Attention tiny ladies! Paul Elam wants you to know that if you attack him, he will totally punch you right back. And not in a satirical way, either. With his actual, non-satirical fists.
A Voice for Men’s maximum leader has long insisted that his notorious “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” post was nothing more than misunderstood “satire.” That is, when he argued that men who are abused by women would be totally justified if they “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,” this was somehow a “Juvenalian” satire of some sort. There’s a famous quote from The Princess Bride that might be appropriate here.
Well, now Mr. Elam has announced to the world that every month is a potential “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” for him. Even if the “Violent Bitch” in question is less than half his size. In a post that he insists is super serious, he writes:
I want to offer a few words on this subject, and this time not in satire. I want to convey as honestly as possible, how I feel on the subject of violence between the sexes, from one man’s point of view.
I am 6’8” tall and 285 pounds. If a woman five feet tall and 110 pounds soaking wet hits me, I am going to hit her back.
Now, Elam does stop short of saying he would “beat the living shit” out of this hypothetical tiny woman, but, you know, in the heat of battle with someone less than half his size, he suggests that he might not be able to control his non-satirical fists:
I would do my best to return the violence proportionally, to just use enough force to stop the attack, but I can make no guarantees. Depending on the suddenness of the attack, the level of fear or threat I might feel, the impulse to self-defend in measured amounts is difficult, if not impossible to predict with any accuracy.
So, if there are any tiny ladies out there who might be considering jumping in a pool and then punching Paul Elam, I would suggest you not do that. Of course, I would suggest you not do that even if he weren’t going to hit back, because hitting people is generally a very bad thing.
Don’t worry, dudes – tiny or otherwise – Elam would totally punch you too!
It is the same reaction I would have to a man. No more and no less. The only way to prevent this and the consequences that may result is for people to keep their hands off me.
Presumably this would also apply to bears, giant squids, killer robots and anyone or anything else that tried to put its hands or paws or tentacles on him.
Now, if someone less than half my size were to attack me, and the situation weren’t life-threatening, I might, you know, back off and call the police instead. But apparently, this isn’t an option for men, because we’re all slaves, or something:
Most people who frequent this site know that men who call for help from police when being assaulted by female intimate partners are likely to be arrested for their troubles. … [T]here are prosecutors that will happily give the victim a criminal record and make them pay dearly for having been attacked.
This idea is completely insane on its face. Not only that, it is the closest thing we have today to the mentality of slave owners who could flog their slaves because they were property.
Never mind that women, who make up the vast majority of the victims of severe domestic violence, make up 20% of those arrested for DV. Never mind that even where there are mandatory arrest laws in effect, police still need probable or reasonable cause to show that domestic violence occurred – like physical evidence of injuries – before arresting a suspect. Never mind that even in states with “dual arrrest” policies, only about half of all domestic violence calls result in any arrests.
And never mind that if you use disproportionate force against someone less than half your size – as Elam suggests he very well might do – you deserve to go to jail, and for more than a night. “Beating the living shit” out of someone much smaller than you isn’t actually self-defense at all. It’s beating the living shit out of someone much smaller than you.
Now, Elam isn’t the only Men’s Rights Activist who seems to spend a lot of time imagining scenarios in which it would be ok for them to hit women. It’s a subject that comes up on the Men’s Rights subreddit all the time; the misogynistic douchebags who populate Reddit’s Videos subreddit are if anything even worse. And don’t ever do a Google image search for “equal rights equal lefts” unless you want to be really depressed.
The Men’s Rights movement: bravely fighting for the right of men to punch women half their size.
@kittehserf
Im not disagreeing on what the MRM is, because it IS all that and more. Im more saying, again, if this theoretical non-toxic non-hateful “men’s rights movement” existed, I could see the justification in using that name, since one could argue that a man’s right to do some things is slightly limited by the patriarchy.
That being said, I do agree with you that it would be, at best, a less then optimal name. Not only that, but Considering the movement that currently holds the name is such a horrible and toxic thing, I doubt that name will ever be able to be used without conjuring up the misogynists we have running around today.
I guess its just a disagreement on what names me and you find appropriate. plus, This non-toxic and non-hateful group does exist today and have a name anyway. that name is feminism, since Feminists tend to be, at the least, sympathetic to victims of all genders, and do a lot more for them then the MRA even tries.
Yup, pretty much. “Rights” is tied in to actual legal rights or their denial. When women are denied the right to abortion, divorce, the vote, it’s not about society frowning on those things, it’s actual legal control over us. Men are denied no such things because of being men, and the suggestion that they are is every shade of wrong.
I’m not really interested in a hypothetical men’s movement.
@kittehserf
Thats quite alright. I mean, To each their own and all that. Its just a way I tend to frame my objections to the MRM anyway. (“if they were legitimate, they would do this instead!” Ect ect.)
@beegee
I just got here and am sure this has been long since responded to, but… seriously? WTF?
I am barely 5’2″ and 115lbs. If my 11-yr-old nephew came up to me and hit me, I would not fucking hit him back. If I couldn’t restrain him, I’d get out of there. Same goes for my 15-yr-old niece, who incidentally is taller than I am.
I don’t need to prove I’m some tough gal by hitting back, FFS. Not hitting back is not a sign of weakness, FFS. This from someone who has, in fact, hit back when I needed to (against a man who was attacking me). Context matters. Basically, if someone smaller than me hits me and I think I’d do more damage to them if I hit back, I’m not going to hit back unless my life is actually in danger (I’m not going to hit back anyway, unless I absolutely have to). Why on earth would you?
Jesus, they’re NEVER going to let us forget that damn Jezebel article, are they? Well, at least maybe it’ll replace that damn Sharon Osbourne castration joke.
RE: blahlistic
I’m kind of a “we” too, though probably less completely divided.
Oh cool! Glad to see another plural here. I think I’ve been the only one since 2010…
Also, WTF beegee.
“If women aren’t bound by traditional roles, then neither are men.
That scares the hell out of them.
We’re attacking their *self-definition*.”
You are absolutely correct.
@beegee also, you know who hits? My 15-yr-old niece’s mother, who happens to be smaller than her. Know what niece doesn’t do? Hit her back. You know why? “I don’t want to be like her”. You may want to take notes.
(Niece has since moved in with my BIL and is safe)
Sorry to keep harping on this but wow, it stuck in my craw. All this crap about hitting back – FFS. beegee’s comment reeked to me of ‘hey I’m no lil’ woman, I can hit too!’ and seriously? Blaarg. Don’t fucking hit people. Let’s just all agree not hitting people is pretty fucking awesome, and in cases where one does find themselves hitting someone (in self-defense), it really fucking sucks. It is not a bragging point.
@marinerachel Feminist High Council: “I’m sorry, but due to your unlawful possession of dangly bits, we are unable to give a single fuck. Now if you’ll excuse us, we have a pile of male babies whose genitals aren’t going to mutilate themselves.”
@wewereemergencies But beegee why are you so concerned about using physical force on children at all?
I’m not concerned with using physical force on children. It was a question raised earlier in the thread. If its OK to always use physical force, is it ok to hit a child back? And the answer is usually no. I have 3 children, and they’ve all scratched, bit, hit, and pulled hair as toddlers. One bit my nipple so hard while nursing that I swear her teeth nearly met. It bled and hurt like hell for days. I didn’t hit her. What good would it do? I wasn’t under attack; it wouldn’t discourage further violence, and she was small enough that I could easily just pick her up and keep her away if she did “attack”. Older, larger children almost never attack adults, but if one did and I couldn’t get away?
Look, make fun of me all you want, but I wrestle and spar with my daughter all the time, and I can’t guarantee that I would be able to sucessfully pin her down without hurting her. She’s 4 and a half feet tall and weighs 65 ponds of pure muscle. She’s picked me up around my waist and carried me. A smack or strike may actually be less likely to seriously hurt her and end the “fight” than wresteling around with her. Part of winning a fight is posturing.
This is all very seperate from spanking. My mom was an angry person, and an impulsive spanker. As a result, my sisters and I have grown up with severe anxiety problems. I would like to avoid doing the same to my children. I try to allow my children to learn from natural consequence rather than punishment.
@Cassandra; men are discouraged from hitting women because they are bigger and stronger. That doesn’t mean that women aren’t strong enough. Strong enough to hurt a man. Strong enough to be a soldier or firefighter. Strong enough to be a threat. Saying otherwise is patronizing.
When needed, leeway should be given to the victim, regardless of gender, and not the perp, regardless of gender.
Traditional (toxic) masculinity represents the result of an implicit bargain that the traditional culture made with men: accept your oppression, accept a sort of emotional self-amputation, and in return we will give you the right to oppress women. But society is no longer able to convince or willing to exert sufficient force to compel an increasing number of women to submit to this bargain, and the MRAs are mad as hell that they accepted the bargain only to find that women aren’t going to buy it. However more and more men are understanding what I understood nearly 50 years ago: that feminism offers a better bargain for men that the traditional male role did. Equalitarian relationships require a certain amount of adjustment but are generally more satisfying than traditional male-supremacist ones. The freedom to do what one is good at, rather than what society says is dictated by ones genitalia, is valuable.
I have lived a life that would not have been possible without feminism. Due to my criminal record and the poor work history that resulted from it, I was destined to live on the edge of poverty with the constant threat of homelessness. But then I met my wife, who because of feminism was one of the small group of women who integrated a previously all-male elite college, and who became the first female physics major to graduate from that college. She was attractive to companies that — because of feminism — were interested in hiring women with qualifications in non-traditionally female fields, and she was able to obtain a series of well-paying jobs that enabled her to have a family without sacrificing her career, by having me as a househusband and stay-at-home dad. It worked out pretty well — she was a much better breadwinner, and I was better with small children — and it would not have been possible without feminism.
And holy shit I’m going to bold this so maybe it gets through, if you have not already tried to use your words, side-step, or leave, THEN IT’S NOT SELF DEFENSE. Holy shit.
I half remember what I said on welfare. Let me restate what I actually believe. Welfare reciepients are not being unfairly treated by drug testing. They should have treatment offered to them, often, if they test positive. Rehab should not be required. They should not lose most benefits, such as housing benefits, health insurance, child care, etc. However, cash benefits should go bye-bye. Yes, giving cash to drug addicts to buy drugs with is not helpful.
I never thought I’d see someone argue against spanking but for striking your child. Jesus, beegee, what the hell is going on that you have to “regularly wrestle and spar” with your nine-year-old daughter?
Seriously, when we were kids, brother and us used to play-wrestle with our father, but… that really doesn’t sound like what you’re describing. At all.
RE: beegee
Yes, giving cash to drug addicts to buy drugs with is not helpful.
Oh, you’re one of THOSE people.
Fuck your bullshit. Cash is what buys toothpaste, underwear, tampons. Yes, I think people struggling with substance abuse deserve those things. That’s why cash assistance EXISTS, and taking it away just makes it more likely they’ll go to desperate measures, like survival sex work or crime, to GET that cash.
Also, god I hate typing on my cell phone. 65 ponds? Lol 😀
Why are you creating an environment which appears to give you carte blanche to hurt your daughter?
You’re really focussed on welfare recipient = drug user. Most aren’t, the vast majority aren’t. Studies, at least in New Zealand, have shown through economic cost-benefit analysis that drug testing of welfare beneficiaries produces a net negative outcome: the costs of drug testing outweigh any benefits derived from this. Others in threads have posted why giving beneficiaries, for example, food stamps instead of money is a Bad Idea – because of the restrictions on what they can spend their money on, so some legitimate expenses are not permitted.
I’d be more supportive of drug testing on people in financial institutions e.g. bankers, because they’ve caused more harm than people on welfare.
@GrumpyOldMan, I’m really happy for you. Everyone, please scroll up and look at what GrumpyOldMan said. It actually kind of brought a tear to my eyes, and I don’t want it to get lost in the argument with beegee.
I wrestle and spar with her for fun. o_0 Don’t you guys get that I was responding to a hypothetical? I’ve never had to strike a child in self-defense, and I expect that I never will have to.
And yes, drug addicts deserve tampons, toliet paper, and everything else. Which is why I give it directly to them, and not cash if I can help it. Drug addicts will buy drugs before tampons, toliet paper, and even food. Because that’s what addiction is.
@cloudiah: thanks.
@GrumpyOldMan: that’s wonderful news. I’m so happy for you and your family.
Yes, I understand that most welare recepients are not drug addicts, being one once myself. Which is why I support drug testing and denying cash bebefits only to those that repeatedly test positive, and not restricting EVERYONE.
I just want to point out that feminism is not a zero-sum game — women and men can both come out better off.
RE: beegee
Did you miss the part about it being a net loss for the country? Also, I was homeless for a while. Let me tell you, I wasn’t lucky enough to have people directly donating me shampoo and shit. That’s why cash benefits EXIST. Just because YOU donate doesn’t mean there’s enough to go around.
Also, you’re the one who said, “A smack or strike may actually be less likely to seriously hurt her and end the “fight” than wresteling around with her.” When I was wrestling with my father and younger brother, I had signed up for WRESTLING, not being struck.
See, you’re just arguing these hypotheticals how you might HAVE to hit your child just because you know, some random unusual situation might happen and… it’s just really fucking creepy. Please stop.
How is this a hypothetical?
Why the fuck do beegee’s icons keep changing.
And nope, I’m not engaging you on a conversation in which you’re STILL TYING TO COME UP WITH SITUATIONS IN WHICH YOU’RE ABLE TO HIT CHILDREN!
“I’m not saying I condone hitting children, and I would never do it myself… I’m just saying that there’s this hypothetical situation that an activity I engage in with my child regularly might make it so I HAVE to hit her to prevent her from coming to worse harm!”
Seriously, do you not realize how creepy that looks?