3 traitors in our midst

Even Some Men's Rights Activists Are Worried About a Trump Presidency
"I care about this country being led by the most competent person."

At a Trump campaign rally last week in Spokane, Washington, Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton for "playing the women's card" to gain campaign support. When citing Clinton's criticisms of him, Trump mimicked the candidate, straightening his shoulders and flattening his voice to convey a cold, prim demeanor. He concluded the performance with the pronouncement: "All of the men, we're petrified to speak to women anymore…You know what? The women get it better than we do, folks. They get it better than we do."
The audience erupted into cheers and applause.

Moments like this one—where Trump's unabashed political incorrectness and machismo are on display—resonate with many of his supporters. But his message in Spokane made headlines in part because the notion that men have it worse off than women echoes a central tenet of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM), a network of activists who believe that in many contexts, men are a disadvantaged class. New York magazine even offered its readers a quiz: "Who Said It, Trump or a Men's Rights Activist?"

It seems like a no-brainer that men's rights activists would admire Trump's rhetoric on gender and thus support his candidacy for president. But several leaders of the movement who spoke to Mother Jones are ambivalent about Trump, at best—one has even donated to Clinton—and say that many others in their community haven't been won over by Trump's bluster. But why do many members of a group that would appear to be his natural constituency not support Trump for president?

"It's nice to hear him say" things that align with the men's rights movement, says Dean Esmay, now a contributor to and formerly the managing editor of A Voice for Men, a blog and men's rights discussion hub, but those talking points aren't enough. "Somebody had the guts to say that men have it tougher than women, it gives you an emotional rush," he continues. "But when you listen, where's the meat behind it? What's he offering? I see nothing." Trump isn't offering much by way of policy substance, Esmay says, both on issues key to MRAs, such as incarceration or the treatment of fathers in family courts, or on others.

"Why do I think he would make a bad president?" asks Esmay. "Because he is a loose cannon. You don't know what he's going to do. We have a student loan debt bubble that's going to burst. We have a middle class that's imploding. And Donald Trump is going to fix it all by saying, 'Believe it, baby?' Give me a break."

Warren Farrell, widely considered the father of the men's right's movement and the author of one of its foundational texts, The Myth of Male Power,  says he's a "very strong supporter" of Clinton. He has attended several campaign events for Clinton and has donated the allowed maximum of $2,700 to her primary campaign. Still, Farrell says he thinks Clinton is "the worst candidate in recent history, in my lifetime, on gender issues from the perspective of understanding and having compassion for men." But Farrell, who has a Ph.D. in political science, still supports Clinton in part because, he says, "even though I care about men's issues a lot, I care about this country being led by the most competent person."
"Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."
"Its very hard for me," he continues, "because Trump does have a clue about what's happening with men's issues. But Trump is the quintessential example of the immature man and men at their worst."

Farrell falls into a more liberal faction of the men's rights community, says Gwyneth Williams, a professor of politics at Webster University who also studies men's movements. But some of Farrell's more conservative colleagues also have serious concerns about Trump.
"I think Trump was right on for saying that men are afraid of upsetting women," says Paul Elam, the CEO and founder of A Voice for Men. But Elam notes that he doesn't buy that Trump would be "some sort of savior for" the men's rights movement, and that there are other Trump positions he finds especially worrisome.

"Trump talks a lot about building a wall and the outlandish proposition that he's going to stop drugs from entering the country—which is impossible," says Elam. He's wary of a candidate who would further criminalize drugs, leading to greater incarceration of men. While Trump hasn't directly promised this, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, one of Trump's surrogates and a potential vice presidential pick, has said he supports the criminalization of marijuana use. That's why both Elam and Esmay say the possibility that in a Trump administration Christie might be elevated to a position of power might push them to vote for Clinton.

But many men's rights activists are definitely not Clinton fans: Both Elam and Esmay referred to her as a "lizard" while speaking with Mother Jones, and men's rights forums on Reddit and elsewhere are filled with anti-Clinton sentiments. But despite their Clinton scorn, many MRAs say it's obvious Trump is more swagger than substance. "Trump doesn't have the ability to successfully call out Hillary on her sexism. He is to [sic] crass and doesn't grasp the issues," writes one user on the men's rights subreddit. Another sums things up: "Trump VS Clinton. Whoever wins, America (and the world?) loses."

Source

Fuck you Paul Elam,fuck you Warren Farrell,fuck you Dean Esmay. A double fuck you to Farrell for donating to her cause. If they chose to vote for Gary Johnson or wrote in Donald Duck for president while keeping their money in their wallets that would have been acceptable. But to vote for this misandric witch is crossing the line. Bernard Chapin said if you call yourself an MRA and you vote for Hillary you are a traitor. End of story. I don't always agree with Chapin but he is right on this. You know whom a real MRA supports in this election? The Donald that's who.

AVFM versus Roosh

If you've been following the manosphere as of late there is a feud between Dean Esmay of A Voice For Men versus Roosh from Return Of Kings. The funny thing is that A Voice For Men is joining with feminists to bury Roosh on alleged rape charges. Roosh has denied said charges and stated he only engages in consensual sex. He even said Anonymous got involved persecuting him. I've been waiting for Anonymous to fuck the pooch and they did. Anonymous is now synonymous with organized online bullying and terrorizing people. Anonymous demands redemption from others but will they make right what they did or are they just bullies too? No better than those they condemn. Anonymous is busted. Getting back to Esmay,Roosh is right,Esmay is not much of an MRA. From what I hear Esmay tried game and got shot down that is why he is pissed at Roosh. I wasn't there when Esmay was using game so I can't critique him but I do know that game minus confidence is a guaranteed way to get shot down. I don't know if this is the case but it is the most common mistake men make. Esmay did the same things others did from the British House of Commons to the Governor of Texas Greg Abbott to the feminists that Esmay agrees with. They all persecuted Roosh. Esmay could have critiqued Roosh independently but to join forces with feminists is treasonous to me and Roosh is right in calling out Esmay on it. Esmay is a confessed liberal Democrat. That alone should place him on the list of misandrists because the Democrats are in reality the Femocrats. If you have doubts look at their support for Hillary Clinton. I've had my differences with A Voice For Men especially with Paul Elam who once told me to mend fences yet he is the biggest bridge burner in the manosphere. Esmay made the following statement: And every MRA I know views him Roosh as a crackpot, a loon, a con artist and snake oil salesman, and a self-serving liar and weasel...
Source How presumptuous of you Esmay. I have to say I back Roosh on this one. Roosh has stayed consistent while A Voice For Men goes through editorial changes every three months. Don't only that but A Voice For Men diplomats are a bunch of rude dumbshits who go to other MRA websites and act like they own the place. They did that at Antimisandry. Roosh,on the other hand,has welcomed those of us who are MRA's and he doesn't censor people,unlike A Voice For Men,which has turned into an echo chamber thanks to the current management at A Voice For Men.

My thoughts on A Voice For Men

greg

I believe that Jodi Arias should receive the same sentence that I would if I had committed this crime. I believe in equality. I am a Feminist.

Then you sir favor female supremacy because that is what feminism is. Read about it here and here.

Of course I don't expect Stacey Harvey uh er Paul Elam to say anything even though Harvey's/Elam's/whoever is running that place's post follows Greg's. Is Elam still an MRA? That is the question being asked throughout the manosphere.

Which brings up something that I've suspected but never blogged about. Regular readers of A Voice For Men remember when Paul Elam was rushed to the hospital because of a smoking related illness. It was after that that A Voice For Men started changing things and started to become more female friendly. My theroy is that Elam didn't survive his hospital stay,that he is no longer with us. My theory is that a female,Stacey Harvey is running A Voice For Men now. A Voice For Men is now gay and female friendly,gays and females are traditional enemies of the men's movement and now they're here to help us? Forgive my skeptism but that don't wash. The question remains: did they join us or infiltrate us? It was after the hospital visit that Register Her went to hell. I remember Dean Esmay saying to discontiue it (this is why I don't like moderates) which was a bad idea and before my banning I told Esmay and the others that abandonding Register Her was a bad idea,that's the problem with this movement: too many hippies and not enough punk rockers/thrash metalers. One pet peeve I had is when JTO called a feminist a "naughty little doggie". That statement is way too effeminine for my comfort and might have told us more about JTO than he may have realized. Elam/Harvey have banned all the real activists with the exception of Ray Blumhorst. They keep moderates posting there but I look at moderates as Neville Chamberlains. Yes,I know there is an article on A Voice For Men from Glen Poole from Fathers 4 Justice and I guess when questions come up you better get some real activists for men on your side and Fathers 4 Justice fits that bill. Like I said,I'm not the only one asking these questions.