By David Futrelle
A Voice for Men is trying its best to distance itself from Roy Den Hollander, the rabidly antifeminist lawyer thought to have gunned down the son and the husband of a federal judge and who seems to be linked to the murder of a rival Men’s Rights attorney in California.
But they’re going about it in a mighty strange way — by citing the violent portion of an article that Den Hollander published in AVFM in 2010.
In a post on AVFM yesterday, Robert Brockway complained that the media were making too much of that one article — and its literal call to arms.
Den Hollander wrote one article for A Voice for Men (AVfM), which was published on October 24, 2010 – nearly ten years ago. A quote from this one article has been widely circulated in the media as it attempts to link AVfM to violence. The mainstream media focuses on the mention of firearms.
Boy, it’s puzzling that the media would focus on the mention of firearms in a piece written by someone who gunned down three men, killing two of them.
Here’s the quote in question from Den Hollander:
The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms. At some point, the men in this country will take the Declaration of Independence literally.
Brockway continues his attempted whitewashing by pointing out that AVFM head boy Paul Elam later turned down another piece by Hollander allegedly based upon the premise that “the best way to preserve men’s rights is with a gun” — as if Elam’s rejection of this second post somehow erases that fact that they published the first one. (And, though Brockway never mentions it, that Elam also praised Den Hollander effusively in a post from 2011.)
The fact is that Den Hollander wasn’t the only one advocating violence in the pages of A Voice for Men. Indeed, the site once hosted, for several years, a manifesto by Men’s Rights activist Tom Ball, who committed suicide by lighting himself on fire outside a courthouse in hopes that his act would inspire other men to begin firebombing courthouses and police stations in protest of alleged anti-male bias in family courts. He wrote:
So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. …
You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT! …
There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.
AVFM did remove a small portion of Ball’s manifesto in which he offered specific tips on how to make effective molotov cocktails.
Despite hosting this manifesto in AVFM’s “activism” section Elam insisted that he and his fellow MRAs weren’t actually advocating violence themselves, just “predicting” it. As Elam explained it,
Thomas Ball represents a tragic, dysfunctional reaction to chronic, systemic abuse. There are many possible reactions. Some even worse than his. And while we cannot, must not, condone violence, we had better learn to expect it as long as an ideological war against men is allowed to make a battlefield in our justice system and within the heart of our own families.
AVFM took the manifesto down shortly after the Boston Marathon Bombing in 2013.
For another example of Elam “predicting” violence, see here.
Meanwhile, in addition to “predicting” violence, Elam has won himself something of a reputation for publishing assorted fantasies of violence over the years. Consider the infamous article in which he suggested “satrically” that Domestic Violence Awareness month be replaced with “Bash a Violent Bitch” month, celebrating those men who responded to domestic violence directed at them by female partners by beating the shit out of said partners.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to 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 till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess … .
He cautioned men from taking his advice literally — not because he felt it was wrong to beat the shit out of “violent bitches” but because it
isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.
For more on this, and on Elam’s violent rhetoric more broadly, see here.
In short, Paul Elam is the world’s least convincing pacifist. He can’t disassociate himself from Den Hollander’s fantasies of violence any more than he can disassociate himself from his own. I can only hope that, unlike Den Hollander, Elam doesn’t attempt to turn his violent fantasies into reality.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
This is a classic abuse and terrorism tactic: tell your enemy you’re not threatening them, just that you know something bad will happen if they don’t submit to your demands.
It really does seem like he didn’t care much about men if he was willing to kill them. MRAs love to mention Valerie Solanas’s assassination attempt on Andy Warhol as evidence feminists hate men. One of their own killed 2 more men than Solanas.
Elam is in his 60s and his site isn’t very popular now, so he himself is probably low risk. OTOH, there are many MRAs who are likely terrorists, so it’s better to keep an eye on them rather than Paul.
@Naglfar:
Artist’s impression: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x75bt6
@Naglfar
In what way is that not a threat? I don’t want to give specifics because it will immediately identify me to the person who made the threat, who also reads this site, but I was threatened with something personal once by someone trying to force me to give in to something. When challenged about this threat, they stated that it was not a threat, merely an observation. They truly seemed to believe this, or put up a very good front of it. What is the psychology at play here? I really do not understand it.
@Big Titty Demon
This is absolutely a threat.
Maybe this person believed their own statement. Maybe they didn’t. It doesn’t matter: it’s a threat. My guess is that they thought that phrasing a threat in a cagey way might impress a judge or jury. Oh well, that’s okay. That was just an observation. But I think that they’re they only one impressed with their own trickiness.
I’m really sorry this happened to you. I don’t know much about your situation, but you could at least keep a diary of this person’s remarks. If push comes to shove, mention that you have recorded all of their “observations.” Stay strong.
So the author of this is associated with an alleged murderer? Of two people?
This is my thunderstruck face.
@Big Titty Demon
As far as I can tell, it’s Plausible Deniability (or as I refer to it, ‘implausible’ deniability 🙂 ). i.e. trying to phrase a threat in such a way so that they can claim it’s an ‘observation’.
It is 100% a threat, but these dudes like to pretend that:
“If you don’t do what say, you’re going to be beaten/shot/etc.” and similar sentiments are equivalent to a statement like :
“If you go out in a thunderstorm waving a big metal pole, you’re probably going to be struck by lightning.”
Abusers find it very useful to try to make people believe that their abuse is an entirely predictable and unavoidable natural consequence of “bad choices” on the part of their victim, instead of horrible predatory behavior that the abuser actively chooses to engage in. “Look at what you made me do” and all that kind of bullshit, essentially.
OT, but Trump decided to pay Dr. Birx a compliment, and it was about … her ability to wear scarves. No joke.
Here’s the text:
A lot of people think she sacrificed her credibility to avoid contradicting Trump, but there’s no doubt she’s got brains, education, and accomplishments.
So of course, this made me catch a whiff of Beef Stroganoff.
And though I like that article, I would have linked to David, but it seems like he might never have covered it. Weird.
@Naglfar
I always found it kind of interesting, even telling, that MRA’s, Incel’s and MGTOW’s and other anti-feminist and Misogynist ilk waffle about “Misandry”; and yet: while being virulent and militant Misogynists; they also oddly seem to be so very deeply and equally Misandrist against their fellow men?
It’s like their Misogyny against women is so excessively extreme and off the rails that it manages to boomerang and turn into Misandry against other men.
Only question is: if it’s a bug, a feature, or maybe an equal helping of both?
I, personally, like Miguel and Tulio: would say “Both.”
Out of topic, but this is tickling me since the beginning : do not Den Hollander and Peterson have somewhat a lot of common face features ? I find them strangely look alike.
@Crip Dyke:
Let’s see: garrote, blindfold, noose, gag, wrap oranges in it to administer a beating…
@Kat
I have had to do this with the diary, because after the threat in question it only got much worse.
@Catalpa
Aha! This was my disconnect, then. I always viewed it as a threat and in no way my fault, and was therefore unable to parse the logic behind framing it as an “observation.” Such an attempted manipulation in addition to the bald threat is absolutely in character with this person.
It’s not just a blindingly obvious threat, it’s the classic cliché faux-mafia threat – so well-worn it’s probably got its own tropes page: ‘nice X you got here, be a pity if something were to happen to it’.
Implausible deniability indeed, Fishy Goat!
@Big Titty Demon
Sorry to say it, but abuse gets worse. That’s what a domestic violence counselor told me years ago. She turned out to be right.
@Big Titty Demon
Apologies if I was unclear, I am saying it is definitely a threat but that the person threatening will try to claim it isn’t. Sorry to dredge up unpleasant bits of the past. I’m not a psychologist, but I think what is at play is they’re trying to pretend not to be an abuser and sound “reasonable” to outside audiences, thereby framing the situation to favor themself.
@Catalpa
That also appears to be a form of gaslighting, as it tries to make the victim believe that their perception of the situation is wrong when that is not the case.
@Crip Dyke
Is this a challenge to find more ways to wear a scarf? If so, challenge accepted.
@TacticalProgressive
I would say that their self hatred of themselves and other men is linked to their misogyny, so I’d say it’s a feature. It also means a lot of their arguments against feminists are probably projection, like how they talk about “male disposability” whilst actively killing other men.
@opposablethumbs
Here it is:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShameIfSomethingHappened
@Naglfar:
Don’t overlook non-wear uses. Bandage, tourniquet, swab…
Welp, time to go tie a scarf around my cat.
@EyeHeartSpiders:
Take another one to wipe up your blood.
@Moggie
A few years ago when I had access to a loom I wove a bunch of scarves. Time to put them to good use. Folding art, bondage, wrapping gifts, towel, face mask…
@EyeHeartSpiders
I would try to put a scarf on my dog, but I feel like she’d react similarly to the time I tried to put a bandana on her and immediately shred it.
@Moggie:
Or a face mask, I suppose. Somehow I doubt any of that is what Trump was trying to say.
I’ve got to wonder if AVFM is distancing himself because Den Hollander – despite being a big misogynist – has as far as we know only managed to kill men. If he’d killed only women, they’d probably have essays up defending him.
@WWTH
That could be it, but I don’t think misogynists are all that deterred generally by killing men, they seem to see those men as collateral damage. For example, most of Elliot Rodger’s victims were men but incels still worship him.
Well, 2010 was quite a lot time ago, and the political environment was very different. And Den Hollander was even on mainstream media like the Colbert Report.
I’m not much of a fan of AVFM, though. They’re clowns who were only relevant for a few years in the mid-teens.
It’s a way to excuse the violence that men commit. There are two popular ways to do this, that I’ve seen in action. The first is to deny that men commit any sort of disproportionate amount of violence, using, for instance, massaged statistics on DV perpetration to supposedly demonstrate that women are just as violent as men, if not more so.
The other, and the more common in my experience, is to excuse male violence by saying it’s just the way men are, and they can’t help it, and you can’t hold them responsible for violence any more than you can hold a lion responsible. The “what did you expect when you left the house wearing that” response to rape is a subset of this excuse, as though your average man is a rapist waiting to happen if he sees too much female skin. It’s just like waving raw meat in front of a hungry dog, they say, with no apparent cognizance of the misandry inherent in comparing a man with an animal. This way of thinking, in an attempt to excuse male behavior by analogy to animal behavior, results in tons of misandry.
You’re not wrong. They grasp at any possible explanation for male behavior that isn’t “men sometimes act out because they feel entitled to women” and wind up smacking other men in the face in the process. Eventually it becomes an ingrained habit, and applies even when women aren’t in the equation at all.
@Motte and Bailey
He was still a misogynist, though.
@PoM
Exactly. A lot of misogynists (including MRAs but also groups like Christian fundamentalists) have very negative views of men, like that they can’t control themselves, are unintelligent and driven solely by instinct, et cetera. Most feminists seem to have a much more positive view of men than that.
I’m not sure if it would be accurate to borrow feminist vocabulary and call this “internalized misandry,” but maybe the term could fit as a parallel to internalized misogyny.