By David Futrelle
Remember this guy? Once upon a time, Paul Elam, founder of the misogynistic hate site A Voice for Men and once one of the world’s more (in)famous Men’s Rights activists, was a mainstay in the virtual pages of We Hunted the Mammoth.
Then the Men’s Rights movement in general, and Elam in particular, was upstaged by even more reprehensible misogynist movements from Gamergate to the alt-right. In 2016, having trouble raising money to keep his site and himself going, Elam naturally declared victory and announced he was retiring from the Men’s Rights activism industry.
In 2017, he unretired, but he’s never regained his former, er, glory. Still, he soldiers on. He continues to post videos on YouTube on his A Near for Men An Ear for Men channel. He offers $120 an hour “consulting” services via Skype to men on such subjects as “relationship issues” (he has no training as a therapist), “divorce strategies” (he’s not a lawyer) and “diabetes management” (he’s not a doctor). And he continues to share his “Red Pill” wisdom on Facebook and Twitter, the latter of which he’s returned to on a new account despite being permabanned some time ago.
So why am I even bringing him up? Well, I ran across this recent, uh, insight from him and I thought I should share it with you.
MRAs claim to care about abused men, but don’t actually do anything to help them in any tangible way, like setting up hotlines or shelters. (The only shelter for men in the US was set up by a feminist Domestic Violence organization that MRAs once tried to defund.) Instead, MRAs post shit like this, conflating actual abusive behavior by women with, well, women expecting to be treated with a modicum of consideration by their male partners.
But of course “wisdom” like this resonates with Elam’s remaining fans.
A veritable Algonquin Round Table here, huh?
I scrolled back a little on his Twitter, and found a couple more #RedPillRelationships pearls from ol’ Paul:
So thoughtful, so wise!
In case you’re wondering — I was — Elam’s A Voice for Men continues, though it’s not altogether clear who’s involved in running it these days. It squeezes out a few articles a week, which seem to consist of turgid exegeses of “gynocentrism” alternating with the sort of outrage-bait AVFM used to be semi-famous for.
Paul himself contributes from time to time. In February, for example, he wrote a 64-word post titled “A message to Democrats from Paul Elam and A Voice for Men” in which he declared that anyone voting for a Democrat is
literally voting for the murder of children. Given that, it is the editorial position of A Voice for Men that you should have been aborted, you degenerate Nazi fuck.
Other recent posts on the site have included such gems as:
And then there are all of … these.
I have no idea what’s going on with these, or why there are so many of them, but I don’t care enough to read any of them to find out.
So, big congratulations to Paul Elam and to A Voice for Men for continuing to exist, I guess, despite there being no real need for either or you.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Well put.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Thanks BQS, I laughed so loud at that comment that my colleagues now know that I’m goofing off instead of working.
@Not Edward –
>>>>>The idea that they would actually *want* to make someone else happy, enjoy their company for its own sake or place any value on someone’s affection for them never really crosses their minds.
Exactly. The idea of doing something for their girlfriend to make *her* happy, as opposed for securing future access to her vagina, is beyond them. So is the idea of sex as something that expresses intimacy or love, as opposed to a female form of payment for services rendered.
Even if we ignore how such men treat women, this view of relationships is certain to make *them* miserable. As so often, the very same flaws that make the women around them miserable make *them* miserable as well – just like good peolple who make those around them happy tend to be happy themselves. Plato and Shakespeare would agree.
WWTH:
Now, this is kinda off topic and beside the point, but I’ve seen this argument presented before.
I don’t think historic human population growth has generally been limited by the amount of sex people have, and certainly not by men’s testosterone level or whatever it is that soy is supposed to affect. Rather, population growth was more or less determined by the gradual improvement of food production systems over millennia.
@LG –
Nobody claimed men do not abuse women verbally or emotionally, but only that *women* do not (in general) abuse men *violently*. The claim is that there are relatively few female violent abusers, NOT that there are relatively few male verbal ones.
As most abusers are men, this claim is perfectly cosistent with many men abusing women verbally or emotionally too. It is merely saying that if, say, 80% of verbal abusers are men and 20% women, 98% of violent abusers are men and only 2% women. It is NOT claimed that, because 98% of violent abusers are men, 98% of emotional ones women.
LG said
Yup. Shortly before the term “stalking” came into popular parlance after the death of Rebecca Schaeffer, my ex became abusive by use of emotional blackmail.
His favorite technique was to ride his motorcycle out to a bar, get drunk and stupid and into a fight. Then, he’d show up on my doorstep for me to tend his wounds and threaten to ride around drunk on his bike (being sure to add that he’d nearly had an accident/been stopped and arrested for good measure) unless I let him stay at my place. I’d tell him he had to sleep it off on the couch, but he would try to sneak into my bed after I’d gone to sleep. When I kicked him out, he’d declare that if he couldn’t sleep in the bed, he’d go get more booze and ride his bike around. It was so blatant, but I was young and stupid and I felt sorry for him and responsible for his pain.
After about three rounds of this, I had a tantrum at him about how “staying friends” was ruining my life and it stopped. But that was when he became stalkery.
He’d call my apartment on weekends to make sure I was home. If I wasn’t, he’d show up at my door and interrogate me about my activities. I started parking my car at the apartment complex across the street so he’d think I was gone because if he saw my car, he’d bang on the door until the neighbors complained.
It didn’t end until he got reassigned somewhere else.
But he never hit me.
@John the one thing you forgot is that while men who abuse are, on average, stronger than women who abuse, that very fact will drive women to use weapons to escalate. Don’t try to tell us that man are so strong they are bulletproof.
“Individuals use whatever form of violence proves most effective for them: men, with greater physical strength, use direct physical violence, while women are more likely to use weapons in their violent acts against their partners.”
https://www.zurinstitute.com/clinical-updates/female-batterers/
@Lumipuna:
This is one of the problems I have with most ev-psych types—along with everything else, they act as though fertile humans (well, fertile women in particular) are rare, and as though conception is the difficult part.
Which can lead them into increasingly specious arguments about how some trait/behaviour is “a sign of fertility” or “maximizes the chances of conception” and that’s why (they think) it’s universal.
@hambeast
I’m so sorry that he did that to you. You didn’t deserve or were responsible for any of that. I don’t know what else to say other that I’m sorry. That’s just god awful
@occasional reader,
My understanding is that “ingroup” and “outgroup” are technical terms in English-language Sociology writing. Someone’s “ingroup” is the group of people with whom they identify, the people they see as “like me” and “on my side,” and with whom they feel comfortable. People are typically biased in favor of their ingroup.
An “outgroup” is a visible group of people who are not part of the ingroup. People tend to define themselves by their outgroups as much as by their ingroups — many people are more eager to tell you who they are not, what they don’t care about, and who they dislike than to tell you who they actually are or what they do stand for.
When the members of one ingroup start to think of one particular outgroup as enemies, threats, or obstacles, that’s called “outgroup derogation.”
So, when AVFM says that men in America are subject to “automatic outgroup derogation,” they are saying that Americans have been taught to see women as normal people and to see men as scary outsiders. That’s obviously not true, but AVFM doesn’t really care about truth.
@John
Then why say “soy” instead “beta men”, if you’re not trying to invoke the (debunked) link between soy and lower T levels?
This sounds like one of those mumbo-jumbo car features that costs a ton of money to fix and lowers fuel mileage drastically.
“I was about to skid off the icy road, but luckily the automatic outgroup derogation kicked in.”
@contrapangloss
You have nothing to be sorry for. Your rant was absolutely right.
Lainy – Thanks. The point is that abusive men will definitely use non-physical means to abuse and control. Frequently in tandem with physical abuse but sometimes not.
But really, I didn’t even think of it as abuse at the time because 1980s. It was a time when staying friends with your ex was a newish thing that supposedly marked you as a Mature Adult (and what 20-something isn’t eager to feel mature?) Thankfully, it only lasted for four months, give or take.
I realized how traumatized I actually was a couple of years later when I got a (totally work related) call from him and nearly had a panic attack! He had cross-trained into my career field which, WTF?? He thankfully didn’t realize who he was talking to because everyone used “handles” at work*. I recognized his voice and his handle clinched it. Handles were loosely based on your initials; his matched his first and last name, while mine were just letters in the middle of my last name. WHEW! bullet dodged.
*In military comms; we worked with others in our field all over the world. At that time, we were stationed in far-flung, different countries, I was VERY relieved to find.
@hambeast
I get what your saying completely. My first boyfriend didn’t use physical voilence against me until I was leaving him. A year and a half together and the only thing he would raise to me was his voice but he did a lot of shit that weighed me down before that. My point was trying to make and I doubt anyone here can disagree with that is that men use physical voilence more often and much more severe on average yhen a woman abuser will. Women abuser do it though, I’ve seen it first hand. Some very severe forms of it as well.
There was a guy in my group therapy who’s ex wife threw boiling water on him during an argument. Some one else on this thread mentioned it as well the female abusers will use tools against their male partners to really hurt them. I do agree for both types will use mental abuse way before physical abuse. I just strongly beleive that male abusers will use physical and sexual abuse Way more often and more severe on average then female abusers will.
I really hope I’m not hurting anyone by saying this and if I am, i am sorry. If this is painful for anyone tell me and I will stop talking about it. The last thing I want to do is cause any attacks.
I’d like to offer hugs to anyone who wants them
The last I heard, getting married shortens a woman’s life and lengthens a man’s.
@John:
Facts don’t care about “the manosphere’s” feelings, bub.
I’m not gonna go into my personal history just now, but size ain’t everything.
@Contrapangloss
You’re fine, that’s a perfectly reasonable response.
@John
> Orion
Thank you for the precision ! All in all, they try to use some technical lingo to give their whining a varnish of science, maybe (they would not be the firsts nor the lasts) ?
@Sheila
Thanks for the virtual hugs. ♥♥♥
@Diego
There has been a welcome change, but it is recent. Men are now terrified to hit back, even when ‘justified.’ This is a great thing, I would not change it, and if on a jury I would be harsh on a wife beater if I was convinced of his guilt.
Times have changed. It’s no longer OK. And I’m OK with that.
This is also why the Red Pill as amongst the most hated corners of the manosphere. “Soft next that bitch and go fuck two other women” is about as far from stalking as you can get. You really want us like that, outcome independent?
Works for me, though. I’ve never hit a woman but I’ve been pretty fucking tempted in the past. They call it “hen-pecked” for a reason, and sometimes those pecks come fast and furious, and escalating to physical would have been welcome respite. These days? Nah, I get 0 drama, because if I do…….next.
RE: “Divorce rape” yeah, my exwife acted very honorably, I would say extremely so. For every dude who got bent over the table, another one totally had it coming. I’m going with a Bayesian prior of 50/50, since I don’t science, bros…..but I won’t be rolling the dice again myself any time soon.
Mostly because most women in my cohort or even close to it have or want kids. I’m going to follow the advice of grandparents everywhere and start with grandchildren….not only because I’m still good looking enough to get free & non-committed sex, but also because I will not put myself in legal jeopardy by taking care of anyone’s kids.
Which is exactly what the joker Elam is banging on about. If I bond with a young family, there is a major risk that it will be a permanent one with legal action behind it. That’s exactly the state being “weaponized against men” and the state (or, if you will, “they”) very much want men like me to step up to the plate.
Grow up and settle down. Stop chasing younger women.
Sure, sounds like fun. /s
I meet so many more misogynists who look like Adonis and get laid by tons of hotties on the internet than in meat space.
I wonder why that is?
@John
Cool story fam. You can leave now
@WWTH:
You mean who look like this guy?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/26/andrew-adonis-u-turn-brexit-labour-party-leadership#img-1
>>>>>>>These days? Nah, I get 0 drama, because if I do…….next. …. most women in my cohort or even close to it have or want kids…. [but] I’m still good looking enough to get free & non-committed sex…. will not put myself in legal jeopardy by taking care of anyone’s kids.
In other words, you don’t want a partner, you want a sex provider that makes no demands on your attention or your lifestyle, let alone (heaven forbid) wants children. She should just f**k you and not give you any drama, now that’s a good girl.
@John
… I think the rates of domestic violence put the lie to this that it is.
Are you saying that being ‘hen pecked’ is a justifiable reason to escalate to physical violence?
Also, A+ job on buying in to the ‘nagging wife’ cliche. Surely that isn’t, in and of itself, sexist.
A) No rape metaphors. Ever. Even about male rape, which some people give a pass on (where they really shouldn’t). That’s not cool.
B) WTF. I just… I don’t know enough about the court system from whatever you are from to go into this, I can just talk about how this is usually talked about on the right.
Even if the man was the ‘breadwinner’ and the wife was the ‘stay at home’ person, *the wife contributed to the success of the marriage*, and deserves money.
?????
Look, John. Friend. Buddy. Pal. You say you’ve made a journey into the manosphere, and come out the other end.
I would like to propose an idea.
You have not come out the other end, not yet.
On a different post, you were annoyed? about how people read your post, and went on about ‘context’. This is the context I read any post you make with:
“Is this an MRA thing to say? Probably not sarcasm. Probably an honest belief.”
Because, friend… You, like all of us, have been steeped in sexism and all the other -isms. But *you* need to do the work to find these little brain beasties, and figure out how to get rid of them.
Because reading your post… It very easily could have been on AVFM.