WARNING: Post contains potentially disturbing images.

UPDATE (July 23, 2014):
Click Here (Jailer placed on "Administrative Leave" over incident.)

Original Post Text (July 22, 2014):

"On July 18, 2014 at approximately 2:20am, Denton citizen Jason (Pooh), 38, was brutally attacked by the Denton, Texas police while in custody for possession of alcohol and public intoxication.

While being beaten, he did not—could not—fight back. He was both restrained and intoxicated, making him unable to defend himself from whatever went on when he was alone with the police."

We are calling for an investigation of the Denton city police. Please help us spread the message.

Share this story and help us get justice for Jason.


Facebook Page Mission Statement:

"What we want is a full and impartial investigation into the brutal beating of Jason Wayne Bishop (AKA Pooh) by the Denton Police Department. The delivery should be conducted by third party without the blue wall of silence. We make these demands by any and all means available."


I believe that we can all agree, regardless of levels of intoxication, that beating someone this badly is absolutely unacceptable, a disgustingly gratuitous display of brutality, and a grievous abuse of power; no officers or guards of any kind should be allowed to continue holding their jobs after recklessly thrashing someone in this way.

Please contact those operating the social network pages on Jason's behalf for more information on this story, and aid them in their cause; injustices of this sort should not go without rebuke or consequences for those who carry them out.

I have witnessed firsthand that campaigns of this nature can be quite effective in achieving justice for those wronged by figures of authority, and can even lead to helping others beyond the victim of the original misdeeds. I would encourage everyone to take a look at all of these pages and spread this story; do whatever you can to assist if you are able.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

Ways to help (from the Facebook page):

• SHARE OUR POSTS, PICTURES, AND INFORMATION ONLINE: When your share our content, more people will be exposed to it, and are likely to take action.

• CONNECT WITH US ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Please follow us on twitter and tumblr, subscribe to our youtube page, and like us on facebook to see more updates about this campaign. When you connect with us, it boosts our trends so that more people can see what we post (in other words, it helps us gain followers).

• SUBMIT VIDEOS TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL: Create a video(s) discussing this tragic incident, or why you oppose police violence/want the Denton city police to be investigated and send it to us for uploading. You can send your videos to justiceforjasontx@hotmail.com.

• WRITE ABOUT THIS: If you're a writer, and you are given a platform to express your views or expose information, please help us by writing about this situation to give it more light.

• INVITE FRIENDS TO THIS EVENT: Invite your friends and family to this event so they can see this too. We need as much help as possible, and there is strength in numbers.

• TREND OUR HASHTAGS ON TWITTER: #WeAreJason, #WeArePooh, #FuckPoliceBrutality, #JusticeForPooh, #JusticeForDenton, #InvestigateDentonPD, #DentonPDabuse.

• CALL/SUBMIT REPORTS ABOUT/FAX DENTON CITY POLICE AND COMPLAIN: You can submit complaints online here: http://www.cityofdenton.com/departments-services/departments-g-p/police-department/commendations-complaints or call/fax the Denton city police at:

~ 940-349-7923 (Chief of Police)
~ 940-349-7973 (Records)
~ 940-349-8160 (Media Relations)

• CONFRONT DENTON CITY POLICE ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Blow up their interactions and notifications online by tweeting or acknowledging them multiple times. Even it the block or ban you, you can still post about it, and use the hashtag #DentonPD and #DentonPDabuse. They are on facebook [https://www.facebook.com/CityofDentonPoliceDepartment], twitter [https://twitter.com/DentonPolice], and youtube [https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofDenton].

• MAKE THESE IMAGES YOUR COVER PHOTO OR PROFILE PICTURE: /Covers/ [], [], []. /Profile Pictures/ [], [], [], []. (You can also use a picture saying #StandWithJason, or #JusticeForJason to express your support.)

There are many ways you can stand in solidarity with this victim of gross police violence. Please help us spread the message, so we can get #JusticeForJason.

Interview with Jason (from the Facebook page):


Other Pages:


PURPOSE: This piece will discuss objections and other information relevant to male circumcision (MGM), with a primary focus on the United States. As I am opposed to male circumcision (except in cases where, for whatever reason, it is absolutely medically necessary), I maintain that the procedure should be abolished/outlawed, that the supposed health benefits related to the operation are too poorly evidenced to warrant its continuation or recommendation, and that, ethically, it is no different from female circumcision (FGM), because it destroys individual guarantees of physical integrity and protection, is typically performed without consent, and violates the right of males to bodily self-determination. 

NOTE: Bracketed numbers correspond to references at the end of the post; numbers from other sources which used a similar format were changed to match the numbers from my list (when the same sources were used).

"Routine circumcision is not a medical issue or a social issue. It is a sexual issue and a human rights issue."

- Frederick Hodges (Medical Historian and Author)

Male circumcision, sometimes referred to as male genital mutilation (MGM), is the excision of the foreskin (prepuce) of the human penis. The practice antedates recorded history [1A], and is not explicitly prohibited in most places of the world. In the United States, the operation is still relatively common (although slowly declining in prevalence), and has become an increasingly controversial and polarizing human rights issue. Several myths, exaggerations, and a wealth of conflicting information surround the procedure today, which has resulted in the present struggle between adversaries of the practice and its advocates. Gradually, however, a growing number of people are beginning to view male circumcision as an abuse comparable to female genital mutilation (FGM), arguing that its practice on newborns, who are unable to refuse or consent, is an infringement of the basic human rights of all males to bodily autonomy and physical protection. Many also dispute the health benefits reported by some organizations and studies, claiming that most of them are either mythical, exaggerated, or are too insubstantially evidenced to warrant the procedure or its recommendation.
The History of Male Circumcision

Two useful resources that provide several links to scholarly and non-scholarly references on male circumcision:
[1B] “History of Circumcision”
The History of Female Circumcision

For an overview of female circumcision, I recommend a paper by Nawal M. Nour, MD, MPH
Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School:

And, another by Robert Darby BA, B Litt, PhD which covers both female and male circumcision:

Proponents of male circumcision have argued that its practice is a religious right, that it is a male rite of passage, and/or that the health benefits associated with the surgery are evident enough to warrant its continuation. The American Pediatric Academy (AAP), in 2012, reported that: “New scientific evidence shows the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks of the procedure,” [3] but also stated that there was insufficient evidence of the benefits to officially recommend routine operations. The United States’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has expressed a similar sentiment, in regard to the surgery’s supposed health benefits: “Male circumcision reduces the risk that a man will acquire HIV from an infected female partner, and also lowers the risk of other STDs, penile cancer, and infant urinary tract infection.” [4]

Several opponents of the procedure, on the other hand, argue that the surgery is superfluous, cruel and painful to infants, violates their basic rights to bodily autonomy and physical protection, and that the reports of its health benefits are either exaggerated, or rife with myths and misinformation. The greatest health-related argument in favor of male circumcision is that undergoing the procedure helps to reduce the risk of men acquiring HIV. However, one website entitled Doctors Opposing Circumcision states that circumcision does not prevent HIV infection, and even goes on to say: “The United States has the highest rate of HIV infection and the highest rate of male circumcision in the industrialized world. Male circumcision, therefore, cannot reasonably be thought to prevent HIV infection.” [5] Other websites, such as cirp.org [6:7] and circumcision.org [8], have reported similar findings and conclusions, calling into question the data which reports such benefits to male circumcision, the ways wherein the information was collected, and the methodologies behind the research.

More from cirp.org: “A recent Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and WHO report confirms previous reports that circumcision does not prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).” [9:10] / And: “Circumcision does not provide protection against penile cancer. Even if it did, it would no longer be necessary due to the expected availability of a HPV vaccine.” [11]
More from circumcision.org: “Circumcision is the only surgery in history ever advocated as a widespread means of preventing disease. In the last fifty years, circumcision proponents in the medical profession have promoted various claims. One medical claim for circumcision is that it decreases the incidence of urinary tract infection (UTI) in the first year of life. However, the UTI studies this position is based on have been criticized by other physicians, most notably by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). They concluded that the test designs and methods of these studies may have ‘flaws.’ A similar study found no confirmed cases of UTI in intact male infants without urinary birth defects. Furthermore, the UTI defense of circumcision is weak, not just because the methods are flawed, but because the logic and reasoning leading to the conclusion are flawed.” [12]

Many adversaries to male circumcision have also objected on the basis that it is cruel, and that the pain of undergoing the operation is “severe and persistent.” [13] Regardless of whether or not most men will remember their circumcisions later in life (it has been argued that the trauma of the experience can have long-term deleterious effects [14]), the procedure is agonizing for infants, and the recovery time following the operation, which usually lasts for roughly 7 to 10 days [15], results in days of pain for any child who’s undergone it. Male circumcision, according to circumcision.org, has been described as “among the most painful [procedures] performed in neonatal medicine.” [13]

Likewise, removal of the foreskin of human males results in reduced sensitivity and protection; the prepuce serves an important purpose in protecting the head (glans) of the penis from injury, and is vital for proper, and natural, penile function. [16:A/B] All of these factors comprise a significant portion of the objections to male circumcision made by a growing number of people—many blame the prevalence in society of misinformation about the benefits of the surgery for its perpetuation—but several also argue that a large part of the continued advocacy for the practice is caused by misguided cultural, social, and traditionalistic or religious values.

For Muslims, male circumcision is among the rites of Islam, and is “recommended to be performed on the seventh day of infancy.” [17] In most of Judaism, circumcision is mandatory [18], and the practice is also endorsed by some Christians (especially in the United States). The majority of men circumcised, in the United States and elsewhere throughout the world, tend to be among these three groups, but the effects of their tenets and ideals, along with the falsehoods and half-truths in circulation on the health benefits of the surgery, are pervasive throughout U.S. culture; thus, in many cases (and especially for those with religious affiliations), circumcisions are being performed for both misguided medical and non-medical reasons. The former and the latter are equally strong points of objection for those who oppose male circumcision.

Adversaries to female circumcision (FGM) have argued that “female genital mutilation is a violation of human rights.” [19] On a similar ethical basis, and given the abundant evidence against the purported “health benefits” of male circumcision, opponents of the procedure contend that the cultural or religious principles of some collectives (Muslims, Jews, et al.) should not override the individual human rights of male infants to bodily autonomy/self-determination and physical protection. [20:A/B/C/(D)] Both female and male circumcision are, by definition, mutilation (as they each involve removal of some portion of the human body [21], typically without consent), and thus can be challenged and condemned for the same ethical reasons.

Furthermore, any culture or belief system which opposes bodily integrity and the right to physical protection for anyone is erroneous, and should be overruled or changed; in “Circumcision of Male Infants as a Human Rights Violation,” J. Steven Svoboda argued that male circumcision “violates four core human rights documents—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture,” and he also said that:

“Every infant has a right to bodily integrity. Removing healthy tissue from an infant is only permissible if there is an immediate medical indication. In the case of infant male circumcision there is no evidence of an immediate need to perform the procedure. As a German court recently held, any benefit to circumcision can be obtained by delaying the procedure until the male is old enough to give his own fully informed consent. With the option of delaying circumcision providing all of the purported benefits, circumcising an infant is an unnecessary violation of his bodily integrity as well as an ethically invalid form of medical violence. Parental proxy ‘consent’ for newborn circumcision is invalid.” [20D]

Most people who oppose male circumcision (MGM) do so for the same reasons that numerous people oppose female circumcision (FGM); they believe that it violates the basic human rights of male infants, and this attitude toward the matter is becoming more prevalent each year and decade. In fact, in the United States, the CDC has reported an overall (and continuing) decline in the national rate of male circumcisions: “Across the 32-year period from 1979 through 2010, the national rate of newborn circumcision declined 10% overall, from 64.5% to 58.3% (Table and Figure 1). During this time, the overall percentage of newborns circumcised during their birth hospitalization was highest in 1981 at 64.9%, and lowest in 2007 at 55.4%.” [22] These declines in rate, although not entirely related to cultural shifts, are indicative of a trend which correlates to social changes in perspective on MGM.

National U.S. MGM Rate: 58.3% circumcised in 2010, down from 64.5% in 1979. Greatest decline was in the West, down from 63.9% in 1979 to 40.2% in 2010 (a decrease of 23.7%). The Northeast and South showed marginal increases in their rates of circumcision, and the Midwest had a decrease, but the percentage was insignificant. There were fluctuations up-and-down throughout for each region, with an overall national rate reduction. [22]

An increasing number of people are beginning to view male circumcision as the same sort of basic human rights violation that most of the world now sees female circumcision as. Approximations of the global proportion of circumcised males vary from 1/6 [23A] to 1/3 [23B], and several areas are displaying consistent trends of gradual overall decline in their rates of male circumcisions, including the United States.

The myths, distortions and exaggerations surrounding the benefits of the procedure are being debunked, and people all across the world are decrying the practice as an infringement of the guaranteed human rights of males to physical integrity, protection and bodily self-determination. Few, if any, professional medical associations are recommending the surgery as a necessity now (due to insubstantial evidence for its benefits), and a greater number of people currently regard the practice as a basic rights violation equivalent to FGM than ever before. All of these elements amalgamated are why the rates of male circumcision (MGM) are slowly decreasing in the United States and elsewhere, but the battle is not yet won.

Regardless of any misguided objections, dubious claims of “health benefits,” or what some belief systems and collectives state, male circumcision is a superfluous and antiquated procedure which violates the basic human rights of every male infant that suffers it. The practice, unless absolutely medically necessary for individual cases, ought to be made illegal everywhere, just as female circumcision (FGM) should be prohibited everywhere (and is in most places). Ethically, there are no (or merely insignificant) differences. People must stop having their male newborns circumcised, and should instead opt to teach their children proper cleanliness routines. It is not cultural or anti-religious bigotry, or ignorance of science, to oppose MGM as FGM is opposed (in fact, the ignorance of science lies with those who favor male circumcision); it is advocacy for the rights of all males to physical protection, bodily autonomy and self-determination.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]
NOTE II: The purpose of this piece is not to compare the physical impact or damage of female circumcision (FGM) and male circumcision (MGM); it is a discussion of MGM, and the associations made are conceptual (relating to analogous ethical considerations). It is not intended to elevate one over the other in categorical importance, or to undermine either in any way.

NOTE III: I have recently made a donation to IntactAmerica.org (a group which opposes male circumcision); I encourage everyone to check out their work and consider contributing to their cause (if able).

NOTE IV: Leave your thoughts in the comments below, and share this article if you like it.
References (Last Accessed on July 17, 2014):

[1] The History of Male Circumcision
A. History of Circumcision pages by Geoffrey T. Falk (Web Page)
B. History of Circumcision pages by Robert Darby BA, B Litt, PhD (Web Page)

[2] The History of Female Circumcision
A. Nawal M Nour, MD, MPH. Female Genital Cutting: A Persisting Practice. Department of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. (Web page and PDF)
B. History of Circumcision pages
Robert Darby BA, B Litt, PhD

[3] AAP on Health Benefits; Does Not Recommend Circumcision, but Claims There Are Some:
1) New Evidence Points to Greater Benefits of Infant Circumcision, But Final Say is Still Up to Parents, Says American Academy of Pediatrics
2) Newborn Male Circumcision - More Information from American Academy of Pediatrics

[4] Male Circumcision – From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

[5] The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
[6] D Sidler, J Smith, H Rode (2008). Neonatal circumcision does not reduce HIV/AIDS infection rates. SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, Volume 98, Number 10: Pages 762-766.

[7] R. S. Van Howe MD FAAP (1999). Circumcision and HIV infection: review of the literature and meta-analysis. Department of Pediatrics, Marshfield Clinic, Lakeland Center, USA. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STD & AIDS, Volume 10, Pages 8-16.

[8] Circumcision and HIV: Harm Outweighs "Benefit"

[9] History of Circumcision pages by Geoffrey T. Falk (Web Page)

[10] Dave SS, Fenton KA, Mercer CH, Erens B, Wellings K, Johnson AM (2003). Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey. SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS, Volume 79: Pages 499-500.

[11] Penile cancer, cervical cancer, and circumcision

[12] Explaining Claims of Medical Benefits

[13] Infant Responses to Circumcision

[14] Psychological impacts of male circumcision

[15] Circumcision – Recovery (Recovering from circumcision)

[16] Foreskin removal reduces sensitivity; prepuce protects glans (et cetera).

[17] Male Circumcision in Islam

[18] M Amin ud din (2012). Aposthia-A Motive of Circumcision Origin. Iran J Public Health. 2012; 41(9): 84.

[19] Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement - OHCHR, UNAIDS, UNDP, UNECA, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNHCR, UNICEF, UNIFEM, WHO. (The following link has been condensed.)
[20] Religious and Cultural Values vs. Human Rights
[21] The Definition of Mutilation
[22] Male Circumcision Rates Declining & Insufficient Evidence to Recommend Circumcision:
[23] Proportion of Males Worldwide That Are Circumcised Varies from 1/6 to 1/3:
Supplementary Resources (Unused – Last Accessed on July 17, 2014):

1) WHO on Male Circumcision; Claims That There Are Health Benefits to the Procedure:
2) Another Article Arguing That MGM Reduces the Risk of a Man Acquiring HIV:
3) Where FGM is still practiced.
4) WHO – Over 30% of Males Ages 15+ Are Circumcised (Almost 70% Muslim).
5) Rates of Male Circumcision
D. The Maternity Experiences Survey (MES) 2006-2007 – http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/rhs-ssg/pdf/tab-eng.pdf
6) Greg Millett: “Circumcision does not affect HIV in U.S. men: study”

7) World Health Organization (2007).
“Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability" (PDF).

8) Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I (2010). Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review. BMC Urol 10: 2. doi:10.1186/1471-2490-10-2. PMC 2835667. PMID 20158883.
9) Hay W, Levin M (2012). Current Diagnosis and Treatment Pediatrics 21/E. McGraw Hill Professional. pp. 18–19. ISBN 978-0-07-177971-5.
10) Circumcision and urinary tract infection

NOTE: Normally, this isn't the sort of thing that I'd post to my site as it's not that comprehensive, but since I left a comment on this video yesterday, a few have people informed me that my reply is no longer visible on the video itself, which only leaves me to assume that the uploader of said content (Sam Seder) removed it, or that there is some sort of Google-related issue rendering it hidden for random users.

Accordingly, and despite it lacking a level of depth consistent with most of my site-pieces, I am going to re-post it here for now; I am considering expanding on what I stated in the post as it was really just a response to one "notion" presented during that "debate." Much more could be done with it, and the subject-matter could likely be used for a better piece. But, nevertheless, I'll place it on display for today.

My Comment (the time-stamp at the beginning refers to a point in the video linked above):

23:44; Paul: "We're not going to get there by saying that Elliot Rodger is a result of Feminism, and that he's killing people because of what Feminist ideologues do. We want to look at actual, real problems and find real, evidence-based solutions."

He doesn't wish to blame Elliot Rodger's murders on Feminism because what they truly care about are actual, real problems and real, evidence-based solutions.

So, if that is their mentality, how do they explain blaming entirely unrelated individuals (Feminists, et cetera) for a man's suicide because he was denied funding for his shelter? It is nearly the same thing, in essence. The issues with that logic/reasoning should be palpable. And, there have been several MRAs (not necessarily Paul Elam) who've blamed Elliot Rodger's mindset on the culture now "created" by Feminism (despite the fact that the constructs that he succumbed to existed in one form or another long before Feminism; since antiquity, even).

After listing the names of several essentially entirely unrelated individuals, for a man's suicide, the article went on to state: "Admittedly, many, if not most of the people listed in this article will take delight at provoking the anger of the 'very bad men over at AVfM'. Let’s be really clear about what this article says. The evil, self satisfied indifference of the major actors and proponents of a dominant ideology of gender in the face of a male rate of suicide FOUR TIMES HIGHER than corresponding female suicide is laid squarely at your feet. We are not simply going to yell 'fuck you' and go away. We’re coming for each of you. We will never stop until you and your indifference to human harm relegated to the same trash-bin of history the Ku Klux Klan, and the third reich now occupy. Giggle if you like, or just go back to eating cheese coated wacky fries. Your indifference to human damage, as you pretend to humanism or some “greater good” is why you are named here, and why we are coming for you." (Emphasis Mine.)

Where were they with their real, evidence-based solutions for Earl Silverman's real problems, and need for help, when he was still struggling and fighting? Surely, if they cared as much as the tragedy-politicizing articles that followed his death suggest, they would've been there to help him and raise funds for him and his work, which would've served to actually assist real men suffering in the real-world. But, they were almost nowhere to be found there, until it was too late (and then they used his death, briefly, for their sociopolitical agenda).

There was more of that "we're coming to get you!" rhetoric in this radio episode:

And, further discussion of Feminism "killing Earl" can be found here:

Is this the sort of thing that Paul Elam means when he states: "We're not going to get there by saying that Elliot Rodger is a result of Feminism, and that he's killing people because of what Feminist ideologues do. We want to look at actual, real problems and find real, evidence-based solutions." ?

I see no proof of this mindset: "We want to look at actual, real problems and find real, evidence-based solutions." in any of that. I see blaming, threateningly, virtually totally unrelated people for a man's death for the sake of politicizing his demise in order to work their site's followers into an infuriated and stupefied fervor; it's the type of disingenuous underhandedness that people regularly shame and condemn the worst of Feminists and the slimiest of politicians for. And, that was not an isolated incident. This sort of rhetoric and vitriol is commonplace with AVoiceforMen and its operators. They do little aside from blaming people for things and working their followers into a frenzy over anything and everything; stirring up and forging a collective rage of Oppression Hysteria by continuously pummeling their readers and viewers with a constantly reinforced "men are victims of X, Y and Z; expendable, disposable, abhorred, viewed as subhuman" victim narrative, and almost always with an Anti-Feminist overtone, or direct sentiment, that ignores a great deal of historical contexts, and makes few distinctions between issues which are not inherently "men's" issues, but issues of race or class, and so forth.

This sort of thing is the problem with AVoiceforMen that people have. It's not that they fight against inequality in family/divorce courts, or that they discuss male suicide rates or sexual violence against men or workplace-related deaths or alimony and child support; it's all of the (relatively superfluous) fear and hate-mongering that accompanies those points via their oft-inflammatory and hyperbolic rhetoric.

Until those internal issues are addressed, they will continue to be met with backlash and push-back, and little will be accomplished; they hardly even know how to achieve their aspirations, other than just misguidedly talking and fallaciously blaming most of the wrong factors for the ills and injustices of society (ad nauseam).

Here is another example of AVfM "being concerned with real problems and seeking real, evidence-based solutions": http://www.donotlink.com/fWz - Offering a "$1,000 bounty" for some women (and one man) involved in a YouTube video, which, if I recall correctly, was produced/directed by a man as a promotional piece for some local play (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that).

Matt Binder didn't do that well, and Paul Elam was Paul Elam, but it would be nice if they could, some day, see the reality of why people aggressively oppose primarily AVoiceforMen; if they were able to view the truth of it, they would find that they could still attain most of their core-objectives, eventually, without a great deal of the backlash that they receive now (and, rightfully so).

P.S. Would AVfM and Elam have blamed Feminism for Elliot Rodger had he been entirely unrelated to any Anti-Feminism or PUA-esque activities? Would they have blamed Feminism for him and what he did had he been a Feminist or Feminist-leaning? Who knows. Perhaps. Likely so. But, of course they "don't want to" blame Feminism (even though some other MRAs have), or anyone else, for what he did now, because the mainstream media attempted, in excess, to tie him to them. Paul Elam stating that they don't want to do that now is not, by default, evidence of intellectual honesty or integrity on their part; it is just as likely suggestive of them being, at least to an extent, politically savvy and/or interested in self-preservation. It could be either or. Or, perhaps even an amalgamation of both.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE II: Share this post and leave your thoughts in the comments below.

NOTE III: As I stated at the top of this entry, I can only assume that the post was removed by +Sam Seder because it no longer appears for me on the video itself when I log out, and three other individuals have told me that they cannot see it there either. If I am wrong, and it's still there and some people simply can't view it for whatever reason, then that is fine. It doesn't really matter either way, but I'll leave it here for a bit nonetheless.
Some Related Posts (Older):

NOTE: The discussion of this piece extends beyond the base-subject presented in the initial questions.

“What are the end-games of Feminism and the MRM? What could be considered enough for Feminists and MRAs to say that they've achieved their goals and their work is complete?”

Recently, I was presented with the question of whether or not Feminism or the Men’s Rights Movement would “disappear” or “die down” if they were to “receive all that they have asked for.” This, presumably, refers to “equality” or “equal rights” for the demographic(s) that they purport to represent. If Feminists and MRAs were to achieve all of the central-objectives that they claim as their own, or if “equality” were created within and throughout every nation and state, would these collectives and their organizations and activists simply take leave from the world stage?

My contention is: No, they would not.

“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress.” - Napoleon Bonaparte

Considering the fact that they (Feminism and the MRM) each represent, or claim representation of, one half of the world’s population, it is clear that a high amount of significance in purpose and relevance is lent to the scopes of their causes. And, how does one define conventional Western-esque “equality” in a realistic and/or practical sense? Is it a political, social and economic “evenness” or “sameness” amongst all people? Is it an equal quantity of rights? Obviously, a society can only have conventional “equality” in regard to comparable rights that can apply in the same ways to all people. Women and men can’t possibly have the same literal number of rights, because the needs of each sex differ. Unless we allot rights to people that they don’t actually require or would have no use for, or rights that would conflict with the rights of others that are more biology-oriented and sex-based, we can never have an “equal number” of rights between women and men; we can have only “equal” application of comparable rights that are relevant and related to both women and men in the same manner(s). 

(Comparable rights being things such as the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of speech, et cetera; “rights” that can essentially apply in the same ways to all people, as opposed to something like abortion rights [matters associated with sex-specific autonomy and anatomy/biology], which carry conditions and ethical constructs heavily influenced by the sex of individuals. It is the difference between “equal” and “equivalent.”)

"As the world goes, right is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." - Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Book V, section 89

So, with all of that in mind, if Feminists and MRAs were to achieve exactly equal application of comparable rights between women and men, or even alternatively similar rights for rights that are biology-oriented or sex-based, would these collectives simply call it a victory and go home? Of course not; their objectives extend far beyond mere “basic human rights.” So long as there is even a single instance of inequality or prejudice and discrimination anywhere in the world, these collectives and social movements will seek to cling to those cases desperately for as long as they can. The only possible scenario wherein they would end is if they were utterly cast out, rejected or eradicated, and even then it’s likely that they would simply remain somewhere clandestinely or reappear again at a later date.

There will never be an end to Feminism or to the Men’s Rights Movement, even if they attain their “fundamental” aspirations. And, whereas Feminism in the West has often taken to attacking the trivial and insignificant in recent years, the MRM is already making that shift as well, before even truly achieving much on its general charter of “necessities.” This devolution and degradation of purpose into hyper-focus on the paltry will spread within the MRM just as it has throughout some portions of modern Feminism, and there will be no reversing or halting it.

Many individuals who affiliate with social movements do so because they seek a sense of purpose, and such activism awards them a feeling of usefulness and perhaps even nobility; solace in community is something that virtually every human pursues in one form or another, whether they’re willing to concede that truth or not. That is, of course, not an inherently negative or positive thing (it can go either way). But, nearly all humans are social creatures, and nothing feels greater than support and solidarity for your existence (accompanied by feelings of relevance, reverence, significance and worth).

(Although, I would argue that the present communities fostered on the internet in relation to Feminism, and especially the MRM, are of negative consequence and influence on the people involved in, or with, them; all of it appears to have become a rather unhealthy cycle.)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken

However, let us not delude ourselves into believing that there is any real “end” to be met for these collectives who seek conventional standards of “equality” for the demographics that they purport to represent. There is no true “end-game” for any them; so long as humanity exists and people believe that it is possible to achieve conventional equality between all human beings, they will forever remain.

Did civil rights groups for African Americans call it a day when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Brown v. Board of Education that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional? Of course not. Did they pack things up and go home after President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination of all kinds based on race, color, religion, or national origin? Of course not.

Did women’s rights activists surrender their cause when women were given the right to vote in 1920 with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? Of course not. Did they consider their work complete when the Pentagon overturned the military ban in 2013, allowing women to serve in infantry and commando units for the first time? Of course not.

If all of the problems, as many in the MRM view them, with the family courts, or with divorce courts, or with the male-only selective service were “corrected” (along with the other items that they argue on behalf of men for), would MRAs simply deem their work finished and shut everything down? Of course not.

The struggles as these collectives perceive them will never end, and neither side is going to bow out, under any circumstances. Even if the MRM were to dissolve today, and women achieved perfect social, political and economic equality under all laws in all lands, Feminism would still persist, and Feminists would still continue their mission(s). If Feminism were to vanish entirely at this very moment, and all of the issues in society that MRAs seek to correct were nullified, and their fundamental-objectives were met in full under all laws in all lands, they would still continue their activism and work.

There is no real end-game for these collectives. The functional-outcome of these things, in actuality, is that they will never truly conclude due to the conditions of our world and the circumstances under which our species lives. That reality is not inherently negative or positive, in and of itself, but it does lead to some alternative, and occasionally counterproductive, effects. It produces entitlement, oppression hysteria, hostile and extremely polarized discourse and social environments, and hyper-sensitivity in regard to things relatively inconsequential and absurd; its consequences are that people stray away from concerns of high-importance, and begin to ignore problems of great significance that should be immediately, practically and reasonably addressed.

There is no need to ask questions of how the ends can be met for these collectives, because there are no true ends, only prescribed solutions and core-aspirations which allow them to carry on ad infinitum. And, even they know, as all people do, that there is no real way to achieve conventional equality. We can, in this world, only achieve conventional equivalence.


Equal means exactly the same. Mathematically, two equals two; but, in spite of color similarities, two carrots do not equal two oranges. Add to that the fact that “equal rights” do not necessarily lead to equal outcomes, and therein lies yet another “problem” that incites the ire of some. It is often phrased: “Equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcomes.” If one provided two twins, raised in exactly the same conditions, with a conceptual problem to solve such as “devise an ad campaign for this new soap,” they might very well come up with similar ideas, but one is likely to produce something marginally better than the other. Conduct this experiment repeatedly, and we would expect to see both twins do (relatively) equally well overall, even if, on any given trial, one achieves superior results for that particular attempt.

The nature of equivalence has to do with this equality of opportunity; it does not predict exactly the same outcomes.


Furthermore, the introduction of bigotry of various kinds guarantees sub-optimal results. By pitting one race against another, or one sex or one group, based on what part of the world their antecedents came from, there is no way of knowing which individuals will perform best. Equality of opportunity states that every individual should have the same chance of attaining a job, or a promotion and so on. But, who does the evaluating? Is it possible for any person to evaluate anyone else in an entirely unbiased fashion? We have truly very little way of knowing for each individual case, and therefore must rely on presumptions of our system’s effectiveness (i.e., belief that everything “just works” and “is fair” most of the time).

“What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires — desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.” - Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom

There will always be disputes in employment practices; if not of males versus females, or recent Mexican immigrants versus people of Irish descent, then there will still be a dispute somewhere involving an African American man against an Asian woman, where the hiring decision is being made by an Asian man with a predisposition toward favoring his “own kind.” This will be the case until humanity’s genetic material, the world over, is so utterly interlaced and coalesced that there is no way to distinguish us from one another by any notions or classifications of “race” (some have argued all along that “race” is a purely artificial construct). However, even after all of these differences blend away, there will still be (roughly[1]) two sexes, and unless the legal profession is done away with at some point in the future, there will forever be someone who makes a living by helping to resolve such disputes.

There are cases of law that have gone on for so long from the original trial, up through the appeals process, that people have made their entire careers out of them. If it isn’t in the legal profession, it is in the allied profession of “lobbyist,” which is regularly comprised of former congress people, who are often, in turn, former lawyers. They might well all be individuals of good-will in truth, but one can easily take note that the outcomes of that good-will rarely lead to them being prematurely out-of-work themselves, even if their clients and/or constituents must exist in suspended animation while the certainty of some matter is decided.

"But as records of courts and justice are admissible, it can easily be proved that powerful and malevolent magicians once existed and were a scourge to mankind. The evidence (including confession) upon which certain women were convicted of witchcraft and executed was without a flaw; it is still unimpeachable. The judges' decisions based on it were sound in logic and in law. Nothing in any existing court was ever more thoroughly proved than the charges of witchcraft and sorcery for which so many suffered death. If there were no witches, human testimony and human reason are alike destitute of value." - Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Unless one subscribes to a belief in witchcraft, it must surely be admitted that not everything which happens in a court is always representative of reality. How can anyone believe such a thing? And, yet, most modern or Western court-systems are some of the finest institutions that civilization has devised since King Solomon suggested that a baby be severed in half to settle a disputed motherhood claim. [6E]

The reality, for instance, of family courts is that they are overwhelmed, not just by the number of cases which they must handle, but also by the fact that each and every one can present numerous unique complexities. The notion that several lifetime legal professionals (even for individuals not particularly fond of lawyers) would go out of their way to favor one sex or the other, on the basis of sex alone, does not hold water, at least for most reasonable people.

"If you are going to get divorced, keep this important fact straight: Most decisions in divorces are not based on what you, your soon-to-be ex-spouse, or a judge thinks would be fair. And in divorce court, arguing about whether something is fair is usually a waste of time. Divorce court decisions are made by applying laws and past case decisions to facts that are presented at your trial." [6D]

This means that unfair, or bad/poor decisions, are guaranteed to happen (one would hope that “common sense” would make this certainty apparent). In very contentious cases, where one or both parents are out for revenge, and that desire for vengeance overrides the best interests of the children, court-appointed caseworkers may have to decide what is best for the children, without a lot of assistance from, or involvement of, the parents.

Many people who identify themselves as MRAs claim to be, or to have been, unfairly victimized by this process; and, in some cases, they undoubtedly are or were. However, it might also be, in some instances, that they simply did not get their way, and rather than approach the matter from the perspective of viewing the intricacies of a single case gone wrong on its own contexts, they ascribe their experiences to some sort of grander conspiracy against men for being male, thus paying very little, or far less, attention to the several other complex factors that likely influenced what they underwent.

As the documents referenced [6] indicate, legal professionals take their jobs seriously. In the United States, at least, great importance is placed on the repeatability of outcomes. That is why, in addition to legislation that may not cover every scenario exactly, "case law," which is the amalgam of previously decided cases on a subject, dictates to a large extent the result(s), given a particular set of conditions. And, while the court system in the U.S. might be somewhat unique, similar processes are followed in nearly every civilized country in the world.

It is unlikely that any time soon there will not be a few errors, misjudgments, or perceived mistakes in such outcomes, and so there will never be a situation where men (in general) or women (in general) feel that they have always been given a fair shake. Just as there will always be organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), there will always be those who believe that Drunk Driving laws are too strict, or are not being enforced equitably.


For Feminists, and for MRAs, these problems of how court cases are settled are a comparably major sticking point, primarily because MRAs don't dispute (at least openly) that women should have equal access to employment, the right to vote, and so forth. Instead, it is with concerns related to the family courts, divorce courts, cases of sexual harassment, rape, and other similar legal issues, where both sides feel, simultaneously, that the outcomes are not being decided justly. The fact is that the legal system can strive for fairness, but will never perfectly achieve it. It is a flawed-reality that reasonable people should simply accept in the broad sense, and deal with on a case-by-case basis otherwise. These collectives, these, for all practical purposes, religious groups of a sort, can do little to affect the actuality of the conditions of such systems and the outcomes that they generate. It is a byproduct of human deficiency, parasitically leeched upon by those who would claim the capacity to right such faultiness.

Of course, these truths, the reality of these human shortcomings and their likelihoods to persist, won't halt the efforts of such collectives to rally the “true believers” around their banners (in hopes of relieving them of the burden of what's left in their wallets after the court system gets through with them and they turn to anyone with an extended hand for help and support). As with lawyers, congress people and lobbyists, championing such causes can very easily become a lifetime career for many, especially when there is no true end in sight, and the flaws of humanity and its systems are vast and numerous.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE II: In case there is any misapprehension, the purpose of this piece was not to assert that no human rights activists actually care about their causes or other people (it does not contend that they are all disingenuous about their beliefs), and it is not intended to argue or imply that they are all "wasting their time," or that they are all "bad" or selfish people. Obviously, such proclamations would be far too general.

NOTE III: Share this post and leave your thoughts in the comments below.
[1] In an upcoming post, I will address issues of alternate sexual identifications.

[2] Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

[3] The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

[4] 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Women's Right to Vote

[5] Women in the Military and in Combat

[6] Family Court Fairness
A. http://www.mncourts.gov/Documents/4/Public/Research/Family_Court_Fairness_Report_Final_(2004).pdf
B. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/imp_rept.pdf
C. http://courts.oregon.gov/OJD/OSCA/cpsd/courtimprovement/access/pages/gender.aspx
D. http://www.divorcemag.com/articles/Divorce_Law/family-law-court-trial-fairness.html
E. http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/biblicalhistory/qt/020411-Wisdom-Of-Solomon.htm

My friends and I have made a point to bring up AVoiceforMen's transparency, or lack thereof, in regard to donations provided to them and/or their funding, for quite a while now. Nearly every time someone confronts Paul Elam on these subjects via his YouTube channel, or directly through AVoiceforMen.com, to my knowledge, they tend to be disregarded, disparaged, insulted, blocked and/or banned.

Finally, more people are applying pressure to Elam and his ilk on the matter:

Click Here

To where and for what ends their funds go have long been issues without clear resolution; AVfM lacks a level of transparency necessary for an "organization" of its standing, and people, from their own cause no less, have taken notice. AVoiceforMen, as MRAs and others on that thread made reference to, not only charged fairly high prices for their conference tickets, but also raised over $30,000 dollars for security fees which they certainly did not require the entirety of given their venue and the end-result of the disputed threats that they received. Elam even admits that AVfM was left with excess funds, and claims that the money "went to what they said it would" (but he refuses to actually provide simple proof to certify those claims).

There are several Men's Rights organizations, such as CAFE, who are more than willing to give out their financial particulars to people who intend to donate to them, and other groups (MR and non) even display their financial records publicly at virtually all times, because that provides those wishing to participate in, or contribute to, their causes a sense that they are honest and true.

Paul Elam's reaction to these inquiries was, of course, what one would expect from him, as can be seen in the linked thread above. Some notable interactions are below, reformatted for my site (Paul Elam [mhra1] deflects, insults, flounders; click "continue this thread" where it is available to view more of the conversations):

[–]IMULTRAHARDCORE 25 points 3 days ago

What happened to the money that was raised though?
[–]undead_keyboard 8 points 3 days ago

They still used it for security at the VFA. They had a noticeable police/security presence there.
[–]TR_Rocks 27 points 3 days ago

30k's worth? And what about the fact that the VFW was obviously way, way cheaper a venue that the doubletree was going to be?

Don't get me wrong, I donated, I attended the conference and I thought it was great for the most part - but given the price of the tickets, the number of people there, and the amount of security I saw, I don't see how they could have not run a surplus. I very much feel like i overpaid, and would really like to know where funds were spent, or if there was a surplus what it's being spent on.
[–]mhra1 -11 points 3 days ago

Let's get something clear. As was clearly stipulated in the fundraiser (which started while we were still intending to go forward at Doubletree) we said that the money would be used for security, legal fees and that any additional funds would be applied to next years fundraiser.

AVFM has done exactly that.

Also, please email your proof of ticket purchase to me personally (will provide you that in a PM), as well as your donation receipt.

I will be happy to discuss this with you further, by phone or skype) and hopefully I can help you better understand the parameters of the fundraiser. I just want to be sure that I am speaking with someone who actually purchased a ticket/donated.

So far I have caught three people lying about that.

PM on its way to you now.

Paul Elam 
[–]TR_Rocks 34 points 3 days ago

Thanks for responding, I had no idea you actually used reddit! (Hey mods, you should flair his account maybe?)

I totally understood what the "parameters of the fundraiser" were - and to be clear, I was quite happy to see that we'd raised what seemed like much more money than was needed.

I think, however, that a little, tiny bit of transparency would go a long way here: how much did the conference cost in the end? Were there funds left over? How much?

I don't mean to sound critical or insistent here, but these are pretty simple questions, and ones that I think you should be prepared to answer when you charge as much as you did for a conference that was held at a (frankly, pretty cheap/basic) facility like the VFW, and when you raise money via crowd-funding campaigns. Particularly when there are conflicting stories as to the reason for those extra costs, and especially if you'd like to see people keep donating in the future.

That's just my 2 cents and of course you (and others) are free to ignore it.

Finally, I'm sorry but I feel absolutely no obligation to send you proof of my donation and attendance at the conference. I'm asking you for information that you should be prepared to share with everyone if you hope to have people like me trust AVFM with donations in the future.

As someone who has read AVFM for years and enjoyed the speakers at the conference immensely, thank you for everything you've done and I'm sorry if having people ask questions about where donations went feels like a personal attack - I assure you that I don't mean it that way at all. But seriously, how hard would it be to say "We ran over-budget" (in which case I'd happily make another donation) or "we had a 5k surplus which we'll spend next year" (when again, I would happily donate again). It's the refusal to say anything about how much of the 30k was needed/where it was spent that concerns me.
[–]whinemoreplease -26 points 3 days ago*

>Finally, I'm sorry but I feel absolutely no obligation to send you proof of my donation and attendance at the conference. I'm asking you for information that you should be prepared to share with everyone if you hope to have people like me trust AVFM with donations in the future.

I don't see why there'd be any need to share cost information with you then. The stipulation laid out is that if you can demonstrate you donated money and wanted a more detailed breakdown, provide the information and he'd discuss it with you. Since you're not providing anything, but instead making a broad claim, there is absolutely no reason for him to discuss it with you (sidenote: I'm disinclined to believe you attended as well).

Personally, I donated money as well. It doesn't bother me whether the conference cost more or not. Conferences are expensive, especially when having to re-organize last minute. Whatever percent went to making it happen, and whatever percent goes to funding next year, so be it. I don't donate to an organization expecting to be able to stipulate exactly how it's spent. My money went to supporting the organization when the men's conference was in trouble and I'm okay with it. If AVfM disappears tomorrow, oops. Oh well, but I doubt that's going to happen. And since that isn't happening, they'll continue fighting for the rights for men. That is a cause I can support.

Edit: linked by /r/againstmensrights, not surprising is it. good brigading chaps. 
[–]TR_Rocks 25 points 2 days ago

>The stipulation laid out is that if you can demonstrate you donated money and wanted a more detailed breakdown, provide the information and he'd discuss it with you.

That's not what he offered though. The offer "was not to offer you information that was not already public, but to assist you further in understanding the information already provided." He expects me to reveal my identity and provide proof of purchase so he can lecture me on why he is not going answer the questions I'm asking. More generally, my whole point here is that he should be willing to publicly give some kind of rough accounting of the 30k. I'm not looking for a spreadsheet here, just a simple statement like "we spent this much, the rest will go to X."
[–]mhra1 -47 points 3 days ago

Oh shock of shock, you are making public demands for "transparency" that has already been provided, claiming you are a paying customer, but feel no obligation to provide transparency of your own.

The offer to speak with you privately as a customer was not to offer you information that was not already public, but to assist you further in understanding the information already provided.

You are lying, 
[–]normalperson888 39 points 3 days ago

And you're collecting people's money without accounting for it.
[–]mhra1 -29 points 3 days ago

Absolutely correct. Many people give regular monthly donations to AVFM. Dozens of other contribute heavily at the AVFM fundraisers. The donations range from $1.00 to several thousand dollars.

It appears that the donors feel like what they can actually see of AVFMs work is sufficient to cause them to keep donating, because they have been doing just that for years, and the numbers of them are steadily increasing.

I have no need to make a public record of my finances because I have worked successfully to earn the trust of people who support the work.

That is how the deal works, and how it will always work.

Like I told the other clown asking me about this. Anyone does not like it, they can simply not donate.

If anyone thinks my finances are their business, they are sadly mistaken,
[–]TR_Rocks 33 points 2 days ago

I have no need to make a public record of my finances

So, AVFM finances are your finances are they? You don't see or draw any distinction?
[–]mhra1 -10 points 2 days ago
[–]mhra1 -31 points 2 days ago

Why should I? AVFM is my property. I own it completely.
[continue this thread]
[–]locke_door 22 points 3 days ago

This man is a thief, and is making a mockery of the system.

He's robbing all of you. Nobody honest speaks like this.

See, you dumb cunt? If you had just talked decently, others wouldn't have to pull their backing. Now you can go around with your begging hat and stutter out apologies. We see things pretty clearly now.
[–]mhra1 -22 points 2 days ago

Good for you. I am sure it will make a big difference in your world.
[–]TR_Rocks 12 points 2 days ago

Mr. Elam: There has not been any "transparency" made public yet. You have been consistently refusing to say how much money was needed, how much was spent, or what specifically happened to any surplus. And frankly, demanding that I prove that I'm a "paying customer" is just silly. Is AVFM just a business for you? Cause if it was, as a paying customer, I would have demanded a pretty substantial refund on my conference ticket price given the (frankly shitty) venue and service. If I was a "paying customer" I and countless other MRAs would not have given AVFM additional donations when they called for help with security costs. More to the point - a business wouldn't respond to simple, earnest questions about where those donations went by accusing people who ask that question of lying.

Personally, I don't like to think of AVFM as a business, because AVFM is about much more than making money or delivering a product. It's a movement. And this is not how a movement leader should conduct themselves.

I'll repeat my original question: how hard is it to say "we had x amount left over, here's what we plan to do with it?" Why is AVFM reluctant to answer such a simple, basic question? You realize that the more you refuse to answer, the more it looks like you actually do have something to hide, right?
[–]mhra1 -6 points 2 days ago

[–]Silarky 6 points 2 days ago

You keep posting that link, but it doesn't answer anything. You dodged the questions from that MSNBC reporter in the exact same way you're dodging the questions from people here.
[–]mhra1 -22 points 2 days ago

Done here, You lied about donating and buying a ticket.
A proven liar whining about transparency is too far over the line for me.
Have a nice life, asshole.
[–]VAGINA_BLOODFART 18 points 2 days ago

You really need to talk to a PR consultant.

>A proven liar
Wait, I missed the part where you proved he lied?
[–]locke_door 10 points 2 days ago

Can you think beyond your begging hat for a couple of minutes and answer a question?

Omg .. .give me money ... have you given money? have you? have you? pls have you?? no???? FUCK YOU THEN! FUCK OFF ! I CAN'T TALK TO YOU LIAR!!!!! OMG I CAN LITERALLY NOT DEAL WITH THIS ANYMORE. SO .. TOO FAR ... STRESSED ...

This is what you sound like, you excuse for a person.
[–]TR_Rocks 7 points 2 days ago

I'm going to let this post be my last word because I think it lays out my concerns more coherently than my initial post did.
[–]M3g4d37h 0 points 2 days ago

>A proven liar

TIL that a gratuitous assertion of lying is indeed a fact.
[–]locke_door 18 points 3 days ago

You sound like a bitchy cunt and a common thief.

Someone spoke to you with respect, and you reply like that? What the fuck do you think of yourself, you immature child. Grow up and man up. If you want to deal with people's money, be prepared to answer questions.

You are a piece of shit.
[–]mhra1 -25 points 2 days ago

I am so wounded by your opinion of me. I can barely finish my coffee!
[–]DancesWithPugs 18 points 3 days ago

We want more transparency than a reddit post. Where is the money being held? How is it safe from being tampered with? You don't automatically have the trust of everyone. You accused someone asking reasonable questions of lying, which is a huge red flag to go on the defensive so quickly.
[–]mhra1 -23 points 3 days ago

I asked for proof that they were a customer and believe they lied about it.

Here is a quote for anyone who wants to put it across the internet. Start with David Futrelle's blog if you like.

AVFM is owned and operated by me, Paul Elam. I take voluntary donations to the site and use it for the purposes I deem best for activism.

I do not owe anyone a public accounting of my personal financial affairs, including how AVFM money is being held, or how it is safe from being "tampered with" whatever the fuck that means.

If that offends people, the best thing I can do is urge them not to donate. So it is very simple. If you don't trust that I am doing what I say I am doing with funds raised by AVFM, don't give.

Is that plain enough?
[–]WomenAreAlwaysRigh 30 points 3 days ago*

Do you really not see how more transparency would attract more donors? You are definitely shooting yourself in the foot with this no-transparency-no-overseeing policy.

As of right now, the fear of losing outweights the desire, bravery or hope for winning, imo.
[–]mhra1 -26 points 3 days ago

I have attracted a wealth of donors. We are already planning the next conference. And just think, I get to do this without a bunch of feminist idiots picking over every dime I spend, writing pieces about it, trying to even further demonize what I do.

My feet are both in good shape, but thank you for your concern.
[continue this thread]
[–]DancesWithPugs 10 points 3 days ago

Honestly I don't trust enough, nor am I in a position to give, not to I consider MRM to be my top charity objective. Here's why I care. Credibility. I don't want to see common sense ideas and fairness take a hit because of the appearance of misdeeds. Now with some people, the mere mention of your name and that I support some of your ideas, is enough to get me downvoted and banned on reddit. Some of them will always be close minded, abut others more neutral can be persuaded. Don't give ammunition to your critics. Lashing out at journalists or others that question you will not make you look good in the eyes of the public. You are a public face for MRM, so if you are able to be tarnished the movement will also be tarnished, because that's how people tend to think.

For the record I am an egalitarian humanist, but I don't label myself an MRM. I am looking for what is fair and just and doing my best to oppose hatred and bad thinking. There are allegations that you hate women, which I know is a common knee jerk reaction to questioning feminism, but if there is any truth there it's something to consider. Now people are trying to portray you as a con man or a crook for taking donations in the manner you have, while encouraging your followers to eat ramen and live in studio apartments. You might not care what haters have to say about you but you are symbolic of a larger movement. You've become a role model for some whether you like it or not. So, the more transparency and decorum you can bring, it is better for everyone involved. If you want to sling mud at critics and be secretive about the money, it is that much easier for people to tear you down and the MRM along with you. I'm being brutally honest here, since I think you can take it.
[–]mhra1 -17 points 3 days ago*

People have tried to demonize me since I started gathering an online audience. Before I even had a donation button.

That is what people will do, especially ideological opponents.

But you know who is not demonizing me? The great gathering of highly respected men and women, a senator, academicians, journalists, advocates, from every walk of like, men and women, gay and straight, black and white, across so many international lines, all united by a concern for men and boys - and for humanist justice.

These people find me credible, whether I turn over my internal books to them or not, because they see what I actually do with the money, and they know what I actually stand for.

When that stops happening, I will take your concerns seriously, But the truth is, those things are growing all the time. The next conference will be even better than this one, with even more public figures willing to stand with AVFM, and regardless of whether I post personal financial information online.

Let people try to tear me down all they want. I simply don't care.

Edit: One more thing. I encouraged men who have been financially destroyed by an evil system to be willing to live in studio apartments and live off ramen and dedicate what is left of their shattered lives to fighting that evil system, mainly because that is all the system has left them (and some men less). I never encouraged anyone to eat ramen or live poorly so they could give money to AVFM.

You are doing the very thing that you are telling me others will do. You are a snake,

Bottom line on that one is go fuck yourself. Egalitarian Humanist my ass.
[continue this thread]
[–]a44luce 6 points 2 days ago

(just a passer-by in this debacle..)

>AVFM is owned and operated by me, Paul Elam.

But AVFM is not your personal affair.

>I take voluntary donations

from the general public

>I do not owe anyone a public accounting

That's exactly the expectation in the modern world, if you take donations from the general public. You're being purposefully obtuse at best with your custom interpretation of the conventions.

>If you don't trust that I am doing what I say I am doing with funds raised by AVFM, don't give.

Doesn't work post-factum, unless you want your reputation in the shitter. But hey, go right ahead and keep notproviding the information people are asking for. None of my business.
[–]Hungerwolf 5 points 3 days ago

Then I will not donate.

Know what sucks about feminism? Among other things, professional victims sucking up donation money because they lie and get pity votes. Who doesn't trust a woman when she says she is hurt over the internet? Who doesn't trust a man who says he is honest over the internet?

Everyone with a functioning brain.

Unlike Anita Sarkeesian or Rebecca Watson, you have the possibility of proving it. And the only thing proof will do is prove the difference between you and these scumbags. Evidence first, then feels.
[–]mhra1 -22 points 3 days ago

>Then I will not donate.

BINGO. Choice! Ain't it a grand thing? :)

It's patently obvious that Paul Elam is puerile and rather clumsy when it comes to public-relations (much like TyphonBlue); people seek, whether Elam and his ilk comprehend this or not, full-transparency from organizations that they follow the work of, or are considering contributing to in some way, because it, as I stated above, and as several users mentioned in that Reddit thread, lends an air of credibility to the organization and those who operate it. It conveys a sense of trustworthiness and integrity (which Elam and his cohorts lack to an extent).

This is the sort of thing that people beyond count have rebuked individuals like Anita Sarkeesian for time and time again; lack of transparency (et cetera). It should be equally questioned and criticized here when Elam and AVoiceforMen do it, by all "unbiased," "objective" and "fair-minded/free-thinking" parties.

All that Elam must do is produce clear and authentic evidence for how the funds that AVoiceforMen receives are being used; that is essentially the extent of what everyone who cares about integrity and honesty has ever asked for over the past few years, and AVfM consistently refuses to submit to the appeals for transparency. It is not only my friends and I who have mentioned this repeatedly; even several MRAs have, and yet Elam continues to spitefully decline, deflect, block, ban, deny, reject, insult, dismiss, and flounder.

If one contributes money to an organization, especially when they frequently request the assistance and hold "fundraisers," then one is entitled to know where his or her money is going, and for what ends. Period.

Decide for yourselves what you think of all of this; that was Elam in his own words.

Thank you all for reading.

Author: Krista [Femitheist Divine]

NOTE: Screen-shots of the thread can be found here.

NOTE II: Share this post and leave your thoughts in the comments below.
P.S. My video feels more relevant now than ever.

P.P.S. Elam responds but doesn't actually provide any real transparency.

P.P.P.S. TyphonBlue doing public-relations (she's almost as savvy as Elam):
Click to enlarge if necessary; this screen-shot is from December of 2013.