Categories
a voice for men are these guys 12 years old? doxing drama kings entitled babies hypocrisy irony alert lying liars misogyny MRA oppressed white men playing the victim

MRAs post secret recording of non-secret event, confuse feminism with the complete opposite of feminism

Secret Squirrel: Much better at this than MRAs
Secret Squirrel: Much better at this than MRAs

If you’re a feminist holding an event, and you don’t want to have recordings of that event posted online without your permission by MRAs, it looks like your only option is to ban anyone and everyone associated with A Voice for Men from the premises.  AVFM “activism director” Attila Vinczer has made that very clear.

Earlier this month, you see, Jaclyn Friedman – feminist writer, speaker, founder of Women, Action & The Media (WAM!) – gave a talk at Queens University in Kingston, Canada, followed by a panel discussion.

A number of Men’s Rights Activists associated with everyone’s favorite hate site A Voice for Men showed up with cameras and other recording devices, as they do.

The organizers made clear that there was to be no filming or recording of the event.

They had security remove Steve Brule, an MRA-sympathetic “documentarian” who’d shown up with his camera gear. Organizers had every reason to worry about Brule and his camera: in the past, footage from Brule has been used by AVFM to dox feminist students. Nevertheless, he cried foul, saying that he promised the security guards he wouldn’t film the event –honest! — and, absurdly, claiming that he had been discriminated against as an “old guy.”

But organizers let in other MRAs, apparently on the condition that they not record any of the proceedings.

Well, I guess we now know how much those sorts of promises are worth. Today, A Voice for Men posted a recording of the event. Vinczer explained that

I herewith revoke my word not to record the Jaclyn Friedman What’s Feminism Got To Do With It public event.  Had security not violated my Charter Rights I would never have had to take the steps I did to preserve those rights.

His accusation?

On April 7, 2014, a group of five men and one woman were denied access to a public feminist event at Queen’s University for absolutely no reason at all. Security trampled on Charter rights of these Canadians.

But then in his next line we learn that four of these people, including him, WERE ultimately allowed to attend the event. (Presumably the fifth was Brule.)

So four of these people were unfairly denied access to something they were not actually denied access to, and a fifth was denied access because organizers and students didn’t trust him not to record the event.

And so, in order to protest a man being kept out of an event because people were afraid he would secretly tape the event, AVFM is … posting audio that someone secretly recorded of the event, after promising not to record it.

So that’s irony number one.

As for irony number two, well, according to Vinczer, posting the audio of the event is necessary because

The public has a right to know what type of damaging and dangerous rhetoric is being spoken to highly impressionable young adult minds.

But guess what? The event wasn’t actually secret. It was actually BROADCAST LIVE AS IT WAS HAPPENING.

And for anyone who missed it, it’s ARCHIVED ONLINE HERE. Go to April 8 at 8pm (or, as they have it, 2000 hours). Ta da! The sound quality is better than AVFM’s recording, as well.

Besides sound quality, the other difference between AVFM’s recording and the officially broadcast one is that AVFM’s includes the panel discussion afterwards, which, as the radio station that broadcasted the event noted in a tweet “we were not permitted by the panelists and event organizers to record & broadcast the panel discussion due to safety concerns.”

In other words, the organizers wanted students to be able to ask questions without worrying about being publicly identified on the internet by MRAs — because MRAs, particularly those associated with AVFM, have a longstanding practice of singling out college feminists for harassment online.

So good on you, AVFMers, for making life a little easier for potential harassers.

Also, in the comments on AVFM, we see this wondrous little exchange.

 Kimski Mod • 7 hours ago  At approximately 15 min's in, you can hear Dan Perrins say: "Extorting as much money as possible for your sexuality!", to which Friedman agrees and runs with it.  So, the purpose of feminism is apparently to teach women how to become prostitutes, according to Jaclyn Friedman. She then continues her little scheme of extortion possibilities by teaching these young women how to pressure young males into "loving them" by withholding sex. The purpose of course being with a later marriage in mind, which actually makes this another clear example of promoting outright prostitution. 'Oh, the tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive'.  No wonder they didn't want you guys in there. The cover-up has been blown wide open: Jaclyn Friedman is actually a prostitution promoter in a feminist's disguise.  6 • Reply • Share ›          −     Avatar     DEDC Kimski • 5 hours ago      This is where I see the feminism is 'socialism in panties' argument: wherein the only 'legal' or state sanctioned 'sex-transaction' is marriage and it is price-floored at the cost of your soul.

Wait, a feminist telling women to exploit their sexuality for money? That seems … odd.

And that’s because she isn’t doing that at all.

Which brings us to irony number three: If you actually go and listen to that portion of Friedman’s talk, you will see that she isn’t issuing marching orders to her feminist sisters. In fact, she’s describing the traditional, patriarchal, female-sex-as-commodity notion of sexuality. She’s very clearly describing a model of sexuality she, as a feminist, finds troubling, not one that she endorses.

But just as the folks at AVFM have trouble telling the difference between a secret event and one that was literally broadcast to the world, they also have trouble telling the difference between feminism and the complete opposite of feminism.

Congratulations, AVFMers, you’ve once again demonstrated to the world that you are both liars and idiots.

EDIT: Added several paragraphs noting that the AVFM recording included the panel discussion and audience questions.

EDIT 2:  On Twitter, AVFM “assistant managing editor” Suzanne McCarley seems to suggest that Attila Vinczer’s argument that he had to post the audio because the public “has the right to know” is pure bullshit: AVFM, according to her, posted the audio simply because it was forbidden to post the audio.

Here’s her tweet:

So is she trying to make excuses for AVFM not knowing that the audio of Jaclyn Friedman’s talk was already online, or is this the truth? Funny thing is, either way, the folks at AVFM look like asses.

82 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
goodrumo
8 years ago

You couldn’t script this stuff if you wanted to…

emb3rsil
emb3rsil
8 years ago

/r/againstmensrights was recently brigaded due to this whole incident being posted on /r/videos. AMR is now private due to the whole fiasco.

mildlymagnificent
8 years ago

No job opportunities for parody writers here.

They take one look, throw up their hands and walk away.

kittehserf
8 years ago

Isn’t recording someone without their permission – covertly at least, and especially if permission’s already been denied – against the law in Canada?

Lili Fugit
Lili Fugit
8 years ago

I’m a socialist who doesn’t wear panties. Does this mean I’m NOT a feminist?

Alice Sanguinaria
8 years ago

/r/againstmensrights was recently brigaded due to this whole incident being posted on /r/videos. AMR is now private due to the whole fiasco.

I can confirm this, I’m an AMR moderator. We will be reopening the subreddit on Tuesday, but for right now the doors are shut tight.

wololoo
wololoo
8 years ago

These dudes are the Keystone Cops, ludicrously realized.

emilygoddess
emilygoddess
8 years ago

Was there a specific connection to r/amr that drew their attention to you, or were they just riled up and looking for a target?

LBT
LBT
8 years ago

Wow. These guys almost rival the False Memory Syndrome Foundation for deliberate obtuseness.

Almost.

pecunium
8 years ago

Who thinks the real purpose of this charade is to get the AVfMers a chance to rally ’round their oppression, so they can cradle to their bosoms and feel smug?

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
8 years ago

Well, well, well. Thanks, Kimski, for letting us know it was Dan Perrins who made that misogynist remark. AVFMers were claiming it was a random student.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
8 years ago

Charter Rights? Is this the whole sovereign citizen, this courtroom/auditorium is a ship thing again?

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
8 years ago

@cassandrakitty, it’s the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It’s a real thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

Auntie Alias
Auntie Alias
8 years ago

Section 183 starts here and has the definition of a private communication. It carries on to the next page. I can’t figure out whether what they did was illegal.

Denying someone the right to record isn’t a Charter violation, doofus.

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
8 years ago

Which is not to say that the MRAsshat is interpreting it correctly. In fact, given his “I hereby revoke my word” as if that clears him of intentionally recording an event he specifically said he would not, he’s almost certainly a Sovereign Sucker of People Selling “How to Escape your Legal and Financial Obligations” Gobbledegook.

J. Schmidt
J. Schmidt
8 years ago

CCC section 183.1:Where a private communication is originated by more than one person or is intended by the originator thereof to be received by more than one person, a consent to the interception thereof by any one of those persons is sufficient consent for the purposes of any provision of this Part.

Basically, as long as anyone consents to the recording, the recording is allowed. This applies to private communications, however; I’m not convinced anyone could successfully argue that, as an audience member at a public event, one has the authority to give consent to record.

Methinks Vinczer is bullshitting.

katz
8 years ago

I imagine he’ll consider it misandry if anyone doesn’t take him at his word in the future because they expect him to just revoke it.

tedthefed
tedthefed
8 years ago

Steve Brule?

…..STEVE BRULE?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
8 years ago

Given that someone specifically told them that they didn’t have permission I’d say good luck arguing that a law written that way covers their asses.

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
8 years ago

Every theatre or auditorium I’ve ever been in has had signs prohibiting recording the performance or speech unless specified otherwise. The producers usually have recording and distribution rights. Individuals don’t have the right to record somebody else’s work and distribute in except under certain circumstances. I’m fairly confident that *this* isn’t one of those exceptional circumstances.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
8 years ago

Yeah, the default is no recording, so if someone is trying to argue that they have the right to record when they’ve been specifically told not to, good luck with that, buddy.

bbeaty
bbeaty
8 years ago

@Unimaginative “Every theatre or auditorium I’ve ever been in has had signs prohibiting recording the performance or speech unless specified otherwise. The producers usually have recording and distribution rights.”

Agreed. I suspect this is more a copyright issue. The rights to record and share the discussion probably belong exclusively to the campus radio station that made the broadcast-quality recording, broadcast it and then archived it. It belongs to them. It’s not so much a matter of invading privacy or not getting consent as it is one of theft.

sparky
sparky
8 years ago

So, they secretly recorded a talk that was being broadcast live, then posted it on the website, but it was already available online.

They din’t think this through, did they? I mean, if they’re going to go through all that trouble, you’d think they’d check to make sure a that trouble was necessary. I’m sure the fact the talk was broadcast live was advertised.

And, do they really believe that feminists are holding meetings teaching young women to sexually extort men for money? That’s such a strange and unbelievable thing for a feminist to say. If that’s what I thought I’d heard Jaclyn Friedman say on a recording, I would look into that and double check that, just to make sure that I wasn’t misunderstanding something, before I posted that online.

But, they seriously believe there, that feminists are holding secret meetings in order to teach young women to sexually extort men for money.

weirwoodtreehugger
8 years ago

Meanwhile the MRAs are up in arms because Jezebel isn’t redacting the names of these rapists. http://jezebel.com/read-the-rapey-emails-of-american-universitys-secret-fr-1565766329/all#

1 2 3 4
%d bloggers like this: