a voice for men are these guys 12 years old? awesome infighting MRA paul elam

A Voice for Men/MRA London infighting gets even sillier: Paul Elam makes his uninformed stand


So, that tempest in a teacup involving MRA London,  A Voice for Men’s British satellite group, that I wrote about last night? Well, it’s gotten even sillier.

The tl;dr is that MRA London has split up, with accusations and counter-accusations flying. AVFM staffer Andy Thomas has appointed himself CEO of the group after apparently tossing out most of its members. (Or “accepting their resignations,” or something; who knows?) As far as I can tell, this means that the group may now be down to literally two people.

Now AVFM’s Maximum Leader Paul Elam has posted a very long statement on the subject, saying very little indeed. The gist of it? He really doesn’t know what happened in the “very British coup” or who was right, but he’s sticking with Thomas because he knows the dude better than the dudes who are no longer part of the group. No, really, that’s his explanation.

Not only that, but Elam admits flatly that doesn’t really even care who was right, at least not enough to bother to try to figure out the basic facts of the case:

I am not in the least interested in trying to ascertain who was more or less at fault in MRA London’s internal conflicts. It is not that I am indifferent to right and wrong in this case, but simply as a pragmatic matter I cannot and won’t try to wade through several weeks/months of infighting, insinuation and accusations between people in conflict 8,000 miles from here and even pretend that I can come up with an informed judgment.

Really? Because most political organizations, when faced with issues like this, like to at least pretend to gather the facts before making their decisions.

Elam also alludes vaguely to

other factors, having to do with the best interests of AVFM and the MHRM, that lend more support to our decision to maintain the historical relationship we have had with Andy Thomas of MRA London. I am not at liberty to discuss them, but they are compelling.

Oh, so there were some SUPER SEEEKRET reasons too! Having to do with the “best interests” of the world historical force that is the Men’s Human Rights Human Movement of Men (But Not Those Dudes We Just Threw Under The Bus for Super SEEEKRET Reasons).

Come to think of it, no one has actually explained straightforwardly the non-super seekret reasons either. Ah well.

Elam also makes clear that any dissent to this decision will be confined to the comments of this one thread.


PS In my haste to write this post I neglected to include my regular reminder that AVFM, while claiming to be a “human rights” group, continues to post a literal call to firebomb courthouses and police stations in its activism section.

110 replies on “A Voice for Men/MRA London infighting gets even sillier: Paul Elam makes his uninformed stand”

RE: katz

I myself would be tempted to end it by having a different MRA randomly pop up and start shrieking about sexual harassment, and how does it feel NOW, huh, the tables have turned, and while the two of them fight it out, Pierre makes a break for it.

And just to complete our week in Britain, the Daily Fail has published an article from respected journalist Nick Ross on how

@EVB_now are doing a pretty good job of pointing out how crap it all is but he’s apparently doubling down on Twitter that only the title is offensive & that the content is fine. Because obviously there’s nothing wrong with the following …

Rape victims were once treated appallingly, as though it was all their fault, but have we now gone too far the other way? Many of the victims seem to think we have. The main argument of my book is this: we can aggravate crime by tempting fate, and we curb it by playing safe.

We have come to acknowledge it is foolish to leave laptops on the back seat of a car. We would laugh at a bank that stored sacks of cash by the front door. We would be aghast if an airport badly skimped on its security measures.

Our forebears might be astonished at how safe women are today given what throughout history would have been regarded as incitement. Not even in the licentious days of Charles II in the 17th Century was it acceptable for women to dress as provocatively as they have done in Western culture since the 1960s.

Apparently I shouldn’t go out in public with my vagina on display like a laptop in the back seat of a car. /vomits

NOT THIS AGAIN! Look, if I leave a laptop at the backseat of my car, that’s a bit stupid of me because it alerts potential thiefs to the fact that there IS a laptop in my car.

For that to be analogous to wearing slutty clothes, it would have to be the case that sluttly clothes alert potential rapists to the fact that there IS A VAGINA between my legs. And this is where the analogy completely breaks down, because they already KNEW that!

Whenever a dudely dude asks if something concerning women has “gone too far” it’s going to a be a shitshow, and said dude should probably just keep his manly thinks to himself.

Apparently the MRAs are starting to see being criticized by David as a form of free advertising. Makes me wonder how many of them read this blog *waves to asshole lurkers*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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