What happened when A Voice for Men’s News Director tried to publish an anti-Cosby post on that terrible site

Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s all true, you piece of shit.

A Voice for Men, the World’s Greatest Grandpa of Men’s Rights sites, prides itself on the intellectual and political diversity of its writers.

The site has published articles by Holocaust-denying marital-rape advocates — and from dudes who think that the Holocaust happened and that marital rape shouldn’t happen. It has published articles lauding the rape legalization proponent and “pickup artist” Roosh V as a deep thinker” deserving nothing but respect — and articles denouncing him and other PUAs as excessively chivalrous flatterers engaging in “a scripted game of women-worship.” AVFM publishes articles attacking “bitches” alongside articles dissing “whores.”

What they won’t publish? Articles suggesting that Bill Cosby probably is guilty of some or all of the rapes he’s been accused of.

So far, AVFM has published 8 posts on Cosby, including a lovely little essay from site founder Paul Elam suggesting that his accusers are nothing more than “a bunch of drug whoring star fuckers.”

But when AVFM’s recently appointed News Director Ty Henry wrote a post arguing that Cosby “should receive no safe harbor in the MHRM [Men’s Huan Rights Movement],” well, the powers that be told him to take a hike, rejecting his post and ultimately firing him from AVFM.

The only reason I know about any of this is that AVFM’s suspended-on-Twitter “social media director” Janet “JudgyBitch” Bloomfield agreed to post it on her blog instead, explaining that

This article caused some controversy in the AVfM pool, with some strongly feeling it should be run and some strongly feeling it shouldn’t. In the interests of making sure no one feels their voice is quashed, I offered to run the controversial piece. I don’t necessarily agree with Ty Henry, the author, but since I have different editorial standards (some might say none) than AVfM, I’m running the piece to allow people to satisfy their curiosity.

So what exactly were the heretical thoughts that apparently got Henry’s piece banished from AVFM?

Well, for one thing, like most sensible people, Henry thinks Cosby is almost certainly guilty:

Considering his settlement in 2006, and recent disclosures, it’s pretty clear Bill Cosby likely violated the foregoing sovereignty of at least two women, the evidence his very own tongue. He’s also likely guilty of assaulting at least some of the women who have come forward, both in recent years, and going back to the 70s. Based on the totality of circumstances, to believe otherwise is to make his innocence an article of faith.

But perhaps even more galling for the AVFMistas, Henry bluntly points out the hypocrisy of those MRAs who loudly declare “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” every time a man is accused of rape, while offering no similar “due process” to women accusing men of rape.

The due process clause protects Cosby from the randomness of mob-justice fueled prosecution, as it should. I’m not here to advocate for ad-hoc suspension of the Criminal Rules of Evidence or Statutes of Limitations. It does not, however, shield him or his acts from the ruthless glare of critical inquiry.

A little pretentiously put, but possibly the most sensible thing I’ve ever heard an MRA say.

Henry continues, noting one case (of many) in which AVFMers have been happy to forget about that whole “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” thing:

[C]onsider this; Emma Sulkowicz has not been charged with, nor sued for, false accusations. So why do these pages label her such, including our venerable CEO? Reasonable inferences based on statements, facts and evidence in the public square, that’s why.

Well, I didn’t say that everything Henry had to say was perfect.

After detailing some of the many reasons we have to believe that Cosby is indeed guilty, Henry argues that even though Cosby will almost certainly not spend even a day in prison, he fully deserves having his reputation wrecked in the court of public opinion.

Bill Cosby is unlikely to serve jail time for his transgressions. Such is the nature of due process, as statutes of limitations have run, and with forensic evidence having long since dissolved, most of these cases would be dismissed at trial anyway. That should have no bearing, however, on his legacy henceforth.

His hypocrisy and repugnant violations of the rights of women is now the dominant feature of that legacy, and should these women secure some financial redress , that is more than he deserves for both his behavior and his casual, yet malignant, insouciance in the face of their years of suffering. For that, he should receive no safe harbor in the MHRM.

I’m on the record now saying her courage in coming forward, unsealing painful memories to help others clear their besmirched names, makes me even prouder to be an Arizona Wildcat. I stand with Andrea, even if I must stand alone on these pages.

His original piece included the term “Bill Cosby is a serial rapist,..” a flat declaration of guilt. That was the precise reason why the piece was rejected. He was also offered the opportunity to retool the piece, sans the declaration of guilt, which we would have been more likely to run.