Categories
Uncategorized

A Voice for Men tries to distance itself from Roy Den Hollander’s violence … by citing an article they published by him threatening violence

Paul Elam and Roy Den Hollander: Two-headed monster?

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!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

I’m sniffing some “no true Scotsman” in M&B’s disingenuity, with the baked-in goalpost-shifting that is intrinsic to that particular fallacy.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

In case anyone hasn’t seen it yet, he’s also taken up residence in the previous thread to defend Trump.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

@Lainy:

It’s “staph” infection, short for “staphylococcus.” Profreading is your friend.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Motte and Bailey
Really, you have no better argument than picking on spelling errors?

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@motte

I’m dyslexic, but thank you. Why aren’t you at work since you made a deal about it? Or are you just bored like me and want to play? do you want to play with me Mottie? because I would like that very much.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

It’s “staph” infection, short for “staphylococcus.” Profreading is your friend.

You surely mean “proOfreading” right?

The general rule is that you want to pick on someone else’s spelling, your own needs to be impeccable.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
10 months ago

@ POM

The general rule is that you want to pick on someone else’s spelling, your own needs to be impeccable.

I like the meta aspect that you went with impeccable. I have to have several goes at that word before the spell checker even guesses what I’m trying.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@PoM
I didn’t even notice that. That’s great.

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

I don’t mind guys, spelling isn’t strong skill. people have taken that cheap shot at me my entire life. makes it harder when your using a phone too that wants to change everything you write into a different word for some reason.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

@Lainy

I can’t help it – someone wants to be a jerk about your spelling but can’t personally spell a common word? It writes itself.

My usual rule is not to comment on spelling or grammar unless it is literally impossible for me to understand the intent. Staff vs. staph? I understood it, so no need for comment. That is, what I find, how normal people react to spelling mistakes; it is the very insecure and the very pretentious who jump on spelling errors like a dick.

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@Policy

It is kind of like a sad attempt to dom someone isn’t it lol.

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
10 months ago

@Lainy

Why aren’t you at work since you made a deal about it?

His manager’s probably gone to lunch, so there’s no one to make sure he works. Don’t play with him too vigorously – remember desk jockeys are notoriously fragile.

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@threp

His manager’s probably gone to lunch, so there’s no one to make sure he works. Don’t play with him too vigorously – remember desk jockeys are notoriously fragile.

I like to break them though, that’s part of the fun.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Threp
Do actuaries have managers?

@Lainy
Maybe this could be your theme when you’re taking them down:

“Yeah, yeah, yeah I’m gonna make you, shake you, take you
I’m gonna be the one who breaks you
Put the screws into ya, yeah, my way
Yeah, come on, come on, come and make my day
Make my day”

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
10 months ago

@ Lainy

Standardised spelling is a relatively recent thing. We can thank/blame people like Merriam-Webster for that.

The only thing that matters though with writing is that people understand what you mean; and we all did. Must confess I didn’t even notice it wasn’t correct.

Shakespeare didn’t even spell his own name consistently; and people think he’s the dogs bollocks when it comes to writing; so you’re in good company.

https://politicworm.com/oxford-shakespeare/to-be-or-not-to-be-shakespeare/why-not-william/the-authorship-question-2/how-he-spelled-his-name/six-signatures/

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

Do actuaries have managers?

You guys have no idea what you’re even talking about. “Actuary” isn’t a job title, it’s a profession that can operate in a huge variety of roles. So it would depend on exactly what the actuary does.

The answer is yes, I have a manager. I’m not self-employed. I’m a regulator.

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@Motte

Do you want to play with me or not? your becoming incredibly boring sugar.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Motte and Bailey

You guys have no idea what you’re even talking about. “Actuary” isn’t a job title, it’s a profession that can operate in a huge variety of roles. So it would depend on exactly what the actuary does.

comment image

The answer is yes, I have a manager. I’m not self-employed. I’m a regulator.

Didn’t you just say you had to go to work? Shouldn’t you be regulating now? Or is arguing with us more important?

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@Naglfar

I know! dude is about as stiff as a board, and not in the fun way.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

I’m a regulator.

That’s weird. The last so-claimed actuary to pop up here also claimed to be a regulator, just before he was banned for being boring and dull, much like yourself.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Lainy
It seems in general conservatives are not good at humor, hence why they only know one joke or their failure to understand the Colbert Report.

@PoM
By any chance is Motte a Heartiste fan? I wonder…

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

It seems in general conservatives are not good at humor, hence why they only know one joke or their failure to understand the Colbert Report.

There’s a sub on reddit called r/TheRightCantMeme which is just a smorgasbord of unfunny rightwing jokes in meme form. What’s hilarious is how funny they think they are.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@PoM

What’s hilarious is how funny they think they are.

I wonder if in some level they realize they’re not funny, but pretend to find each other funny to express common goals to each other. Like a form of virtue signaling or something.

There also is a subreddit called r/GenderCynical that (among other things) makes fun of transphobes’ attempts to make memes, but they probably have lost a lot of material since their namesake (r/GenderCritical) and it’s sister subreddits like r/ItsAFetish and r/TrollGC (the main meme one) got banned.

Motte and Bailey
Motte and Bailey
10 months ago

Ah, Policy of Madness. Angry, addled, and dimwitted as always, I see.

Lainy
Lainy
10 months ago

@Motte

Oh now your trying to be fun I see. you are just getting my little wheels turning are you.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

as always

Yep, called it.

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
10 months ago

Yep, called it.

You always do. Your mental database of previous trolls is pretty impressive.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

You always do. Your mental database of previous trolls is pretty impressive.

Nonsense. I wasn’t around for most of the really great trolls. I appreciate the thought but there are other people (WWTH for instance) with a much bigger encyclopedia.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

I was just thinking someone ought to put together an online encyclopedia or something of all the trolls we’ve encountered. I haven’t been around long enough to know many, but maybe someone who’s been around a while and has some time could do it.

C.A.Collins
C.A.Collins
10 months ago

Hey, I just got off work, and y’all already knocked all the candy out of the new pinata.
Not fair!

Moggie
Moggie
10 months ago

@Naglfar:

I was just thinking someone ought to put together an online encyclopedia or something of all the trolls we’ve encountered. I haven’t been around long enough to know many, but maybe someone who’s been around a while and has some time could do it.

Sure, if you want to give them that much attention, and provide them with an incentive to troll.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@C.A. Collins
He wasn’t much fun, somehow he was even more tedious than his previous iteration as MansVoice. Don’t worry, you didn’t miss much.

@Moggie
Maybe it will give an incentive to be more original. Boring trolls shouldn’t get recorded.

I doubt many would find it anyway. They don’t seem that crafty.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

Well, now that we know that MansVoice is a ban evader, I’ll be more suspicious of the next boring troll lol.

Aaron
Aaron
10 months ago

I was just thinking someone ought to put together an online encyclopedia or something of all the trolls we’ve encountered. I haven’t been around long enough to know many, but maybe someone who’s been around a while and has some time could do it.

I’m interested. It seems like some of you folks are always alluding to a few infamous trolls/individuals from way back in this blog’s extremely long history. I’ve never dug through the archives because good god, there’s just so much there. Can any long-timers shed some light on these people?

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@PoM
We should also all be immediately suspicious of trolls that have LessWrong references in their names or posts. Nothing good comes of that.

@Aaron
Well, I haven’t been around long, but in the time I’ve been here:
Jim-GamerGater who showed up on a post about the 5th anniversary, then tried to defend GG until he got banned for posting porn gifs.
Sack/Sackus-Incessantly repeats that David is fat and tries to contrast David with various conservative politicians
MansVoice-The previous username of who we just dealt with
Motte and Bailey-See above
Eric Lauder-Showed up to claim lesbians exist for male gratification, then changed tack to argue that rape is good
CenterFold-Occasionally showed up on 10 year old posts to add weird blurbs about how MRAs are going to take over soon
Pyxxxie-Claimed gun control doesn’t work, then made jokes about castrating people in violation of the Comments Policy

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

@Naglfar

I’ll admit that I don’t know much about LessWrong and didn’t know that name was a reference until it was brought up by Ariblester. There’s just too much psychophilosophical nonsense associated with LW for me to be bothered looking through it. I’m sure there’s just enough real philosophy there for a person with your average philosophy freshman’s outlook to be impressed and think it’s the bees knees, but it looks a lot like a cult from the outside.

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@PoM
There’s also this element of tech bro-ness and singularity weirdness. It reminds me of Jordan Peterson but centered around technology rather than lobsters.

Aaron
Aaron
10 months ago

@Naglfar – Thanks, I actually recognize some of those names. (I’ve been commenting very irregularly since about 2018, I think.)

But it seems like there are some others from much further back, who apparently either still show up, or are suspected to, or just left an imprint on the blog far beyond eg Sack, who I remember. I’m just interested because trolls seem to get banned pretty quickly on this site, so I don’t see how some of them could be remembered for so long.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

Back in the day, WHTM (or Manboobz as it was previously known) held Troll of the Year awards. I was lurking around on the blog around the tail end of that era, and the trolls were really something.

I’m not sure if the greater and weirder number of trolls back then was due to the awards encouraging them, or because manosphere blogs were more active then (nowadays most of the manosphere has migrated to the alt-right), or if it’s just a really weird form of nostalgia clouding my memories.

As for remembering the old trolls, some of them had a very recognizable schtick and kept coming back again and again with sockpuppets. Others just happened to say something that seemed memeable, and so they are remembered when someone references that old meme (see: the troll who claimed to be 329 years old. He said it was a typo, but by then it was already too late. I believe he was also the one who claimed he would be able to survive off of raw seagulls on a desert island.)

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

trolls seem to get banned pretty quickly on this site

Boring trolls definitely get banned within a few days, if not quicker, but there were some epic trolls of yore who made legendary chewtoys. Basically, if the commentariat finds a troll fun, David will not ban until the troll does something beyond the pale. Recent trolls have been of low quality.

Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
Threp (formerly Shadowplay)
10 months ago

Some of them are pretty memorable. Kyle, for example, were quite amusing.

Seriously though – an archive trawl is well worth the time spent.

Big Titty Demon
Big Titty Demon
10 months ago

@Catalpa

Raw seagulls, now? I see all kinds of problems with that, but mostly… if he could actually catch one of those wily blighters, I’m sure he could make fire from a cactus, and being a big brain type would know cooked food releases more calories than raw. Why wouldn’t he cook them?

Was he assuming a stony desert island with no plant life whatsoever?

Why were the seagulls visiting it then, they nest in shrubs…

So many questions…

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Catalpa

the troll who claimed to be 329 years old.

That makes more sense, I didn’t know that reference before.

@Big Titty Demon
I think there would also be a lot of diseases one could get from raw seagull meat. They’re also probably hard to catch without some sort of projectile weapon like a gun or bow.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
10 months ago

@Naglfar

IIRC, the point of the seagull thing was that he claimed he was so resourceful and skilled that he could survive on a deserted sea island with no tools or anything, and eventually came around to the notion that seagulls would be plentiful and he would be able to figure out a way to catch and eat them with no help. All this because he was a Manly Man and Manly Men need no assistance from society. I think he read Mysterious Island as a kid and it made an impression.

Ariblester
10 months ago

Here’s the thread Re: seagulls. It was in reference to Clipperton Island, and the habitability of it was extensively picked apart.

And here’s the same guy claiming he was 329 years old.

(Google is handy, if a bit creepy.)

Does anyone remember the guy who claimed to be taking a sociology/women’s studies/gender studies course and was Just Asking Questions? (Not MRAL, some other one.)

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

O/T: TERFs are once again insisting we reduce women to vaginas. TW drawings of genitals.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

@Naglfar

… Wut.

Are we sure that it’s not a parody? I mean, it’s still in bad taste regardless, but the picture is tagged with #terfpositivity. As far as I’m aware, TERFs hate being called TERFs. It seems unlikely that one of their own would use a tag like that. Or are they trying to reclaim the term?

Naglfar
Naglfar
10 months ago

@Catalpa

Are we sure that it’s not a parody?

That crossed my mind, but I don’t think it is. I checked those hashtags on Twitter and found actual TERFs there, so it appears they are real hashtags.

Or are they trying to reclaim the term?

A lot of them are, but others still insist it’s a misogynistic slur, apparently they haven’t been able to come to a consensus. But yes, quite a few now self describe as TERFs. That also leads me to believe this is real. That would also explain the use of the “#terfpositivity” as they would be trying to attach a positive (to them) connotation to the phrase.

Anyhow, regardless of whether this specific item is a parody, I do know that a lot of TERFs unironically define women based on vaginas and I recall a few complaining a while ago that (some) straight men were open to dating trans* women with penises.

Catalpa
Catalpa
10 months ago

Ugh. Well at least we can hope for the term-positive and term-negative TERFs to fight each other and keep both of them away from anyone else.

occasional reader
occasional reader
10 months ago

Is it Man Voice again ? The rethoric about having or not a job sounds familiar, no ? Well, i guess sockpuppets are like diamonds.