Over on A Voice for Men, our dear friend Paul Elam has come up with an interesting new way to celebrate Mother’s Day – with what is essentially the longest, least funny, and most rage-filled “Yo Mama” joke ever. (Indeed, it’s so rage-filled I should probably put a Trigger Warning right about here.)
Elam starts off by addressing the mothers of the world, suggesting he’s got a “a socially conscious twist” on the traditional Mother’s Day celebrations. Mothers, he argues, should gather together the flowers they’ve been given by their loved ones and:
Place a bunch of daffodils at a dumpster near you, perhaps one in which one of you, or one of your kind, has tossed an unwanted baby, leaving it there to slowly die alone in a pile of trash.
Perhaps you could lay a single rose at the base of a bridge that has been used by a mother to throw her baby into an icy river. Perhaps you can lay it there with hands that have beaten or shaken a baby to death.
You probably didn’t see that coming, did you? He goes on.
Now perhaps some of you could place large, colorful arrangements at the abortion centers where women go to have children cut out and laid to rest in those colorful and attractive biohazard containers that are all the rage in the clinics. …
Maybe you can lay virtual flowers at your computers to honor all the children that you and your sisters have pimped out to pedophiles, or perhaps the blossoms could be placed in your child’s room, which also doubles as your preferred place to abuse your own.
Oh, but you say you haven’t done any of these things, and that abortion isn’t actually the same as infanticide? No matter. Elam has an answer for that:
This is not a request for some mothers, or a percentage of them, but all of you. In fact, you don’t even have to be a mother. If you have a vagina, the blood of all those children, who are abused far more at the hands of women than men, has stained your skin and caked around the cuticles of your fingers.
If you are a mother, particularly one of the many abusers, or just one that has remained silent as your sisters have beaten, choked, stabbed, burned, drowned, abused, neglected, dumped, tortured and otherwise done the unspeakable to the most defenseless among us, then I hope to see those flowers in your murderous hands, paying homage to those that have been unfortunate enough to be placed in your path. …
In Daffodils for Dumpsters the gash gets you in, and you don’t really have a choice.
You see, Elam has decided that we live in an era of “collective guilt,” and that the evil (straw) feminists who go around blaming all men for the actions of a few – through such dastardly things like rape awareness seminars – deserve to find themselves collectively blamed as well.
Except that Elam’s post goes well beyond an ill-conceived and ill-intentioned attempt at “turnabout is fair play.” This isn’t a piece of Swiftian satire. He actually believes all this hateful nonsense, and says as much:
Now, do I really mean all this? Yes. It is not that women deserve to be collectively regarded as child abusers and killers. Most aren’t. Most are actually very good to their children and can even be trusted with the children of others. But that truth is not what is important here.
What is important is the children, or the principle, or whatever other bullshit we make up to convince ourselves it is not about demonizing women when that is exactly what we are doing.
I have to confess I have no idea what he’s trying to say in the second paragraph here. Did he mean to say “men” instead of “women?” If so, this is an interesting little slip.
He continues:
The fact is that mothers are more dangerous than fathers where it concerns children. They always have been. It is only a few percentage points in that direction, but of course in a White Ribbon way, it is more than enough to justify pointing a finger at your entire sex and feeling superior as we watch you atone for the unspeakable acts of a minority.
So, suck it up ladies. If you knew about White Ribbon and said nothing to object to it; if in general you have remained silent or actively participated as the image of the male half of the population has been reduced to that of a depraved threat, the step up and get your flowers. You deserve every last petal, stem and thorn.
I imagine Elam chuckling a bit as he typed that final word.
And a happy Mother’s Day to you, too!
Oh, and if you found yourself wondering about that “White Ribbon” thing, Elam is evidently (as best I can figure it) referring either to the women who, during World War I, handed out white ribbons to men who didn’t enlist in the army. Or he’s referring to this contemporary campaign to fight violence against women. But I don’t live inside Elam’s head, so I’m not sure what he meant, or why he seems to think that all women would know about either campaign, much less have any responsibility for them.
NOTE: Elam is also celebrating Mother’s Day by suggesting I had something to do with creating Reddit’s appalling “beatingwomen” subreddit as part of a nefarious plot to make the Men’s Rights movement look even worse than it manages to do on its own.
You may notice that Elam presents no actual evidence to back up his claims. There is no such evidence, because Elam’s accusations are utterly and completely untrue.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with r/beatingwomen. Nothing. I don’t know anything about who created it, or what their aim was beyond laughing at pictures and videos of violence against women. As I’ve said before, it’s a vile place. I think Reddit should shut it down.
![[Not All] Redditors agree: "In 99% of societal contexts such as going to office, going to the supermarket … etc, it is men who have to be continually afraid of women."](https://i1.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/e26776edab3fb01dbe0451dabac605df.jpg?resize=50%2C50)
RE: Argenti
*snort* Well, he’s stuck here, and due to coconsciousness and bodily dissonance wtfery, not like he’d be sleeping around even if we WEREN’T together…
@Argenti,
The “let’s stop the women bashing” doesn’t make any sense when considering that is basically his entire occupation. I believe he probably sincerely doesn’t think he hates women. There’s a lot of this kind of denial in many hate groups disguised as a “cause.” Just look at fundamentalist Chrisitans who claim not to hate gays, yet all their practices, beliefs and language point to the contrary.
He’s probably married to someone who more or less shares his beliefs – or maybe she’s just rolling her eyes in the background. Hard to say…
There are horrible people throughout history with families they seem to love – hard to make sense of it all. When I come across people like this, I surmise that he himself must be pretty miserable. How could anyone hold on to so much anger and be happy or even empowered? I take solace in that when he goes on the attack…
@LBT — I’d gathered, I just didn’t even want to ponder wtf they’d say about that.
@Sara — I’ve never heard a fundie tell anyone to stop bashing gays though, quite the opposite. Maybe he had a moment of clarity and realized most women were simply born as women though, contra the fundie insistence that homosexuality is a choice. Or maybe all that eye rolling got to him. Idk, it’s an impressive level of cognitive dissonance, beyond that I haven’t a clue.
Argenti – Yeah, I kinda figured as much. Still, like… feminists talk about a LOT of other things besides the Vagina Monologues. I could figure having a hissy fit over feminists engaging in Slut Walks if you’re the kind of asshole who thinks showing you care about one issue obvs means you don’t care about other issues, but … yeah. Not really surprised that another MRA has some problems with logic, but sheesh.
ostara321 — revspinnaker definitely has problems with logic, he was at least less offensive than most MRAs though. And idfk on the Vagina Monologues, the only time I remember seeing them come up in feminist discussion it quickly turned into a debate on how to fix their transphobia and whether the rape-y monologue was still in there — not exactly outstanding praise. Slut Walks though…I’ve never seen anyone, MRA or feminist or meh, except revspinnaker, complain that they prove feminists only care about rape — I have seen assholes who totally don’t get it and give a response of either “who’d rape her?” or “well of course, dressed like that!” (congrats assholes, you are part of the problem).
On his logic fail, did you see where I said post-natal education targets mothers because they’re already in the hospital and thus it’s easy, while the father may or may not show up, and he replied with how she must not know who the father is then? Like wait, do we target mothers because they’re more dangerous, or because they’re all sluts who don’t know who the baby-daddy is?
Or where he managed to read just enough statistics to see that couples where excluded from the child abuse analysis and then twist that to mean “mothers acting with a paramour”? It was really some impressive cherry-picking. I guess that should be expected from an SN that reads as Rev. Spinnaker though huh? All hail the reverend of spin! >.<
Despite how much fun this summary of trolling has been I really should get to bed. Goodnight everyone!
You know, there’s a tiny kernel of a good argument in what Rev. Spinnaker said about the Vagina Monologues, namely that some important events get overshadowed in the media by more trivial things. However, the problem is rarely the existence of the more trivial things and rather the way the media reports on things. I’ve repeatedly seen important events getting overshadowed by stuff like a soccer match or whatever (soccer is BIG in my country), but it never occurred to me to protest soccer itself, that would be ridiculous.
“You know, there’s a tiny kernel of a good argument in what Rev. Spinnaker said about the Vagina Monologues, namely that some important events get overshadowed in the media by more trivial things. However, the problem is rarely the existence of the more trivial things and rather the way the media reports on things. I’ve repeatedly seen important events getting overshadowed by stuff like a soccer match or whatever (soccer is BIG in my country), but it never occurred to me to protest soccer itself, that would be ridiculous.”
Allow me to second this, because this is a great of stating how caring for one thing doesn’t always (or necessarily) downgrade another.
Plus, like, in the age of blogs and the internet, I think that the way things are presented is becoming less and less of a problem…well, ok, CNN and Fox News can still make me angry, but still, people usually get up off their asses (or even stay on their asses) and bring attention to important things.
Instead of, you know, whining at people and placing yourself on a pedestal in a fucking comment section.
yo, this lie isn’t any less nonsensical than the first time you said it. do you actually know what the hague is?
The Hague, a city in the Netherlands, is home to the International Criminal Court and host to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on Protection of Children.
I haven’t found the exact criticism of the “Monologues” I spotted a few years ago. There was a heated debate about combining women’s right with children’s rights. I did find the following:
In opening remarks, UNICEF Deputy Executive Director Rima Salah acknowledged the fears of some women’s rights advocates, who feel that “integrating women’s and children’s rights will restrict women to the role of caregiver of children.
“On the other hand,” continued Ms. Salah, “for the children’s rights advocates, this integration will put the focus only on the rights of the girls – thus resulting in the boy child being left out.”
Children’s Rights Advocates, like myself (CRA not an MRA), were critical of Ensler’s and some feminist’s exclusion of boys as victims and females as perpetrators of violence against children.
My question for you is, do you approve of a 20 something woman plying a 13 year old with alcohol and seducing them? Do you consider that “good rape” as stated in the “Little Coochi Snorcher that Could?”
Seems that’s what the folks at the Hague Convention objected to.
right, we went through this list time, i forgot how you don’t understand what convention means in this case. it’s not a literal gathering of people, it’s a document. and for that matter, it has literally note one that has a
and yes, the hague is the home to the icc. that’s one thing you actually seem to get. when people refer to the ‘the hague’ doing something, they’re talking about the icc. the hauge didn’t condemn the vagina monologues because the hague doesn’t pay attention to plays and because that’s so far outside their jurisidiction as to be laughable.
the hague cares about genocide and war. they don’t dare about your silly little ‘girls are evil crusade’ and when you say ‘the hague’ is on your side, you clearly either don’t get what you’re saying or are too dishonest to care. given your track record i’m assuming it’s both, but seriously, stop talking about things you obviously don’t understand.
*final sentence of the first paragraph was supposed to say ‘not one that has anything to do with the hague, it’s monitored by a subcommitte of the plain old general assembly’
Sorry for being vague. I should have said UN Convention at The Hague. It was UNICEF participants of the UN Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child that criticized the Monologues.
You still haven’t answered my question. Do you approve of a 20 something woman plying a 13 year old with alcohol and seducing them?
You still haven’t answered my question. Do you approve of a 20 something woman plying a 13 year old with alcohol and seducing them?
Lol wat? The trolls I run into here…
Sorry for being vague. I should have said UN Convention at The Hague. It was UNICEF participants of the UN Committee on the Convention on the Rights of the Child that criticized the Monologues.
that’s right, you should have said something like that! this is the second time i’ve had to correct you for pushing this dishonest talking point! it would be awesome if it didn’t happen again, but somehow i doubt that’s going to be the case.
Oh, fuck off Revspin, we’ve been over this shit before. No one here is in favor of child abuse. Now run along, this horse has been beaten.
Disingenuous fuckwit.
I read a book with a rape in it once, hence all feminists approve of rape. I watched a movie with a murder in it once, hence all feminists approve of murder. I saw a play with– eh, the MRAs can fill in the blanks for me. What else do all feminists approve of? 😀
Argument, RevSpin style:
Irrelevant fact. Obfuscation. Tangent. Ridiculous question.
Shout “SEE THAT PROVES MY POINT!” when everyone goes “Lolwut?”
“Argument, RevSpin style:
Irrelevant fact. Obfuscation. Tangent. Ridiculous question.
Shout “SEE THAT PROVES MY POINT!” when everyone goes “Lolwut?””
*nods*
And does no one else see the hilarity of Rev going on about how WE aren’t doing enough to help children, while he has been doing nothing but wanking over his superiority on a blog?
Wanking on a blog is totally activism, you guys.
Well, he’s trying to spread some seeds of doubt. Unfortunately his arguments continue to be impotent. *rimshot*
I answered “You still haven’t answered my question. Do you approve of a 20 something woman plying a 13 year old with alcohol and seducing them?” before he asked it >.< — see the first paragraph
“And idfk on the Vagina Monologues, the only time I remember seeing them come up in feminist discussion it quickly turned into a debate on how to fix their transphobia and whether the rape-y monologue was still in there — not exactly outstanding praise.”
Since I’ve never seen the damned things, and read all of one description, I’d forgotten it was flat out rape, not rape-y — but no, feminists do not support that.
Thirding that.
“I watched a movie with a murder in it once, hence all feminists approve of murder.” — hell, I’ve seen Dahmer, so all feminists approve of serial killers?
I was in a production of the Vagina Monologues, and whilst that particular monologue DEFINITELY has issues (as does the rest of the play in general at times), the girl is 16, not 13. Or at least she is in my script —
“Memory: sixteen years old.
There’s this gorgeous 24-year-old woman in our neighborhood and I stare at her all the time. One day she invites me into her car…” etc.
For me it was the alcohol that’s the questionable bit, not the age. But then I’m from Britain, and the legal age for sex here is 16.
For much of the US 16 is legal too.
@cloudiah: Well, you have to give it to those ultra-orthodox Jews, they are simply epic trolls… you know what kind of protest this incident spawned…
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/world/middleeast/holocaust-images-in-ultra-orthodox-protest-anger-israeli-leaders.html
Ok, to be fair, it was only a minority. But to compare sitting next to a woman on public transport with being sent to camp…
The original age of the character in that monologue was 13. It was changed to 16 after (totally justified) criticism.
Eve Ensler has been pretty thoroughly criticized by feminists, especially in recent years; like, the Vagina Monologues is well-intentioned, but it’s RIFE with the most problematic elements of second-wave feminism.
@Gametime:
“The original age of the character in that monologue was 13. It was changed to 16 after (totally justified) criticism.”
I believe that’s when Ensler lost that line about “good rape” too, at the behest of UNICEF contingents at the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child at The Hague, among others.
But since we’re on the topic of female pedophilia, check out this video with Michele Elliott of Kidscape. She received hate mail and was shouted down by feminists when she disclosed her research on the issue. tsk tsk.
Technically we’re NOT on the subject of female pedophilia, it’s just your favorite flavor of derail.
Kindly fuck off.
hellkell: Glad to see you made it through the 11 min. video in 4 minutes. A testament to your open-mindedness.
Do you really think anyone here is in favor of child abuse? I know it’s your pet project, but wanking here is not activism.
Um rev..what exactly would it take for you to give up on coming here about child abuse? I don’t think the men or women here are at all in favor of it. Quite the opposite.
Feminists just lovee child abuse! and they cause breast cancer too!
/sarcasm
They also snort nutmeg!
Shit, I didn’t know she changed it! OR that there was a line about good rape >.< My mistake.
And now I don't like her very much.
My theory is that Elam’s doing this simply for his own sadistic enjoyment. He saw how big the MRM got, and decided to pull one of his many classic troll moves and be all “fuck you” to his own backups. The more I learn about Paul Elam, he seems very “bite the hand that feeds you” and deeply self-destructive in a “oh this is so good, I must destroy it” kind of way.
Btw, I’m actually officially stanning for paul elam just because of the major trolling he’s done to feminists and MRAs alike.
Paul has a wife and daughter, doesn’t he? I can’t help but wonder what they think of his involvement in the MRM – or if they even know.