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.
P.S. Most people seem to be responding to Ken like he’s talking about people with mental illness and asbergers and similar when he was clearly talking about mental disabilities such as Downs Syndrome. What he actually said is problematic enough. Arguing with him about something he didn’t actually say isn’t going to help anything.
Thank you Emma. you understood me.
your right you don’t always have the time to make a assessment, I was short sighted there.
TO the rest of you. I am sorry for offending or making uncomfortable or what ever distress I caused you. My attention was not to make ableist statement but to simple answer a question.
I am sorry if i gave that appearance I was not trying to in any way. I will try hard in the future not to do so.
@cassandrakitty
them I am silly
Jeez you guys, why is everyone telling me to apologize to that cyclist I ran over? I didn’t even see there was a cyclist!
@katz
thanks for rubbing it in (said with a humbled and bow head)
Apology accepted, Ken.
Kim mentioned you were talking about something like Down’s rather than something like Asperger’s – is that what you meant?
yes. developmental disabled of course i think of the right word now.
Well, except that such classes usually have an ulterior motive, which is to pressure women into making a particular choice that conforms to the right wing agenda. Does anyone doubt that those divorce classes are aimed primarily at instructing women (not men) on how to keep the marriage going at all costs, no matter how abusive or toxic the relationship is? Similarly, abortion counseling deliberately presents misleading and downright false medical information in an effort to scare women away from getting an abortion.
I’m all for making people aware of their options, but it has to be done evenhandedly, without an agenda. Which the people sponsoring those classes always seem to have.
See, that’s the thing, though. Most women are less likely to read developmentally disabled men as being creepy and predatory than they are to read men in general that way. I’ve certainly seen people (men and women, and kids) act awkward or uncomfortable around people who’re developmentally disabled, but the idea that women as a group are reading developmentally disabled men as creepy often enough that this is a thing that women need to take into account before deciding whether or not their “something’s not right here, initiate evasive measures” instinct should kick in when a random guy is, say, bothering them on the bus is really sexist and weird. Women aren’t clueless – most of us can tell the difference between someone who’s developmentally disabled and who’s kind of not following the usual social interaction rules because of that and someone who is a predator. It’s really insulting to suggest that we generally go around mistaking perfectly nice men who happen to be developmentally disabled for predatory creeps, which is why people reacted so negatively to the initial comment. And then there’s also the fact that the actual creeps try to use men who’re non-neurotypical as a rhetorical shield for their own quite consciously boundary-crossing behavior all the time, so you repeated a classic misogynist talking point (even though that wasn’t your intention) that gets used to try to guilt trip women out of protecting ourselves.
@cloudiah: I know, right? I love it that they actually mock fight. All the build-up, all the preparation, all for a little touch with the paw on the side of the head. And then… pounce!
@Kim: Fair enough. I was commenting in a rush and didn’t catch the proper context. I withdraw the comment about ableism, but not the rest.
@Ken L. I believe you are sincere, but you will still need to understand why the things you said were problematic, not just that they were offending. If you don’t, you will easily go back to repeating them again at some point. The thing you said make it seem like a) disabled people go around harassing women, and b) women should be okay with this behavior. Whether you meant it or not is irrelevant, that’s how it comes off. Intent isn’t magic, and other people aren’t mind readers. So maybe watch the phrasing in the future?
Like Marie, I’m not a fan of clean slates either, because context matters. By pretending no bad stuff was said or done, we’re silently condoning the behavior and allowing it to continue. Besides, how will I ever learn if the shitty things I say are instantly forgiven and forgotten?
All that aside, apologizing is a good place to start, and I applaud you for having the humility to do that instead of doubling down.
What’s even more telling is that he didn’t even try to present it as self-defense – with the evil women hitting him to “provoke” him to rage, and then lying to the police. I guess there’s no need: it’s perfectly OK to assault people over hurt feelings in Elam-speak.
The man’s a fruit loop. And one whose relationship history I’m not sure I want to know
Hi, all!
Just moved into my very own bunk room , of my very own half a station. As a fellow EMT, I’ve voting that we keep Ken.
Ken, I get where you were going. We’ve been trained to sort of assume altered mental status for weird behavior, unless other indications are obvious. We’ve also had ‘Don’t be all Judgy-pants about potential patients, because their day totally stinks and we’re the help’.
My first instinct would be to see if they were incapacitated, in any way. But, I’m trained and haven’t had the misfortune of running into many jerks.
Your caution was poorly worded and taken in a bad light because (I’m guessing) most of our fellow posters felt like you were doing the same ‘excusing predators by presumption of Aspergers’ thing that so many trolls have tried. That excuse is an insult to people with Aspergers. Seriously.
The calls of ableism stem from that. Commenters here take shielding creeps by throwing non-neurotypical people under the bus very, very seriously.
Women (and men, too) don’t have any obligation to let people who are capable of learning/knowing better mess with their boundaries. They have every right to feel safe. Even if the person had an altered mental status, if the person touched doesn’t feel safe, they have no ethical obligation to stay.
If they suspect a problem, calling for trained people to swoop in and save the day is appropriate, AFTER they assure their own safety.
You meant developmental disorders. I’ll add a half droopy face and lack of coordination (stroke).
If it was obviously an emergency, I don’t think anyone here would yell ‘creep’, though.
They’re fairly good folks, and I’m betting you are decent, too. Just try to be more cautious with your word choice when talking about head-stuff.
::points up::
What cassandrakitty and contrapangloss said.
Also, yay for having a place of your own, contrapangloss!
I’ve just managed to escape 4 years of emotional and verbal abuse. He never hit me, but I can see the same justifications here that he used.
The worst thing about it was that, until I started seeing a therapist recently, I thought I deserved it.
Normally WHTM just makes me laugh at the absurdity of it all, but this one really touched a nerve. Paul Elam and his ilk are all kinds of wrong.
@contrapangloss
Hi! congrats on getting your own bunk room. 🙂
tamofironhooks – hi, are you new here? 🙂
I reread your “retake the buds” post, and, based on the words I saw, it still seemed pretty ableist. With the additional information that you’re an EMT and were referring to something like Down’s Syndrome, it doesn’t seem ableist anymore. However, that additional information was not supplied till much later.
@Cassandra, all the applause
@contrapangloss
“You meant developmental disorders. I’ll add a half droopy face and lack of coordination (stroke).”
This part was also apparent, to me, in Ken’s advice. The person pulling off our earbuds may be having a seizure, heart attack, stroke, etc., or trying to alert us to some imminent danger.
Cut the man some slack. He’s not the enemy.
@emma:
Here’s my problem with that speculation: why bring it up in a discussion about it prominently being women who are targeted with this kind of behaviour?
Maybe it’s just me, but presenting a relatively unlikely scenario (someone needing urgent medical attention in a public place comes pulling at a woman’s earbuds) in a discussion about a very likely scenario (entitled man seeking attention from a woman comes pulling at her earbuds) just reeks of making women feel guilty for not giving the benefit of the doubt to every man who ignores their boundaries.
“He could be having a seizure! Why are you being so cruel? If he dies it’ll totally be your fault!”
Society loves to guilt-trip women for not always being available to men. Where is the calling for equal earbud-pulling for both genders, anyway? I am a man who uses earbuds in public all the time, and nobody comes pulling at them, nor is anyone trying to tell me I should be more understanding of people who come up to me and pull at my earbuds. Yet this is expected of women, perhaps because society loves to come up with reasons for why women should not be allowed to ignore a man in any situation (see cassandrakitty’s perfect phrasing of that particular problem).
Sorry if I come off as aggressive. I just don’t like guilt-tripping at all.
I too see it this way. It feels too what-abot-teh-menz-y, if you put the remark in the context where it’s been made.
Also, let’s say a person is in a public place and is in need of urgent medical attention. Isn’t it a much faster and efficient way to get help to just scream (or talk very loudly) or, you know, address anyone else around who is NOT using earplugs?
Usually, recognizing symptoms of a stroke or a seizure only gives you a few seconds’ time to get assistance. Why would you aim at the woman wearing earplugs instead of, you know, anyone else in sight!?
(I’m not addressing this personally at Ken for his remark, just what I think about those type of comments in a general way)
@emma
Hmm. I don’t think of many people as “the enemy.” I don’t believe that renders them exempt from criticism.
contrapangloss was pretty complimentary towards Ken in that comment. She assumed he had the best intentions and she related to his point of view. She also very clearly and patiently pointed out what it was about his statement that upset so many people. I can’t speak for you, contrapangloss, but it seemed like you were trying to be helpful to Ken by explaining that — is that right?
So it’s odd to me, emma, that you would take issue with this very nicely-worded bit of constructive criticism surrounded by compliments, because Ken isn’t the “enemy.” Who is the enemy?
OK, but you have to feed him and take him out for walks.
Seriously, the whole Down’s and stroke/seizure thing reads like the reddest of herrings. Seconding Anarchonist.
I, too, thought contrapangloss wonderfully diplomatic in her post.
Seriously, it was a lovely post. 😀
LOL XD
Thirding Anarchonist here.
emma, why so protective of Ken? Okay, he’s apologised, fine. But now you’re trying to turn it into a completely different conversation. This whole thread is about a man who ranted about a woman wearing earplugs, about her “shitting down his throat” because she wouldn’t hear his so-important notes from his boner – and this was after he’d Facebook stalked her for six months.
How the fuck does that get you to “but he might be disabled/having a heart attack!” territory? Seems to me people have completely lost sight of the OP, and likewise completely lost perspective on what this is about – harassment that escalates too often to assault, as in the examples people have given of having earbuds torn out.
Frankly all this is skirting way too close to the dudebros’ harasser apologia for my liking. Inadvertently, I’m sure, but that’s where it’s going.