a voice for men Dean Esmay lying liars MRA schadenfreude twitter

Did A Voice for Men's @deanesmay and @Jackbarnesmra buy thousands of fake Twitter followers?

Are Dean Esmay and Jack Barnes of A Voice for Men following in the fake footsteps of Superbad's McLovin?
Are Dean Esmay and Jack Barnes of A Voice for Men following in the fake footsteps of Superbad’s McLovin?

If you’re on Twitter, and have any number of followers at all, you’re going to end up getting followed by some bots — usually spambots looking for people to pester when certain keywords get used.

But when Twitter accounts have more than a relatively small percentage of fake followers, it’s almost certainly because they went out and bought them in order to make themselves look more influential than they really are.

Well, it looks like two of the most active members of A Voice for Men’s Twitter squad have done just that.

Twitter users @BlutalTheDog and @UnseenPerfidy recently ran “Twitter Audits” of a couple of AVFMers who are especially active on Twitter — AVFM “Managing Editor” @deanesmay and @Jackbarnesmra, co-host of AVFM’s Blue Collar Red Pill online radio show. The results weren’t pretty:

B89fwY1IcAEjslK.png large


That’s right: it looks like both of them bought the overwhelming majority of their “followers” — tens of thousands of them in total.

I checked both of their accounts using another fake-Twitter-follower finder on, and the results were similarly terrible:



That’s not just embarrassing; it’s sleazy, and a pretty big breach of journalistic ethics for someone (Esmay) who’s the managing editor of an online publication.

By contrast, here’s the Twitter Audit of someone who doesn’t buy Twitter followers.


It will be interesting to see Esmay and Barnes explain this, or if they even try.

UPDATE: Well, Barnes has responded by … blocking me on Twitter. (Esmay already had me blocked.)

Twitter user @AnimalJimmies, meanwhile, has pointed me to two more (apparent) fake-follower buyers, one a GamerGate celebrity, the other AVFM’s “Assistant Managing Editor.”

B9BMdKYIIAACDwy B9BMdKaIgAA9VEHOh what a tangled web we weave, when we buy Twitter followers to decieve!

UPDATE: I’ve been informed that Mr. C is claiming that evil SJWs are buying fake followers for him in an attempt to make him look bad. Which is, I suppose, possible. But he also claims that he’s got 11,000 or so real followers regardless. Twitter Audit says his real followers only number about 4400.

94 replies on “Did A Voice for Men's @deanesmay and @Jackbarnesmra buy thousands of fake Twitter followers?”

To give what very little credit I can, in the comments at one point they do acknowledge that body shapes are due to weight distribution and also bone structure. I’m more of an apple shape pretty much because my ribcage measures more than my hips (I have a teeny pelvis. Good thing I don’t plan on having natural kids :P).

I think they very vaguely understand that women aren’t in control of their natural body shapes, but I’m not sure if Heartiste does.

When I google for “PUAs in the 1920s,” I just get a bunch of results for Hawaii and its state flower. *shrug*

Not sure if you’re a newcomer, omegaconstant, or an out-of-lurking regular, but good lord you’re funny. Have a cookie, an internet, and help yourself to the welcome package on the right if need be.

The child bearing hips thing does make some sense. A wider pelvis reduces the chance of death in childbirth. Of course, with modern medicine that matters less. Also as far as I know, wide hipped women aren’t more fertile, they just have an easier time with birth generally.

That’s why teen pregnancy is more dangerous, because girls have narrower pelvises than adult women. So they undermine their biotruth about teen girls being appropriate sex partners that adult men are hardwired to want.


The child bearing hips thing does make some sense. A wider pelvis reduces the chance of death in childbirth.

Only if you’re actually talking about bone structure, rather than just absolute wideness of hips. I don’t think these dudes really grok the difference.

I’m an average-sized woman with a small waist, big hips and boobs…and no maternal inclinations whatsoever. I can also cheerfully go without sex partners for years at a time.

Shartiste’s shit out of luck with me.

Apparently PUAs eat a lot of chicken on dates, so they can set up a “I’m more of a breast man/dark-meat man, that’s not what I meant!” line. (Pretty close to a quote)

I can just hear the snurklesnorting from here.

The most logical retort to that is, “Well, you know what they say…chicken at the table, chicken in the sack!”

One of the biggest unchecked premises in this nonsense is the idea that most men, more often than not, will share their preferences. From what I’ve read, men with different preferences are often mocked by these bozos – “oh, you like women who don’t look like the women I like? String of uninspired and derivative insults!”

Gay men deal with something similar, which is where ‘bear culture’ came from.

Mike, I did actually run an audit on Elam’s Twitter account, and most of his followers, alas, are real.

Everyone else: for more about Heartiste’s thoughts on (cis) female anatomy, see my latest post.

” Given that men, unlike women, are neurally primed to get aroused and motivated solely by stimulating visual cues…”
Oh, so that’s why puas are so indigneindignant over basic hygiene and having to not look like they just rolled out of a shit pile while getting their not-so-white undies in a knot over the misandric practice of women not wearing makeup every hour of every day.

The child bearing hips thing does make some sense. A wider pelvis reduces the chance of death in childbirth.

It certainly makes a fair bit of sense in places and times when food supplies are unreliable. A woman with wider hips in such societies shows that she was probably better nourished as a child than women with less developed physiques. Of course, it’s not a foolproof guide. Regardless of the width of the hips and pelvis perceived by external observation, the critical “measurement” is the internal size of the pelvic opening.

As for men not liking women with fat on them. Just as these men like to use women as status symbols, in places where food supply is a problem, being able to display a well-fed wife is a status symbol for men. Especially if she’s regularly producing babies. His status as “a good provider” is demonstrated by the fact that his well-nourished wife has not been exhausted and made haggard by repeated pregnancies and years of breast feeding.

Potentially interesting link for folks:

The article is tough to read–Lindy West talks pretty openly about the trolling she got, including one that she considered the worst of the lot. But it has, bizarrely, a happy-ish ending. She confronted him, and he has actually apologized for and denounced his prior conduct. He talks a lot about where his headspace was at at the time, and it’s… well, almost enlightening–he definitely confirms a lot of my own suspicions about online misogynists (and yes, he cops to that label regarding his former self, as well).

weirwoodtreehugger sez:

As far as I know breast size has nothing to do with ability to breastfeed. Large breasts have more fat on them not more or bigger milk ducts. Babies don’t actually suck boobs fat out through their mother’s nipples.

Which would be obvious if they bothered to consider the boobs of any other mammal on the planet.

Yeah the pelvic opening’s size and shape matter when it comes to getting a baby through it, but fat distribution’s only possible contributation is that pregnancy is easier on a well nourished person than a malnutrited one. And at least pre-junk-food, a, uh, well padded woman probably ate well.

Just wanna note that frikken Ancient Rome recognized the too small pelvic opening problem and had tools for we’d now call a late term abortion, but then was the only way to save the mother since c-sections had a 0% survival rate (they did do it, but only when there was no hope for the mother’s survival). So yep, medicine 2,000 may’ve had their reproductive health shit more together than we do — if you can save the mother, you do so, she can have another kid, if not, save the fetus if you can.

And I’m rambling about Rome, sorry.

Loving your Roman ramblings.

You probably already know this but the Caesarian Section (and , no, I’m not about to promulgate *that* myth 🙂 ) was used in Rome to remove foetuses from women who had died in childbirth.

This originated as a religious requirement based on a tradition that women could not be buried whilst pregnant but eventually evolved into a procedure to save the live of the foetus when it appeared the mother would die anyway.

There is no recorded account of the mother ever surviving this procedure notwithstanding the Julius thing.

Sorry, should have been a “first” in there after “was”; otherwise it doesn’t make sense.

Those comments on the articles about “ideal body shapes” are a little sad to me, for more than just the reasons other commenters covered.

A lot of these guys talk about what they are attracted to in terms of child bearing or maternal fitness because these are the only masculine approved ways of talking about their attraction to body types besides that of the supermodel/large breasted but thin ideal that patriarchy pushes on them.

These men have a normal distribution of attractions (some prefer bigger, smaller, taller, shorter etc) but they have to hide those feelings to avoid being called “betas”, “chubby chasers” or “settling for less”.

It’s sadly difficult in a patriarchal world to talk about attraction in terms of what we actually find attractive when it always invites the comparison to the patriarchal ideal that you “should” be attracted to.

Alan, I don’t think Julius Caesar was born via C-section. The name actually came from the laws of the Caesars. Either he or Augustus promulgated that law Argenti mentions, the one that says that if a woman dies in childbirth, the attending physician must cut her open and save the baby, if at all possible. It’s gruesome, but it was probably considered humane at the time. Especially since so many women died either shortly before or during childbirth.

Hawhaw, the broad hip thing.

My mum and I have broad hips and small waists and she has always had problems with giving birth. To the point were she gave birth to all of her last three children (me included) via C-section. My dad being tall and stocky didn’t help much either. :/ (He could have given some of that height to me) 🙁

Big hips don’t always lead to easy birth, and the orientation of the birth canal and size of the bone structure on my mum was remarkable enough to warrant comment from her gyno when examining her X-rays. Namely that the birth canal bone opening(?) (My technical language is amazing, I know) is smaller as is the hip flare despite the breadth of the hips. Apparently, we’re more likely to get ovarian cysts as well, which exacerbates our reproductive health worries. I’m twenty and I have numerous very small ones, which still turned up despite being on the pill since I was a sprog.

Lucky for me, I probably don’t have this bone shape problem and I should be able to give birth just fine, assuming I’m interested.

But yeah, the ‘big hips is what he-man cave-dweller liked so it’s better!’ thing is rubbish. It doesn’t take into account the build of the woman or the other important factors for successful birth. Like a birth canal that isn’t human-baby-appropriate.

I remember Cernovich making some noises on Twitter about the evil SJW hordes inflating his follower count for some nefarious, incomprehensible reason.

Orion the ?th said

These men have a normal distribution of attractions (some prefer bigger, smaller, taller, shorter etc) but they have to hide those feelings to avoid being called “betas”, “chubby chasers” or “settling for less”.

You know..I decided to stop caring about what other people thought of me at age 30…this involved AC/DC. They are not hip at all.
I decided that I did not care that people might find out i was an AC/DC lovin’, headbanging, dork.
This decision extended outward to my whole life. I embraced my dorkiness.

Maybe this whole ” beta” thing is hetero guys realizing that what other hetero guys think of their sex life doesn’t really matter all that much?

They have their AC/DC moment, decide they like what they like, and they stuff all that stupid PUA crap…which is really about having sex as a way of keeping score between guys…
…They pull their head out and go do something that actually makes them happy, like find a woman whom they get on with well and have a relationship, hopefully with lots of sex in it.
And they stop worrying about what the PUA’s at the club think of them, because with PUA’s, winning a contest is all it is. It’s not about happiness.

All this endless pseudo-scientific nonsense and microscopic analysis by “experts” who have never been within 100 feet of a woman. As if it’s some sort of novel revelation that different body shapes exist. HOW DID EVERYONE ELSE MISS THIS?

Twitter only allows users to follow 2000 accounts, plus an additional ten percent of the number of one’s own followers. The more followers above 2000, the more a user can follow back. That *might* be a factor in why some people pay for followers, but ranking sites like Favstar probably play a part as well.

Correction: the more followers one gets after one has hit that 2000 follow limit, the more one can follow back. Clear as mud, eh?

Two Orions… For myself I’m going to distinguish between Green Orion (on the previous page) and Turquoise Orion (see above).

Green Orion, it does suck for them being told what they “should” be attracted to, but at least they’re not being told how much they should weigh, what body shape they should have, what hairstyle they need and how much makeup they should wear in order to be deemed “attractive”.

@WWTH I forgot about that! So not only do we have to fit a certain beauty ideal at all times (I hate it when PUAs say “I want a woman who looks perfect when she’s just got out of bed – no, fuck you) but we have to be attracted to, well, every man who is attracted to us. Especially the misogynists, who claim they’re the nice guys but really aren’t. Otherwise it’s our fault if one of them decides to rape or kill us.

@sunnysombrera We’re constantly told to “just give him a chance!” about sidewalk randos and awkward friends, but PUAs are allowed to reject any woman for any reason, preferably with a loud bunch of insults and body-shaming slurs. They also expect women to lose baby weight right away (and not have any permanent body changes from pregnancy and breastfeeding) and look amazing without makeup (because that’s lying).

I tend to agree with Green Orion, being in a permanent 2/10 Would Not Bang snit isn’t the norm for most guys. I guess for PUAs it serves a purpose – it’s safe, provides a convenient cover for angry failure, and wins them major imaginary alpha brownie points (“Whoa, check out the quality of babes I’m rejecting!”).


Honestly, realistic sex bots would be the only thing that could actually make PUAs happy. Especially if they were programmed to give thinly veiled “nos” at random, so the dudes can still fulfil their primary goal which is to go back to their bros and crow “I manipulated a female into having sex with me! I’m so manly!”

I was thinking Power Rangers.

If that model is “plus-sized”, then so am I, because she reminds me an awful lot of…myself.

But then, it’s Sports Illustrated…which, like all of the fashion industry, has a grossly skewed idea of what a “regular” woman looks like.

And meanwhile, I rarely if ever buy from the “plus size” department, because I happen to fit into the regular sizes much better. Albeit, usually, from the top of the regular size range, because the fashion industry doesn’t do Average Jo very well. :/

As someone who is roughly a size 16/18 (because fuck me if clothing companies can keep their bullshit women’s sizes regulation), yeah. She’s very average sized for a woman.

Twenty bucks says there’s still Photoshop involved though.

I mentioned the buying of Twitter followers to Jack Barnes and he blocked me almost immediately, but he is currently carrying on a totally one sided discussion with me, nonetheless. Like, every 3 seconds I’m getting another notification of a response from him. I think he’s a little unhinged 🙂

Hunh, and I saw the Twitter list on the right side including notes that David had ‘magically’ gained 1000 more followers as someone obviously bought followers for him… and yet when I clicked there, for the first time ever, I got a ‘tweets are protected’ page indicating that I couldn’t read the tweets unless I logged into Twitter and was a follower. (I don’t have a Twitter account.) So it not only looks like somebody is trying to slime WHTM, but David has made his Twitter account somewhat more private as well.

That Jack Barnes guy used to post frequently on ExperienceProject (maybe he still does – I wouldn’t know seeing as how I haven’t been on there in ages). He expressed a desire to shoot and kill some of the more prominent feminist posters on that site.

Alan — Caeser wasn’t delivered via c-section, unless proven otherwise, I’m gonna assume Bina’s right that it’s because the law was named after him. But there are reliable accounts of his mother being very much alive after his birth, so we can be quite certain he came out via vaginal delivery. As for the being buried while pregnant thing, there’s at least one very interesting example of that having happened. I wish I had a link, but it was in Britian, so definitely not Caeser’s era, nor near Rome (geography, what’s that?) but it was a woman and three very tiny corpses, one in a position that was probably placing the dead baby with its dead mother, one that was likely still inside her, and the interesting one? Between her legs. Lots of detective work had the anthropology team deciding that one had actually been stuck in the birth canal and since this was the very edge of Rome, the tools that could’ve possibly saved her weren’t at hand… so her, the baby waiting its turn, and the sibling blocking the way all died in childbirth gone very wrong, and the third either died at birth or, and this isn’t for the screamish but you can probably guess — of starvation not long after it lost its breast milk provider aka mother.

(That last bit isn’t me reducing mother’s to breast milk providers, but me pointing out the problems of a newborn with a dead mother pre-formula — best chance was a wet nurse, if you could find one.)

It was terribly sad, but they gave the family a proper burial at the end of it all. And yes, they were buried in a manner that was, um… not proper? Not in the manner you’d expect for a burial, given how the rest of the corpses were buried.

And the anthropology team is almost entirely women, so that’s extra cool. Grrr, I can never remember the name of the show, which sucks because its a British show that investigates long dead corpses and how they ended up dead, and is all sciencey.

If anyone knows the name of the show, let me know!

(Side note! That Caeser’s first attempt at conquering the British Isles was basically “they’re naked, I’m out of here” amuses me. I realize it’s more complex than that, but fucking CAESER turning tail? Lol!)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.