[quote]When, however, the bluff is exposed… then the apostles of feminism, male and female, being unable to make even a plausible case out in reply, with one consent resort to the boycott, and by ignoring what they cannot answer, seek to stop the spread of the unpleasant truth so dangerous to their cause. The pressure put upon publishers and editors by the influential Feminist sisterhood is well known. ~ E. Bellfort Bax, 1913[/quote]
Toronto Standard makes its own news, then buries it in an attempt to cover up the truth.
Erica Jarvis is hanging on a cross.
On January 3, 2013, the Toronto Standard ran an article she penned, an interview with me which represented a first of sorts for the mainstream media. In a departure from the now standard mainstream narrative, and set against the backdrop of the University of Toronto student protest against Warren Farrell’s talk on the Boy Crisis, Jarvis actually put in a good effort toward balanced and ethical journalism. She wrote as though she did not get the Official Party Memo that the men’s rights movement is a club for aggrieved, basement dwelling white male Republicans, whose hatred of all women compels them to use the internet to bully and terrorize the world back to 1950’s America. Instead, she actually interviewed an MRA and allowed a fairly complete vetting of the facts.
And that put the first nail right through her hand.
There was a plug for the long discredited anti-men’s rights disinformation campaign of the SPLC tossed in at the end of the article. I later confirmed that was placed there not by Jarvis, but by editors of the Toronto Standard.
Some of her conclusions, editorial bullying notwithstanding, were as follows:
- After speaking with me at length she deduced that I did not hate women, and in fact even found it necessary to remark that she felt like she was being treated like an equal during our interview;
- She acknowledged that the conduct of some of the protestors at U of T was designed to stifle free speech;
- Even though she clearly disagrees with some of our tactics, she understands that we are facing real resistance to speech that would address the issues of our concern, and indeed admits that if our tactics were less provocative, she would not have even covered the story;
- She acknowledged that the makeup of the MRM was significantly different and more diverse than what other mainstream sources are reporting, citing the significant numbers of women who support our cause;
- She expressed sympathies to the core issues facing men and boys as presented to her in the interview.
In short, she contradicted every bit of feminist spin you have ever read in the mainstream media about the men’s rights movement, even as she clung to some artificially lofty standards that would keep us from being so uppity. Even that did not save her, though, and her conclusions became another nail driven through another hand.
The article received numerous comments. All of them, to the last one, either challenged what anti-MRM bias there was in the article, or thanked her for the aspects of her coverage that hit the mark. Not a word of support for the protestors or for feminism, even from the Standard’s regular readers.
That silence could be interpreted as a sign of the last nail, the one that would pierce her feet, was being carefully placed; ready for the strike of the hammer.
Of course, I should give you a link to the article for reference. Here you go.
Oh, but wait before you click, because when you do you will find that the page where that article use to reside has been deleted, and the url has been re-directed back to the Standard’s home page. They have made their own news, and then buried it once the feminists came calling to let them know trouble was brewing for those that did not align with their worldview.
It is one of the few unfortunate aspects of electronic media. Stories can disappear as quickly as they appear, leaving editors to simply expunge their own records with no retraction or explanation necessary, as the Standard has done here. In fact, were it not for industrious MRAs who anticipate this kind of mainstream sneakiness, the article would be lost forever. We have it in .pdf, complete with comments, and anticipate that links to it off site will be available in the near future as we continue to cover the cover-up.
It is a smoke and mirrors routine that I have ample evidence is being conducted by those interested in maintaining feminism’s stranglehold on public discourse, which has no room for the discussion of the human rights of men and boys.
How do I know this? Because Erika Jarvis confirmed it in an email after the article came out. She wrote me after I posted a response to her article, in which I criticized the addition of the SPLC propaganda, among other things. She responded:
First I want to point this out as more evidence of Jarvis’s intellectual consistency. She disagrees with AVFM tactics, but clearly shows between the article and her email that she is concerned that the issues are being subjected to censoring, just as she more than tacitly implies that she has already been subjected to a feminist backlash against her work.
This is what we will see more of in the future. This is where the battle gets a little tougher and a hell of a lot closer to victory — as this monumentally stupid tactic will fail them.
Their plan, if one can call it that, is to make an example of anyone who dares to cover the MRM outside the realm of their edicts. The message is simple, the MRM is bad, feminism is good, and if you even hint at another perspective we will come to nail you to a piece of wood.
Feminists are now having to work harder than they have before in the mainstream to keep the refutation of their lies and their advocacy for violence and censorship from seeing the light of day. The truth has begun infect the collective consciousness, with will now leave them to do what we see here, petty sacrifices and transparent attempts to revise history after it has already happened.
As we see from the now 100 year old quote from E. Bellfort Bax above, this is not really anything new. But he did not live in the internet age, where attempts to rig the record can so easily blow up in your face.
This is a pretty important piece of the picture. Even now, as I look back on this series of events, I remember telling Jarvis that AVfM got just a little less traffic than the Toronto Standard. She even mentioned that I said that in her now erased commentary.
Even in the short time since then we have exceeded their traffic by a significant margin. What this in effect means is that more people will likely now read about their ill-fated attempt at a cover-up than ever read the original article they scrubbed from the site. That includes a good many Canadians.
Bellfort Bax could not have envisioned the Streisand effect, and the thinking of the editors at the Toronto Standard appear to be similarly a hundred years behind modern realities.
In other words, they not only not covering anything up, they have just publicly exposed themselves as being directed by a culture of yellow journalism and deceit, hiding news and information from their readers, even what they chose to publish, that does not fit with the prescribed ideological dictates of feminists.
The sad part here is that the only person actually being hurt in this part of the story is Erika Jarvis, because she tried to write a balanced news story on the wrong subject. She is finding out the hard way that feminists demand absolute agreement and support or they will take any extreme necessary to silence you. That has about zero effect on those of us whose stock-in-trade is shining a light on this kind of conduct, and in fact fans the flames of our fires, but for those with ambitions of mainstream acceptance it can be a game stopper, as evidenced by Erika Jarvis being so casually crucified.
She may be able to skate out of this; to move on in other directions as a writer, mindful of where she can go and what she can say. She may be allowed to have a career as a writer, even after her egregious faux pas. But the publicly conducted witch hunts are only going to paint a much more stark picture for a public that is beginning to awaken to the fact that they have been sold a bill of goods, and played like cheap violins for the sake of a corrupt and oppressive ideology.
Addendum: Here is the web cached version of the article, without the comments, and interestingly enough, the add on about the SPLC is also missing:
And here is the full pdf, as provided from an off site source: