "violence against", not "violence against men". That at least needs to be addressed, whether it was done intentionally or by accident.

      AVfM should be above forcing evidence to exist in order to prove a point. If the point can't be proven, then just remove it from the article and move on. The article has plenty of good points in it without having to rely on something that may or may not have been true recently, but clearly isn't anymore.

      Delete
    4. tallwheel, thanks for actually reading my post.

      The reason I think it's a big deal is that

      1) whoever made the screenshot Dean posted typed "men" into the search box to make it look like he has searched for "violence against men," not "violence against."

      2) Dean claimed that this screenshot was made BEFORE the AVFM article ran, and thus unaffected by Google changing its algorithims, when in fact the news articles listed in the search results show that it was made AFTER the article ran.

      This is why it appears to be delibarate fraud, and not an accident.

      Delete
    5. The fact is that when you do a search for "violence against," you DO in fact get lots of search results dealing with "violence against women."

      I think that's what Jason Gregory must have done his original search for, but unfortunately when he wrote his blog post, he wrote that he's searched for "violence against men" and didn't bother to check it before publishing. AVFM ran it without bothering to check either, obviously.

      But instead of simply admitting this mistake, Esmay (or whoever forged that screenshot) decided to double down and try to lie their way out of having to admit making a mistake.

      That's my theory. The first article contained a mistake, not anything fraudulant, but that the attempts to avoid admitting this mistake led to fraud.

      Delete
    6. You're right that it is very suspicious. I enjoy Dean's opinions a lot, so I hope he will come clean on this.

      Delete
    7. Futrelle, it seems you didn't read MY article, either. As in, where I wrote:

      "And however much power you seem to think I have over AVFM (given your statements to that effect), and how much practical power I might actually have (given my reach), I choose not to involve myself in the inner workings of AVFM, and always have. Paul has actually made more decisions based on your counsel than on mine, because I would never think to tell someone how to run their own goddamn website."

      I'll mention it to Dean, but I'm not interested in hounding Paul or any of the other editors about it.

      Delete
    8. I did read your post, and will have more on it on my blog soon.

      I'm not suggesting that you had anything to do with this, or any power to change what Paul or Dean do; I was simply wondering if you wanted to be associated with a site that had engaged in such blatant fraud in order to cover up a mistake.

      Delete
  11. "Do you really want to associate yourself with a site that engages in such blatant fraud?"

    Those are very funny words, coming from you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ie: coming from a scary obsessive guy who de-contexualizes statements, uses 2 logical fallacies per syllable (especially ad hominem and straw man arguments,)uses fake statistics, and runs away in the middle of a debate because someone used meany words to his face which he would only do behind people's backs.

      Delete
    2. Suzanne, I provide clear evidence of fraud in the post I linked to above.

      Do you have any evidence of fraud on my part?

      Delete
    3. Did I accuse you (in this case) of fraud?

      I find it vastly amusing that an intellectually dishonest (and just plain dishonest) disingenuous, emotionally immature, quote-mining, minutiae-obsessed, dangerously manipulative (to his own readers at least) misdirecting attention whore thinks he might be taken seriously when he points a finger at anyone for something that may or may not be dishonest.
      (Especially in comments on an article about an intellectually dishonest, minutiae-obsessed, emotionally immature, quote-mining attention whore.)

      I can't decide if you are deluded, brave, a comic genius, or all of the above.

      Delete
    4. Speaking of ad hominems...

      Delete
    5. Here's another ad hominem: "Booblet"

      Delete
    6. You Go, Suzanne! Take care of my Light Work for me ;-)

      Delete
    7. um...i don't particularly like futrelle, but uh...you did say that "...de-contexualizes statements, uses 2 logical fallacies per syllable (especially ad hominem and straw man arguments,)uses fake statistics..." all of which are one form of fraud or another. so uh...about that intellectually dishonest thing....you actually did accuse the guy of fraud (which i have zero opinion on, unlike knowing that karen has actually, verifiably lied. on multiple occasions....so uh....) i'm just sayin',

      Delete
    8. Listen, Joe. I haven't blocked you or your wife here (or anywhere), despite the fact that your wife blocked me from commenting on the videos in which you levelled these accusations of lying. I won't delete your comments, either, despite your habit of deleting criticisms, willy nilly.

      I'm not about to answer your "actually, verifiabl[e]" accusations of me lying. Anyone here can make their own judgment about me, and about you and Kristina. I have the feeling you're not going to earn any supporters here.

      Anyone can watch your videos, try to figure out what the fuck, in your incoherent tirade, you're actually accusing me of, and determine for themselves if it's true or not. Unlike some people, I don't delete anything I've written or uploaded.

      This will be my last response to you here.

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wow, I think newcomers here like myself may need a key in the margin to get all of the acronyms used in this very inside-baseball article, but I found it very entertaining regardless. (made extensive use of google)

    ReplyDelete
  14. [My grammar Nazism wouldn't allow me to sleep without deleting the original, correcting, and reposting it.]

    I remember a time when I was charitable in my criticism of WBB, since I was at one point amicably acquainted. I watched from the start as she began taking an interest in men's rights, but was worried about her all hammer-no scalper approach to things.

    After hearing her about once or twice on AVfM radio, and seeing how obvious it was that she was outside of her element, I became a little more concerned. I guess I thought she would have done a bit more homework on these things. Well, there was no relief when she began posting vids telling X, Y, and Z to leave the movement, or when she was promoted to Senior News Editor, or when her response to criticism on her YouTube videos consisted of dismissal, name calling, and blocking even those who would have otherwise been on her side.

    Even thought I thought she was a bit dumb, I still assumed good faith by this point. I believed that, even though she had paper thin skin, was over-emotional, and all around unfit for the job, she at least *meant* well [which was apparently still too mean for Mykeru, who pounced in her defense when I aired these things on Twitter a little while back]. After watching her "Under the Bus" video, in which she asserted several things which were untrue, the full version uploaded by Paul Elam made all of my good faith dissolve. For me, stupidity is much easier to forgive than dishonesty.

    Imagine my amazement when I learned that, after falling flat on her face from a great height, she then began to dig a hole for herself by repeatedly slamming her face into the dirt! I wonder how long it'll take for her [And her hubby. Jezzuz, don't even get me started on that guy!] to realize how idiotic they're making themselves seem to the world...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. why don't you start on "that guy"? go ahead... jack.

      Delete
    2. @paul since karen thinks badly of people that block others from their youtube channel (that's that preemptive thing b/c you can't take the heat), i'm curious to know paul, when were you lying, in the conversation where you doxxed my kids names, or when you say "....I have no doubt made more than just putting one idiot in a position to ultimately do harm." so...i'm just curious to know when you were lying, was it the first time, or here and now (and what you think about being a liar), and (b) what do you think of karen's opinion of you?

      Delete
    3. btw: you have a very odd definition of "world", i would clarify 'world', as the nether regions of the most gullible, sycophantic, ill informed minions of paul elam and karen straughan.

      Delete
    4. oh, i don't gotta try, jackie. fact is, everything is lookin' pretty good right now.

      Delete
  15. I'm in your corner here, GWW. It's a shame that WBB can't be more mature about this whole thing. She could have just agreed to disagree with some of the sentiments of the mgtows and move on, but she chose to make things worse. This shows an overall lack of character on her part. I have to admit that I didn't see the warning signs as early as you did, but I was never really interested in her videos or articles. Never any new and interesting points to make.

    Sorry Futrelle had to come and derail this post, and sorry I decided to reply to him here. Not sure yet if I should make another comment at AVfM about that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think you did an admirable analysis of events here, GWW, including my mistakes in the matter, with one caveat.

    Part of the problem that I have always had to face in developing AVFM into a cooperative effort is that there are a lot more mouths than hands in the MHRM. I see that a couple of armchair quarterbacks of the typical variety have shown up here to offer their opinions on the all the "shoulds," which is fine and well.

    However, at the time I moved KH to the masthead I was (and thank god that is the past tense) still in the mindset that almost any real help was better than an armchair quarterback who mouthed much, but actually did little.

    That kind of necessity based environment leads to some mistakes, and I have no doubt made more than just putting one idiot in a position to ultimately do harm.

    As they say, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want.

    I will make more mistakes, too, and will certainly encounter more do nothing criticism from the likes of bowspearer, which I quit reading as soon as I ID his username, as I have here.

    LOL, I have even learned to screen my professional critics pretty well.

    As much as I hate to say it, Futrelle does have a valid point. I am looking in to it today, and unlike Futrelle, I will address the results of my inquiry in public no matter where they end up.

    I don't mind looking into problems, even when they are pointed out by such a bald faced liar. I would have actually been aware of this sooner if his blog were worth reading. I had to become aware of it in your comments to even know there was a problem.

    But back to the good news about WBB. She has sufficiently screwed her own pooch that it will make her a shadow presence in every community that used to recognize her. And she makes a good example of taking out the trash. I am not going to spend another minute giving her attention at AVFM, but since I donated to her "cause" for the ESC, I better see some evidence that she used the money to that end or I will file complaints for fraud.

    And so will others who have contacted me about it.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul, you encounter criticism from me where you have earned it and the reason you keep earning criticism from me is because your refusal to be accountable for what happened before.

      It honestly has me deeply concerned for what might happen to any other battered men and male rape victims who might be in the same situation and might point to something in a feminist meme or some practice that has become "the norm" in the MRM that actually harms their plight.

      You said it before Paul when you were talking to Kristina Hansen in that Skype call - the MRM is about ending misandry, not merely fighting feminism. Yet that was the trap you fell into regarding some of the most marginalised groups in society.

      I criticised the use of "mangina" because it's virtually identical to calling a guy a "pussy" which is the sort of treatment which battered men and rape victims endure. Yet your response was to double down on it.

      I called you out on the mockery which amounted to misandrist rape and DV apologetics over the incident with that meme, because you made it that much harder for any man reading that page who had been in an abusive relationship involving sexual coercion to speak out.

      The thing is we're not just talking about a minor men's issue with DV here either. As you should be aware, the study done by the Men's Advocacy Network done in 2010 showed what I experienced in a long distance abusive relationship, is highly common in "short distance" relationships. Yet in leading that dog-pile, you were far more interested in taking a shot at feminism, than in what that course of action would do regarding the issues facing battered men.

      I've been critical of your handling of the James Landrith saga, because even if the he hadn't have been drugged, the fact that his rapist woke him to sex and then used the law and her unborn child as weapons of coercion, still makes it rape - regardless of whether he was drugged.

      The irony of all in light of what you've said here Paul, is if I actually saw a sign of some level of genuine introspection that you recognised where you screwed up there Paul, I would no longer have an issue with you.

      Yes you're only human, and you make mistakes like anyone else - I completely accept that. However if it was anyone else, you'd be telling them to "own their shit". My problem with you is, I see no sign that you have. You choosing to disregard this post, rather than accepting you screwed up in those situations and learning from it, will only prove my point further.

      Delete
    2. I wonder if Paul is actually capable of forming his own opinions now?

      I mean, he wouldn't want to upset his special snowflake Dean or interrupt his anti-feminist activism with something actually directly related to men's rights.

      Delete
    3. “If the man is the one who is enraging her and he refuses to leave the situation then HE is also to blame for provoking the violence.”
      ~TheWoolybumblebee

      Anyone claiming to be a "men's activist" shouldn't be afraid of sharing their opinion on this?

      Delete
  17. I just found your YouTube channel, and I wanted to thank you for your video about "NiceGuysTM." I have ranted for hours about what complete nonsense feminist anger toward "nice guys" is.

    My own disillusionment with internet feminism actually came when everybody was talking about "Schrodinger's Rapist," the asinine concept that a man simply saying "How are you doing?" to a woman you don't know or asking the woman sitting next to you on the bus whether she likes the book she's reading is completely wrong and, basically, sexual assault, because, after all, he *could* be a rapist. I dared to suggest that 1) maybe the guy is just friendly, 2) assuming that the man sitting next to you on the bus is probably a rapist no different than assuming that the black person in the elevator with you probably wants to rob you, and 3) I seriously doubt you'd be complaining if it were, say, Ryan Gosling or Alexander Skarsgard asking you how you were doing, so maybe just maybe it's an easy way of rejecting guys you don't find attractive without actually having to admit that that's the reason? I was persona non grata after that.

    NiceGuyTM came soon after that, and I think it's the same thing. A NiceGuyTM is a guy who a woman doesn't want to date mostly because she doesn't find him attractive, and rather than just suck it up and admit it, she wants to make her lack of interest in him his fault. It's not simply a situation of two people with different feelings, but that simply by having sexual interest in her at all, he is wronging her. No guy a woman actually finds sexually attractive and is into is a NiceGuyTM; it's a label reserved for guys she doesn't want to sleep with who have the misfortune of wanting to sleep with her.

    Anyway, thanks for the video. This ridiculous idea needs more pushback. (And I realize this is not an on-topic comment but I didn't see any other way to contact you.)

    I know it won't go over very well here, but I do consider myself a feminist. I even have two degrees in women's studies. But what attracted me to feminism were serious discussions of the complexities of gender, a serious consideration of women's agency, and a nuanced view of how power works in the world. Popular feminism, especially on the internet, is the complete antithesis of everything I found attractive or interesting about feminism. It's a flat, nuance-less whine of victimization, a rehashing of the most crude gender stereotypes (which denying them), and a complete abdication of any power, agency, or responsibility (which is funny, coming from mostly educated, affluent, Western white women).

    I'll be reading through your blog. Thanks for your work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Popular feminism..."
      So is radical feminism, academic feminism and political feminism. This is not an attack on you because you're obviously intelligent, but it's a sincere question: Why do you consider yourself a feminist when you appear to be interested in the reality of sex roles? Even if your interest lies primarily in female sex roles, you seem to understand that female sex roles cannot be honestly defined without also honestly defining male sex roles. I have never encountered a feminist who honestly addresses male sex roles.

      Delete
    2. Howdy, MBR! Good to see you 'round these parts. I'm a fan of your blog.

      I'd encourage people to check it out. She makes some great, well-reasoned criticisms of attitudes about sex crimes.

      Her article "How I became a rape culture contrarian" is a good place to start.

      Delete
    3. Believe it or not, most MRM sympathisers don't hate feminists.
      If feminism did what they profess it says on the label, we'd all be for it.
      Unfortunately, that populist feminism is not dreamed up by the anti-feminist. It's the fact of the matter.
      It's really unfortunate, as I am absolutely willing to grant that most lay feminists reach for the philosophy out of a genuine wish for equality.
      Many simply arrive at feminism and stop. Job done. Do not question, criticise or debate.
      When any of us are presented with an articulate feminist that does not immediately resort to ad hominem, but is willing to debate and compromise, they are rather celebrated.
      Like a unicorn :P

      The general frustration you may experience is mostly anti-feminists wishing you'd scrap the tag and be an egalitarian, or a humanist.
      Fact is, there is NOTHING to prevent anybody supporting feminism and MRM. Warren Farrel did it.
      Only when you get into the philosophical dogma of feminism will you reach problems, but ONLY if you put feminism above equality.
      Really is a crying shame, because feminism is too often used as a shield for bigotry (misogyny as well as misandry)
      I'll thank you for your input and your honesty, and can only hope more feminists follow your lead.

      Delete
  18. I don't know whether to be laugh or to cry at this situation. It's very depressing that people are coming into this movement for their own selfish reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Quick comment re GWW being qualified to be a "Gender Theorist" - I outed a couple of Feminazi's who were trolling a Pro-Life Fb page One M & one W, for being "Gender Ideologues" and the girls response was "Everyone is a 'gender ideologue'" ;-)

    As I state on one of WBB's videos, and I'll state & elaborate here: I have been taking a break/being aloof from a lot of MRM stuff, including unsubbing most of the pages I've "liked" so they don't show up in my feed, unsubbed most Yt accounts except GWW & Fidelbogen, and don't visit a lot of places, basically to take an emotional break and get perspective. A lot of stuff was causing anger in me, and now being engaged to a Fine Young Lady with Mental Health Issues, I feel the need to prepare myself by taking a more calm approach to life. I'm going to be shifting my activism I think more to stuff such as Innocence Project, COTWA, S.A.V.E., and hopefully the ESC - if that's still going to be a "thing."

    After taking a slight breather, and reading these comments here today, I think I will also no longer overlook my misgivings with certain things said by Paul Elam, or any other MRM leader. I think it's only fair that we police our own act, since we ask it so much of the other side. All I will likely do is distance myself more at this point, no need for my own rampage.

    And to elaborate what I stated publicly on one of Paul's videos, and I will state here again: There are things being held to by certain factions, much of which seems to run in the MGTOW sector, that I find disturbing and I think the larger MRM needs to do some soul-searching over. There are certain "theories" espoused by Messrs Stardusk & Barbarosa that I think are poison, and will simply take us into the woods, and I want nothing to do with them. Here I take a page from Fidelbogen: Let's distance ourselves from those who say "Women" instead of "Feminism."

    The fact that I was roundly voted down for that statement speaks volumes as to what may be lurking around the corner as far as issues that will need to be dealt with.

    Take a page form more credible & intellectually sound individuals who've done their homework, such as Warren Farrell. Do you hear him spouting such garbage as "Female Brain Wiring?" I rest my case. Let's forge on and make the MRM more in line with guys like him, PLEASE!

    In any case, I proceed with charity towards those who disagree with me rather than malice, and hope for awareness of Men's issues will exponentially grow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doc Farrell knows his stuff, but it seems ignorant to discount those* that go beyond what he does, beyond the statistics and history, and look at the causes for the current state of affairs between men and women. If some of the stuff being said is striking a never, then you need to do more than call it "garbage". You need to look deep inside to figure out why it's bothering you so much, and then do some honest homework on the subject.

      Learning that men and women are different, and looking at how these differences are affecting the dynamics between the sexes, and the progression of all of the different gynocentric ideologies, is what separates the purple pillers from the red pillers. If you don't have the stomach for these things, then maybe stick to battling Feminism, which is but one shadow of the real culprit. Show no surprise when you detect no progress, however...

      *This includes GirlWritesWhat, in my opinion. I think one would need to be an incredibly selective viewer\reader to be able to continue to pretend that this isn't the case.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. "You need to look deep inside to figure out why it's bothering you so much, and then do some honest homework on the subject."

      You're funny! :)

      No need to "look deep inside" at all, or any other such drama. I see that issue as it's been brought up by MGTOWS as no different than the Feminazi's who act as if there's something wrong with Men for just being... Men. MGTOWS are the Feminazis of the MRM.

      And just what do you hope to accomplish with those types of navel-gazing theories? Suppose there's truth to them: What have you accomplished besides "Nanny-nanny-boo-boo you're screwed in the head too?"

      I can't help but think of Typhon's postulating that perhaps a man doesn't need to take "viagra," because his system is the "bullshit detector," and there's nothing wrong in his not being able to get an erection that needs to be fixed. Idk if that's a theory that holds water in all cases, but you can see my point, I think. I am what i am, you are what you are, and nobody needs to "fix" anything, we just need to accept each other as is.

      Also, you missed the things I said I'll be focusing more on in a positive, constructive sense, if you think that "battling Feminism" is what it's all about for me.

      Delete
    4. I just got done watching a video in which GWW and Stardusk, a popular youtube MGTOW, were having a conversation and it made me think about you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyQRdkoJR-o

      At one point in the video they speculate over why people give MGTOW's so much shit over the things that they say, when GWW does a lot of the same. I pointed it out at the footnote in the end of my first reply to you, but you seem to have ignored it.

      So tell me; why unsub from all of these other meanies, but stick to GWW?

      Delete
    5. Make an empty assertion about MGTOW being the same as feminism and then fail to back it up? Kevin Hypergamy is a real thing. Female solipsism is a real thing.

      Please give me one example fo a MGTOW position that is the same as feminism? If you fail to do this , I will have to call bullshit on you.

      You seem to be thinking with emotion. Most females who fuck men over in divorce are not feminists. Men and women are different and men should be aware of the differences. I am sorry that this makes you uncomfortable.

      Delete
  20. This is the funniest thing ever! Dang, and here I thought I was the court buffoon!!!

    I gotta say, I do not like the competition.

    ReplyDelete
  21. GWW delivering that Ric Flair chop with this one. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is very illuminating Karen, thanks for taking the time to write it. I noticed something was a little off about Kristina when a few months ago she was censoring people (deleting comments/blocking people) who disagreed with her on some of her videos. I unsubbed but then resubbed a bit later because I thought it was just a momentary lapse in judgment and to give her another chance. Holy shit was I wrong. She has turned into a complete attention whoring victim who thinks she's been hard done by. The last time I saw something like this happen was when a creationist or a feminist was boo-hooing about the "meanies" disagreeing with them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Let's get real here. There is also immaturity on both sides of this.


    I still have great respect for GWW, but this Sky Hook Libertarianism is like a turd in the swimming pool.


    I hate to say it, but I really think it will be the death of MRMs. There is just no support for it. And it cannot support anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The one thing that bugs me about anyone's writing is when within the first paragraph I have to look up an acronym to know what the writer is referring to. Call it a pet peeve, but I was taught the first time you use an acronym in a writing you must also include what it stands for. In this case MRM which I assume is "Mens Rights Montreal" after doing some looking around online.

    As I get older I have less tolerance for this. :p

    Anyway, might I request in the future you follow this little rule when writing. It's a courtesy to your readers, especially the newbies, and makes it more likely readers will finish reading what you wrote.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. MRM is Men's Rights Movement. As apposed to MRA, which is Men's Rights Activist.

      Delete
  25. Hey, this is totally off topic, buuuut... Just wanted to say you totally opened my eyes, GWW, totally changed the way I'll interact with society, even the world. Your videos fucked up my shit in the best of ways. I was so shortsighted and gullible...it's embarrassing.

    Just wanna say thanks and please continue the great work.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What a fucking shitstorm. I actually unsubscribed to her a while back, but I had no idea it had gone this far.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I really do not care about this drama.(I have enough of my own) I really do not know the whole story. I am just posting about GWW's education. I do not care if she has a bunch of letters beside her name or not. I am smart enough to educate myself about anything that I want to know about. Just because someone with a degree says something does not mean it is fact and does not mean I should listen to them more than someone else. Kevin Hovind comes to mind when I see people saying shit like this. What I mean is I watch GWW video's and read this blog because I enjoy them not because I take her word for fact. The only time I ever see someone say "What education do you have?" is when they want to try an make out like they know more or more important then someone else. Which in turn makes me think they are not as smart or as important as they want people to believe because they have to ask that question. If someone is wrong than prove it. Only reason I know of that someone's education should come into play. Is when they apply for a job and it is a requirement. Besides that it really does not matter. Just my 2 cents worth.
    Now have at it people I promise you nothing anybody says here or any place else for that matter will cause me to lose any sleep.

    PS: I am sorry GWW that I have not posted here before if nothing else than to say thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  28. 1. Mark Flowers is a true dedicated Christian but a non denominational and non church going Christian, a praying man upon his knees and he gives all credit to his survival to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as his savoir and protector of him and his loved ones. Mark has to continually break all curses in Jesus Christ’s name, sent by witch craft and the Satanic agenda.

    2. Mark Flowers is a fighter, a man that will never bow to any evil corruption, to DEATH.

    3. Mark Flowers has had the fatherhood of his children stolen by the masons / system / The Australian Government.

    4. Mark Flowers is a survivor of more than a decade of intense murderous Freemasonry Gang Stalking {a term he coined} and raised in the Federal Magistrates Court Parramatter Sydney Australia in 2009 & 2010 whilst defending his rights to father his children.

    5. Mark Flowers has had so many attempts on his life in the process of Freemasonry gangstalking that they are too numerous to list, most have been whilst driving in road traffic accident setups by gangstalkers . But all manner of threats have come against Mark Flowers, One time a sour mason wielding a hammer at Mark’s head got a lesson in respect and kicked off Mark’s property. The police always fail to follow such death threats against Mark Flowers.

    6. Mark Flowers has self-represented in some 60 appearances in the Federal Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme Court in Australia and all with nil formal education, in fact Mark left school at 14 years and first job was in a lumber yard.

    7. Mark Flowers is a Father first, and a former children’s safety film producer, but the dogs of gangstalking were released on him for doing so. Mark has been fighting ever since and will never give in, as the eternity in spirit and fear of God through Christ Jesus motivates him to be fearless against evil.

    If I fall in this good fight it will be into the arms of my saviour Jesus Christ.

    Brother Mark

    http://www.markflowers.org/

    ReplyDelete
  29. "The two of them together are like, "Ms. Dunning, meet Mr. Kruger", and despite being edumicated in university, not only can neither of them construct a coherent argument, as far as I know, her husband's "job" is to collect disability, and her "job" is to collect child support and pop out kids (4 already, and another on the way). I've never been more pleased with Canada's heavily subsidized post-secondary education system than when I learned my tax dollars went toward ten years of taxpayer-subsidized education so she could earn 4 degrees that apparently qualify her to sit on lawn chairs, complain, gestate babies and live on other people's dimes."

    No wonder she hates libertarians.

    You know, I never really liked WBB. I mean, I started looking at what she said when she was added to AVfM, but so many things she said struck me as counter-intuitive and stupid that I wondered why she was ever considered AVfM material. I mean, when I'm use to seeing arguments made by you, or JtO, or Typhon Blue, etc, the crazy conspiracy nutjob stories I heard from her seemed incongruous with the rest of the site.

    I dunno, but I heavily agree with RME on a lot of things, and one of those things is that one cannot be "progressive" and an effective MRA at the same time, because progressive ideology is based almost exclusively on identity politics, and regardless of what that identity happens to be.

    This isn't to say that one can't be left wing and recognise injustice, but the problem rises in how lefties try to correct or address those problems. Appeals to authority and coercion by proxy seem to be the only tools in the toolbox, and those tools are the same tools that feminists have been using for a century. We need to make those tools useless, rather than simply changing against whom they're wielded.

    It just seems to me that any person who claims that the government must protect and privilege men to counterbalance the privilege and protection to which women are entitled seems to be missing the whole point. Instead of adding entitlements to men in order to balance those of women, we should be removing the entitlements that are specific to women.

    In the end, it is only through indifference to sex and gender will either be treated fairly. Special recognition thereof, whether as male or female, only leads to identity politics and groupthink, and, by extension, the very discrimination we're seeking to prevent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul you need to make this rule. If you collect child support you are banned from working on a voice from men. I think the entire men's rights movement needs to ban women who who collect child support, or frivolously divorce their men.

      Delete
    2. Angry Duck: I agree in full with your reasoning. The trick is to create a system where there are no free lunches or priviliges to any gender. Libertarian philosophy has this wonderfull inherit core of non-agression built into it. Dismantling the tools and collective progressive policies is the answer. That means that even in a world were a supermajority of the population are (for example) racists, feminists, bigots, homophobes, religious extremists etc. they will have "no place to go". No power to wield, mobilizing the state for "help". Part of this struggle is incorporated everywhere in the world today fighting for secular ideals. That struggle is off course not exclusively a libertarian issue. But the core issue is the same. Keep destructive forces out of positions where they with a socalled "majority" as moral foundation can erode basics freedoms of all people. Not just men. Feminism is one of those destructive forces. Its not a war against women. Its a war against bad policies and a totalitarian ideology thriving in the midst of liberal western societies.

      Delete
  30. Bumblebee looked dumb dumb early on. Good to be rid of it. My real reason for using the comment section is to send a message on an unrelated topic. The following item will be posted in abridged form on AVfM in 1-2 weeks. It is the sort of thing you know how to make use of so I wanted to give you a heads up. I think it is "very special" :
    “MEN ON STRIKE – Early Men’s Rights Organization: Tibet 1928” http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/05/early-mens-rights-organization-tibet.html

    ReplyDelete
  31. Karen,

    I saw this coming, too. I used to live in Montreal, and am familiar with the culture. In Quebec, collectivism is alive and well, and the notion of going to school to earn four degrees is quite normal. Posting videos of yourself sitting around smoking and bullshitting in lawnchairs merely demonstrates the extent to which Canada will bend over for Quebec.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Great post, and she responds with more argumentum ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Karen, I just gotta say... I saw it coming probably at about the same time you did. At first I was all giddy and gung-ho behind WBB, and supporter her because I really admired her moxy. But then that moxy turned bitter and angry.

    And her husband... holy shitballs... what a piece of work he is. That dude's interaction with Justicar was about the same time the wheels started coming off for WBB... and it was that exchange that made me realize just how racist iconographer is.

    I had no idea about the WBB financial situation or home life, but to be honest it doesn't shock me. People tend to be against ideologies that harm their comfort and well-being. People also tend to get really protective of keeping their "bennies" when other people try to take them away. I have seen astonishing feats of cognitive dissonance from people just so they don't have to admit they are leaches and users and abusers. It truly is all about self preservation of their own fragile egos.

    And as for your education? There seems to be this "spectrum" of intellectual elitism, and there are two behaviors on that spectrum that I have identified as markers of a weak intellect.

    The people who say "college isn't necessary"... more often than not those are people who couldn't hack it in college, or are otherwise jealous. You aren't this way at all, I know...

    Then there's the opposite: "You didn't go to college so you can't possibly know more than me." This is what WBB and her husband are doing.

    BOTH of these attitudes are wrong, because BOTH of them lack context and are general broad brush approaches to education.

    Look: I'm a trained educator... but I'm 1 semester shy of my degree. Does that mean I am not yet an actual educator? No, it just means I haven't met the accreditation standards yet.

    I'm also a computer programmer... self taught, know tons of different languages and technologies... worked for a decade building and repairing PCs, installing networks, etc... And never went to school for it at all.

    And yet, here I am, billing clients at rates WBB would salivate over if she could command such a premium for her time... doing a job I have no "formal education" in.

    Oh, but I *WILL* absolutely castigate people who dare to speak knowingly and with authority on Economics, if they have not at least taken a few Econ classes in college...

    WHY? BECAUSE THE DISCIPLINES ARE DIFFERENT, in their level of academic scholarship, and in their levels of knowledge and understanding required to master them.

    It's all very nuanced... so to make the claims that WBB and her husband make, and to deride you for your "lack of education"... it's just laughable.

    Hell, many feminists have advanced degrees in the bullshit "Women's Studies" area... which qualifies them for what, exactly?

    Anyway... good riddance to bad rubbish. WBB can go jump in a lake for all I care... and her racist husband can join her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Oh, but I *WILL* absolutely castigate people who dare to speak knowingly and with authority on Economics, if they have not at least taken a few Econ classes in college..."
      Eagle Eye

      "The first rule of economics is that resources are scarce, and they have alternative uses. The first rule of politics is to ignore the first rule of economics"
      Thomas Sowell

      Is there any wonder politicians should hold their fingers away from both legislating the dribble from extreme feminists AND interfere with the market?
      =)

      But seriously: Economists dont agree on everything, to say it carefully. Sometimes their "predictions" are so far off, that I start to wonder if "Economy" even qualify as a science. Sometimes it looks like educated guessing.

      Delete
  34. Damn, I have to stop reading your blog. ;) I read this post when I first came across you. Then, a few months later, I joined twitter and looked for people to follow. I vaguely remembered TWBB from somewhere, so I added her. Today I remembered where I knew her from, which was this post. Instant unfollow.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I just have to say this about feminist blogs.

    So I heard from other YT posters that feminist blogs were really hateful against men, so I looked some up. I looked at a few and they mostly talk about stuff I could care less about and did not seem hateful at all.

    Then I found a thread about rape and power and spent the time to read the post and all the comments, did not seem too hateful and had some reasonable stuff. No one mentioned the patriarchy and only a few people flipped out and "triggered" (their phrase.

    I wrote a very reasonable and objective post about rape, power and rape culture (based on one of GWW's videos). I included data, reason, personal experience and points from GWW's video; and was surprised that it got posted.

    I felt that maybe they were not as hateful as many had said; no biggie people blow things out of proportion all the time. I went back a few hours later to find that my post was removed; and I could not figure out why. I went through great pains to make it neuter, people inclusive, and posited GWW's hypothesis in what I thought was a well mannered and calm, dispassionate way.

    They had also posted and allowed to remain other males' posts. So why not mine?

    I then realized that they only allow mens' posts to remain if they can destroy them or if they are easily group-attacked.

    I also had an experience with a female PhD's personal blog about the Miley Cyrus incident. I spent a lot of time making a good biological argument; and she moderated me out too!!!

    So WTF???

    Please others tell me WTF is up with this. Opinions please!!!

    ReplyDelete
  36. i want to give thanks to the great doctor Lawrence who help me in getting back my ex-boyfriend i saw a testimony post by miss Kate from Spain about how the great doctor Lawrence had helped her, i decide to email him and to my greatest surprise my ex-boyfriend came back to me after three days of contacting him.i simply want to say thanks for what he had done for me and am so happy may he live long. if you have any problem just email him :drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and you will not regret contacting him...ANGELA

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hi Gww

    I was hoping you can help me. I recall in our of your videos you mentioned a study done on income disparity between males and females showing the differences are largely attributable to choice.

    I am uncertain if you linked said video or if I searched for it, but I cannot seem to find the reference given a quick search.

    Could you point me in the right direction?

    Thanks

    Motley Fool

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. As an avowed socialist and subscriber, I just wanted to say my outsider view of this subject was to be saddened.

    I thought WBB's video's were fiery and positive, and her earlier criticisms of librarian commenter's fit my experiences (I received about as much hate from libertarians as from feminists while commenting on MRA threads)

    But when she began attacking AVFM I was a little shocked.
    I've never experienced anything but respect and courtesy from the MRA's making the content (yourself included)
    Politicising men's rights in EITHER direction is awful.
    If we can all only agree on one thing, that is enough.

    As I said before in several commentaries, the fact you have VERY different ideas on politics is not a negative thing.
    Your willingness to discuss a topic with anyone, state facts and support your arguments would make you an asset in any debate, or as a guest for any organisation.

    Fact is, for democracy to function properly, we need capable people to represent all ideologies so we can carefully select the least harmful course of action in any given circumstance, and discard easily disproved nonsense.
    Ideas should always be vigorously attacked and peer reviewed.

    I'll continue to argue my own perspective, and call out the retards when I see's em, but I for one have nothing but glowing praise for the majority of the MRM.

    I'll continue to thank you for your contributions and listen to your arguments with an open mind and honest scepticism.
    We might disagree on politics, but avfm has earned some damned respect.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Almost immediately after that, she started making videos on her personal YouTube channel demanding that certain people (racists, homophobes, libertarians and misogynists) "get the fuck out of OUR movement", and calling out MGTOWs for being bitter, paranoid misogynists who want to blame all their problems on women (something even the most extreme MGTOWs don't really do--they blame men's problems on both men and women).

    She managed to alienate so many people, Paul finally had enough and removed her from the masthead of AVFM."

    Just recently, I made calm and rational libertarian case for masculinism and was tossed to the wolves. They have trouble stomaching the fact that libertarian feminism compliments libertarian masculinism.

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=8094

    This is unfortunate. My confidence in AVfM has undoubtedly waned. Yet if they did not remove the original thread, you would have a better understanding of the case in point. Charges of intellectual dishonesty are entirely unfounded. Instead of talking with a group that embraces logic, instead I was met with emotional and ignorant ad hominem attacks. No real argument was given that they could disagree with. Logic is awesome like that.

    Since they are assassinating my character with complete disregard for the consequences of their actions, it seems important to note that a man made the libertarian case for men and AVfM rejected it on grounds that they did not understand.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Huh... I did expect Wooly to be such a drama queen when I first saw some videos by her. I did probably miss the ones Karen refers to as red flags, though. From the videos that are still up (on her current channel) there are signs of bad self-expression and/or conflict drive even in the very old ones. I originally thought it was the former but unfortunately it proved to be mostly the latter.

    These high conflict personalities, be it histrionic or narcistic personality disorder (or "batshit fucknuttery" if one prefers) as the root cause, do cause quite a bit of disturbance regardless. They get to be the "victims" when they do a 180 and suddenly start making totally absurd accusations. I've seen several of them within last few years:
    Muutos 2011 (a political party supporting direct democracy), Finnish Pirate Party (a liberal/libertarian party), Atheism+/Elevatorgate/FTBlogs and now even AVFM (and MHRM and MGTOW).

    The smaller and more non-conforming the movement to society standards the more likely there is for a single person a chance to create a mess. It must be partly about the difficulty to turn people away when you are in dire need for volunteers but some of the blame goes to liberal values which also mean assumption of innocence and openness to new ideas. This quite often causes agenda shifts, potentially for the better but occasionally total derailment.

    Luckily Atheism+ has pretty much killed itself. Not that there was much risk of it causing permanent harm since Atheism isn't really a political movement but a just lack of religious conviction. You cannot hijack something like that any more than you can hijack a group "all people wearing a red T-shirt".

    Is MHRM however more vulnerable? Maybe Manboobz people like to hang around Wooly because the hope MHRM would self-implode or split like it already did in the past (men's liberation movement). I doubt that though. The split was to pro-feminism and anti-feminism. As long as MHRM is vocally anti-feminist, the pro-feminists won't accumulate to the ranks to cause potential implosion from within. Not again.

    While MHRM should stick strictly to egalitarian views (not welcoming supremacist agendas) the anti-feminist part should always be painfully apparent. This is not only to draw more attention but also to make sure people don't misunderstand the movement and the fact that egalitarism simply cannot be pushed without allowing confrontation with feminists due to widely supported female supremacy within that movement.



    Also to Karen:
    thank you for all the good videos you've uploaded to Youtube. I'm not commenting there because I'd like to avoid creating Google+ account.

    Though I like the Honey Badger Radio as well, the solo "pwnage" videos are in my opinion more interesting to listen. Can't judge you, though. Scripting them to perfection does take an eternity not everyone can afford to give in their life situation. Keep up the good work with the time you have to spare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Correction: "I didn't expect Wooly to be such a drama queen".
      Love it when I manage to start with a meaning reversing typo.

      Will there be international issues discussed in Honey Badger Radio or will they all be U.S./Canada related? And will you touch "politically incorrect" topics such as MGM?

      That topic creates quite batshit reactions including "racism", "antisemitism", here in Finland. Which is quite hypocritical as banning of FGM (already banned, but they plan to ban it twice just for good measure!) is excused with "it's not religion, it's culture. We can ban FGM without being anti-Islam." Though, I kinda wonder what's so bad in being anti-Islam, especially if it's about being anti-[those parts of Islam that are offensive to even the most basic of human rights].

      Delete
  42. The Contact Us section on HBR wasn't working on my computer. So I thought I would contact you here.

    A university in the next state over is set to start offering men's rights studies which as a university course would be subsidised by federal tax dollars through the National University Scheme know as HECS.

    The full article from a national news paper 'The Advertiser' is below.


    NEWS
    Lecturers in world-first male studies course at University of South Australia under scrutiny.
    LECTURERS in a "world-first" male studies course at the University of South Australia have been linked to extreme views on men's rights and websites that rail against feminism.

    The lecturers' backgrounds are likely to spark controversy, but organisers of the predominantly online course, promoted as the first of its type in the world, insist they are not anti-feminist and "it's very difficult for anybody who has opposing views to get a word in".

    ReplyDelete
  43. Two lecturers have been published by prominent US anti-feminist siteA Voice for Men, a site which regularly refers to women as "bitches" and "whores" and has been described as a hate site by the civil rights organisation Southern Poverty Law Centre.

    The US site specifically welcomed the UniSA course as a milestone, editor Paul Elam saying it marked the end of feminists' control of the agenda.

    One American US lecturer - US attorney and self-professed "anti-feminist lawyer" Roy Den Hollander - has written that the men's movement might struggle to exercise influence but that "there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly - firearms".

    He also argues that feminists oppress men in today's world and refers to women's studies as "witches' studies".

    Another, US psychology professor Miles Groth, says that date-rape awareness seminars might be deterring men from going to university.

    Mr Den Hollander has tried to sue ladies' nights for discrimination against men. He has likened the position of men today to black people in America's south in the 1950s "sitting in the back of the bus", and blames feminists for oppressing men.

    The course, which has no prerequisites, begins this year and will canvass subjects from men's health to gender bias.

    Course founder Gary Misan, from UniSA's Centre for Rural Health and Community Development, said they were "not anti-women" and that lecturers were associated with a range of groups.

    "I wouldn't say any of them are extreme or anti-feminist," Dr Misan said.

    "The aim of the courses are to present a balanced view and to counter some of the negative rhetoric that exists in society in general and in some areas of academe about men.

    "It's very difficult for anybody who has opposing views to get a word in. As soon as somebody mentions anything they perceive as being anti-feminist, they're pilloried, and in some cases almost persecuted."

    Dr Misan also said that writing something for a specific website did not necessarily suggest an affiliation.

    Dr Michael Flood, from the University of Wollongong's Centre for Research on Men and Masculinity, said these types of male studies "really represents the margins".

    ReplyDelete
  44. "It comes out of a backlash to feminism and feminist scholarship. The new male studies is an effort to legitimise, to give academic authority, to anti-feminist perspectives," he said.

    Flinders University School of Education senior lecturer Ben Wadham, who has a specific interest in men's rights, said there was a big difference between formal masculinity studies and "populist" male studies.

    He said there were groups that legitimately help men, and then the more extreme activists.

    "That tends to manifest in a more hostile movement which is about 'women have had their turn, feminism's gone too far, men are now the victims, white men are now disempowered'," he said.

    "I would argue that the kinds of masculinities which these populist movements represent are anathema to the vision of an equal and fair gendered world."

    Dr Wadham said that universities needed to uphold research based traditions instead of the populist, partisan approach driven by some.

    Men's Health Australia spokesman and Male Studies lecturer Greg Andresen is also the Australian correspondent for US-based site National Coalition For Men, which declares false rape accusations to be "psychological rape", argues that talking about violence against women makes men invisible.

    Asked about his connection to NCFM, he said they were the longest-running organisation in the world to look at discrimination against men and boys.

    "Certainly they don't shy away from touching issues like false rape allegations, domestic violence, some of those hot topics," he said.

    "We have had 20 if not 30 or 40 years where the only study on gender has been from a feminist perspective … that's why I think this course is so long overdue," he said.

    UniSA's Provost and Chief Academic Officer, Professor Allan Evans, said the courses covered important men's health issues and would equip allied health professionals who deal with men's health.

    "All new courses are reviewed thoroughly prior to being offered to ensure they are suitable and beneficial to our students," he said.

    http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/lecturers-in-worldfirst-male-studies-course-at-university-of-south-australia-under-scrutiny/story-fni6uo1m-1226800150348

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Given my looks, how could blame you? :P"

    You are an attractive woman to me, Karen.

    Since your comment seems a bit self deprecating, I believe this qualifies as an argument as called for in your Commenting policy ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  46. "You are the female nature that drives feminism, even if you're not a feminist"

    In a post where you are answering to the wrong-doings of a woman who was an activist of Men's Rights, it somehow seems like a cheap shot to redirect the blast (and the blame) towards feminism. Though smart for advancing your argument, it feels uncalled for.

    ReplyDelete

Commenting policy:

All comments are welcome here. I refuse to censor points of view that differ from my own.

I recognize that I may be challenging the deep-seated beliefs of some people, and perhaps stirring up emotions in others. However, I would ask:

- if you care to respond to anything that I have said, please do not simply link to or quote some statistic. Do not simply regurgitate things you have been told are true. Think about what I am saying. Respond with an argument. Offer something from your personal observations, and explain to me how you feel your statistic is connected to your experience.

- If you wish to be part of a discussion, try not to dismiss what I or a another commenter says out of hand. Yes, that means that some lines of thought or ideologies may not stand up to scrutiny (perhaps even my own).

- Remember, ad hominem attacks diminish everyone involved. If you want to criticize anything, do so passionately and directly - but debate is about attacking ideas, not people.

Have at you!