Matt Forney
Spread the Word!

When ABC Met the Manosphere… and Me

abc

Most everyone in the manosphere was surprised by ABC’s sudden hit piece on us the other day, paired with a 20/20 episode that will air tonight. You’ll notice that I haven’t been commenting on it like other folks. There’s a reason for this.

I was one of the interview subjects for the 20/20 story.

Now before you say anything else, I won’t be appearing on camera. The most I ever did with ABC was a half-hour “pre-interview” over the phone. I don’t know if 20/20 will use any of my comments there, but it’s a possibility. I’m glad I didn’t agree to a TV interview, considering that the way that ABC treated me shows that not only are they a morally bankrupt and unethical institution, they’re unfathomably stupid too. I don’t mean stupid as in “blue pill/feminist stupid,” I mean stupid as in “how in God’s name did you even graduate from college” stupid.

The kind of stupid that can only exist in an entity as sclerotic and degenerate as the mainstream media.

A bunch of other folks in the ‘sphere have done yeoman’s work in exposing the lies (not fabrications, not spin, but outright lies) in the initial ABC article. Davis Aurini and Judgy Bitch pointed out that Elizabeth Vargas was overtly hostile to Paul Elam and A Voice for Men’s women staffers, and Kid Strangelove has attacked ABC’s false claims that the manosphere was responsible for the gang-attacks on feminist fraud Anita Sarkeesian last year. (Those attacks were instigated by 4chan; not only do most in the manosphere condemn that kind of violent misogyny, we didn’t [and still don’t] have the power to engage in that kind of thing even if we wanted to.) Aaron Clarey also did a hilarious video shredding the authors of the article; it’s a half-hour long but absolutely worth watching.

But I’m not here to rehash what others have said; I’m here to talk about my experiences.

A few months ago, I received this email:

Name: Sarah Figalora
Email: sarah.e.figalora [at] abc [dot] com
Comment: Hi Matt,

I hope that this is the most convenient way to contact you, I couldn’t find a number or email address so hopefully you’ll get this message. I’m from ABC News 20/20 and we’re doing a story on the “Manosphere” and I would love to talk with you further about maybe helping us out. If you could send me an email (sarah.e.figalora [at] abc [dot] com) with your number or a way to contact you directly that would be great, I unfortunately don’t have a permanent direct line (I tend to shift desks a lot) but my producer, Steve, is at (***) ***-**** if you’d rather just give him a call.

Thank you, and I really hope you consider working with us!
Sarah

(Also, as a side note, please answer this privately)

Time: July 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm
IP Address: ***.***.**.*
Contact Form URL: http://mattforney.com/contact/
Sent by an unverified visitor to your site.

Note that while I would ordinarily not post an email like this, given the way Sarah and her producer treated me, the time is past for those kinds of courtesies. However, I have redacted/spam-proofed the rest of her personal information.

When I first read this, my mind exploded with excitement and fear.

Wow, a major news organization wants to talk to me about something!

You do know that they’re going to try and make you look like a monster, right?

Against my better judgment, I replied:

Hi Sarah,

I’d be happy to help you out. My number is ***-***-****; I’ll be available Tues.-Fri. of next week from 3pm-9pm EST if you want to schedule an interview.

Matt

I knew on a certain level that the likelihood of getting a favorable or even balanced hearing with these guys was low at best, but I figured that it wouldn’t hurt. I had also been contacted by a reporter from The Atlantic the day before asking for an interview, though that one ended up falling through. The fame was getting to my head.

Sarah sent me this in response:

I just spoke to the producer, Steve, would you be able to talk to us quickly in around half an hour? It won’t be anything crazy, just a sort of pre-interview. If you’re not available today, maybe some time tomorrow at around 11am?

I agreed to talk to them the next day; I was on a business trip and gave them the number of the place I was staying at.

Fast-forward to next morning. I got the call at 11am as promised. When I picked up, I was talking to both Sarah and her producer Steve, whose effeminate voice made him sound like Steve Martin in the scene from Planes, Trains and Automobiles where he gets yanked off the ground by his crotch. After a few pleasantries, we launched into the meat of the interview. I’m reconstructing the conversation from memory, so there are bound to be a few mistakes, but this is what I recall.

“Do you mind telling us a little bit about yourself and how you got involved with the manosphere?” Steve asked.

“Well, I was getting sick of my life, tired of going nowhere and didn’t really feel I had a future in my career, so I decided to make a radical change in my life,” I replied. “I’d wanted to go hitchhiking across America all my life, so I started my blog to chronicle my trip and the steps I was taking to improve my life.”

“How old are you?”

“I just turned 25.”

“Oh yeah, you’re way too young to be stuck in a dead-end job,” he sympathized.

At this point, the gloves came off.

“Anyway, you’ve written some pretty controversial stuff, Matt,” Steve accused. “I mean, ‘No Tears for Dead Sluts?’ Taxing single mothers? ‘Why Fat Girls Don’t Deserve to Be Loved?'”

I was caught off-guard. “Well, I’m just saying what I think and what a lot of people are thinking but are afraid to say.”

“Saying that you have no sympathy for this girl is pretty harsh. I mean, she killed herself!”

“I’ll admit that the article was more extreme than I liked, but my point still stands: why was a 15-year old having group sex with anyone? That kind of thing is unusual even for adults. For a teenager to be doing it suggests she had severe psychological issues and bad parenting.”

“Do you think it’s possible that she might have been raped?”

“If she’d been raped by these guys, it would have come out by now.” I was back on my game. “Like I said, it’s a sad thing that she killed herself, but I don’t think the guys should be blamed for her underlying mental issues.”

“Anyways,” Steve moved on, “this article you wrote on placing a sin tax on single mothers…”

“You called single mothers ‘the moral equivalent of crack dealers or alcoholics,'” Sarah cut in. “Do you really believe that?”

“Well, I was being hyperbolic,” I responded, “but the point is that single motherhood is a net negative on society. We tax and regulate all sorts of activities that harm society, like drinking or smoking or gambling, so why shouldn’t we tax single mothers when it’s been proven, time and time again, that single motherhood hurts society? Single mothers are poorer on average than two-parent households, their children are more likely to become criminals and/or drug addicts, and those children are more likely to have kids out of wedlock themselves.”

“What about single mothers who are that way not of their own choice?” Steve parried.

“Well, there aren’t many who are like that. The numbers show that only like ten percent of single mothers are that way because they were widowed. Most single mothers either were never married to begin with or they got divorced, and given that women initiate about 70 percent of divorces in America, that would make what, twenty, thirty percent of single mothers who are victims of unfortunate circumstances?”

“Hmmm.” Steve was thinking. “Where did you go to college?”

“Uh… the University at Albany. Why do you ask?”

“It’s just that we thought you were gonna be angry, but you’re very articulate and well-spoken, and you back up your views with a lot of statistics.”

“We’re looking for angry and passionate guys and you kinda surprised us with how well you’ve thought your views out,” Sarah interjected.

It was then that it hit me: they wanted to interview me solely because they thought I would chimp out and make an ass of myself on national television.

I should have just hung up right there, but I kept my cool.

“Well, I’ve learned over the years that if you’re a good enough writer, people will form all kinds of views of you based on their own prejudices,” I lectured. “Anyone who thinks I’m ‘angry’ or ‘bitter’ is saying more about themselves than they are about me. I’m not angry at all; I’m very cool and copacetic in real life, because you get a lot further being polite and respectful than being a jerk. If I sound angry sometimes, it’s because there are issues worth getting mad about.”

“Just so you know, we know about your past blogging at In Mala Fide,” Sarah replied.

Oh crap.

“Out of curiosity, how do your female friends and family members feel about your writing?”

“They’re fine with it. Personally—and I’ve said this before—I stopped writing that site because I had moved on mentally. I was tired of the anger and the hate and I wanted to be more positive in my writing. I think for most guys in the manosphere, the anger is a stage because when you find out you’ve been screwed over, that you’ve been lied to your whole life, anyone’s instinct is to be angry. There’s a point though where you have to let the anger go and move on.”

“Are you saying that a lot of what you write is not meant to be seriously?” Steve cut in.

“Well, I try to be entertaining with my writing, because at the end of the day, this is entertainment. But I do believe what I’m saying, I just say it in a funny or interesting way.”

“Do you think the manosphere is a haven for sexism and misogyny?”

“There is some of that, I’d say, and that’s part of life. The manosphere isn’t a political movement, it’s a culture, like punk rock or grunge. And when punk started becoming popular, it started attracting people who weren’t interested in its core message. Same thing with the manosphere; I’m friends in real life with a number of the other bloggers and we’ve all agreed that we’re sick of the bitterness and the anger and we all wanted to move back towards focusing on masculine self-improvement.”

“Would you say that that was a result of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s report on you guys?”

“Not really. This happened months after the SPLC’s report, and most everyone on the Internet ridiculed them for denouncing us anyway, even people who don’t agree with us.”

“…Hmmm.” Steve paused. “Matt, how would you feel about appearing on TV for an interview?”

“Umm,” I stammered, “I think I’ll pass.”

“Oh come on man, you’re a pussy!” Steve tried to pressure me. “What are you afraid of?”

“I’m busy at the moment, on a business trip.”

“We can make time for you, do the interview where you are.” This guy was wearing me down. “You live in Pennsylvania? New York?”

“…Iowa.” I lied.

“Fuck, that’s far,” Steve complained.

Yep, I lied to get out of an interview in which I was going to be exploited like a circus freak. I’m not proud of it and I wish I had told the guy to go piss up a rope instead, but that’s life.

“Well, I don’t see why you want to talk to me,” I came back. “I’m not that important.”

“Part of the reason we came to you, Matt, is because you’re one of the few people we’ve actually been able to get in contact with,” Sarah butted in. “No one else is answering our emails or wants to get in front of the camera, so we’re having a hard time getting the story together.”

“Can you recommend some other manosphere writers we can talk to?” Steve shot out.

“Uh, well, I personally recommend you talk to Roosh, Jack Donovan and W.F. Price. Those guys are more important than me and can give you a more nuanced perspective.”

“Oh, we think you’re important, Matt,” Sarah tried to flatter me.

“Where can we find these guys?” Steve said.

“Oh, you can just Google Jack Donovan and Roosh,” I replied. “W.F. Price blogs at The Spearhead.”

“Mmmm hmmm, okay,” Steve said. “Thanks for your time Matt, and if you want to reconsider, you can…”

“You can just email me, you have my address,” Sarah interjects.

“Okay,” I was starting to feel rattled. “Uh, thanks. I’ve got to go, so…”

“Okay, bye!” Sarah chirped.

I hung up and slammed the phone back onto the cradle. I got this email from Sarah a few minutes later, though I didn’t see it for hours (the place where I was staying didn’t have Internet or 3G access):

Hi Matt,

Thank you so much for talking with us, I really appreciate it. Have a great time on your road trip and definitely rethink sitting down with us at some point in a couple of weeks! I’m going to try and reach out to the names you gave us, ideally we could maybe sit down with all of you and discuss the Manosphere, perhaps having some serious conversations and laughs along the way. You’re definitely an ideal candidate for the story, so keep us in mind!

Thanks again, and stay safe as you journey to your destination!

Sarah

Gee, you really know how to make a girl feel welcome.

By the time the interview was over, I was covered in sweat, and Sarah’s sickeningly obsequious email was the icing on the cake. I felt duped. Some of you in the peanut gallery are going to be like, “Hurr durr Matt it’s the mainstream media, what did you expect?”, but it was the brazenness of it all that floored me. I don’t know whether Sarah and her producer were so conceited as to think I’d still agree to an interview after they told me that they were planning on exploiting me or they were just too stupid to conceal their motives. Hell, it might be both. I later talked to Jack Donovan after his interview and he told me that they said the exact same thing to him.

Fortunately, by all indications, the 20/20 piece looks like it’s going to blow up in ABC’s face.

Look at the comments on the original article. Almost all of them are supporting the manosphere and attacking the authors for their mendacity and lies. The piece has been published for less than forty-eight hours and there are already multiple essays from the ‘sphere tearing it apart. When the show finally airs, there will no doubt be even more folks ripping it to shreds.

The only people who will side with ABC are feminists and manboobs (who will hate us no matter what), and maybe a couple senile old biddies in the 55 to death demographic that watches network news.

The leftists, the forces of evil, they’re losing. They know they’re losing, which is why they’re resorting to blatant lie-fests like the 20/20 special. It’s why mainstream media outlets are moving to close comments on their articles; every MSM article spouting leftist hokum is inevitably filled up with commenters calling them on their bullshit. It’s why the prestige media is attacking self-published authors, who can’t have their lives ruined by being fired from their jobs due to Twitter outrage. They can’t win on the facts, so they need to lie and shut down opposing points of view. Anything to maintain control of the narrative.

The mere fact that they’re acknowledging us is proof that they’re afraid of us, view us as a threat.

Anyone with a brain and an objective point of view can look around my blog and see for themselves what I’m about. Whether I’m the frothing, insane misogynistic monster that my enemies make me out to be. They can also see the hundreds of feminists who’ve called for my death or castration for daring to speak my mind (and the people who defended them), and they can see who’s crazy and who’s sane.

You can’t stop the truth. The ‘sphere is winning because the truth is on our side. To the silent majority, welcome aboard.

Read Next: Kill Yr Manosphere Idols

  • My first thought was that you should have done the camera interview. But then I realized even if you had been interviewed on camera, they only would have aired it if it made you look bad, and I’m sure they would have edited it specifically to that end. Lose/lose situation. Good shit man.

  • great write up, man.

  • RomanCandle

    Looks like most people are smart enough not to engage with the mainstream media on their own terms.

    Next time, agree to be interviewed…but on your own blog. Somehow, I doubt they will be too eager to do that.

  • Days of Broken Arrows

    I think you did well here. My only recommendation is that maybe you needed to reframe. Frank Zappa was king of the reframe in interviews. Someone would ask him something obtuse and he’d say something like “I get it, you’re want a freak show for your little program, right?” We need to start doing that around here — exposing by reframing. Answering directly should be reserved only for cops.

  • “We’re looking for angry and passionate guys…” = “we’re looking for DRAMA and for the little amount of REAL misogyny to support our biased and bigoted anti-male viewpoints”. The LAST thing that they want are men with reasoned, sensible arguments with the facts and figures to back them up.

    Saw this one coming a long ways off. No surprise whatsoever. Typical leftist MSM “reporting” — nothing but cherry-picked half-truths, editing, spin, repeated propaganda, and outright lies to prop up their own bigotry.

  • To repeat myself from another site. as far as the “20/20 Incident” goes…

    A number of years ago, I ran an independent website in support of a long-shot presidential candidate (no, not that guy you’re thinking about; it was someone else–probably the 18th guy that would come to mind). I repeatedly got e-mails from a New York Times reporter that wanted to do a story on the site. It was obvious from the initial questions he sent (and the fact that the NYT had never said a kind word about the candidate) that their goal was a hit-piece that would portray anyone that supported this candidate as a lunatic.

    I declined to be interviewed. The site was (in my opinion) a success, despite missing out on all the “publicity” of being featured in the NYT.

    I hope the “20/20 Incident” will cause people to realize that you don’t need to agree to every interview request that comes you way–especially if it comes from the MSM. It’s OK to say “thanks, but no thanks” even if the request is coming from the NYT or ABC.

    There is such a thing as bad publicity, when that publicity is such a poisoned first-impression that it causes someone to never give you a second look. And, that’s what the MSM wants to do: poison the well so badly that nobody dares come back for a second drink.

    The Manosphere won’t grow via exposure in the MSM. It will grow via guerrilla marketing. Just say no to the MSM.

  • Jonathan

    You can’t win this kind of exchange with agenda-driven media people. They control the frame and will do whatever they can to goad or trick you into saying things that can be edited to make you look bad. If you handle the interaction well they won’t quote you at all. The only good response is not to play their game. Don’t consent to live interviews unless you can make your own recording, and reserve the option to post the unedited audio/video on your site. Avoid giving interviews to journalists from hit-piece shows, and probably to any journo whose history you’re not familiar with. Your blog is likely to be the best medium for you to make your case, anyway.

  • Eric

    8to12: “There is such a thing as bad publicity, when that publicity is such a poisoned first-impression that it causes someone to never give you a second look. And, that’s what the MSM wants to do: poison the well so badly that nobody dares come back for a second drink.”

    Excellent point. It’s not respected enough by the folks who say there’s no such thing as bad publicity or point to the comparatively smaller effect of comments versus the larger effect of the narrative spin of the main piece. I’ll add that if they manage to influence the important social levers and general popular perception of the Manosphere, that’s goal accomplished. They want the Manosphere ostracized as a ‘hate movement’ before it can grow any further on its march to normalization.

  • Cautiously Pessimistic

    I wouldn’t have anything to do with the media, but for those that are driven to it, I’d suggest having your own recording of the interview. I suspect that’d be a deal breaker for most of the interviewers, since it would lessen the impact of their creative editing. I tend to agree with 8to12, though. No interview is a better option. It was true at the tea-parties in 2010, and it’s true now. The interview will only be aired in the worst possible light, or if it can’t be hacked into a bad light, it’ll be dumped in favor of one that can.

  • Pingback: ABC News “20/20″ Segment On The Manosphere | Chateau Heartiste()

  • Anonymous Reader

    This episode once again demonstrates how the main stream media is just the propaganda arm of Feminism, Inc. Any man who agrees to be interviewed by them is in a position similar to a Jew being interviewed in 1933 by “Die Sturmer”, and he should know that going in.

    Note the techniques used are similar to interrogation methods. They wanted an audio interview as soon as possible, within 30 minutes of the email exchange. This is in order that you would have no time to organize a response, and no time to communicate with other men in order that a unified message could be presented. The actual audio interview involved two individuals, one somewhat friendly and one somewhat hostile, the standard “good cop / bad cop” game. The hostile individual is supposed to put you off balance, in order that you will be more amenable to answer any questions the friendly puts to you, in order to please that person and make them like you more. No surprise that the male individual was the hostile one and the female the putative ‘friendly’.

    Yes, Matt, they did indeed want you to say something, anything, that would be a nice little snippet for their propaganda. Think of these people as manbooby with a bigger budget – taking words out of context, or just editing words into the exact opposite of what was said, in order to further the agenda of Feminism, Inc.

    Note how they started off with the email, where control of words is equal between participants in the conversation, but pushed for you to move into their sphere via first audio, and then video. Their preference is to have the target in their own home turf zone – the studio, with lights and lots of people and intimidating cameras. But if they can’t get that, they can be almost as intimidating by setting up cameras and lights in your living room (we can all soon ask Paul Elam what that is like). The purpose is intimidation, to fix you under the light and dissect you, then edit for propagandistic effect.

    Summing up:
    There is nothing in the main stream media that involves a search for truth.
    It is all about power, and furthering their own propaganda. In this case, the propaganda of Feminism, Inc.

  • Great Post Matt! Don’t let those knuckle heads get to you!

  • Pingback: Stares at the World » The Manosphere: A Response to 20/20 with Doctor Illusion()

  • Pingback: The Mainstream Media Comes To The Manosphere | The Private Man()

  • The Man Who Was . . .

    They aren’t really losing. Most people are more PC than ever.

    What really irks them is that there is a group of intelligent people out there who have learned to thrive without capitulating to the PC madness. Some of the more intelligent people in the intelligentsia may even realize that it is the very culture they have created which has made it so much easier for smart un-PC people to get what they want. After all someone who is able to act like a normal person (it’s easiest when you actually are a normal person), but who actually knows the score is going to have an enormous advantage over those who go along with our official stupidities.

  • The Man Who Was . . .

    Has there ever been a time like this when a man who knows the way things really are to knock over ginormous amounts of high quality (lookswise anyway) women.

  • Best post I have read about this whole thing. I really wish you would have recorded the conversation but hindsight and all of that.

  • deuce

    Re: 8to12’s post mentioning “grow via guerrilla marketing”:

    The establishment is in the “Attack the Network” phase of countering an asymmetric threat. A suggestion is to go even more asymmetric on their asses. Don’t answer their emails, don’t return their voicemails, do not appear on TV (where they control the terrain). You can’t attack an enemy that doesn’t show up.

  • I agree with The Man Who Was.

    Leftists are not losing, they are winning everywhere. In fact, they’ve been winning for a long time and it’s only accelerating. They are irked that they are losing, but they aren’t actually losing. They just think they are. They are just keeping the tactics that suited them when they were losing and haven’t changed them. Because they haven’t had to.

  • Troubadour

    You did well to pass on the interview. I’ve been in front of the camera. If you don’t make the point the journalist was trying to use you to say, they find some way around it and connect your name and face with something you never said, didn’t intend, and fundamentally don’t agree with. Those closest to you get what happened, but the worst thing is all the people in your life who now suddenly think you’re cool because of what you said, and now you’re the “men should pay double the taxes to assist single mothers due to the high rate of divorce” spokesperson or some damn twisted distortion of what you actually represent, and what you actually said.

    To quote Stiffler: fuck those fuckers.

  • Wow, I didn’t realize how badly the MSM was running scared with respect to online comments to their articles. That’s a big development, actually. It demonstrates that they do not wish to compete with the internet for it’s unshakeable nagging for truth, they want to control perception entirely. They don’t want to go back to a day when they had to hire bright and questioning intellectuals to write and edit their output. They don’t want to go back to a day when they had to admit error when error existed (and they did use to do this). They just want to continue to regurgitate their crafted and ultimately false message.

  • You can’t stop the truth.

    Yes. And no matter how badly the TV segment portrays the sphere, the publicity will be priceless. How many people will check out sphere sites out of idle curiosity after the show and end up learning the truth? I think the MSM has misjudged this one. It will look like a loss for the sphere at first but will end up being a long-term win.

  • Hey – bi site make up. I would say that there is no bad propaganda. I urge one to do this interview but I do have to admit that if I were in your place Matt, despite my rational inclination to take the interview I would have declined as well.

    But What I am waiting for is for this girl from ABC to comment on this one – I don’t believe she would have missed this article

  • and by the way in your article about taxing single mothers – I can see that you indeed EXCEMPTED widows, so no point for them to rattle you for that.
    And furthermore I would lilke to propose another sensible excemption – mother of children who live in a live-in status. Out of wedlock but if there would be a male willing to sign her excemption to testify that he is indeed living with her in an LTR setup with child that would be a valid excemption

  • Musashi

    Always record phone calls such as these for……..future reference.

  • The Man Who Was . . .

    Sunshine Mary is right. The manosphere doesn’t exactly have a stellar rep to ruin, so any publicity is good publicity.

  • Pingback: ABC 20/20 on the Manosphere | Sploosh World()

  • I would have gladly given them an interview. My site is fairly moderate, so they wouldn’t be able to mine for bad shit. I’m used to speaking publicly, since I used to do radio commercials for a living. I really wish they would have contacted me.

    You probably did the right thing, Matt. You write to create controversy. Hell, you even called your book “Trolling for a Living.” Even if you aced the interview, they would have said “This is a man who cheered the suicide of a young girl and wants single mothers punished.” Game, set, match.

  • Mina

    The liberal left runs the media and it seems their brain damage is on proud display both in the way they approached you (and gave away their game) and in their handling of the story since. You did the right thing to reject their offer to appear, they’d have never allowed anything positive that negated their narrative to squeak through into the segment. If there is one major thing I have learned working in liberal corporate america the right email you send in response to some ignorant asshole accusing you of doing something that hurt their feelings is no email. No matter what you say no matter your position they will always perceive your response as somehow offensive. There is no way for them to perceive no response. In database lingo it’s the Null value – it could be anything so it’s nothing. Far better.

  • ProTip

    “Leftists are not losing, they are winning everywhere. In fact, they’ve been winning for a long time and it’s only accelerating. They are irked that they are losing, but they aren’t actually losing. They just think they are. They are just keeping the tactics that suited them when they were losing and haven’t changed them. Because they haven’t had to.”

    That’s a load of horseshit. I’ve watched the conflict for years. The Feminists NEVER came up with new tactics, and that’s how we stomped their asses into the ground and sent them back to Lezzebel and Femifisting. They kept using the same rabbitfolk maneuvers even though every time they did it, they lost more ground. We won that war battle by battle. The MSM will be the same. They can’t stop the manosphere. It’s put down roots and is flowering worldwide.It’s too late for them now. THAT is why they are freaking out. They are NOT winning, it only looks like they are from a certain perspective. They are taking over in the way that mold “takes over”. It spreads rapidly, and then it dies, because it is weak and because it is foul. The manosphere,by constrast, is like a wildflower. Stomp it underfoot,and it will spring back up again after a hard rain.

    They are panicking because they are dying out,losing legitimacy, and are about to be swept aside and they know it.

    It couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch. The MSM is about as much use as tits on a boar.

  • RobertW

    As some others have noted, this is all good. It will have the opposite effect of what the left-wing media hopes. Now many men (and women) who have never read blogs like this and AVFM will visit them wondering what all the fuss is about. They will begin reading things that challenge the party-line crap they (and me) have been fed their whole lives. Of course there will be many men still steeped in the matrix who will not visit, so they can prove to their inner Nurse Ratched that they are not misogynists. I know the cliche’s may getting old, but I didn’t read about the red-pill until last year at the ripe old age of 55. I credit blogs like this, AVFM, ROK, Roosh, etc, for saving my sanity.

  • Tim

    I think this scares the crap out of the media because of the evolutionary underpinning that ideas in the manosphere have. When someone claims the bible/religion as the basis for their beliefs, the media can discount them as a nut as they’ve always done; but I think they’ve been fearing something like this for a long time, because it’s a threat to their blank slate notions of human sexuality. Their playbook now is to stomp it out and smear it, make it look fringe, instead of engaging with ideas, like they’ve done and are doing with the tea party; in their eyes it’s a weed they want to kill, stomp out.

    I remember sitting in a college sociology class and a student brought up the ideas of evolutionary psychology. And the sociology professor flipped out. Then he went on a tirade. There was no debate about the ideas or research, it was all a rant about how those evolutionary psychologists are ruining everything. It was then that I realized that college has very little to do with learning. In the same way that the media has very little to do with truth.

  • carly

    Their have been some very disturbing comments concerning women in my FB comments that I would like to address. To start with I have always been surrounded by men. I come from a family with two brothers and no sisters. I have four boys who I am very proud of and who have a very healthy view of women. I like men and always have. Most of my friends are men and they always have been. My oldest son has also been a victim of the friend of the court system where I agree it is not fair many times for the father. Even though his fiancee got pregnant over here on this side of the state, because she moved back in with her parents on the other side of the state my son has to do all the driving. It’s 3.5 hours one way and he can’t pick his son up until Friday at 6:00 p.m. and he has to return him by 6:00p.m. Sunday. My son spends so much time driving, he has little quality time to spend with his son.

    With that being said, there is no excuse for the women bashing that has been going on around the internet. For every father that cares about their kids and pays child support, there are ten more who are dead beat dads. There is a culture in this country where men want women to work but then get upset because women are then unable to do their more traditional roles. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it to. When I worked outside of the home I was a different person then I am now. I loved my job but had no choice to quit when I found out my son had autism.

    I come from a very religious background where the women stayed home and the men worked and were the boss. My dad was the perfect Archie Bunker. My dad always paid the bills and he didn’t get any rewards for doing it. Every night my mom served him his food on a tray and we would get up to change the channels for him but we didn’t mind because my dad drove 86 miles one way to go to work 12 hours and then drove 86 miles home so we could grow up in a small town. But many men these days have dropped the ball when it comes to taking responsibility over there families. I believe all women want a real man. I enjoyed staying at home taking care of my kids and husband. But my husband took care of us.

    If men want women to go back and be feminine, start treating them better. Stop blaming the women because so far men have run the world and from where I stand, many of you guys whining, dropped the ball along with your responsibilities years ago. We used to have an evangelist who would travel throughout the country and stop by our church every now and then and he said something prophetic once. He stated he was so sick and tired of girls and women being blamed for what they wear, how they wear it because for every girl or woman out there wearing something inappropriate, there was a father or husband that allowed it! Of course that was very sexist but I appreciated his point. Men have ruled the world for centuries, they have historically raped and abused women, now more then ever before. We see it in wars all over, we see it in this country daily, one in three women are sexually abused in this country and no woman ever wants to use her body for money. That’s exploitation at it’s best. You can’t go anywhere without seeing smut, especially on the internet, and who’s supporting all of this porn, men are! These poor men who complain about women and feminist, ect. of course never taking any responsibility for the continued exploitation of not only women but young girls also. How do they think these girls are going to turn out?

  • frank

    You should have recorded the conversation. This should be a guideline for any future occurances like this to all the guys out there – always get evidence that you can post online once MSM starts lying

  • Pingback: How Not To Help | Handle's Haus()

  • @carly
    “With that being said, there is no excuse for the women bashing that has been going on around the internet. For every father that cares about their kids and pays child support, there are ten more who are dead beat dads. There is a culture in this country where men want women to work but then get upset because women are then unable to do their more traditional roles. Well, you can’t have your cake and eat it to. When I worked outside of the home I was a different person then I am now. I loved my job but had no choice to quit when I found out my son had autism.

    I come from a very religious background where the women stayed home and the men worked and were the boss. My dad was the perfect Archie Bunker. My dad always paid the bills and he didn’t get any rewards for doing it. Every night my mom served him his food on a tray and we would get up to change the channels for him but we didn’t mind because my dad drove 86 miles one way to go to work 12 hours and then drove 86 miles home so we could grow up in a small town. But many men these days have dropped the ball when it comes to taking responsibility over there families. I believe all women want a real man. I enjoyed staying at home taking care of my kids and husband. But my husband took care of us.

    If men want women to go back and be feminine, start treating them better. Stop blaming the women because so far men have run the world and from where I stand, many of you guys whining, dropped the ball along with your responsibilities years ago. We used to have an evangelist who would travel throughout the country and stop by our church every now and then and he said something prophetic once. He stated he was so sick and tired of girls and women being blamed for what they wear, how they wear it because for every girl or woman out there wearing something inappropriate, there was a father or husband that allowed it! Of course that was very sexist but I appreciated his point. Men have ruled the world for centuries, they have historically raped and abused women, now more then ever before. We see it in wars all over, we see it in this country daily, one in three women are sexually abused in this country and no woman ever wants to use her body for money. That’s exploitation at it’s best. You can’t go anywhere without seeing smut, especially on the internet, and who’s supporting all of this porn, men are! These poor men who complain about women and feminist, ect. of course never taking any responsibility for the continued exploitation of not only women but young girls also. How do they think these girls are going to turn out?”

    Unfortunately the majority of anecdotes and statistics disagree. Therefore either you have made up many of your claims, you are deceived by feminist lies or you are the exception not the norm.

  • Robert

    @Carly – with so many feminist talking points, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not just a plant. The fact that most of the rulers of the world are men does not mean that men rule the world. As Judy Bitch points out, people confuse autocracy with patriarchy. The average man has no more power than you do, and probably less. I certainly have no power over anyone. Men shoulder the lions share of the responsibilities in society (by law and custom) and used to be granted a certain amount of respect and perks. The respect and perks are gone, but the responsibilities are still there. The fact that many men are catching on and refusing to play a sucker’s game is completely understandable. Oh, and most of us don’t go around raping women and I resent the implication.

  • @Carly – The real world is an especially rough place for a woman, and all women. In the internet, there is anonymity added too. So, in Facebook, you are seeing a lot of opinions including some harsh ones… But you don’t have a male family member there to filter them for you. You might have taken that for granted when you lived in earlier times, but today, you should know that the internet is not for everyone, and no one is guaranteed to see the things that make them feel good.

    A.J.P.

  • neckbeard

    Carly is saying men should control women more.

    The police State facilitated by the same retrograde lies from the propaganda matrix makes this impossible.

    Look at the current definitions of ‘abuse’ and they all refer to any attempts at male autonomy,more so in regards to controlling women.

    I suspect a troll,perhaps a media troll.

  • Pingback: This is the girl who did the ABC 20/20 hit piece on the Manosphere | ancalgon's corner()

  • ProTip

    “With that being said, there is no excuse for the women bashing that has been going on around the internet.”

    If there WAS “woman-bashing” going on, which there’s no way to know by your comment if there WAS since women consider anything they don’t like to automatically be motivated by misogyny,there WOULD indeed be an excuse or it, that excuse is known as The First Amendment.

    Furthermore, there is justification in it,given that any man with the misfortune of tuning into day time tv will find back-to-back MAN-bashing being supported by women’s commercial dollars.Women watch this trash telveision, and buy the products they sell during these slots, or this MAN-bashing would not exist. Every single commercial on television these days portrays WHITE MEN as stupid,bumbling,slow,idiotic,malicious, or evil.

    “If men want women to go back and be feminine, start treating them better. ”

    So you want jobs you’re not qualified for, gender-based promotions, you want us to give up sporte we enjoy playing because not enough women join, you want our sportsteams to dress up like fruits in pink tutus every year, and you want us to kiss your ass while we do it.

    Ok, I just got one question. What have all the women lawyers, women politicians, women scientists, and women CEO’s ever done for men? Have any of ya’ll ever sponsored “Prostate Cancer Awareness Month”? Do you support homeless shelters for men with your millions of CEO dollars?

    WHY? WHY should we continue to do all this stuff for women when they NEVER reciprocate in any fashion, and constantly demand more and more from us?Why should we treat women any better than we do? Why should we even treat them as WELL as we do, considering their utter contempt for us and their neglect of men?

    “Stop blaming the women because so far men have run the world and from where I stand, many of you guys whining, dropped the ball along with your responsibilities years ago. ”

    Apex Fallacy. Just because the people at the top are men, does not mean that MEN run the world. I’ll give you an example. Obama is President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation in the world. For all intents and purposes, according to you, BLACKS have run America and the world for the last 5 years. However, blacks have higher unemployment and are doing the worst of anybody in America.

    If blacks were running the world, you’d think they would be doing better. Blacks are not running the world. One black is running the world. If a woman ever becomes president, that will not mean that WOMEN are now “running the world”. I would actually venture the guess that women will NEVER run the world,because the things that actually make a difference and the positions that convey the most power are high-risk and dangerous positions that can kill or financially ruin you,women will never volunteer for these positions. If they were FORCED into them, the U.S.A. would collapse,like the Soviet Union.Women wouldn’t do what was necessary to maintain the group because they only care about themselves,as evidenced by their complete lack of reciprocity towards men for the life-saving medicine and liberating technologies like the vaccum cleaner, microwave oven,the pill etc,which were designed and rolled out with the explicit purpose of liberating women from the lifestyles that they constantly complained about half a century ago.

  • Stephen

    So is this ever gonna air or what?

  • Anonymous age 71

    Carly, if I am reading you correctly you said 10 men are deadbeats for every man who pays support. You are a liar. Most men who have jobs pay every cent they are supposed to.

  • You’re the man Matt–huge respect for being one of the manosphere writers who is not anonymous…wish I had the balls and the job situation to blog like that.

    You’re not in Iowa but Where ARE you located? I’m curious if there are other manospherians in Chicago where I live.

  • Pingback: ABC 20/20: Poor Journalism, No Integrity, Fascist Censorship | Illusion Of Sanity()

  • Hathcock

    Carly,
    With regards to your assertion about deadbeat dads and child support, you might find this interesting (but not a very good story).
    ” The U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent data shows that non-custodial mothers are far less likely to pay the support they owe than are non-custodial fathers. So fathers pay 61.7% of what they owe while mothers pay only 54.6%. Forty-two percent of fathers pay everything they owe but only 34.1% of mothers do. But more interesting than that is the fact that so few non-custodial mothers are ordered to pay support. Some 54.9% of non-custodial fathers are the subjects of child support orders while only 30.4% of mothers are. In other words, fathers are about twice as likely as mothers to be ordered to pay support.”

  • Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/10/23 | Free Northerner()

  • Pingback: Linkage | Uncouth Reflections()

  • As a non-custodial parent, only recently divorced – I provided my (x)wife about half my check, paid the car insurance for all cars (including her car), paid medical bills, dental bills, school fees, at least half the school lunches, etc and so on. I am not a statstic, I am a real person and that is the kind of man I am.

  • Pingback: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place()

  • Matt,

    To quote Gandhi: “First they ignore you. then they mock you. then they fight you. Then you win.”

    Things are looking up! we’re at the mockery stage now. Batten down the hatches for the coming fight.

  • Pingback: Anger Management |()

  • Aaron

    “Don’t consent to live interviews unless you can make your own recording”

    Sound advice. A hostile media outlet will certainly doctor the interview. Consider the Zimmerman “he looks black” treatment.

  • Pingback: The Mainstream Media Writes For People In Cubicles()

  • Pingback: Going Public? | The Private Man()

  • Pingback: Review of the Year; 2013 | Harkness()

  • Pingback: The 2013 Anti-Progress Report | Radish()

  • Pingback: Going Public? | Kinkementary Love Stages |()

  • Pingback: The 8 Stages All Movements Go Through()

  • Pingback: Why The Media Has Lied About Elliot Rodger - runsonmagic()