Frosty Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Stefan is set to be a speaker at the Men's rights conference in Detroit on the 26th-28th June, however the event organizer Paul Elam has recieved notice from the venue that they've received death threats against the staff and event attendees, they're asking for 24/7 coverage of a minimum of 7 guards and an insurance policy to cover against potential damages. You can find the story here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/threats-of-violence-and-death-against-doubletree-hilton-in-detroit-over-mens-conference/ Obviously this is a heinous attempt to silence free speech and threatens a great talk by speakers such as Stefan, I thought it would be in the best interest to reach out to his fans as early as possible to help spread the news, there will likely be a donation drive to help cover the additional security costs in order to keep the conference on, that will appear on the avoiceformen.com website in the next few days, please consider donating, thank you.
dsayers Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 It's too bad I'm not licensed to perform those duties in Michigan or else I'd donate my time.
fractional slacker Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 Death threats for not worshipping at the alter of the eternal feminine victim. Sounds like typical "progressive" tactics.In a way death threats might even be seen as a good sign?
RyanT Posted June 1, 2014 Posted June 1, 2014 In a way death threats might even be seen as a good sign? Definitely, The fact they're willing to go to such extremes (...people go to jail for making death threats), shows they now see the Men's Rights Movement as a serious threat. It's like Paul Elam said in the article; First they ignore you, (which has pretty much been the case until a few years ago.) then they laugh at you, (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement) then they attack you, (with stuff like this painting Elliot Rogers as a, 'typical MRA') then you win. You can see exactly the same thing happening with FDR and the 'dangerous cult' slurs (....although I did noticed all that seemed to drop off around the beginning of last year. )
Frosty Posted June 1, 2014 Author Posted June 1, 2014 Death threats are a sign of desperation, they're not a good thing but they're a signal that a positive change is being made.
PatrickC Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Yes, a great cause Frosty... As it's been said and experienced before, 'male safe' spaces are considered a threat by some ladies and men even.
Frosty Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 OK they have a donation page up, they're seeking $25,000 which is a hefty chunk of change, I'm really saddened that a simple phone call from feminists can cause this kind of damage for what will likely turn out to be just trolling and empty threats, still it's a requirement and I think it's a good cause - https://fundanything.com/en/campaigns/campaign-for-free-speech
RyanT Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 Well here again I think 'damage' is a pretty negative term? Obviously those behind these threats were hoping to shutdown the conference, that hasn't happened, instead the call went out and people have responded, Just over $13,000 raised with still over a month left to run... For me that's an incredible expression of how committed so many people are to this cause. ....must have really pissed on the feminists bonfire? lol
Frosty Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 Well here again I think 'damage' is a pretty negative term? Obviously those behind these threats were hoping to shutdown the conference, that hasn't happened, instead the call went out and people have responded, Just over $13,000 raised with still over a month left to run... For me that's an incredible expression of how committed so many people are to this cause. ....must have really pissed on the feminists bonfire? lol It's like a bad superhero film. The feminists in being so extreme in their fight, they become the very evil they're trying to stop. The conference among many things deals with the issue of violence and censorship, and the feminists are trying to stop this conference by attempting censorship through violence. You couldn't write a better evil villain character if you tried.
PatrickC Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 It's like a bad superhero film. The feminists in being so extreme in their fight, they become the very evil they're trying to stop. The conference among many things deals with the issue of violence and censorship, and the feminists are trying to stop this conference by attempting censorship through violence. You couldn't write a better evil villain character if you tried. But aha, NAFALT as you probably already know. Which actually Elam brought up quite well in a piece about NAFALT helping fund some the security arrangements. Feminists of all hues seemingly prefer to lambaste the MRA, than call out radical feminists. It's why I will never debate them of course, like creationists.
nathanm Posted June 2, 2014 Posted June 2, 2014 I've heard some of the threats involve forcing the attendees to live in Detroit permanently.
Frosty Posted June 2, 2014 Author Posted June 2, 2014 $20k of the $25k in about 24 hours, thanks so much to those who donated, looks like they'll easily make the target. This is what happens when people stick up for freedom of speech and the rights of the marginalized. I'm so proud that this wasn't a struggle and so many decent people stood up for this. Solidarity has never felt better.
Pleiades Posted June 4, 2014 Posted June 4, 2014 In a way death threats might even be seen as a good sign? Feminists have been using death threats for a long, long time. Longer than I've been alive. When Erin Pizzey was trying to garner attention to the fact that men were also victims of domestic violence in the 1970s she was blacklisted from publications, received bomb and death threats, had to have her mail sent directly to the police and it all accumulated until someone shot her family's dog (no evidence on who did it, as far as I know). I don't think it's a good sign. It's just the status quo.
Avocadogreta Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 I was hoping there was already a thread on here about this. My twitter timeline (which I keep paring down) is full of feminists and every single one of them are quoting the founder of A Voice for Men as a supporter of rape. Here's just one thread: https://twitter.com/BhasChat/status/474299616864010241/photo/1 Since the Elliot Rodger situation, I have deleted half of the hard-core feminists I used to follow because they attack, mock, and place all blame on men without offering any possible solutions to the never-ending list of troubles they share. My suggestion that these tweets are sexist got me blocked, RTd, and mocked. Even a 'writer,' Lindy West published a Jezebel article (http://jezebel.com/finally-a-foolproof-step-by-step-guide-to-dealing-with-1577628407) the same day this was occurring. She specifically called me out as a troll and sent her minions after me all saying things like 'goo goo ga ga' along with 'wiping crap off bottom' stuff. Because I am a woman and defend (as equally as I can) males and females, I am put in a precarious position. My (former) birth/breastfeeding/child-advocate 'friends' have turned against me. But when I see posts from Paul Elam (like the one included above), I can see why many of these women get feisty. Though, I do not support their ways of going about it. I cannot tell you how many tweets I've seen today that call MRA (A Voice for Men) a hate group, tell the Doubletree that their female employees are not safe with this conference being held there, saying that MRAs will rape anyone who disagrees with them. etc. I really don't have time to read through thread after thread in their (AVFM) forums. I do not understand where feminists that take it to twitter (and elsewhere) are getting their information, and there is little room for discussion. It's a 'you're either with us or against us' mentality and apparently they've decided I'm against them. Can someone please share with me a little more about this situation so I have a better understanding of what is going on. I honestly feel like I need a handbook to understand the greater context of this situation. Are there any links I can read to educate myself on this? Thank you in advance
PatrickC Posted June 5, 2014 Posted June 5, 2014 Well, from the little I know, is that many feminists since Valenti wrote her piece in the Guardian now consider that Elliott Roger was an MRA. From what I hear that wasn't true, although I haven't researched directly myself to confirm that. But this wouldn't be the first time feminists have put 2 + 2 together and get 5. I'm not surprised you find them the way they are, feminists are frankly the last people I would debate with, since they always argue from emotion or hysteria even. As for Elam's piece on jury service. On the surface perhaps not the greatest thing he could have written. But in all honesty there's literally an army of feminists scouring absolutely everything that is written about or discussed on AVFM. Then doctoring it, taking it out of context etc. I guess we'll have to hear what Elam says about it. I have no doubt he will offer a rebuttal to all the vitriol. My other theory, is that feminists have historically hated men's private spaces. They campaigned very successfully throughout the 60's & 70's to have gentleman clubs banned in the UK and elsewhere perhaps. It never fails to amaze me when some women have wanted to intrude or denigrate men hanging out together. These calls to boycott the conference just seem like an extension of the same kind of behaviour in my opinion.
James Dean Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 Are there any links I can read to educate myself on this? Thank you in advance I know just off the top of my head, the AVFM website has a whole bunch of info all neatly laid out in one place, (http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/) which would be a good place to start. Well, from the little I know, is that many feminists since Valenti wrote her piece in the Guardian now consider that Elliott Roger was an MRA. This always tickles me. Elliot Roger was a deranged sociopath. He projected his dysfunctional family onto society assuming everyone acted like his horrible parents and had a murderous rage against natural sexuality, and the desire to "even the playing field" with violence.... sounds like a feminist to me. My other theory, is that feminists have historically hated men's private spaces. They campaigned very successfully throughout the 60's & 70's to have gentleman clubs banned in the UK and elsewhere perhaps. It never fails to amaze me when some women have wanted to intrude or denigrate men hanging out together. These calls to boycott the conference just seem like an extension of the same kind of behaviour in my opinion. I wonder where the motivation to do this comes from? Because the culture even looks down on men hanging out together in smaller scale... you'll always notice how, in media, tv shows, books, etc, when a group of adult men get together, it's always portrayed as childish and pedantic You'll often see a bunch of drunk assholes watching the game or playing poker, but never emotionally connecting with each other, never talking about anything important. Women on the other hand are allowed to gather to do dignified things like book clubs or garden parties and to talk about the finer things in life. It might be a resource thing... If men are spending time together they will not be making money or spending money on their wives so it is looked down on at best and prohibited by law at the worst.
PatrickC Posted June 8, 2014 Posted June 8, 2014 It might be a resource thing... If men are spending time together they will not be making money or spending money on their wives so it is looked down on at best and prohibited by law at the worst. Well therein lies the irony. Many men's clubs from working to gentlemen clubs were actually a way in which men could discuss and improve upon their resource yield. There were mutual associations that provided healthcare and life assurance handouts and even 'widows pensions'. Friendly societies, which did very similar, including food stamps and unemployment benefit. Some of which developed into unions that negotiated (reasonably) with employers. They were also often key social hubs for local communities as well. All of which was meant to benefit the lives of women and children and not merely with just themselves. Ironically (for feminists) the only places guys get to hang out with each other now are strip clubs and sporting events like football or rugby. Which might partly explain the disdain people currently feel about men hanging out together. I think for feminists, this was just a reaction to their fathers. Either their fathers were too busy working or socializing that they experienced a strange kind of jealousy with what them whilst they weren't at home. It was probably true that many men in the past probably neglected their children's emotional needs, whilst they scavenged around finding ever more and improving upon their existing resources. This could perhaps relate to the male version of Stefan's 'estrogen based parasites' video (testosterone emotional avoidance) . Men please stop, we have enough resources now! Again, just another hunch of mine to add to this particular discussion. EDIT - In the wake of this issue. I'm currently writing a blog post on the historical and contemporary value of mens private spaces. I'll post here when I'm done for those that are interested.
Recommended Posts