Men’s Rights Movement Matriarchy Theory?

Men’s Rights Activist AVFM co-founder Dean Esmay denied that he made the claim that women have all the privilege and men have none. He even went so far as to accuse me of lying when I pointed out that he’d just said this.
dean demand

Here is his claim in his own words for his own edifice. A claim he made in the very exchange where we were arguing in so I’m amazed he doesn’t seem to realize he said it.

Dean wrong

I’d ask him to retract his accusation where he flat out calls me a liar but so far I’ve yet to experience such a level of journalistic integrity or professional courtesy from the writers of the Men’s Rights Movement, so I’m not about to hold my breath waiting for an apology. 

The point of all this? if you don’t want people to think you support matriarchy Theory, stop saying things that make it sound like you support Matriarchy Theory. 

Follow me on:

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

which is now

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/PhilipRose

Support me on Patreon!: http://www.patreon.com/user?u=145141&ty=a

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

*correction* Dean Esmay has requested that I include a statement  informing all that he is not the co-founder of AVFM but only the present editor. As i am committed to journalistic integrity I’ve posted the correction here in the blog post. 

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Men’s Rights Movement Matriarchy Theory?

  1. You owe me a retraction and an apology.

    Women had special rights and privileges men didn’t. Men had special rights and privileges women didn’t. The two statements are not in conflict, and in both are empirically verifiable reality, and it has nothing to do with any idiotic “matriarchy” theory.

    You are grossly taking my words out of context, making it look like I’m saying things I did not and that I do not and never have believed. This sir is incredibly dishonorable behavior. You should retract and apologize.

    This seems incredibly unethical and dishonest.

    • “You owe me a retraction and an apology.”

      I owe you nothing.

      “Women had special rights and privileges men didn’t. Men had special rights and privileges women didn’t.”

      I can quote your tweet a third time to show this isn’t what you said. If you want now to clarify your idiotic assertion here in comments then that is fine. However, let’s be clear here.

      YOU are the one who has misrepresented our exchange.

      YOU are the one who made a statement on twitter and rather than having the integrity and honesty to admit you said something that did not completely represent what you claim is your position, you went off half cocked and accused me of lying. WHEN ALL I DID WAS QUOTE YOUR TWEET IN ENTIRETY.

      You are offering a clarification NOW. AFTER THE FACT. AFTER calling me a liar.

      Which shows you knew you’d made an error but you lacked the integrity to fess up. Instead you’ve resorted to mudslinging.

      “The two statements are not in conflict,”

      So you made an initial statement and then called me a liar, and THEN offer clarification on your initial statement showing you acknowledge your fuck up but you still stand by your accusation?

      You’re a piece of… work.

      “and in both are empirically verifiable reality, and it has nothing to do with any idiotic “matriarchy” theory.”

      Like I said. If you don’t want to come across as an idiot then don’t say idiotic stuff. Present your entire view, not a generalized statement you then have to clarify.

      As you’re tacitly acknowledging you screwed up here, I’ll expect your apology for calling me a liar in the same format you made it; on twitter.

      Otherwise I’m done with you.

      “You are grossly taking my words out of context,”

      No. I quoted exactly what you said. If you had integrity then you would have said;

      //”to further elaborate;(insert elaboration here).”//

      But you didn’t do that. You lack integrity so you tried to cover ass for what was a simple written fumble on your part by calling me a liar.

      “making it look like I’m saying things I did not and that I do not and never have believed.”

      You did that all on your own slick, without any help from me.

      “This sir is incredibly dishonorable behavior. You should retract and apologize.”

      You wouldn’t know honor if it walked up to you and slapped you in the face.

      • “Truth is women always had special rights and privs men didn’t.” An absolutely correct assertion.

        “Truth is, men always had special rights and privs women didn’t.” Also an absolutely correct point.

        Neither is in conflict.

        I’m sorry you’re misreading, but I’m informing you that you are.

        My suspicion at this point is that you’re just click-baiting. I may be wrong about that, but either way, you’ve had it explained to you. If you have any ethics, you will admit to the possibility that it’s you who’s in error. Either way you’re wasting my time. And anyone who’s reading you. We’re done now. Contact me when you can admit to the possibility of error.

      • //“Truth is women always had special rights and privs men didn’t.” An absolutely correct assertion.

        “Truth is, men always had special rights and privs women didn’t.” Also an absolutely correct point.

        Neither is in conflict.//

        0.0 Why are you changing your clarification now?

        Yes. These two actually are in conflict. We’re now dealing with logic 101 and your logic is flawed. We’ve left the realm of gender politics and we’re entering into epistemology here which is fine, I’ve been arguing epistemology with christian Presups for weeks now, I suppose I can take a few minutes to explain logic to an MRA non-believer (apologies if you are a believer no slight intended).

        Here’s the logic laid out for you.

        Premise 1: Group A has Y. Group B does not have Y.

        Premise 2: Group B has Y. Group A does not have Y.

        Conclusion: Group A and B have Y and do not have Y.

        That is called incoherent logic.

        If you had said;

        Premise 1: Sometimes Group A has Y. Sometimes Group B does not have Y.

        Premise 2: Sometimes Group B has Y. Sometimes Group A does not have Y.

        Conclusion: Sometimes Group A and B have Y and sometimes group B and A do not have Y.

        Then that would work logically (although it’s a bloody minded way to lay out your logic).

        But no. What you said violates the rules of logic.

        //”My suspicion at this point is that you’re just click-baiting.”//

        I’m guessing you just wanted to accuse me of doing something else unethical because that appears to be your modus operandi. Avoid empirical facts and truths like for example, this blog which I rarely make use of generates absolutely no revenue for me and almost no traffic back towards my other sites/ channels which is rather obvious from a few seconds examination.

        //I may be wrong about that, but either way, you’ve had it explained to you.//

        Glad to correct the explanation, friend!

        But let’s get to the heart of the matter here.

        1: You said that women had privileges and men didn’t.

        2: I said that sounds like matriarchy theory.

        3: You then demanded I show you where you said that and called me a liar before I could even respond.

        4: I showed you where you made the claim.

        You then offered two separate explanations. The second explanation offered showed that you don’t understand the rules of logic. You appear to be desperately trying to avoid the fact that you made an unfounded accusation against me and then offered your clarification (why you offered this second, logically flawed statement I’m not sure – it’s a bizarre claim).

        You are now trying to turn this into a “you’re saying I said something i didn’t mean” argument when it was never about that. I have no problem with you offering the initial clarification you made. Unlike you, I don’t hold statements people made against them for the rest of their life. i understand that people speak hastily or change their mind for that matter.

        Despite your efforts to make it be about me claiming you truly believe something you didn’t say, it isn’t about that.

        It’s about you making a hasty, foolish statement, making a slanderous accusation against me, and then you offering a clarification while refusing to step up and admit you made an error.

        Frankly Dean, your behavior goes beyond a lack of integrity. you’re behaving in an outright childish fashion.

        My suspicion at this point is that you’re just trolling in the hopes I’ll get angry and do a video which will generate more traffic to AVFM (thus leading to more money for you).

        //”If you have any ethics, you will admit to the possibility that it’s you who’s in error.”//

        Don’t take my word for it. Send the logical premises to someone like Ozymandias who is a recognized and respected philosopher who has no horse in this race. I’m onlu yo happy to let someone who is probably better versed in epistemological logic than me pass judgement on the matter.

        //”Either way you’re wasting my time. And anyone who’s reading you”//

        from what I’m told people are finding this exchange very enlightening and educational. and if you feel your time is being wasted then stop responding.

        //”We’re done now.”//

        Yes. We are done here. This has gotten tiresome. you made an error and you lack the integrity to admit it. Instead you resorted to making slanderous, wild accusations.

        //Contact me when you can admit to the possibility of error.//

        0.o In our exchange I have twice cheerfully and freely admitted to errors I made. The first with a poorly worded tweet on my part that gave the appearance I was naming you author of the article in question. the second was right here on this blog where I named you AVFM co-founder, which btw other people appear to recall you laying claim to years ago but that’s immaterial to the matter at hand. I had no problem with calling it an error and printing a correction.

        While you have done everything you can to distract and shift blame for your own mistake.

        No, I won’t contacting you. I think you’ve shown me exactly what you are and I don’t have the time or patience for it.

    • You’re not? I thought you indicated once you were in a skype conversation. Okay, I’ll put a correction in.

      You see, THAT’S how it is done when you have integrity, something you sorely lack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s