Several days ago, angry-MRA-dude hub A Voice for Men ran a guest post from someone identified only as Phil in Utah entitled “How I became an MRA: Domestic violence advocacy.” After Phil’s post in question drew some criticism from some of the AVfM regulars who didn’t see it as radical enough, site founder and head cheese Paul Elam felt it necessary to take Phil to task for one of the statements he made in the post.
So let’s have a quick quiz. Here are three quotes taken from Phil in Utah’s post. Which of them is the one that drew Elam’s ire?
- “[F]eminists only support the rights of women who agree with them, and have no qualms throwing disagreeing women under the bus.”
- “[T]he idea that women are hurt more than men by being abused is a load of crap.”
- “I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.”
ANSWER: Did you guess #1? Wrong. While this statement isn’t actually true, Elam didn’t object to it. How about #2? While this statement is also untrue – numerous studies show that women are far more likely to be seriously injured by domestic violence than men – Elam didn’t object to it either. Nope. He objected to statement #3. That is:
I still believe that men who brutalize women are the scum of the Earth.
How could any decent human being possibly object to this? Here’s Elam explanation:
I admit I flinched a little when I read this. Clearly these are words rooted in old world sexist notions about violence; that somehow men who brutalize women are worse than women who brutalize men. It is old programming that tends to swim around in the unconscious even after the first few rounds of red pills.
Now, I should note that Phil didn’t actually say, or imply, that “men who brutalize women are worse than women who brutalize men.” Indeed, he spent most of the essay arguing that DV against men needed to be taken more seriously. If anything, he minimized violence against women, by denying the fact that women are indeed more likely to be seriously injured by their male partners than male partners are to be seriously injured by women.
Evidently, for Elam and others on AVfM, straightforward expressions of enmity against men who brutalize women are a form of “latent misandry.”
But we’re only just getting started here. As it turns out, Elam was less troubled by Phil’s “misandry” than he was by some of the nastier attacks on Phil and other
new MRA’s who are ‘getting it’ but have not had the time or opportunity to fully refine their understanding of the modern zeitgeist.
Indeed, one commenter had even gone so far as to call poor Phil “pussy-footed.” And yet another called him a “mangina/white knight.” This, Elam announced, would not do!
MRA’s name calling and shaming other MRA’s is not constructive. It is petty alpha-gaming … .
In other words, it’s the sort of thing that guys do to try to impress the chicks. And that’s bad.
[A] significant part of the dynamics that hinder progress in the MRM is the innate friction between men which is driven by an undercurrent of sexual competition. Our unfortunate programming is to apply downward pressure on each other in order to vie for sexual selection.
On MRA blogs, this is often described with the scientific term “pussy begging.” Elam continued:
Feminism is an outgrowth of chivalry. It is dependent on male sexual competition to thrive. In short, misandry, feminism, the stinking lot of it, is a human problem rooted in men’s mindless competition for women. We don’t get out of that competition by simply rejecting women or Going Our Own Way. We get out of it by identifying and respectfully challenging the elements of that competition when they prove dysfunctional, as in going after MRA’s for blood any time we imagine they are not 100% on message. This conduct, when distilled down to its essence, is just a tell-tale artifact of pussy-centric masculinity.
So, in other words, MRAs who call other MRAs pussy-begging manginas are themselves … pussy-begging manginas.
Such is MRA logic.
How about people who beat others are evil and wrong? Regardless of the genders involved? Could we get any MRAs to ever agree to that?
Probably not. MRAs just want to insist that women are the ultimate evil, no matter what.
if nothing else, mras are pioneers in the field of making excuses
Pardon me but I seem to remember something an MRA said about feminists and/or women having a hivemind. Totally unlike these brave soldiers for Men’s Rights! Right?
I think it’s hilarious that Elam of all people is concerned about name calling in the MRM. It’s like listening to Newt Gingrich talk about “family values”.
I had the same thought. Isn’t “people who beat other people are the scum of the earth” the most egalitarian and comprehensive form of that particular message?
Or is that just my oppressive misandrist feminism talking again?
I’m getting to the point where I’d feel MORE comfortable if these guys just came out and endorsed beating women and legalizing rape, instead of playing all these damn games. Everything they say heavily, heavily implies a pro-abuse stance and they may as well just say it already.
Elam thinks he’s a lot smarter than he actually is, a common MRA misconception.
I like that Elam says he is , “respectfully respectfully challenging the elements of that competition when they prove dysfunctional.”
Respectfully saying that he hopes another man gets raped.
I’m glad I’ve never seen what he thinks of as being disrepectful, much less abusive.
I’d have to agree.
At this point, it’s the “but it is really a natural/humane/acceptable stance to have!” rationalization of the abuse (which couldn’t REALLY be abuse since it is natural, humane, and acceptable) that gives me the headache.
@pecunium
he draws the line at plausible deniability, which for elam seems to mean that as long as you speak in innuendo nobody can pin your negative statements to you. so fantasize about violent retribution all you want, just don’t suggest you’ll be the one to do it, because then they’ll be on to us.
he thinks he’s trading in dog whistles but its more like standing on the porch shouting fido’s name
MRA’s name calling and shaming other MRA’s is not constructive. Calling other men “white knights” or “manginas” is A-OK with me.
Elam is a clown. I look forward to every article that he reads. I started reading his stuff about 18 months ago and, if I’m honest, got concerned that the MRM had a spokesperson who wasn’t quite obviously deranged. He’s semi-articulate but utterly lacking in critical thinking (and reality). But anyway, my concern got washed away quickly, by an angry tempest of deluded rhetoric (as Elam might say).
The guy is an absolute fool. But word for word, John the Other is far funnier.
Elam found a gay guy somewhere to write for his tacky little blog. It’s hilarious how the anus named posters avoid him.
*writes, not reads.
I am a daily (twice daily) reader of AVfM. Does this make me an MRA? Or just a student with too much time on my hands?
Funny. An MRA says one reasonable thing, and every other MRA wants to rip his throat out. Unbelievable.
Hi everyone. Long time reader, first time poster. How are you all doing?
I can’t read an entire post by JohntheOther. I’ve tried a few times, but had to stop halfway through out of boredom. Elam is also a boring writer, but I think he’s a little less wordy.
Kendra: Neither of them holds a candle to Fidelbogen.
“Elam found a gay guy somewhere to write for his tacky little blog. It’s hilarious how the anus named posters avoid him.”
Yesterday, someone on Youtube mentioned a supposed quote from Elam saying that homosexuality was not natural and that until 150 years ago there were no cases of someone being born gay. I asked them to give me the source. Hopefully they get back to me soon.
@Pecunium, I agree. Fidelbogen is the gold standard in dull, wordy writing. JtO gets an honorable mention.
@Crumbelievable
MRA doesn’t stand for Men’s Rights Activist, but rather MRAs’ Rights Activist.
MRARAs.
Or, if you consider their attitude that only right-thinking “real” MRAs (not those “masculist” manginas!) are worthy of respect…
MRARARAs.
I really wish I could draw a picture illustrating one of the comments on another AVfM post, “The Golden Uterus Syndrome.” I wondered if maybe uteri came in levels like credit cards or Olympic medals, but it turns out the phrase just means that “a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child.” One of the commenters (Pendelton) wrote of “The living hell a man goes through where the golden uterus lives on his back and shoulders 24/7, also using his children to dump on and chump off him has got to be comparably unbearable.” Now I have this bizarre mental image of a man going about his day with a golden uterus living on his back and shoulders. How would he sleep? Would he have to get all of his coats altered? Would he qualify for reasonable accommodation under the ADA? Would this make a good reality show? So many questions.
….Wait. Did they just, accidentally, almost make the argument, wherein hyper-masculine gender reinforcement of male competition for the sake of The Elusive Pussy might actually… be counter-productive?
I mean, holding aside for the moment what they (MRA’s) might consider the ideal world… I think Elam just managed to articulate a Male Feminist perspective for gender equality. (Oops?)
Sure, sure, a golden uterus on your back would be uncomfortable, but it still beats the hell out of having one actually inside your pelvis. I mean OW.
No empathy, these guys.
Uh… pregnant and recently-pregnant people OUGHT to have special accommodations, on account of that whole “growing a baby and pushing it out your vag” thing is hard.
And people who are primary caregivers should ALSO have special accommodations, because they are working an extra full-time job taking care of children.
Hey, what does “dump on and chump off him” mean? Is that that thing where children have needs and they sometimes go to their father instead of their mother (assuming they have one of both) to get those needs fulfilled? Yeah, Golden Uterus Moms totally egg those little monsters on to do that shit.