Brandon Sullivan
responds to William Costello in a discussion about the Manosphere. 

We live in an era with many platforms available to people wanting to get their ideas out. Social media, blogs, YouTube. There is an abundance of opportunity for those seeking an audience. Those of us in an audience must decide who to give our time and attention to.

I was moved to write, negatively, about the inclusion on TPQ of an article by William Costello. I did this because I have a body of knowledge about the website that he first had his article published on, and about the “men’s rights movement” he is part of. And I believe that that website, that movement, and by extension, William’s article, are not deserving of people’s time and attention.

William calls this “guilt by association”.

Some background: A Voice for Men (AVFM) published William’s article. GQ magazine described AVfM as “the flagship political site of the movement” – that is, the “men’s rights movement” which is also known as the “manosphere”.

William said that he doesn’t consider his association with AVFM “to be a slur”.

Readers can watch this video (it’s mercifully short) and decide for themselves if they would consider an association with these people a slur. AVFM founder and publisher Paul Elam is filming and leading the chants, the audience made up of writers and contributors to AVFM. I wonder what William thought when he watched this video? Was he inspired?

I wouldn’t want to be associated with repugnant drunks, hooting and hollering about “getting a blowjob from Jessica Valenti” (a woman they harassed), and neither would I want my writing published alongside an article from Elam addressed to Jacylyn Friedman where he says:

I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.

Elam has described how his “activism” on AVFM sexually excites him, and addressed another woman saying “by the time we are done you will wax nostalgic over the days when all you had to deal with was someone expressing a desire to fuck you up your shopworn ass”. This was a blatant threat, given AVFM’s history of targeting and doxxing individual women, and harassing journalists.

And neither would I wish to be included on a roster of writers that included Chris Cantwell, the “Crying Nazi” of Charlottesville infamy, and Roy Den Hollander, the “men’s rights” attorney (who sued bars and gyms for running promotions for women) and alleged murderer of a federal judge – among various other cranks, misfits, and bigots.

Is it wrong to judge William for choosing to have his name among the ones listed above?

William spent some time on establishing his liberal credentials in his verbose rebuttal, but despite that, confirmed exactly what I thought of him: anyone who believes that Elizabeth Hobson does “great work for men’s rights” is either delusional, an idiot, hard-right, completely unconcerned for vulnerable men, or a combination thereof.

I believe that no serious writer with any degree of self-respect would choose to be share a platform with the rabble described above, unless they were of a similar political persuasion. And nobody interested in actual men’s issues would see Elizabeth Hobson as an ally. Either way, in my opinion, uncritical association with a website like AVFM, or a “movement” like the “manosphere” makes a writer completely undeserving of time and attention.

⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle aged, middle management, centre-left Belfast man. Would prefer people focused on the actual bad guys.

Step Your Standards Up ➖ The Case For Informed Audience Discrimination

Brandon Sullivan
responds to William Costello in a discussion about the Manosphere. 

We live in an era with many platforms available to people wanting to get their ideas out. Social media, blogs, YouTube. There is an abundance of opportunity for those seeking an audience. Those of us in an audience must decide who to give our time and attention to.

I was moved to write, negatively, about the inclusion on TPQ of an article by William Costello. I did this because I have a body of knowledge about the website that he first had his article published on, and about the “men’s rights movement” he is part of. And I believe that that website, that movement, and by extension, William’s article, are not deserving of people’s time and attention.

William calls this “guilt by association”.

Some background: A Voice for Men (AVFM) published William’s article. GQ magazine described AVfM as “the flagship political site of the movement” – that is, the “men’s rights movement” which is also known as the “manosphere”.

William said that he doesn’t consider his association with AVFM “to be a slur”.

Readers can watch this video (it’s mercifully short) and decide for themselves if they would consider an association with these people a slur. AVFM founder and publisher Paul Elam is filming and leading the chants, the audience made up of writers and contributors to AVFM. I wonder what William thought when he watched this video? Was he inspired?

I wouldn’t want to be associated with repugnant drunks, hooting and hollering about “getting a blowjob from Jessica Valenti” (a woman they harassed), and neither would I want my writing published alongside an article from Elam addressed to Jacylyn Friedman where he says:

I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.

Elam has described how his “activism” on AVFM sexually excites him, and addressed another woman saying “by the time we are done you will wax nostalgic over the days when all you had to deal with was someone expressing a desire to fuck you up your shopworn ass”. This was a blatant threat, given AVFM’s history of targeting and doxxing individual women, and harassing journalists.

And neither would I wish to be included on a roster of writers that included Chris Cantwell, the “Crying Nazi” of Charlottesville infamy, and Roy Den Hollander, the “men’s rights” attorney (who sued bars and gyms for running promotions for women) and alleged murderer of a federal judge – among various other cranks, misfits, and bigots.

Is it wrong to judge William for choosing to have his name among the ones listed above?

William spent some time on establishing his liberal credentials in his verbose rebuttal, but despite that, confirmed exactly what I thought of him: anyone who believes that Elizabeth Hobson does “great work for men’s rights” is either delusional, an idiot, hard-right, completely unconcerned for vulnerable men, or a combination thereof.

I believe that no serious writer with any degree of self-respect would choose to be share a platform with the rabble described above, unless they were of a similar political persuasion. And nobody interested in actual men’s issues would see Elizabeth Hobson as an ally. Either way, in my opinion, uncritical association with a website like AVFM, or a “movement” like the “manosphere” makes a writer completely undeserving of time and attention.

⏩ Brandon Sullivan is a middle aged, middle management, centre-left Belfast man. Would prefer people focused on the actual bad guys.

27 comments:

  1. I spent ten years in a men's group where we worked through the pain that traditional patriarchal constructs of masculinity has caused men. A period of real growth or me and a million miloes removed from the arseholes that make up men's rights groups such as AVFM.

    Thanks for sharing these gems with us, William.

    Mr Burrows has quite a lot of ef explaining to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "spent ten years in a men's group where we worked through the pain that traditional patriarchal constructs of masculinity has caused men."

      Ffs man up!

      Delete
    2. @ Barry Gilheany

      Traditional patriarchal constructs cause immense pain and suffering, mostly to men, but also to women. Challenging these constructs can be liberating. The so-called men's rights movement does the opposite: it posits a phantom enemy for damaged men to rail against.

      Thank you for your kind words, however, William was not responsible for providing the "gems" you mentioned above - it was me! I don't think William would wish to be mistaken for me.

      I'm curious about the men's group, if you'd care to expand on that?

      Delete
    3. Brandon - when we spotted the error coming thru we let it go as it seemed a lack of concentration on the part of Barry. He knows who has authored what and the very clear gap between your positions and William's.

      Delete
  2. Brandon - as always, good for TPQ to get the piece. What I fail to understand is your professed conviction that William's piece on Incels should warrant no attention, yet you seem to have given it more attention than anybody else on this blog. I am pleased that you have as there is little point in publishing pieces that nobody pays attention to.
    While it works for TPQ it does not work as a critique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ AM

      Your point is valid, but I don't regret giving it the attention that I did for three reasons.  

      Your comment under the incel piece provides the first reason.  Articles deemed to provoke "woke" are, in my opinion, sometimes given a legitimacy that they don't deserve.  Bluntly, the enemy of one's enemy is not always a friend, and I wanted to provoke a discussion around that idea.  Readers can judge for themselves if that was successful.  

      The second is that the nature of the "manosphere" is not often understood.  It is, thankfully, almost exclusively an online subculture, and a small one at that, albeit one that has been attempting to make inroads into academia and elsewhere.  In my opinion, the "manosphere" damns itself with its own words and actions. I sought to offer context to William's peers and allies.  I believe that that is worthwhile.

      The third reason is that I believe William's rebuttal vindicated my original view of his piece.  William was indulgent and uncritical of the "manosphere" and sees it as a potential force for good.  I believe that it a net loss to the intellectual and social spheres that it influences, and that it exploits the men it professes to help.  William's notion that it can help incels would be laughable were it not so tragic.  

      Delete
    2. Brandon - I still fail to grasp the logic. It seems to defeat the purpose. As a result of your intervention more people now read what you think they should not read. I just don't know how that works.
      Woke is a virus in intellectual life and is always worthwhile challenging. If I recall, William did not challenge woke in his initial piece. But there is never a good woke argument for suppressing alternative ideas. Allying with the woke always places us on the side of the censor. Not that you are really making the primary case for woke as such. The critics of woke can live with a woke argument - woke can't by its nature seem to live with arguments not approved by it.
      I tend to think you are on the right side of the discussion but did not make the better argument.
      To tackle the type of position made by William - particularly on the grounds proffered by you of his being an argument that should not be heard - requires something more than has been offered so far. The risk of giving his position air time has to be countered by effectively demolishing it while it has that air time. I think you fell short of achieving that. Looking back over the discussion, I think you have placed your adversary out in front in the exchange. I don't have a dog in the fight and am just glad to to have the contributions of both. But if the exchange impacts others as it has me, it doesn't seem to have delivered for you in terms of how you sought to impact the debate.

      Delete
  3. @ AM

    This comparison is unfair on William, but if we take the "It's Still Only Thursday" blog (ISOT) as an example. ISOT has articles published on here that, if they are commented on at all, are criticised. Readers of this blog generally understand that ISOT writers are coming from a position of bigotry, and delusional revisionist history. I would prefer the writers on ISOT to be capable of self-reflection, rigour, and honesty, but it isn't going to happen. If ISOT had some of their more egregiously inaccurate work published on, say, Guardian's Comment is Free, then I would want to robustly challenge it. It can be left on TPQ and seen for what it is.

    William's article being read is not in and of itself problematic. People's lack of understanding of the subculture that it originates from, is. William's incel piece will appear very different to someone familiar with manosphere beliefs and terminology, than it will to someone who isn't.

    But getting back to your original point, whilst I would have preferred his piece not to appear on TPQ, once it had, I was moved, and in fact felt dutybound, to say something. I think a combination of William's refusal to condemn AVFM, and my piece highlighting their beliefs, attitudes and modus operandi, work to delegitimise the incel piece. That's for others to decide, and I don't blame anyone for dismissing my protests.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brandon - I don't recall anybody arguing for the ISOT pieces not to feature. Which is probably a more salient issue.

    TPQ does not approve what it publishes - that goes with a free inquiry site. It cannot at the same time agree with both you and William, but merely hope that people might learn something from both perspectives. Even if that learning is nothing more than identifying a weakness in an argument.

    You are making a somewhat different argument when you say "William's article being read is not in and of itself problematic." I think that is a shift of position - which is fine. No point in holding to positions for the sake of it as it ultimately stifles creativity. This being your position, I think a different approach to William's article might have gained more traction: an emphasis on where the lack of understanding lay rather than being William centred.

    I don't think your views should be dismissed - they are hardly mad harebrained ideas but the outworking of some thinking and probably the act of thinking itself that invariably occurs when we confront alternative ideas. As you suggested elsewhere, your position is not as fixed as it might be construed.
    I prefer the blog to be a place where people get to practice their ideas, particularly in the comments section. I tend to view comments as unsworn testimony and don't hold people to what they say there for ever and a day.
    I don't agree with your perspective but that does not make the blog a cold house for your ideas. You are more than welcome to publish on whatever you wish and given the superb quality of your deconstruction of Holy Cross issue, I think the blog stands to gain immensely from your contribution. Long may it continue.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Everywhere in the animal kingdom a hierarchy is established quite naturally, whining about patriarchy is pissing in the wind, natures gives not a solitary fuck about 'woke' feelings.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ Steve R

    I'm not quite sure what your comment relates to, but it seems to me that we should aspire to something more than that which is found in the "animal kingdom"?

    Nobody here is "whining about patriarchy". What a Barry and I did was discuss how patriarchal constructs constrict and damage men. Your comment suggests that similar work would benefit you. Challenging your own assumptions about masculinity might be treacherous for you, but it wouldn't be "pissing in the wind" - it could only be to your benefit.

    Setting nature as a baseline to measure human considerations seems... unambitious, to say the least. "Woke" is an oft abused term, and I'm not really sure what context you deployed it in.

    Hierarchies rarely work well, except for those at the top, and their positions are often disputed and dislodged.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Trying to suggest humans are something above or 'other' than a part of the animal kingdom is were all this nonsense begins.

      "What a Barry and I did was discuss how patriarchal constructs constrict and damage men"

      Hierarchical constructs are a product of millions of years of evolution. Patriarchal observations within the animal kingdom are in the overwhelming majority. They simply are so because they work to the benefit of the gene, the species and the tribe.

      "Setting nature as a baseline to measure human considerations seems... unambitious, to say the least"

      And there you have it. That's a colossal statement of the arrogance of Man thinking he is superior to every other animal on this planet.

      "Hierarchies rarely work well, except for those at the top, and their positions are often disputed and dislodged."

      Hierarchies have got you to were you are today, whether you choose to see it or not. History is absolutely full of examples of this.

      "Woke" in my experience I apply to the wilfully blind, those who care more about emotional feelings that objective reality.


      Delete
    2. Steve - I think your comments about the animal kingdom would only work if Brandon was disputing evolution and that humans were separated from the animal kingdom on the basis of them being an divine act of special creation. The rest of us get what he is saying when he refers to the animal kingdom.
      Being of the humanist persuasion I believe humans are the highest form of life and if that makes us superior to all other animals, so be it.
      I think being human and the ability to create culture and apply reason allows us to move beyond the instinctive urge to coerce and instead seek consent.
      Hierarchies exist everywhere. I think Orwell said that no matter what comes to pass there will always be three types of people in the world: those at the top, the middle and the bottom.
      But there is no need for that to be a caste system where certain types through privilege and bias have their station in life set in stone.

      Delete
  7. @ Steve R

    AM has broken down my view of the potential of man in the animal kingdom better than I could.

    "Hierarchical constructs are a product of millions of years of evolution. Patriarchal observations within the animal kingdom are in the overwhelming majority. They simply are so because they work to the benefit of the gene, the species and the tribe."

    Even if this was true, and I don't agree that it is, isn't it possible that things change?  Society today is radically different to the way it was 100, or 50, or even 25 years ago.  But many patriarchal constructs remain.  Should we keep things the way they are just because that's the way they've always been?  

    "Hierarchies have got you to were you are today, whether you choose to see it or not. History is absolutely full of examples of this."

    Well, I would say that *understanding* hierarchies has got me to the fairly privileged position that I now occupy in society.  And part of that understanding comes from knowing what privilege is and how to leverage it, which I did successfully.  

    But what if I *didn't* occupy the place in society I did, would it still be true that hierarchies got me to where I was?  And is a hierarchy that rewards those who mirror it a positive or a negative thing?

    Hierarchies oppress, and where there is oppression there is resistance.  Everyone deserve a fair chance.  Wouldn't it be better if there was no oppression to begin with? 

    A belief in hierarchies is the sign of a deferential mind, in my opinion.  And it is a truism to say that those with the most marginal of privileges are those most likely to fight to maintain a system that favours them only slightly.

    "'Woke' in my experience I apply to the wilfully blind, those who care more about emotional feelings that objective reality."

    That's a self-serving cliché.  It allows you to posit yourself as Mr Logical and your opponents as overly emotional beings, removed from reality.  It also, rather obviously, details a man very insecure in his masculinity.  


    ReplyDelete
  8. "Even if this was true, and I don't agree that it is, isn't it possible that things change? Society today is radically different to the way it was 100, or 50, or even 25 years ago. But many patriarchal constructs remain. Should we keep things the way they are just because that's the way they've always been? "

    And why should it change? 25-100 years in time is nothing, the point i'm getting at that though we think of ourselves above the rest we are very much apart of the Animal Kingdom. My opinion is that to fight against it is folly. Anthony may hold the opinion that we are the 'higher' form of life but that's because we've removed ourselves from our evolution. Our ancestors banded together because they knew their was safety in numbers, and in those numbers hierarchies emerged naturally. The head of those were the stronger and more likely to take bigger risks for greater reward, invariably male. This isn't my opinion it's just a fact.

    "Hierarchies oppress, and where there is oppression there is resistance"

    Only a few hierarchies oppress, or are percieved to as such. These invariably fail and collapse as it becomes clear at larger numbers collaboration is the key. Societies which survive are those who hierarchies are adaptable. Look at the fall of the USSR. They tried to overcome base human behaviour in their belief that Man was above Nature and everything could be sorted by committe, hierachies not required (Orwell's Animal Farm is a great example of this). What followed was a perfect example of Man's nature coming through with the widespread corruption and ulitmate collapse.

    "That's a self-serving cliché. It allows you to posit yourself as Mr Logical and your opponents as overly emotional beings, removed from reality. It also, rather obviously, details a man very insecure in his masculinity."

    I'm not saying you are removed from reality, it's just simply that I don't agree with you.

    " A man very insecure in his masculinity". I've been thinking a while on this and I've realized I actually don't even know what this means.

    I'm a male and that's all I've ever been. I'm flawed but have strengths in other areas. I'm married with kids and have a job with responsibility over other men. And I'm happy most of the time but weirdly cry at emotional movies ( I watched Coco which is a kids movie and bawled at the end which made my kids think I was nuts but watch it, it was beautiful lol!).

    So if that means I'm insecure in my masculinity then so be it, it changes not one iota of what I state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve - animal kingdom is used in the popular sense rather than the scientific one. We know what Brandon means when he uses it. I occasionally describe something as miraculous (a great goal or whatever) without believing in miracles.
      A higher form of life rather than being the expression of removing ourselves from evolution places us firmly at the heart of it. We did not become the highest form of life by magic. We evolved to it. If you can think of higher, please share.
      Why did hierarchies naturally emerge? A lot of power playing went into making them. I think hierarchies are inevitable but there are hierarchies that exist for the purposes of a functioning society rather than to guarantee the privilege of cliques and castes within that society. And the people who make them up must not be there as a result of hereditary reasons.
      Humans are not above nature but are part of it. Yet they have the ability to manage nature (medicine, science, culture) in a way that the rest of nature does not. It is strange for somebody so fixed on hierarchies that you fail to see the hierarchy within nature where humans are at the top.

      Delete
    2. @ Steve

      "And why should it change? 25-100 years in time is nothing, the point i'm getting at that though we think of ourselves above the rest we are very much apart of the Animal Kingdom. My opinion is that to fight against it is folly. Anthony may hold the opinion that we are the 'higher' form of life but that's because we've removed ourselves from our evolution. Our ancestors banded together because they knew their was safety in numbers, and in those numbers hierarchies emerged naturally. The head of those were the stronger and more likely to take bigger risks for greater reward, invariably male. This isn't my opinion it's just a fact."

      And this is the problem. The things that were needed for tribal conflict: a propensity for violence; fearlessness (performative or otherwise); ruthlessness; a lack of compassion are not only redundant in modern society, but incredibly damaging.

      Male suicide rates, addiction and depression are, I think, at least in part because acknowledging weakness - any weakness - is unacceptable because of patriarchal standards. Machismo kills, or jails, and it often hurts.

      As for her hierarchies, violent hippy (and ardent Irish republican) John Lennon said it best "there's room at the top they are telling you still; but first must learn how to smile as you kill; if you want to be like the folks on the hill."

      I believe that hierarchies are often the last worst option. As anyone who has ever tried to work in a cooperative will attest to. But the hierarchies that I'm keen to challenge are ones that reward a certain class of person based on class characteristics. That can be overt, like NI was (and arguably, can be), or more covert, like most European societies.

      Basically, I lucked out by being a tall, confident, heterosexual, able-bodied, white man. I was certainly disadvantaged in other ways, but I look like society's idea of a powerful individual, and that has certainly worked to my advantage. What I am saying is that that isn't really fair.

      Delete
    3. "And this is the problem. The things that were needed for tribal conflict: a propensity for violence; fearlessness (performative or otherwise); ruthlessness; a lack of compassion are not only redundant in modern society, but incredibly damaging."

      Which is why I pointed at larger numbers collaboration becomes the key and the natural outworking.

      "Male suicide rates, addiction and depression are, I think, at least in part because acknowledging weakness - any weakness - is unacceptable because of patriarchal standards. Machismo kills, or jails, and it often hurts."

      Perhaps in part, but I think there's more likely a direct link to the modern western diet, the removal of ourselves from our natural habitat and into concrete monstrosities coupled with the instant dopamine fix the latest gadgets give our brains. Marriage rates of survival are at an all time low too, so the patriarchy goes out the window. Don't confuse Machismo with Patriarchy though, not all patriarchy is bad.

      ". But the hierarchies that I'm keen to challenge are ones that reward a certain class of person based on class characteristics. That can be overt, like NI was (and arguably, can be), or more covert, like most European societies."

      Ah, understand you a bit better now, and agree more with this point.

      "What I am saying is that that isn't really fair."

      Life seldom is, noble to try to rectify injustice no doubt your will is, it's the prudent man who doesn't look too long into the abyss.


      Delete
    4. AM,

      "It is strange for somebody so fixed on hierarchies that you fail to see the hierarchy within nature where humans are at the top."

      Drop a modern western man back to the birthplace of homo sapiens and he'll be dead within a week. Heck, drop a modern western man right where he is but back a mere 500 years and he'd struggle. We've removed ourselves in a very short space of time from the very environment from which we came. We can and do manipulate the environment to better suit us but at what cost?

      We've polluted the sea's and the air, the very foodstuffs we eat are contaminated with pesticides and the water we drink needs to be heavily treated with chemicals. Disease is rampant, war abounds and we think we're at the top of the animal kingdom.

      I disagree.



      Delete
    5. To disagree is fine - show us what is higher.

      Delete
  9. Replies
    1. intelligence & brain power, ability to intervene in our environment; health care systems, economic infrastructures - there's a few but the list is endless.

      Delete
  10. "intelligence & brain power" Dolphins are very intelligent, capable of communicating with humans, express grief and mimicry and even humour but with the advantage that they live in balance with their environment.

    "ability to intervene in our environment" And for the vast majority of the time to the environments detriment. Look at the amount of plastic crap in the oceans and the pollution of the very air we breath not to mention the animals we've obliterated from the face of the Earth never to return.

    " health care systems" Many species of animals instinctively know which herb to take to cure an ailment. There's an interesting argument to be made whether modern health care systems are in fact going against the natural order of things by keeping alive those who should normally perish , at a sometimes huge economic cost, rather than allow the herd to naturally thin itself out.

    "economic infrastructures" See human history for the unmitigated fuck up that is capitalism.

    The list is endless I agree.


    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve - if you believe you are on a par with a dolphin, your call. I am not going to try and disabuse you of the notion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AM- touche! LOL!

      Just appalled by what we've done to the planet, that's all!

      Delete
    2. as are many of us. Being at the top of the tree does not mean we will not shake it to our own advantage.

      Delete
  12. I was in Western Tasmania last year. Tasmania is an absolutely spectacular place full of majestic scenery with the added advantage of being on the absolute arsehole of nowhere. We took a car down the west coast through old mining towns.

    We had to drive up a very steep and long road upon leaving Queenstown and once we breached the top of the Mount the scene was horrific.

    Years of mining, using arsenic as a tool, had created a landscape from a sci-fi movie. I can't even begin to describe the utter horror and disgust I felt as words cannot do it justice. I'm still too upset about it now.

    Anyways, I did manage to get to Hobart and have been meaning to write another Irish in Australia article so perhaps I'll get round to mentioning it then.

    Be well my friend.

    ReplyDelete