Paul Elam chided Adam McPhee of CAFE for not being strident enough in their rhetoric and for being ‘impotent.’ Paul also admits a ton of money from AVFM was indeed given to CAFE. Those who wondered if there truly was any connection between CAFE and AVFM can now know there absolutely is.
In an article named ‘Time for CAFE to Change the Menu’ Elam charges CAFE with throwing AVFM ‘under the bus.’ Paul also claims that the appx $1000 dollars needed as security money for a CAFE event was met 6 times over by AVFM. Curiously, the CAFE webpage Paul links to show this financial gain has been deleted. He blames CAFE for getting booted out of Pride and having a lecture cancelled. CAFE ‘stood by impotently’, he said. However, the thing that pushed Paul over the edge was this:
He [McPhee] made a statement that I found as offensive as I did false; something to the effect ‘we need to push out the radicals on both sides’ meaning feminists and MRAs.
Elam made a snarky response during the con that I now know was aimed at McPhee. Here’s what McPhee said (it’s on this video at 10:04:54)
‘I’m not necessarily anti-feminist as a lot of the people here are. One of my favourite places to go, like, I like Men’s rights reddit where a lot of people are intelligent but I also find that it’s an echo chamber sometimes.
One of the other place I like to go is FeMRA debates where there’s actually more moderate feminists who will discuss the issues as opposed to just fighting against you and being vigilant in their position which forces you to be vigilant against theirs. That second step of getting into the ring, you watch your opponent box, you wanna see what he’s coming at you with.
So when you talk to these people who are actually level headed feminists, the kind like these would be good in the movement. Sounds like ‘yeah, I agree where you’re coming from’ and surprising you’re like ‘yeah, I agree with where you’re coming from’ and when we start to foster these mutual communications which is a lot closer to what Warren Farrell has always talked about, we actually start to come closer to an ideal that both sides can agree on and ‘fuck the radicals! Push them to the side.”
Paul took this as calling some MRA’s ‘radicals’ and at the con, shortly after McPhee made his statement, Paul said he ‘totally rejects the idea’ that there are radicals in their movement. He wrote on AVFM
By MRA radicals, he [McPhee] means AVFM.
If you are a supporter of our work, he means you.
I didn’t hear that at all. I think Paul is having a meltdown because he’s connected to CAFE and CAFE isn’t following Paul’s cult orders. He thinks they’re impotent and ‘like politicians’ who are more interested in public perception than men’s rights. CAFE needs to ‘start showing some resolve, some fucking spine’ Paul complains.
There’s the money issue. Paul makes it crystal clear that the money will stop flowing to CAFE if they don’t wise up and get as disgusting in their rhetoric as he is.
‘As CAFE should be able to see with crystal clarity at this point, public posturing in an attempt to portray themselves as the “good guys” vs the likes of AVFM and others who are putting their mouths where their values are, is a recipe for nothing but continued successful attacks from their opponents, and a loss of faith in those who would otherwise continue to support their efforts.’
Paul stated he spoke to CAFE members and got them in line. Everything is hunky dory, and Adam McPhee responded to Paul’s meltdown.
Adam said he didn’t mean there were radicals in AVFM because AVFM has gotten rid of red-pillers, PUA’s and masculinists. He reminded Paul that policing the Manosphere and disavowing other men’s groups isn’t a good idea and that he hates ‘echo chambers’, politely reminding other MRA’s to openly disagree with leaders.
McPhee says he doesn’t see feminism as the enemy and thinks the softer approach allows people, both men and women, to discuss the issues. He advises to ‘ignore’ the radicals in the MRM and compares feminist protesters to what would be MRM radicals. It became a definition game with McPhee wondering what Paul’s definition of ‘radical’ entails.
McPhee appeals to Paul that if there are any radicals in the MRM they must be kicked to the curb but he didn’t like Paul calling him out publicly
‘However, I don’t support your trying to turn AVFM readers against someone who you simply disagree with, who also contributes to the recognition of men’s issues, because I did not mean them.’
He took some good shots at Paul
‘You say I should hold some resolve, have a fucking spine, and essentially not sit on the fence. Sorry, but I prefer to have an open mind. It’s the other side of the fence that is usually stuck in staunchly held world-views (Patriarchy! Patriarchy! Patriarchy!), and that’s what you want me to be like? Pass. That’s why I’m not over there.’
‘With all due respect, I would suggest you work harder at practicing what you preach, lest you come across as an overly defensive individual, more concerned with his personal ego gratification than with the ultimate goals of the MHRM. Personally I’m disappointed you didn’t feel you could come and talk to me about my comment afterwards, wherein we could have had a discussion on what I meant by my comments and come to a better understanding.
Your light will not get any brighter by blowing out someone else’s candle.’
If anyone think Paul isn’t in this for ego gratification is seriously missing the point. Good on McPhee for calling him out on that. I mean who else would sell T-shirts of their face with a quote underneath it. The self-importance factor of Paul Elam looms large over the Manosphere and I’m glad people are calling him out for it.
Expecting Elam to be reasonable is like expecting a duck not to quack. I think McPhee knows this and while he did make some points with Paul he definitely deferred to him. All is well now though as Paul has spoken with CAFE. I wonder what will happen next?
*For a really good interview with David Futrelle please click here AUDIO INTERVIEW.