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.
@Auntie Alias
SC is just an extremely classist city. Just a stroll down that same street on which the homeless disabled man was arrested for “tresspassing” will reveal shop after shop proudly displaying “We support out police” signs at the front. Because disablist, classist aggression against homeless people is something to boast about, apparently.
our*
@blahlistic
Well, I know that Oakland gives out food stamps to homeless people, hence the implication that this anti-homeless policy is specific to places like SC.
BTW… letting people go homeless actually ends up costing more money than just giving them some freaking housing.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/03/25/Cheaper-to-house-the-homeless-than-to-do-nothing-study-finds/9931395771272/
Yeah…I’m in Texas…so, um, yeah, that’s the statewide policy, AFAIK.
No kitchen, no foodstamps.
…Reading an article about people in Macallen buying prepared junk with their SNAP cards, though. So maybe I’m incorrect.
@Katz:
YES! Yesyesyesyesyes!!!! Must find them and, when I finally start getting paid, send some vaccine funds their way.
You’ve made me very, very happy.
🙂
Are there soup kitchens where the homeless can eat, at least?
There was a housing first pilot project in many cities across Canada run by the Canadian Mental Health Association and they found it much cheaper to house the homeless and they didn’t force people to give up their addictions first. As far as I know, it’s been a success wherever it’s been tried around the world.
It’s hard enough to give up an addiction when you have a roof over your head and food to eat. It must be nearly impossible to summon up the strength to do that when you’re living on the street. In our city they found that 70% of the homeless were suffering from mental illnesses. Leaving them on the street costs more because they’re often in crisis and the cost to bring them to the hospital or process them in the justice system far outweighs the cost of housing and treatment. If a significant number of people emerge as healthy, functional, self-sufficient people and it costs less, what’s not to like?
@cloudiah Sorry, didn’t mean to derail, just confused by the changes.
Re: homelessness we actually talked about that in architecture the other day and it was… pleasantly surprising in that although architects have a superiority complex, the attitude of “poor people are also morally bankrupt” was very much shot down and they were all like “hey giving A LOT MORE subsidized housing is very very important and also subsidized housing should absolutely be as nice as possible because that is the best way to HELP PEOPLE and that is absolutely vital even if the government disagrees”
It was very nice to hear that sort of stuff from such an upper-class degree is what I’m saying!
@wewereemergencies
That is nice. It seems that whiny conservative types are the ones who object the most: “How come I don’t get free stuff??”
Santa Cruz is recreating the atmosphere the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp to drive homeless people out of the city. So if you’re live in Santa Cruz and then become homeless you immediately transform into a lawless foriegn invader that must be expelled. Sigh.
All the anti-homeless laws make me so sad. I have a hard time understanding how people can be so heartless.
Not just heartless, also stupid. Given that we know that it would actually be more cost effective to give homeless people housing, why not do that? I can almost see the why not in a place like San Francisco where there just isn’t much vacant housing to be had, but in most places it really would be a smarter solution even for the empathy-impaired.
Ohhhh hellkell sick burn about the needle exchange. Can I play?
You guys are right. We should give addicts cash, that way they can be more likely to OD and die long before the HIV they caught from sharing needles kills them. That way I don’t have to think about the needle exchanges I personally shut down while twirling my mustache, beating my daughter, and feeling smug. Of course, I’ve never used drugs myself. Nor do I have any experience with hard drug addicts.
Addicts, people who, by definition, have lost control of their drug use, are as a rule capable of limiting their drinking/drugging to responsible amounts of drug use so that they have enough money left over for tampons. Addicts being flush with money totally does not promote, or enable, drug use. Actually, lets just skip the middle man and give them all their drug of choice directly!
I will talk about how words have meaning, but confuse “enabling” with “helping”.
And thus ends my vacation to bizzarro world!
On a serious note, LBT, I’m glad that things are going better for you. Sorry for triggering you. Mind if I ask if you’re an addict? Yes, drugs addicts are different, and drugs are different, but a financially responsible drug addict is very much the exception, rather than the rule. I’m focusing on doing the thing that, I think, would be the most helpful, not making a moral judgement. I should also point out that I’m not some rich CEO either.
You’re not a leach. I would never say that you were. Even those all so arrogant CEOs depend on the help of others, they’re just too stupid to admit it.
Yes I can see that you guys think judging someone strength by playing with them, and then using that information in a hypothetical question asked about hitting back, is creepy. I don’t think that answering a hypothetical question that was asked is creepy. It’s not some fantasy of mine.
HOWEVER, if you think that I’m striking my daughter, or hurting her, or doing anything different than what your dad did with you, then NO, you do not understand what I’m saying. I do not hurt my daughter. PERIOD.
I think gentrification is the main process that is leading to all of this intensified oppression against homeless people. Where there is gentrification, there is economic and political violence against poor people. Oakland, SF, and SC are strong examples of that phenomenon. Gentrification is seen as such a positive thing that it doesn’t even really matter whether not being evil towards homeless people is a cost-effective solution to homelessness.
@Grumpy Old Man, standing ovation for that comment, and for you and your wife being generally awesome.
Yeah, you know, fuck that. I’m a welfare recipient. Does having been laid off after nine years in the one job, and thirty years in the workforce, suddenly make me a potential drug addict who shouldn’t be allowed to have actual money, pittance though it is, to spend on my needs? Why should I be subjected to that now, when I wasn’t before?
You’d fit right in with the scum in our government.
Welfare is me getting my own fucking taxes back. How dare you say I or anyone else should be denied money to live on.
Politicians, too. Six months on, six months off, at the very least. Not minimum wage, either – on the dole.
Aaaaaaand that’s my cue to go to bed. Night, y’all.
I think we should stop enabling beegee’s tantrums by responding to her.
Going to bed now, but I wonder what beegee thinks about indigenous people being deprived of unemployment benefits because of taking peyote, a cactus used by indigenous people for ritualistic and medicinal purposes. (Yes, that has happened before and probably still happens in this country.)
beegee, why the fuck did you even bring play-wrestling into a conversation about trying to hurt people?
Well, I mean, wouldn’t that be enabling them to have visions? We can’t be having that, except maybe if beegee decides to hand them the peyote herself as a charitable gesture.
Also I really don’t see why we need to be drug-testing anyone, except maybe if they’re in jobs where impaired response times and so on might result in danger to other people. So, air traffic controllers or pilots, maybe, but drug testing to get a job at McDonalds? No, there’s really no reason for that to happen.
If we’re going to be really thorough we should probably demand to know whether people have visions at all, drugs or not. Can’t have those strange people getting so-called benefits, after all.
I feel like people aren’t quite getting the separation between self and others thing that most kids get a grip on some time during childhood. People on benefits may spend their money on stuff that you don’t approve of? Not sure why anyone thinks that’s something that they should have a say in.
I don’t want people to get hooked on drugs, but I think people are going to get high.
People do that.
I think addicted people quit when they are ready to quit too.
I think some people are going to die on the drugs because they can’t turn around and face the stuff they are running away from.
http://drgabormate.com/book/in-the-realm-of-hungry-ghosts/
This is a really awesome book about addiction…It’s a very context-placing way of looking at addiction and drug addicts.
I’m an addict.
If I don’t get my coffee, I am a cranky, headachey bitchstard.
Why the fuck do you think not letting people have basic necessities is helpful?
Do you actually think that if we don’t give drug addicts any money, they’ll just run out of drugs, stop being addicted, clean up and turn their lives around? If so, you’re a dumb fuckhead.
Or do you just want to punish addicts by making sure that, in addition to being addicts, they are also dirty and have no basic necessities? If so, you’re a mean fuckhead.
Fuckhead either way.