Paul Elam, the founder and primary animating force behind the website A Voice for Men, is probably, for better or worse, the most influential figure in the Men’s Rights movement (or, as he prefers to call it, the Men’s Human Rights Movement).
Elam is also a fierce misogynist with a penchant for angry, violent rhetoric full of only-slightly veiled threats. But don’t take my word for it. Perhaps the best way to get to know Mr. Elam is through his own words.
So here are some of Elam’s thoughts on a variety of issues, taken from postings on his own website. I have linked each quote back to its source on A Voice for Men.
Paul Elam on Domestic Violence
In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess. …
Now, am I serious about this?
No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong. Every one should have the right to defend themselves. …
But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.
Here, courtesy of the Wayback Machine, is the post as it originally appeared on A Voice for Men in 2010, where it was illustrated with a picture of a woman with a black eye, captioned “Maybe she DID have it coming.”
Elam now says this was “satire,” though its hard to see how it is “satire” when he clearly says that he doesn’t think his allegedly “satirical” solution is wrong. When Swift wrote his Modest Proposal he didn’t think that eating babies was actually a good thing; if so, it would not have been a satire.
Paul Elam on Rape
I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires … And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
Elam, apparently trying to project a more respectable image, has replaced the original A Voice for Men post containing these passages with a disingenuous disclaimer. But the Internet never forgets. An archived copy of the original post can be found through the Wayback Machine here. The quote is not any better in context.
Paul Elam on Why He Would Vote to Acquit All Rapists
Elam feels that courts are “patently untrustworthy when it comes to the offense of rape” and so, he explained in one post:
Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.
Original post here.
Paul Elam Explains How the Thought of Harming His Critics Sexually Arouses Him
No, I’m not making this up. Here are the strange, threatening remarks he addressed to an opponent of his Register-Her website (on which, more below).
Do you think I am going to stop?
It’s a serious question, because the answer to that question … should inform you of what will work for you or not work for you in dealing with me.
And the answer is, of course, no, I am not going to stop. You see, 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.
Original post here.
Paul Elam on the Necessity of “Inflicting Pain” on Opponents
Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
You can see this quote in context here.
Paul Elam, the World’s Strangest “Pacifist”
From a post on family courts:
I am a pacifist. I do not advocate violence. But I tell you this. The day I see one of these absolutely incredulous excuses for a judge dragged out of his courtroom into the street, beaten mercilessly, doused with gasoline and set afire by a father who just won’t take another moment of injustice, I will be the first to put on the pages of this website that what happened was a minor tragedy that pales by far in comparison to the systematic brutality and thuggery inflicted daily on American fathers by those courts and their police henchmen.
It would not even so much be a tragedy as the chickens coming home to roost.
You can see the comment in context here.
Paul Elam on Mothers’ Day
To all you mothers of the world, please give your Mother’s Day flowers and give them all generously. Most importantly, give them where they will do the most good. Place a bunch of daffodils at a dumpster near you, perhaps one in which one of you, or one of your kind, has tossed an unwanted baby, leaving it there to slowly die alone in a pile of trash.
Perhaps you could lay a single rose at the base of a bridge that has been used by a mother to throw her baby into an icy river. Perhaps you can lay it there with hands that have beaten or shaken a baby to death. …
Inspired? Good. Now perhaps some of you could place large, colorful arrangements at the abortion centers where women go to have children cut out and laid to rest in those colorful and attractive biohazard containers that are all the rage in the clinics.
He continues on in this vein for some time before getting to this:
This is not a request for some mothers, or a percentage of them, but all of you. In fact, you don’t even have to be a mother. If you have a vagina, the blood of all those children, who are abused far more at the hands of women than men, has stained your skin and caked around the cuticles of your fingers.
And he continues on for several more paragraphs of abuse, until this:
In Daffodils for Dumpsters the gash gets you in, and you don’t really have a choice.
After several more paragraphs of this he makes clear that this time he’s not even claiming he’s writing satire:
Now, do I really mean all this? Yes.
You can read the whole remarkable thing here. He also wrote a similarly unhinged post about Valentines Day, which I wrote about here.
Now, Elam not only says many terrible things; he also does terrible things. Here are a few posts detailing some of these things.
Here’s a post about his website Register-Her, a fake “offenders registry” where feminist writers and activists are vilified alongside female murderers and child abusers, and threatened with the exposure of their personal information, in an attempt to silence them.
Here’s a post about A Voice for Men’s glorification of Thomas Ball, a disturbed man and self-admitted child abuser who set himself on fire on the steps of a courthouse in hopes that his death would inspire Men’s Rights activists to launch a campaign of firebombing attacks against courthouses and police stations.
Despite Elam’s claims of non-violence, A Voice for Men published Ball’s long terrorist manifesto — including his calls for firebombing — on its website, in its “activism” section. It was only after the Boston Marathon bombings that AVFM finally took the manifesto down.
Here’s a post about the time Paul Elam (along with a ragtag team of online misogynists and white supremacists) viciously attacked a young woman as an anti-male, anti-white bigot, resulting in threats directed at her and at her alma mater, Georgetown University. As it turned out, all the attacks on her, from Elam and other, were based on bogus information — as Elam would have known if he had taken ten minutes to fact check his sources.
These quotes, and these articles, are really only the tip of the iceberg. I invite anyone interested in finding out more about what Paul Elam believes to look through my archives at some of my other posts about him, and about A Voice for Men more generally.
So the interesting thing about these dudes who are so upset when a non-biological parent is on the hook for child support, is that they don’t really think things through.* Most men & women who have established a parental relationship with children, whether or not they are biological parents, would want to be able to continue that relationship even if they divorce the other parent. If we establish a rule saying that non-biological parents have no legal responsibility to children they have a parental relationship with, doesn’t that mean they also have no right to a continuing relationship with those children after divorce, even if both they and the children desperately want one?
*I know it’s really that these dudes are incapable of envisioning what it’s like to have a healthy parental relationship with a child, considering them only as property, but I still like to game the argument out to its logical conclusion.
Meanwhile, am I the only one having the following reaction to Dan’s comments?
Hi Marie! Hope the increased dosage helps!
@cloudiah
Hi 😀
@auggz
Oh wow, sounds like I missed Dan being even grosser than I’ve already seen 🙁
Oh fuck your rape apologia ass, Dan.
(Not literally, rape is bad, mkay?)
I see you’ve abandoned the pretense that we’re having a conversation and now you’re just throwing random stuff out there. Why you think that stating that this site does something that a) it doesn’t do and b) even if it did you wouldn’t know because you showed up 10 minutes ago would be persuasive to anyone I don’t know.
“What problems do you people have with only biological fathers being obligated to pay child support?”
Step-fathers and adoptive fathers who take on that responsibility knowing the kid isn’t biologically theirs, I said that last night.
“What problems do you have with people who file false rape charges being prosecuted?”
Assuming they’re sure it’s a false report, I don’t. I just don’t see the point in bothering when no one was hurt by it since nothing will come of it besides her paying a fine.
“Why should a man who never even had sex with a chick be forced to pay child support, just because a woman put his name down on a piece of paper?”
Can we have that straw back? I’d like a scarecrow for my Halloween decor.
Who ever said he should? Cuz I recall saying that he should ask for a paternity test if he wants done, it’s really rather simple.
“Please post news articles that prove what you said.”
Which thing? Cuz I’ve said a lot and you don’t seem to be listening (it’s Argenti btw, Latin for silver)
“I haven’t heard of Paul or Tommy encouraging men to commit violent acts.”
Go click the damned links to AVfM, read Paul’s own words with his own byline on his own blog.
Next page!
The “What problems do you have with” framework is, of course, yet another way of framing things so that Dan’s position is assumed to be right and the burden is entirely on us to prove otherwise.
“So, go ahead and post some articles where men from MRM or MRA sites have committed violent acts. Talking about shit online doesn’t mean a damn thing. I am not talking about Keyboard commandos. I am talking about guys who actually committed violent acts in the name of MRM.”
You back hurt from that goalpost shifting?
So far on Spot! That! Fallacy! We have shifting goal posts, a burden of proof issue (you made the claim, you defend it, we don’t have to defend our counter-point until you do), strawman’ing, and that’s without going back to check.
“I agree with this. This is why I attack both sides. Sites like this and sites like a voice for men are jokes a d pathetic.
Believe it or not, I clown both sides for being dumb and irrational.”
Had you not been accusing us of being against fairness and equality because we don’t support the MRM, just last night, I might be more inclined to believe this.
“Any site that advocates violence against Americans is considered a media outlet for
Terrorists. Oh, and threatening to fire bomb court buildings is a felony. If you people are so confident in these threats, then why haven’t any of you people contacted law enforcement?”
But posting a manifesto supporting it under the heading “activism” is legal. As are vague threats against unnamed people, and dox’ing, and all the other shit they pull. They know where that line is and stay just barely on this side of it.
“This site advocates for men who aren’t biological fathers to pay child support.”
When they know they aren’t the biological father, and took on that responsibility anyways, yes. Otherwise no. Seriously, either you’re too dense to see why adoptive parents should have to same responsibilities as biological parents, or you’re being intentionally dishonest. Personally, I’m voting for both.
“This site advocates for women to get away with parternity fraud.”
Uh, when? Cuz I very much disputed that last night, can you read?
Oh and if you think proof by verbosity is going to work, go read pages 6~10 on the glossary’s comments. I’m one stubborn fucker.
Don’t forget argument to moderation.
Dan, brah, this is how you come across… not that I think you actually care, since no one with an ounce of self-respect would be arguing the way you argue for the things you’re arguing for.
At any rate, do us all a favor and fuck off, dipshit.
Ah yes, how ever did I miss that one?!
If all that were required to get child support from a man that you had never even slept with was to write his name on the birth certificate and then he HAD to pay ALL his money FOREVERZ then why would the woman be naming Joe ‘Douchecanoe’ Bloggs from Reddit instead of like, Donald Trump or Bill Gates?
So basically, you people think biological dads should be let off of the hook for child support, because another man married the single mother with kids.
Every one of Dan’s comments*
*CITATION NEEDED
It’s not just that he’s a liar, it’s that he’s a really unconvincing one. Sorry, bud, if you want to succeed as a con artist you’re going to have to up your game.
(Unless the people you’re conning are MRAs, because they’re gullible and want to be conned.)
Also seconding our producer guest – a newsroom can definitely be a place where the language gets a bit salty, but nobody in their right mind would talk to a potential guest or source like that.
(Ignoring Dan since he seems to have arrived pre-frothed, and I’ve already had my latte ration for the day.)
I’m confused about why Dan feels the need to advocate for people who seem to have reached perfectly amicable solutions.
“So basically, you people think biological dads should be let off of the hook for child support, because another man married the single mother with kids.”
Dear gods, can you read? If another man took on the legal responsibility, then yes. You get that parental rights have to be severed for that to occur, right? And that most people have no issue with this concept?
Example — you’re happily married, decide, for whatever reason, to adopt. Sign all the paperwork, you and your wife become he kid’s legal guardian. Sometime later you two decide it just isn’t working out and file for divorce. Are you seriously saying the biological father, who gave the kid up for adoption, should have to pay child support instead of you, the adoptive father who knowingly signed on for legal responsibility?
Nat — me too. (And is it okay if I call you that?)
It’s fine Argenti 🙂
If a guy is retarded enough to sign adoption papers, then yes he deserves what he ask for. Ok, we are on the same page.
Google Gil Garcetti and see what he did to men who cleared by DNA not to be the biological father. BTW notices of child support are mailed and not served my sherrif deputies or court officials.
I’m still having this reaction to Dan.
Dan, forgive me as I’m switching between this page and, er, my homework (which is due Monday but probably isn’t going to be done by then) but what specifically about child support and non-biological parenting do you find objectionable?
If the non-biological parent has formally adopted the child, obviously that is grounds to enforce child support and visitation. I think it is strange, but also sort of understandable, to enforce CS and visitation for former partners who didn’t formally adopt; this happened to a woman I know.
She and her ex-husband of several years had always shared custody of their children. He went on to remarry, so the kids also had a stepmom.
When the ex-husband died unexpectedly, the stepmom sued the mom for visitation, and the mother was really angry. She figured since the ex-H had died, the kids would no longer have any relationship to their step-mom, who the mom didn’t much care for.
I could see it both ways; for the mom: “What right does this chick have to demand MY kids?”
From the kids’ standpoint, dang, the stepmom had been a contributing part of their lives for as long as they could remember. Now she’s just somebody they used to know?
From the stepmom’s POV, her husband died and now her step-kids are ripped away, too?
Not sure how the case came out and am not familiar with the legal situation in that state (or even in my own state, tbh) But it seems to me like these things are actually pretty complicated.
Check out this article.
http://www.legalzoom.com/marriage-divorce-family-law/child-support/can-you-get-refund
@ cloudiah
Me too. May I suggest a more exciting alternative?
http://www.buzzedgames.com/watch-paint-dry-game.html