Big Red Neckbeard Hates Women AND Children

Paul Elam’s intent to go softer on his woman hating is failing miserably today. In response to an angry letter from a man regarding AVFM’s new mission statement, he wrote ‘There Is No Such Thing as a Sperm Donor. They Take It All.’ In it he rails at the guy who wrote him telling him he was done with the Men’s Human Rights Movement because of AVFM’s hatred. Specifically, Elam and friends have decided that paying child support needs to go and men need to have control over women’s reproductive rights. The ‘former’ MRA wrote him:

‘I am writing to let you know that you just lost another reader. In fact, I now consider myself DONE with the MRM.

I could not believe my eyes when I saw in your new mission statement that you think a man should be able to walk away from his responsibilities as a father when he gets a woman pregnant.

Is this what your new world looks like, men having all the sex they want and then turning their backs on the women who are carrying their children?

This casts a shadow of shame on every man who supports your movement. I refuse to be one of them.’

Paul Elam, being the aggressive misogynist that he is and who hates it when men question him, doubled down on his stance  and proclaimed that yes, men should be able to fuck and dump women and walk away from any babies that result from it. He also gives us a clue into his stance on abortion.

‘Men (at least those they bother to inform) wait to be told if their child will be surgically terminated. If the child is allowed to live, the man will wait to be told how often he will have access to it, and how much it will cost him. He will also be pointedly informed of the price for not paying up.’

Paul Elam needs a class in reproduction. It’s not a child before birth Paul. It’s a foetus.

His reasoning for why men should be allowed to run off and leave their children without a dime?

‘Women have almost limitless options where it concerns reproduction. There are multiple, inexpensive forms of birth control. They can keep their legs closed. That option is very affordable, even if telling women life as a cum dumpster is risky, both for women and for the people who point out that the statement is true. There is abortion as a unilateral decision. There is even a post-conception abortion pill.’

Children are not only are stuck with a deadbeat dad who doesn’t give a fig about them but women who have sex are cum dumpsters who deserve to live in poverty with their kids because it’s more important that men screw women and leave their progeny in the dust. He thinks caring for a child financially is slavery for men.

What’s at issue here is deadbeats. AVFM is full of them. These are men who are older and have kids and either don’t pay child support or pay portions of it. Basically, they’re just men who hate their ex wives and take it out on the child.

‘Consent to sex does not mean consent to parent. Ask any woman. She will tell you.’

What Elam and friends don’t understand, what they get wrong every time, is that consenting to sex is NEVER consenting to parenthood for either men or women. Consenting to sex means you consent to the possibility that a pregnancy may come of it and that if a child is born you financially must support that child. Giving money to support the child isn’t parenting. Mothers who raise children that come from deadbeats are the parents who are parenting the child. Anyone can give money but not everyone parents.

‘I am just saying that unless you are willing to tell women to quit expecting handouts and a cup of sympathy every time they get themselves knocked up by the nearest thug, you may just be proving your hypocrisy and your intellectual weakness.’~Paul Elam

Women aren’t expecting sympathy. The child has needs which Elam calls ‘chivalry.’ You can see a bit of Elliot Rodger in his writing too. Elam, like Rodger, thinks women just go for Alpha males who treat them badly while ignoring the lower status males, like Elam himself, who are the real men, the men that really care.

‘Your body. Your choice, and your fucking baby. Now let’s hear some shit about how you don’t need a man. But you might want to consider the fact that a growing number of us have heard that one enough to start honoring it whenever possible.’

The anger Elam has towards women is so palpable, so intense and now we know he hates children just as much. I’m going to start calling him ‘Big Red Neckbeard.’ CLICK ON IMAGE FOR FULL SIZE

Big Red Neckbeard

Big Red Neckbeard





40 thoughts on “Big Red Neckbeard Hates Women AND Children

      • I think so. I think that’s definitely part of it. The other part is economic and social. Economically men are worse off today because the traditional manufacturing jobs are overseas. Detroit is GONE.

        Now not every guy is turned on by the MRA”s. They still are a very distinct group and not that big, although they like to claim they encompass the whole world. They really are a backlash group who think women are getting all the perks, which we’re not, and are losing their shit over it.

        Socially there is a dwindling nuclear family and that’s the role they think they’re entitled to, which is patriarchal in every sense.

        It’s aggrieved entitlement plus not able to have healthy relationships either sexually or otherwise. Many of these men also have mental illnesses that have prevented them from every TRYING to adapt to our new culture.

        Feminism is still very much needed to erase gender roles and usher in a new society that isn’t about hierarchical power structures (power over) and equality for all according to their needs. Distribution of wealth is necessary and wealth must never be accumulated by a few.

        I’m reading stuff on matriarchal socieities, which isn’t the opposite of patriarchy but is completely egalitarian. It’s not to be confused by GYNOCRATIE, which was a word used a few centuries ago that means ‘women rule.’

        I’m doing a post on that on my adjutant blog ‘mancheeze at home’ See sidebar for link to my other blogs. Have you read Backlash? It’s in the sidebar too. Once you read that book you’ll understand exactly what the MRA’s are doing. It is an eye opener that was written in 91′. MRA’s have been around for centuries doing the same thing they’re doing now: trying to take away women’s gains.

  1. Very hard-hitting article, HMQ! I’m looking at this “Mission Statement” and thinking, this is it for AVFM. For years Elam carefully avoided being pinned down on what his political/social/ideological agenda was. He just went around bashing women indiscriminately, clearing the field as it were.

    AVFM began having aspirations of eventual legitimacy with its conference, and has now made the mistake of putting forth what it actually wants (besides the obvious, women’s continued subjugation). The Mission Statement is going to be a bomb that blows them to smithereens, one that blew up in their own little workshop while they were constructing it.

    I think you’re right – the underlying motivation of contempt for and hatred of women, the agenda to remove all responsibility of men for their children, and much more are set out for Elam’s tiny audience, and many men are going to be revolted by it.

    Every line of the Mission Statement should be analyzed and discussed by the media. I hope this receives the wide attention it deserves.

    • I agree with you. The final blow was this mission statement. Now I saved an image of it so if he changes it I have the original. Many dudes in the comment section of the MS are telling him to change certain things. I’m not surprised at this statement.

      What we need to do now is engage parts of the US govt that Farrell is trying to suck up to to get a White House Council for men and boys. This is the next step for us as feminists. I will put up a list of people we can contact to inform them of Farrell’s support for AVFM and their MS. Do you want Farrell involved with that? No way.

  2. AVFM’s Mission Statement Deconstructed

    “The past 50 years has been a time of remarkable change in the world of western women. With the help of technology and forward thinking our society has thrown off sex based expectations and limitations for women, allowing them important, long-deserved access to the path of self-actualization.
    We now live in a world where a woman’s role in life is one of choice, not a destiny shaped by tradition, determined by biology or forged in law. This, we think, is as it should be.”

    Comment: The framework set forth is that women have achieved liberation and equal political, economic, and social power, so they have no more issues of oppression and inequality. However, this is an easily-demonstrable false statement. The reason this framework of a falsehood is set up is to proceed to ignore women’s ongoing global oppression and to suggest that it is men who are now oppressed. That, however, has never been demonstrated.

    “This revolution in freedom and identity, however, will not be complete until the same standards find their way into the lives of the average man. The absence of that complimentary change in the lives of men has created an imbalance that erodes the autonomy of both sexes. Unless this changes, that Imbalance will worsen.”

    Comment: The writing is already starting to fall apart here, with the many “lives” of the average man, and “complimentary” change. Putting the writing aside, this paragraph suggests that there is now an imbalance in the other direction, that women are now the oppressors, a lie. Women have not thrown off sex-based expectations, though they are working on it, no thanks to reactionary misogynists like Elam.

    “Freedom from sex based expectations for just one sex will never result in freedom for either sex. It is simply a foundation of exploitation on which tyranny is built and administered.”

    Since neither sex has such freedom, this statement is nonsensical. The suggestion that women are currently tyrannizing men politically, economically, socially, and globally, is a blatant lie.

    “As a society, we are already on that path. The noble idea of freedom and equity between the sexes has been corrupted. It has become a malignancy on our social consciousness. What used to be cooperation between sexes is now gynocentric parasitism which inhabits every level of men’s existence from cradle to coffin. The efforts to enhance the rights of women have become a toxic efforts to undermine the rights of men.”

    Comment: There was never free cooperation between the sexes, there was only women’s survival efforts to live in a system of subjugation. There were no good old days for women, This nostalgia for the oppressive past does make sense for men who wish to continue to benefit from that oppression.

    Further, the use of the phrase “gynocentric parasitism” is the beginning of a freefall into misogynistic phraseology. Elam claims that when he uses sexist slurs they are only against feminists, not all women, but this little screed is explicitly inclusive of all women.

    I suppose “inhabits” is supposed to be “Inhibits”.

    “It is time for equity minded men and women to engage in the final push for freedom for both sexes, and indeed for all human beings. It is time for the interests of humanity to take precedence over the interests of men and women as political factions and social adversaries. It is time for a gender transition movement that favors humanity, not a particular sex. It is time for feminism to fulfill its promise, and to quit making a mockery of it.”

    Comment: The incoherent writing is a serious problem here, as the Statement now says we need freedom for both sexes and human beings, too. One wonders who these extraneous humans are. The phrase “gender transition movement” is undefined and just made up, apparently. The final sentence states that feminism is making a mockery of its promise, which a few paragraphs ago, it seems, was to liberate women, and which, according to AVFM, has been amply fulfilled.

    “With those humanist ideals guiding our path, we hereby proclaim the following to be the mission of A Voice for Men:”

    One must ask who “we” are. AVFM is not a movement; it is not a magazine; it is a blog owned 100% by the self-described Happy Misogynist, Paul Elam, who personally censors the comments and approves any article published, collects all the donations and does not account for them. Any implication that there is a “we” is a false implication: this is Elam’s screed.

    “Male Genital Mutilation, euphemistically known as “circumcision” must end. Neither religion nor tradition will excuse the sexual mutilation of children.”

    No organized women’s group opposes this notion. It is a male issue in which patriarchal religions and cultures have set up ritual initiations into manhood. If polled, women would probably support ending circumcision. The odious comparisons MRAs have made to the much more hideous female genital mutilation are, even so, implicit here.

    “Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) precisely as it was originally written, and sign it into law. Or the equivalent in other countries if they do not yet have equal rights as a matter of law.”

    Comment: The notion here is that men would immediately organize to co-opt the ERA and use it to eradicate all laws protecting women, in the mode of the Bakke case, in which a white man sued to prevent minorities from benefiting from affirmative action in universities. In the 1960s, when this law was proposed by feminists, they did not foresee such an attack on women. At this time no sophisticated women’s group which would like to keep protective laws in place would support the ERA as originally written. The proposed language has now been amended to ensure the ERA would retain such protections, which is why the language here insists on the original discarded language.

    “Selective Service must either be abolished or include women.”

    Comment: No problem here for me personally. If polled I believe most women would support abolishing Selective Service registration. If a draft is nevertheless ever reinstated in the US, I strongly support women’s inclusion, as it would end war. The MRA thinking, however, is this: that if women were drafted, it would show the ridiculousness of treating them equally, as they are generally peaceniks unable to kill coldly and mercilessly, as men do, and therefore the incongruity of women having equal rights will be shown.

    “Reproductive rights, choice in parenthood for men. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. Upholding this idea for women while denying it to men must end. Men must be allowed to unilaterally reject parental rights and obligations during the same period of time in which a woman may legally obtain an abortion. The identified father must be served with legal notification of the intent use his assets for the benefit of a child while an abortion is still legal, or the right to use said assets by the mother are forfeit.”

    Comment: This is a meaty little piece of shit. Let’s start with “Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood”. How so? Sex is how babies get made. Birth control fails, notoriously.

    It is stated that men must be able to have a financial abortion prior to the baby’s birth. The idea is that if a women does not then have an abortion or arrange for adoption, she will have 100% responsibility for supporting their child. The language doesn’t exclude married men, so theoretically women could be supporting the children they wanted to keep, but he didn’t, along with children he did want to keep. So long, marriage, which of course many radfems would heartily support.

    Nothing here states that a man who had decided not to support his child would at the same time not be able to have a full fatherly relationship with that child. This is morally outrageous.

    The sentence beginning “the identified father” is incoherent, but extrapolating, seems to be merely an extension of the idea that a new father would have to be notified that he will be a father so he can financially abort his child.

    The problem with all this, of course, is that decades of debate, studies, politics, discussions, and so on, have led to a single conclusion with regard to this debate: the interests of the child will be considered paramount. It’s not about the mother and her putative greed and hatefulness; it is about an innocent baby, and how it will eat, be clothed, be schooled.This moral principle has withstood the test of decades and many challenges. MRAs are not in a position, without a degree of expertise they do not possess, to challenge this principle of law.

    “Paternity fraud should be punishable under law under the same standards of any other form of fraud.”

    Comment: There is zero evidence that it is not. Presumably, this cryptic sentence means that a woman who claims a certain man is the father of a child will not benefit from that claim if it is false. Indeed, she will be punished. In fact, whether a man is actually the father is routinely ascertained at the beginning of any child support proceeding(some women are unsure who the father is); this is a non-issue. There is no such thing as paternity fraud now that there are dispositive paternity tests, so this is some kind of stupid distraction. Deliberate paternity fraud barely exists; far more likely is a woman who is unsure of the father, without intent to defraud. This is a non-issue.

    “Affirmative Action programs based on sex must be abolished.”

    Comment: Elam reveals his provinciality here. Affirmative action is imperative in many countries in which women have suffered terrible legal impediments. Further. Elam is in favor of affirmative action if it brings men into nursing and other female-majority professions in developed countries. And further, affirmative action has been an extraordinary equalizer over the decades, which MRAs have fought all the way and which they have failed to stop, allowing women to break into ivy league schools, obtain graduate degrees, move into well-paying professions, contribute to science, and so on. But there is always the ineradicable misogyny and the pressure to again exclude women, which affirmative action highlights and studies and prevents.

    “Abolish the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and retroactively audit its beneficiaries for accountability with funds used.”

    The Act covers men as well, despite its name, so the problem must be in abolishing violence. A Voice for Men always makes me think: A Violence for Men. To audit its beneficiaries is already done, but inventing non-existing issues is about all MRAs have.

    “Abandon Duluth Model and all patriarchy theory-based models of domestic violence in favor of non-ideological evidence-based solutions and programs.”

    Comment: The Duluth Model is based on objective statistics regarding the prevalence of male violence. It is not ideological but reality-based. Nevertheless, Elam makes this bald statement without making a case.

    “End primary aggressor laws.”

    I’d appreciate a cite here. I don’t think there is such a thing. There may be local policies. If there are no laws, this statement is a lie.

    “End mandatory arrest laws.”

    This seems to refer to a long-thought-out response to domestic violence in which experts understood that women victims were unable to press charges due to express and implied intimidation. All indications are that mandatory arrests of both female and male perpetrators of domestic violence is a policy which is hugely successful. Before that, male perps in particular could keep returning to do even more damage. AVFM wants to hamstring domestic violence laws. it’s cheesy not to come out and say so.

    “Require all state and federally funded DV programs to extend full and equal services, including shelter, without regard to sex.”

    Comment: I would challenge AVFM to come up with a single instance in which a male domestic violence victim would not recieve shelter to the same extent that it would be offered to a woman. Time and time again AVFM has claimed that male visctims are ignored, yet every domestic violence center in the country will in fact help male victims. This is a lie.

    “Sever family courts from Title IV-D money.”

    Comment: Elam isn’t a lawyer and doesn’t know what he’s talking about here.

    “Implement the assumption of equal physical parenting during divorce.”

    Comment: Why? Such an assumption would be false. The truth is that women continue to be the primary caregivers of children. This is asking courts to act against all evidence.

    “Allegations of intimate partnership violence or violence toward children in divorce proceedings must be proven in criminal court before they may be used as reason to deny physical or legal custody.”

    Sure, so long as temporary protective orders to protect children are in place pending the outcome of such criminal proceedings. But AVFM, I think, wants abusers to continue to access children pending such dispositions.

    “Dispense with child support except in special circumstances.”

    Comment: Wouldn’t it be better to end employment discrimination against women so they also are equally liable for child support? But no, end child support. Let the children starve, whatever. In fact, the entire court-regulated system of child support is set up to help children whatever problems their parents have about accepting responsibility for their parenthood. End child support? Well then, end fatherhood as a concept. Is this really what MRAs want?

    “End alimony except by pre-nuptial agreement.”

    Comment: Alimony is a temporary expedient to help people in a marriage who accepted a supporting role that made it impossible for them to be indepently self-supporting during the marriage. it’s a hangover from a time when women gave up their work prospects to support a man in the domestic sphere. It must feel very schizophrenic for MRAs to look at this, since many of them want women to maintain their traditional roles, which morally entitles them to help when men divorce them. Elam seems to think people shouldn’t have temporary help as they re-enter the workforce, and thinks this only applies to women, ignoring the many men househusbands finding themselves in this same predicament nowadays. True, alimony is, on the whole, a transitional expedient until women are liberated and self-determining. I assume AVFM loves this idea, and looks forward to the day and fully supports the day when women earn exactly the same money as men.

    “Make pre-nuptial agreements irrevocably binding.”

    No contract should be irrevocably binding. Elan lacks legal knowledge and expertise and it’s fully on display with this sentence.

    “Marriage should be based solely on contract law.”

    Radfems would agree that marriage should be abolished. To have a limited contract seems like a good idea to me. AVFM, of course, doesn’t really want to abolish male sex privileges via marriage; it only wants to abolish any protections women may obtain through marriage. This is the contratiction MRAs just can’t get past: they want sexual access, but they don’t want to treat women as human beings. It’s a conundrum, one they will never solve.

    Reverse Dear Colleague Letter, return honor courts to their intended purpose of handling academic code violations. College tribunals are not equipped to address felony criminal matters.”

    True. I think women would rather the police handle rape allegations. I certainly agree this puts too much pressure on academics, who aren’t trained to handle criminal matters. Rape is rape. If it occures, expulsion should be the least of the rapists’ problems.

    “End federal funding and provide penalties for universities that interfere with the rights of men to form campus groups.”

    Comment: Again, the legal imperatives the Office for Civil Rights operates under are completely unknown to AVFM. They are naive and lack all understanding of the applicable laws.

    “End rape shield laws.
    Rape and other forms of sexual assault shall not be based on “penetration” or any sex-specific characteristic, but based on clearly-stated lack of consent.”

    Comment: Rape is penetration. That’s rape. Always has been, always will be. There’s a specific crime which is perpetrated against women in war, for sex, for power, in rage, whatever. It’s called rape. No MRA signifying can make it go away.

    “Prohibit state interference in any sexual relationship between consenting adults.”

    Comment: begging the question: how do we know it’s consenting without the state looking at it? Come on.

    “Infanticide” shall be considered murder, the killing of a human being, no different based the sex of the perpetrator.

    Comment: It already is. Like any crime there may be mitigating circumstances. If a schizophrenic man murders a woman, we take his mental illness into account. Same with a well-known common temporary mental illness associated with childbirth. The idea here seems to be to pretend women get a free pass. No, they don’t, unless they are mentally ill like the male schizophrenic I just discussed.

    Well, there’s also the fascinating response by Elam to the MRA saying he weas getting out discussed in this article, and I hope to get to it but don’t have time right now. I would like to point out that women as “cum buckets” is a concept that needs to be very widely disseminated for Elam. I’m pleased to see he has taken full responsibility for this article.

    Thanks for giving women the opportunity to state their reactions to Elam’s severe misogyny. HMQ.

    • Thanks for the better summary of the lack of legal knowledge that rattles around in Big Red Neckbeard’s skull. I’m of the opinion that his girlfriend doesn’t know what he’s up to. He claimed he was against marriage with all the dumbass sayings that he learned from John Hembling like ‘women are holding a gun at you if you marry her.’ I think Elam claims the progressive ‘I don’t need marriage to love you’ position to his gf but in reality she doesn’t know what he’s doing. This woman hatred would never go by her but then again, there are several women who perpetuate patriarchy or say nothing when they see it. Or Elam demonizes his other 3 wives and she mothers him like he’s a toddler. I don’t know but I DO know that this mission statement is the end of them in every way.

      They got so cocky after that conference and thought they were going mainstream. Then they had a hand in that ‘women against feminism’ crap and got even more cocky and delusional. This is truly it for them. No matter how many languages they put their site into, they will never be taken seriously by anyone. They had a SMALL chance to go mainstream after the conference but big mouth Elam ruined it with this mission statement. It’s now the touchstone that will be included with his other violent posts but this one being the most important because he outright claims he wants to take away women’s political and socioeconomic gains.

      Can everyone say ‘FAIL?’

      • Right. What really stands out is that all of this concerns the “gynocentric parasitism” that is supposed to be imbalancing proper relations between the sexes. Not stated is what the proper balance is considered to be: I would say according to AVFM, a good balance would be for men to have about 90% of the power.

        I count 23 specific demands. Overall, the scope of the demands finally explains what AVFM stands for, or should I say, against.

        Most demands only make sense in the US and Canada. The rest of the world, except incidentally with regard to the demand to end circumcision, is ignored.

        Male prison rape is ignored. This horrendous men’s issue doesn’t push back against women and isn’t such an affliction for white men, so it’s of no interest.

        Men’s economic issues are ignored, except for the demands that the proposed (and moribund) ERA be implemented in such a way that women’s protective laws could be attacked, and that affirmative action for women in employment be prohibited. Significant economic working men’s issues, such as male poverty due to rampant income inequality and the plight of male undocumented immigrants at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, are ignored.

        There are very few demands that are not related to sexual privileges of men, including: to end circumcision, end women’s draft exemption, allow men-only groups on campus, end affirmative action for women, and to pass the dead ERA ( a spurious demand).

        But the great majority of demands fall into the category of reinstating and strengthening men’s sexual privileges. AVFM is announcing itself as a specialty site. I suppose it always was, but it was not so clear as it is now.

        With all the suffering of the humanity AVFM says it abhors, the only things it wants to do about it, other than what I’ve already mentioned, are: to give fathers more rights to custody while removing any obligation to support their children, to weaken rape and domestic violence protections, and to weaken protections for dependent spouses. That’s it. That’s what AVFM boils down to (I’m ignoring the spurious call to make infanticide a crime since it already is.)

        AVFM is therefore fully revealed as the go-to site for men who want to fight losing their sexual privileges. They are correct in complaining that the more women gain control over their bodies, the less men have that control. It IS a zero-sum game, as they complain. The game has always been rigged against women, but women have gained some control, and AVFM wants the rigged game back. AVFM reveals itself as profoundly reactionary as well as anti-egalitarian.

        Talking about a balance is a false framework. AVFM is part of a backlash attempt to roll back women’s control of their own bodies and wills, a control that women have very painfully secured. This backlash must be analyzed, understood, and resisted.

        • Prison rape a serious issue? I just had an MRA tell me that and yet he parrots AVFM’s party line. Well, the patriarchal need to control women’s reproduction and sex lives is a mainstay of male power. There’s part of me that thinks women shouldn’t reproduce with men at all but that’s not realistic. I’m also a big fan of lesbian separatism. However, NOT doing something with men is just a preliminary solution but definitely effective. These MRA’s want to be needed by women to the point where women are OBEYING them.

          Also I was reading some stats about how badly men do after divorce. Women adjust very well, but not men. This is what we see in the older MRA’s. The interesting thing is MRA’s keep thinking that dropping out of society is going to make some difference. They equate chivalry with sexual access to women. They think women OWE them and when women aren’t OBEYING they think being sociopathic animals is the solution.

          ‘I won’t open a door for a woman or be human with her until she gives me sexual access.’ Makes you wonder how easily men slide into sociopathy.

          • Yeah, HMQ, about separatism, though lesbians are the leaders, a lot of straight women would be thrilled to be able to spend part or all of their lives living communally with other women (and without a patriarchal ideology like the Catholic Church controlling them). I’m totes puzzled about why this isn’t a big thing. I would love to live with a bunch of women in an apartment complex with a pool and communal eating hall. Women gardeners & security – no men on premises, Boys allowed up to age 10. Privacy in your own place.

            Why is this such a radical idea? Obviously women would like to have gardens to walk in free of the male gaze, have a sense of security when we go to bed, exist in a clean and aesthetic atmosphere. It’s not illegal I don’t think. So how come there is no such thing? Women could do this tomorrow.

            And then when they feel up for the war they can move out and mate and live with men under a zero-tolerance-for-anger-and -violence contract for a while. End the “sacrament” of marriage where two become one (the man). Contract law is well-established and overall fair. The parties are equal and if they’re not when trouble happens the courts can equalize the power. I do like this AVFM idea, though I’m sure AVFM would implement it differently!

          • Getting back to Big Red Neckbeard (BRN) ‘s followup, called something like “Women are Spermjackin’ Cumdumpsters – We will not tolerate Misogyny on this Site” –

            I quote–

            AVFM Commenter: “Is this what your new world looks like, men having all the sex they want and then turning their backs on the women who are carrying their children?”

            BRN: “Yeah, that sums it up pretty nicely, actually. But I should add that I think men should be able to do so without a hint of guilt or social stigma.”

            Followed By BRN: “[Women] can keep their legs closed. That option is very affordable, even if telling women life as a cum dumpster is risky, both for women and for the people who point out that the statement is true.”

            Now see, this is just moronic thinking. If men are to have all the sex they want but women should close their legs because they don’t want to be cum dumpsters, men won’t have all the sex they want.

            THAT won’t work. Women need to keep their legs open and also accept the shame of being cum dumpsters. How’s that? And also accept that they could have easily kept their virginity if they had kept their legs closed, but they can’t be allowed to do that.

            So cumdumpsters it is, a woman’s fate.


            It’s a conundrum. So many AVFM positions are like that, reminiscent of ugly huge pigs talking crudely while swilling their garbage in the barnyard.

        • Bella,

          Regarding what you said about separatism. It should be do-able, but I’ve had some experiences with this while living in a residency hotel which was set aside just for women (some elderly, some students, some travelling, some escaping from male abusers) and we got along great (the laundry facility was like a big pajama party!) except that every so often some man would get into the building and go from door to door stabbing random women.

          We still had male staff. The were not armed because it was not allowed by law in that particular city. If we had armed totally female staff and maybe all the women were armed, as well, it would help.

          Also, any community or living arrangement like this of any kind would benefit by maintaining secrecy because if men know where to find women they will go there to commit crimes against us. Of course, that’s going to be impossible.

          • WOOW, we are on the same wavelength. I’ve never had the communal women’s experience. it’s a dream. Except once, when I was 16 and stayed at a YWCA Hotel when those still existed.

            I guess – no male staff, armed security, and a low profile. Good way to go!

        • I would also like to know why female separatism is not more of a thing. It would seem to me like a simple, if incomplete, solution.

          In the end, men need women (esp in unpaid labor) more than women need men. Separatism can only benefit women. Which is why MGTOWs are so silly. They know they can’t really do it.

          • Yep. I can only think that womaen are doing this but you can’t just do a web search and find them.

          • Then there should probably be more! If I had a lot more money, I would certainly want to back such organizations. There’s probably women with money who would do the same…

          • Well there’s all woman communes. That’s something I’d LOVE to start. A self containing community where we’re all valued and wealth isn’t hoarded and everyone honoured. That was what societies were like in the past and there are still some remains of them. However, the Musuo is getting interfered with by patriarchal capitalism. Many men travel there thinking they’re going to get laid. It’s atrocious. The musuo women don’t marry and aren’t monogamous. Well, they have multiple partners and patriarchal assholes travel into the community and assume it’s a free for all orgy. Dumb idiots.

            So their space is dwindling because men think it’s a tourist attraction and outside influence is ruining them. It makes me always wonder about separation and how it really works when you have a world so dominated by men.

            Something just sprung to mind. When I was at a battered women’s shelter we were removed from the main area of the home because a dude had to come in and fix some electrical issue. MRA’s want to invade battered women’s shelters, they think they should have men in there too. What a nutso idea.

            You see, they do this mind trick called a reversal, which I never could quite figure out, until now. what they do is imagine what it would be like for THEM to be divorcing and in a shelter and WANT women around them to coddle them and probably to fuck them so they assume women’s shelters are good for them. Uh no.

            The reversals get so obnoxious because the very structural inequality in our society makes them so.

            Another thing too, they are so preoccupied with sex. AVFM just came out with ANOTHER post on sex and porn, which are two different things. Most of them are porn addicts. I know of no women that get strung out on porn. I’ve NEVER met a single woman who watched porn of her own accord unless they’re talked into it by a guy. I’m not saying there are NO women that watch it but it seems men are just losing their shit over it. I guess for those guys they need the addiction because it’s impossible for them to survive without it. It amazes me how obsessed men are about porn and esp these guys.

  3. Sorry about the typos above. They’re inevitable in such a long comment and unlike Elam I don’t have the option to edit the comment.

  4. Uh, Kill me now, sorta. Been over at the mensrights sub posting about Elam’s Cumdumpster post ( Got the whole thread deleted. All appeals ignored. Shadowbanned. All comments deleted.


    It’s a pretty good meme. It’s how AVFM describes women. Let’s never forget that.

    • I don’t see where you were posted. When you do an image you must expand all the disqus comments in order to see it and it must be taken when the comments are actually there.

      I never post at AVFM although i’m accused of it. It’s a waste of time and they’ll just delete you anyway. You can’t have a rational discussion with misogynists.

      • Oh, yes, I was posted:

        I spent a few hours talking about AVFM’s cum dumpster post.

        As a new poster, i had to wait ten minutes between posts. I did my best.

        I kept posting as various AVFM members tried to erase what I was saying.

        When one of them asked for the whole thread to be deleted, I objected with a careful post.

        Didn’t matter.

        Impossible to post there regarding anything AVFM posts that are psychotic, about 50% of AVFM;s posts.

        Elam’s psychoses seem to have infected the entire mensrights sub.

          • Oh, who cares..,you know, you make your point, the MR mods erase you, they pretend they don’t erase people, you move on…

            No worries…you post on an AVFM puppet site like mensrights, you’ll find puppets madly erasing anything critical of AVFM…

            Especially when Paul’s been doing the cum dumpster thing…they don’t want that to get any wider exposure…they feel he musta been drunk or high on shrooms, whatever…they cover for him…he’s the crazed guru who says horrible shit they have to cover up quick…

            Cum Dumpsters! Cum Dumpsters! Why, you disgusting pig, haha!

  5. Paul Elam’s definition of women:

    Access for no more than 2 seconds: men’s real idea of women:

    Hey women, look at this shit. Think, wow, my disgust is off the charts, Resolve never to see this again.

    Cool. But it’s there. For ever. Now what?

    I say leave them to it. Whoa. They’re not that interesting or attractive, just sorta. Get over that once you see they are snakes, boas, anacondas, yeah, cobras. Say g’bye, ya perves.

  6. What a fantastic comment thread! You know, this exemplifies the reason I was drawn to radical feminism in the first place. It’s because I noticed the smartest comments on the internet were written by radical feminists. Way to go, everyone!
    I’d love the idea of women-only communities. I think the main reason there’s not enough support for them is because we’re in a backlash.

  7. Hi, Ella, maybe it’s purely backlash, but thinking about it, these are some other possible obstacles:

    – women come in many political stripes. Your neighbor in 2b may like living with women, but she wants her BF over five nights a week too. He keeps showing up…in other words, keeping men at a reasonable distance will be a constant challenge. The lease language would have to be carefully drawn.

    – The way to make it happen is for a woman or group of women to buy an apartment complex. Wouldn’t have to be de luxe, just something that could be fixed up, but for say, 12 units it would cost in the millions. Women are still coming out of the Dark Ages as you know on the money front, so not too many women have this kind of credit and down payment. Even so, plenty of us do, and grateful tenants would make it worth their while to invest.

    – Lots of us have heard of or remember the 60s rural communes where women were always milking goats and plowing the field. This is incredibly romantic but beyond most of our aspirations – we’re not very good farmers. most of us. So we think a commune means goats and Oregon, but why? No need to buy a plot of meadow and start from scratch. Pick up a nice little group of 2 bdr 1 ba apts in town where people have jobs and/or cultural/social work to do.

    – There is a potential problem. If you want to rent a room in your house in my state, fine, and you can specify women only, because you share facilities. But if you have a shack in the backyard to rent, you’re not supposed to limit it to women. So the complex should have intimate shared facilities. I suggest outdoor showers in a ferny setting. I love outdoor showers! I don’t mean we all shower together, Just that our totthpaste and all is lines up on the windowsill. It might well be enough.

    probably a lot more things to work past. But if you have the down payment and the credit, maybe as a real estate consortium, it ought to add up to enough. And us tenants would pay rent and maintenence fees. And we’d have gardens, privacy, and peace. I want the one in back with the view of the tree where we hang all the wind chimes.

    • I want the ground unit where I can be close to the plants and care for them. I’ll have pet mouselings too!

      Seriously, as a disabled woman it would be hard for me to afford something like that.

  8. All right, you get 1A with the little patio in back and a gate from there to the common veggie/strolling garden…your mice need a safe place at night…some of us will have a cat…I will have a dog…the old lady in the corner unit might have a llama…and then, the chickens…

    I think the communal dining room in the middle of the garden, close to the pool, ought to have a piano and outlets for amps and guitars…we could trade lessons in what we know. I would like to finally learn to knit, also auto care.

    As for affording, the idea is for some sympathetic woman or group of women to be the owners, but they are investors who don’t necessarily live at the complex, they rent it out. They make their mortgage and us tenants make it appreciate for them, because we as women love our homes and will make it all more valuable. So it’s what an old 2 bdr 1 ba apt rental costs. Depends on where the complex is I guess as to what the average rent for such a place is. Upstate New York, $400-500. Los Angeles, $1200 maybe? What are prices like where you live in Canada?

    • Well we’d have to live away from the city because suburb prices are $300K for just a condo. It’s too expensive to live here in Vancouver or burbs. You need to get property far outside the city. However, Ontario or the Maritimes would be a good choice.

  9. Yep, money is always a problem, and so is keeping boyfriends out. The straight women want their love lives, after all.
    My idea of heaven is lots of land, natural beauty, and women.

    • There’s another lesson from my residency hotel experience. Keeping boyfriends out – if anybody there even had one – was not a problem. Any man had to wait for you in the lobby area.

      But, there is another potential problem involving male invaders and infiltrators. The hotel I lived in was the basis for the T.V. show Bosom Buddies. I don’t know if you remember the show, but two guys (one played by Tom Hanks) dressed up like women so they could take advantage of the low costs of living at the hotel. That was the 1970s, long before I ever heard the word “trans woman” or “tranny” or anyone ever envisioned a RuPaul! Even at the time I was living at the hotel, this was not an issue I was aware of, but I think it would be a problem now – you’d have dudes dressing up like women trying to get into bed with the women in the hotel! (Just like in the T.V. show!)

      Also, the presence of any men in the hotel was chilling, even the workers, desk clerks and security who comprised the main staff. Worse was the fear that security could be breached. I was always afraid to be in the hallways at night – I was never not armed with something even though this was prohibited by law. Because we were all women, we were a target.

      In order to have complete peace, you’d have to have no men, including trannies and wannabees, very trustworthy security and still I think everyone would have to be armed or have the right to be armed or else there’s going to be fear, especially at night.

  10. No problem Ella, we’ll just steal from men, gold dig, collect alimony and jack up the child support way beyond what the kids need!

    More likely though, we all pay something where we live now…it wouldn’t be much more, though keeping the pool at 80 year-round would be an expense…though solar helps…then there’s the hottub…yes, we’ll have to count our pennies…but buying food in bulk, having a communal phone line and computer access, and eating our own summer squash, onions, lettuce, berries, potatoes and carrots will cut down on expenses…

  11. BTW, I haven’t mentioned how happy I am that former MRAs are unhappy with Elam. It means that not all of these men are actually on board with abandoning their kids. It’s a small victory, but cheers to the men who leave the MRM because of this manifesto!

  12. I’ve always been more of a big-picture type, thinking it will result from a moment when women in our masses throw off the chains. But lately I’ve been thinking more about many micro-actions, many micro-centers. The first need would be to arrange space where women could interact safely and well, as away from male control as is feasible considering the government is a male machine – then, once safe, women’s culture and political action would have a jumpstart.

    BTW, there is a new group of radfems starting up in the US which I’m very impressed with. I’m going to write HMQ an email about it as I don’t want to draw public attention to it. Not quite sure how to safely let other radfems hear about this yet.

    Yes, it’s a relief to read some men seeing through AVFM. It is being criticized from several sides. I happened across a video from the ultra-conservative MRA, Bernard Chapin, who denounced Elam and his Sideshow Bob, Dean Esmay, for suggesting their members sign a petition some feminists put together a few months ago to have the government declare the ” MRM” a terroristic organization. E & E treated it as a joke, signed it, and recommended it. Chapin rightly pointed out that this illustrates Elam’s political and legal naivete, with potential harm to the clueless young men on his site. Fact is, Elam’s out of his league and is making one misstep after another.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s