A Voice for Men founder Paul Elam is so full of it on virtually every subject he opines about – from domestic violence to women’s spending habits – that much of what he writes might be best classified as fiction. He would no doubt disagree, but then again he’s not big on self-awareness.
But in addition to writing much inadvertent or unadmitted fiction, Elam has also tried his hand at fiction of the more traditional sort. I ran across one of his short stories the other day, and I’d like to share it with you, because it is quite possibly the most revealing piece I’ve writing I’ve ever seen from him.
As fiction, it is, of course, terrible, written in a clunky, melodramatic style one can only describe, with a shudder, as highly Paul Elam-esque. Elam doesn’t exactly have the skills or the subtlety to create an even vaguely believable fictional world. The story is essentially a polemic in story form – an extended argument justifying domestic violence against women.
No, really.
The story is called “Anger Management,” and it ran in something called “The Oddville Press,” an online journal. A copy of the issue with Elam’s story in it is available through Google books.
As Elam explains in his intro, the story is based on the nearly twenty years he claims to have been a drug and alcohol counselor. He notes that domestic violence was a recurring issue with those he counseled, but then goes on to say that “sometimes the stories were not as predictable or stereotypical as what people hear about.”
The story he tells, which takes place in some sort of court-ordered Domestic Violence treatment group, purports to be one of these less-stereotypical tales.
In the story, a domestic abuser named Howard Franks reluctantly opens up to the group about the domestic violence incident that landed him in jail, and which is now forcing him to attend the group.
His is a story that could have been ripped from the headlines – of A Voice for Men.
For Howard, you see, had been living a blameless and seemingly perfect life until six weeks earlier. He was happily married, with two wonderful daughters, and a thriving business. Then his father died, and his wife convinced him it would be best for him to fly alone to Baltimore to attend the funeral.
And that’s when the misandry hit the fan. As Howard tells his rapt audience in the DV group,
Oh no she didn’t! Oh, yes she did.
Arriving home, he finds the house empty. His wife had taken his money, stashed the kids with her mother, and run off with his business partner, who also claimed their joint business as his own, because apparently if you run off with your business partner’s wife you’re just allowed to do that.
He heads to his business partner’s house, where, adding insult to injury, his wife comes to the door “wearing a silk robe I gave her last Christmas.”
All he can ask is why. And so she tells him what every woman who suddenly and unexpectedly decides to end a 16-year marriage tells her poor, innocent, soon-to-be ex-hubby: because he just wasn’t cutting it in the sack.
Oh, but Howard’s sad tale of sexual humiliation isn’t done quite yet. And ex-wife isn’t done talking:
Because that’s totally something a real woman would say to her husband of 16 years after having unexpectedly left him while he was attending his father’s funeral.
Elam has also answered a long-standing question of mine, which is: what is the proper verb to use when a tear [blanks] down your cheek? The proper verb is “to track.”
Well, naturally – naturally! – our hero Howard has to respond somehow to soon-to-be-ex-wife’s terrible insult. So, like a totally reasonable fellow,
Ah, yes, Howard is just another sad statistic of domestic violence!
Because of course, in Elam’s story, Howard is the real victim here, so cruelly forced to go to jail for totally understandably breaking his wife’s nose. So cruelly forced to sit in a room with other dudes and talk about how he broke his wife’s nose, as if it were a bad thing.
The DV counselor, the aforementioned Ms. Pitts, asks him if his wife deserved a broken nose.
Even the DV counselor is so humbled by the righteousness of Howard’s anger that she sits silently as he details the final indignity of his case: that he’s not allowed to see his daughters until his treatment is done – just because he broke his wife’s nose with his fist.
There’s nothing subtle about Elam’s story or its message. We are supposed to empathize entirely with Howard and his plight. We are expected to mutter “fucking A, right,” along with the anonymous man in his audience after Howard explains that his wife deserved more than a broken nose. We are supposed to look with disgust on the “white knight” who interrupts Howard’s narrative to point out that what he did was wrong.
This is, to put it bluntly, a story suggesting that in many cases violence against women is justified, and then some, by their bad behavior – and that the real victims are the men who are punished for their violence by spending a short time in jail, by having to go to DV treatment, and by prohibitions on contact with their children.
In Elam’s notorious post advocating “beat a violent bitch month,” his excuse for justifying violence against women was that the “violent bitches” he was talking about had started the violence – even though the extreme retribution he suggested was justifiable went far beyond simple self-defense.
In this story, though, there is no question of self-defense; he is suggesting that violence towards women is an appropriate form of retribution for women who “do men wrong” by leaving them for other men. It’s striking that the trigger for Howard’s violence is sexual jealousy and humiliation – specifically, the thought of his wife, even after she’s left him, fellating another man.
And yet Elam convinces himself – and tries to convince his readers – that Howard is the real victim here. I scarcely have to add that this is how actual abusers think. And that no one who thinks this way can conceivably be considered a “human rights” advocate of any kind.
@ken
I’m not sure how to respond to this. I mean, do you not get how phrasing the thing earlier as ‘well maybe the guy had a mental disorder/ illness’ was ableist?
@David and @Ken L.
Thanks
@marie
lets let it die right now. clean slate. like i never posted here at all because it will just build.
alright?
@ken L
yeaaahhh no. Maybe I’m a big mean meanie pants, but I’m not a fan of clean slates.
@Marie
what I said was “@emma First retake you buds. figure out if he is mental disabled or in need of actual help. if not tell him, in anyway you like, not to do that again. then if the problem goes on spray.” now if you can’t tell the difference between what i actually said and what you think I said it your problem not mine.Emma asked what to do if your buds are taken, I answered. as for big meanie pants I’m not sure of the exact definition but i doubt you are.
@Ken L.
You know, you could just apologize for writing something ableist. If you don’t know what ableism is, or why it’s bad, you can always ask for the link to the part of the Welcome Package that explains it.
I had no idea what ableism was until I started reading the comments on this site.
@scott
I would if I actually wrote something ableist, if thinking that someone who is disable should not be treated like a creep makes ableist then I am guess I am and what the heck is a welcome package?
Bleaching my brain. I’m on chapter 20.
That AVFM pedo-attack video was just too triggering for me. I’m going to be off for a while, until I can get back on an even keel.
Later, people!
Well, you seem to be implying mental illness is a common cause of boundary-violating behavior. This is not true, and it helps perpetuate the societal idea that mentally ill people are bad.
@Ken L., This is the Welcome Package (see in particular Update #4):
http://artistryforfeminismandkittens.wordpress.com/the-official-man-boobz-complimentary-welcome-package/
No, it’s implying that someone who is a creep is likely mentally disabled that makes you ableist. And, yes, people should be wary of those who engage in boundary-violating behavior.
Building off of Scott1139, the vast majority of boundary-violating behavior is intentional and not in any way related to mental illness — it’s more related to pervasive misogyny and the widespread feeling that women aren’t people but objects. Asking the targets of boundary-violating behavior to assume the best about the people violating their boundaries is not going to fly here. Ken, I think if you can absorb that and then apologize you can probably do okay here. Otherwise, you should probably expect some continued hostility.
@Scott fair but i disagree with you on that point, it my not be a common cause but I have seen it happen, also your reading what you want to see, you saw people call me ableist and right away, and thought “well he must be”. I was offering to possible logical explanation for a given situation. I will not apologize for something I did that i did not even know I was doing.I well make effort to not to do so in the future But anyways what the welcome package?
@cloudiah
thank you of the package. i intend to read it twice,
Adding on to cloudiah’s comment, this? This is obnoxious behavior, and is probably why Marie thought you were trolling. You can keep doing it if you want, nobody here can stop you, but if you do it will pretty much guarantee that you continue to get a less than friendly reception.
Ken, think about this: what does it matter to the victim of harassment what the harasser’s mental state is? What difference does it make?
Should the schoolgirls that guy on the tram tried to paw have been okay with it, been nice to him, because he had some sort of problem? (I saw this only a few weeks ago. It wasn’t his mental/drug/alcohol/whatever problem that made him creepy, it was what he did.)
Saying “find out if he has a mental problem” fails two ways. First, what has already been said: the implication that a predator must have some sort of disability is ablelist. Think of all the people with disabilities who don’t do this sort of thing.
Second, it’s essentially using the same get-out-of-gaol-free card misogynists use in defence of predators. “How can you be so mean to him? He might have had Asperger’s/social anxiety/whatever! How could he know that groping strangers is assault? Give him a chaaaaance!”
Women and girls hear this shit all the time. We’re constantly told to make allowances, be nice, not upset some poor dude, give him our time, attention, and, but implication at least, our bodies. Then, of course, if we’re raped or otherwise assaulted, we’re told that it was our fault for not being vigilant enough.
There are multiple reasons why ableist stuff won’t fly here. I’d also never heard the term before reading WHTM. If you want a clean slate, or at least one that’s been scrubbed a bit, you need to apologise and not do things again – that’s a general rule, not just about this and not aimed at you but applying to everyone. I’ve fucked up, we probably all have at some point. Saying “I’m sorry” works a hell of a lot better than digging in.
@Cassandrakiitty
So what I should just take the lying bullshit and misinterpretation of what I said. not defend myself? explain to me why I should do that?
If you stand on someone’s foot without realising, do you refuse to apologise for it?
Ummm… Ken L., that is a very arrogant and entitled attitude.
If there was one mindset I could erase from existence if I could, it’s the belief that bad things are only done by bad people. Wrong! Bad things are also done by people who don’t know any better, people who believe in cultural narratives about women and minorities, people who feel entitled to do and say certain things as a result. Women are culturally required to be very excusing and understanding of boundary-breaking behavior, and that is a problem you need to understand, instead of defending boundary-breakers with ignorant comments about their mental health.
Ableism is also a very common problem. People describe people who do bad things as “crazy” and “insane” all the time. It stigmatizes people with mental health issues and gives harassers and abusers a free pass. Please don’t do it. It’s, sadly, a very common mistake to make, so accept that you simply didn’t know any better before but that you do now, apologize for your ignorance and don’t do it again. If you can manage that, you’ll be fine here.
If you want to be able to continue commenting here and be taken seriously, you will need to be able to not get defensive when you’re called out on ignorant behaviour. Listen to other people (or rather, read their comments) and try to understand where they’re coming from. Chances are you will learn something new, and that your worldview will expand as a result. Realize that you’ve been wrong, apologize, and try not to do it again. If you’re sincere, people will be more open to making you realize your errors in a non-hostile manner. If you continue acting entitled, people will continue to mock you.
Privilege blinds you to bad things happening around you even if you’re not the one actively doing the bad things. There’s a reason “check your privilege” is a thing. I say all this as an extremely privileged person who has been called out before and expects to be called out again in the future.
It’s generally not a very good idea to be hostile towards other people while yelling at them about how hostile they are, Ken. Makes you look a bit silly.
Ninja Kittehs!
@kittehserf
I was thinking about the foot metaphor through this whole conversation.
@Ken
You are saying that someone with mental disabilities should be treated differently by the hypothetical woman. It seems like you’re saying they should be treated like a child not responsible for their actions. While that is a common attitude toward people with Down Syndrome and other mental disabilities, that doesn’t stop it from being very condescending and definitely ableist.
Having disabilities of your own does not make you immune to ableism.
OMG anarchonist those kittens are adorkable. I love when the adult cat just kind of sits on the kitten that’s “attacking” hir.
FWIW, Ken, I understood your initial point and did not take offense. Like many of us — and you especially perhaps, as an EMT — I’ve encountered a variety of random people who have trouble understanding and respecting others’ boundaries for whatever reasons.
The most colorful example was a schizophrenic man who used to take “my” train downtown and sit by me, singing songs to me and engaging in loose associations. Although I felt somewhat uncomfortable, especially at the beginning of our almost-acquaintance, I was not afraid of him. Should he touch me in a startling way — I don’t wear earbuds or other similar devices, so that particular type of violation would not apply — I would not be as afraid as I would be if a similar transgression was committed by a fully cognizant and seemingly balanced individual.
This is an example of the distinction you meant in your advice, I think.
The obvious problem for all of us who experience such violations of our boundaries is that we do not know who we are dealing with and don’t have the time to make more nuanced assessments. It is entirely reasonable to expect that a person behaving in such a way means harm.
Stick around. You are a good egg.