I‘ve often pointed out, as many others have noticed as well, that the so-called Men’s Rights movement does pretty much nothing to help men in any practical way.
MRAs complain that there are no domestic violence shelters for men, but they (with literally one exception that I know of) aren’t willing to do the work necessary to actually set up such shelters. They point out the truly horrifying numbers of rapes in prison, but they don’t actually work with groups trying to stop rape and other forms of sexual abuse in prison — nor do they try to fight against “the war on drugs” and other policies that put an astounding number of young men of color in prison. I could go on and on and on with more examples, but you get the idea.
Well, it turns out that the Men’s Rights movement’s utter failure to help men in any practical way isn’t a bug; it’s a feature. At least according to PAul Elam, head cheese at A Voice for Men and probably the most visible and influential man in the movement.
In a post on AVFM earlier this week, an obviously angry Elam took aim at what he described as a “wave” of “concern trolls” — there were two of them — trying to suggest that the Men’s Rights movement needs to do more than talk.
Elam disagrees. Essentially appointing himself not just A but The Voice for Men’s Rights, he declared:
You want to know what this movement is about? It is very, very simple in my opinion. The MHRM I envision is about one simple thing. Talking without fear or capitulation.
Seriously. That is it. It is about nothing more than people talking to each other, openly and freely, in a world that does not want them to.
Huh. I’m pretty sure something like that already exists. It’s called “the internet.” As much as you enjoy doing it, Paul, you’re not the first person to come up with the idea of yelling at women on the internet.
Anyway, what about, you know, lobbying the government for redress of your grievances? Elam says no, declaring that what he perversely calls the Men’s Human Rights Movement
is not about passing a Violence Against Men Act or any other form of government reliance on justice and personal liberty. I, Paul Elam, am not running for office. I don’t give a fudgsicle or a rat’s ash who likes me and who doesn’t. I am not looking for a men’s rights parade on Men’s Rights Victory Day in Washington, D.C. …
Neither I nor AVFM has a legislative agenda, nor any politicians to endorse, nor lobbying to accomplish because none of that is of any value in a society that still refuses to accept reality.
What about the idea of setting up shelters or raising money for men’s health or something, anything, that might help troubled men? Again, Elam says no.
There are no plans to form a committee for research for testicular cancer or to build a men’s shelter. AVFM does not have a program to reform family courts.
But what about all the stuff you talk about in your mission statement? You know, like getting rid of rape shield laws, “dispens[ing] with child support except in special circumstances,” making paternity tests “mandatory on demand by any alleged father at any time.”
Sure, if you look at our mission statement you will see many items that will require political and judicial remedy to ultimately accomplish. That, however is not our job at AVFM to accomplish directly.
I suppose that’s just as well, given that most of AVFM’s demands are backwards and ridiculous.
If Elam and his followers just wanted to run an online publication rather than an activist group, that would certainly be their right. But unfortunately their idea of “talking without fear or capitulation” includes libeling and doxing and harassing their opponents.
That’s a form of “activism,” I suppose, but it has a lot more in common with the strategies of those who oppose human rights than it does with the strategies of those actually trying to protect human rights.
I’d hate to see guys who trot out that argument get into a BDSM relationship where a contract is actually involved. That would be funny as hell.
Because making sure the person you’re fucking is having as good a time as you are is just too much work for these poor bags of horseshit. Occasionally asking “Hey, is this alright?” instead of just randomly humping someone until you get off and fall asleep is beyond them.
Mostly because they view women as sex toys, instead of people who may want to get something out of the experience too.
Holy crap that post time tho.
Well said LBT.
Skye: Yep. Their credo is “don’t treat me the way I want to treat others”.
Misogyny spelled as H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.S.Y.
Paradoxical Intention: Oh yes. Though I think it is stronger than that. They just simply don’t like women at,all, for anything except sex (and maybe showing off a bit). They can’t stand them. They don’t want to do things with them, they don’t want to talk with them, heaven forbid make a joint decision about something with them. I’m sure many of them don’t even want to see them in public, except when they are horny and the women are ‘hot’.
Unfortunately for them they have these heterosexual sex drives that mean they have to interact to some degree with females just to ‘get off’. And they don’t like it, it drives them nuts.
And the world just gets worse and worse for them, females are everywhere, in the workplace, pubs and all other social areas and sports. They can’t get away from them like they used to be able to when gender apartheid was the rule.
You see this with Lindsey, a fairly intelligent male in his 50s, capable of some decent research, analysis and writing when he tries, all twisted up about females and gays to the point of neurotic obsession, where all pretence at rationality (which he prides himself on) is gone.
So under “Female Rule”, harassment, rape, and abuse are illegal. Under Patriarchy, harassment, rape, and abuse are “lamentable but not illegal”. Under Extreme Patriarchy, rape, harassment, and abuse are encouraged and deserved as a method for keeping the bitches in line.
I’m sorry, why does it follow that Extreme Patriarchy is therefore the most rational and socially stable method of governance?
In the real world, when someone says “give me what I want or I’ll murder you”, it’s called extortion, and the FBI takes an interest. Advocating for Rule By Protection Racket, when his argument for why he should be at the top of the pyramid is that he’ll turn into a ragey psychopath if he doesn’t get his way, is the opposite of intellectual.
Or is Mensa now awarding 50 free IQ points for manbaby tantrums?
Wow, so Elam actually came out and admitted that AVFM does nothing and plans to continue to do nothing.
If I were a men’s rights true believer, and really wanted to end what I saw as sex-based discrimination against men, this would really piss me off. To the point that I’d be denouncing Paul Elam & AVFM and looking into what I could do to, say, set up men’s shelter or help with prostate cancer research. But that ain’t gonna happen, cause these guys aren’t really interested in doing any actual work to benefit men. It’s all very sad, really.
No kidding. You’d think that some of them would go off and try to get shit done elsewhere because Elam isn’t doing it, but there’s still going to be the occasional fucknugget who is going to walk in and screech about how that bit was taken out of context.
Like how much context do we feckin’ need, bruh?
Feminists do so much more for men than the “men’s rights” movement. There aren’t many shelters for men, true, but when abused men are given vouchers to stay in a hotel after visiting a women’s shelter (this is what usually happens), those vouchers didn’t come from AVFM activists begging Congress for funding and doing fundraisers.
They came from feminists’ work.
It’s easy to act “logical” and “rational” (read: dispassionate and distant) about shit you have no stake in.
Oh it looks like their “rape culture doesn’t exist” seminar went about as expected.
Buttercup: gets better than that.
In his sophist ‘argument’ patriarchy under a western male ‘logic before emotions’ thinking is a better way of governing society overall. Oh yes it might have some things wrong with it, like unfairness (plus war, poverty, inequality, sexual harrassment and so on), but that is a fair price to pay for ‘freedom’.
Dysfunctional societies (in his mind) like India and in Asia are caused by ’emotions before logic’ thinking which is ‘female thinking’.
Those that have extreme patriarchy, like parts of India, are therefore caused by ‘female thinking’.
Plus:
All males in the world think alike, except where they use ‘female thinking’ and their societies are dysfunctional because of that.
All females in the world think alike and they are totally incapable of ‘logic before emotions western male thinking’.
Also feminism = instanity and brings on the collapse of society.
So there you have it from a fine self proclaimed ‘public intellectual’ (with a claimed high IQ):
-‘Western male thinking’ patriarchy is fine and is the best form of societal leadership possible.
-Extreme patriarchy is caused by males thinking like females. If those males thought like ‘western males’ then it wouldn’t be so bad.
-In fact if males in charge do thing wrong, then it is because of ‘female thinking’.
– Women should never control anything at all, anywhere, because if they do it will be ‘insanity’.
This is the guy who came up with this timeless piece of literature: “idiot saveaho fag white knight mangina girlie boys”. His ‘logic’ is of an equal standard.
.
OK, all I can say about Lindsay and his use of the word logic was said best by Inigo Montoya
@Lisa So he’s going around slapping a post-hoc label of “Female Thinking” on any society that places the slightest restrictions on men. Not because women actually have anything to do with setting up and running these societies, but because he personally doesn’t like those societies and anything bad has to originate from women because men = good because good = men because women = bad, and take his word for it that he’s very smart because logic!!!!1101001 so accept his opinion as fact or he will get STABBY. Does that about sum it up?
This guy is a Dunning-Kruger ourobouros of fuckery.
And “idiot saveaho”? Is that supposed to be some sort of weaksauce pun on “savant”? They’re not even pronounced the same. It looks more like a horrible misspelling of Idaho.
Good one Buttercup…lol.
He is going on and on about this. Latest posts:
(1) 21 Ways That Gender Feminists Are Destroying the West
(2) Stupidest Word Ever Invented in the English Language- Cisgendered.
(3) What Was So Bad about the 1950’s?
In (3) he states in the comments:
“I want to get rid of Female Rule. Female Rule is when society under the rule of Western Feminism. This is what we have now. The West is essentially a matriarchy. The problem is that we cannot allow women to dictate the social rules of society. They are incompetent, their rules and mores are crazy, and all they create is weirdness and chaos. Hence the society they set up is insane. This is why modern society seems like Disneyland. It’s so crazy, it’s seems like it is not even real. That’s what feminism did, it created a society that doesn’t even made sense, a loony society.
The social rules of society must be made by men. It’s the only thing that works. The women need to butt out.”
He hates India (in the past has done many anti-India posts), but it could get worse:
“No matter how fucked up India is, I have a feeling that if you let Indian women take over and institute the rules, norms and values or Indian women as social rules for society, India would only get worse. In other words, putting women in charge would probably fuck it up worse than it already is.”
Because there the males think like females.
“It is true that men can be very emotional also. Those are men who are “acting like women.” India is actually a female or Feminine Society because the entire society is based on emotion and whim and rejection of science, logic and reason. So in India the women think like women and the men think like women too.”.
All womens’ fault for everything in the US:
“In contrast, America in the 2010’s looks like a crazy society where things don’t even make sense. All of this craziness in modern US society has been caused by American women via their political project called Feminism.”
And someone just had to blame the Russians…..comment by someone else:
“Even the Russians noticed how wholesome white society was back in the fifties. They began funding to help to break it down. Feminism was a godsend to atheists like the Russians in trying to culturally destroy America.”
It is kind of sad in a way and maybe he is having some sort of breakdown/mid-life crisis. Because he can research, analyse and write well on a (limited) range of topics when he tries. Though he is nowhere in the class of Ian Welsh (http://www.ianwelsh.net/) who I recommend as an interesting and thought provoking site for ideas, analyses across a wide range of topics (geo-politics, thinking, history, economics et al), with some pretty sharp people in the comments area too.
RE: Skye
LBT, I’ve never understood where the ‘rape lesbians straight’ myth came from before. Wow. That’s …well, I have nothing
That’s my theory, anyway. It’s a combo of punishment and, “this is fun, and all I need to do to make you realize it is force it upon you!” My rapist pulled that shit too; he believed that he could rape me into having a higher libido and attraction to him. It failed. I don’t honestly think PERPS believe that, but I think a lot of bystanders do, and the perps use it to cover their tracks.
1 — The West is being destroyed? WHERE? I keep looking around me and see everything just chugging along same as usual. Is there some huge hole in the ground further west than I am, perchance? Like the Yellowstone Caldera? Because, y’know, that’s not the work of feminists. That’s GEOLOGY, dude.
2 — Why stupid? It’s just a term to describe a thing that exists. Namely, people who identify genderwise with the biological sex they happen to possess. I bet this dude also feels threatened by being called “heterosexual” and “white”, eh?
3 — Oh, don’t get me started. The Cold War? McCarthyism? Enforced sexism sending women back to the kitchen after about a decade of proving that they could do literally anything men did — even build fucking bomber planes, fergawdsakes? Panty girdles and diet pills and not being able to get birth control devices (not even the Pill because it wasn’t on the market before 1960) if you were unmarried — and maybe not even IF you were married, because it was “immoral” to want to do something besides gestate and change diapers forever? The rise of the CIA? MKULTRA? Postwar occupation of every fucking country outside of Russia? Postcolonial wars of aggression? Jim Crow?
I told you not to get me started…
Good god, I hope Dave does a piece on this Robert Lindsay. That was cringeworthy stuff. Also this gem written by him in the comments of his idiotic ‘article’ about bdsm:
“I wonder if I am a nice guy or an asshole jerkoff? I like to think I am a nice guy, but my former girlfriends mostly despise me. They dump me after a while, saying that I am an asshole and a scum. On the other hand, I usually get 1 1/2 years of great fucking and a wild love affair out of the whole deal, so maybe it’s worth it.
Maybe I am not such a nice guy after all. Maybe I am a jerkoff asshole. You could go interview some of my exes and they would probably go on about what a scum I am.”
Gee, ya think? I pity the souls that actually gave this lunatic a chance
Yes Moocow, he is a walking texbook of hangups anout sex, women, GLBTI and relationships. A therapist could fund a (2nd?) holiday home tryng to sort him out.
Honest question: How do we go about setting up an organization for men that
A) Actually addresses issues like unequal prison sentences or shelters for male victims of domestic abuse,
B) Does so without attracting a$$clowns who want to do nothing but bitch about teh feminisms instead of solving the real problems,
C) Is able to operate without being lumped in with said a$$clowns and losing support from feminist organizations (which is key if we actually want to accomplish this stuff)?
A) Design and create a plan delineating what needs to be done, seeking advice from existent non-profits, sufficient to generate enough interest to apply for the capital to start a non-profit with the outlined goals. (I’m not a businessperson but I think starting a non-profit is pretty similar to starting a for-profit company? You’d have to do some research about this).
B) Hire individuals with experience in non-profit organizations who are thoroughly background-checked and who have made concrete achievements in their careers.
C) Actually actively work in parallel with other non-profit organizations to achieve the stated goals of your organization (helping unjustly criminalized men and making actual real-world shelters for male victims of domestic violence).
It would take a lot of work, and there would be a certain amount of swimming against the tide, but it could be done very well.