Suffrage: Paul Elam Outed as Uneducated By Another MRA

On a post on AVFM featuring the right wing ‘feminist’ Christina Hoff Sommers a few MRA’s in the comment section got into it about suffrage. Most people who follow these male supremacist fuckwits know that bringing up suffrage as a staple point of women’s subjugation by men is a precursor to MRA emotional meltdowns.

During the meltdown you’ll see MRA’s climbing on top of each other, comment after comment, making the most outlandish statements. The historical revisionism gets so obnoxious that Elam eventually starts bringing up the fact that 17 year old’s can’t vote as a diversion. What he’s really saying is women are 17 year old’s that are too immature to vote. It just turns into a competition on who can be the most silly in the clusterfuck.

I’ve exposed the many contradictions MRA’s make when they get into these emo fights. This comment fight was no different.

A relatively new commenter brought up the fact that suffrage was a response to the oppression of women, that women not being allowed a say in the laws that governed them was indeed subjugation. This started the snowball rolling.

Angry Harry, a British MRA, is considered by many to be the first online MRA. He’s well respected. Without knowing it, Angry Harry contradicted Paul Elam during the clusterfuck and told him he was uneducated. CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE

Elam says women were never oppressed cuz they vote. LOL

Elam says women were never oppressed cuz they vote. LOL

If anyone noticed, this isn’t an argument about oppression of women due to not having the vote. Elam avoids it by talking about the current day.

Angry Harry’s response to another commenter not realizing that he insulted and contradicted Elam:

Time for some education!

Time for some education!

The Men’s Rights Movement is a joke.


  • Women only make up 20% of the US Senate
  • Women only make up 19% of US Congress
  • In Canada women are only 25% of the federal legislature

34 thoughts on “Suffrage: Paul Elam Outed as Uneducated By Another MRA

  1. The suffragettes delayed female emancipation, as anyone who’s read SOME SHIT BOOK WRITTEN BY A PSYCHO MISOGYNIST will understand. Did feminists really win the vote for women? No:

    >Edited for LINKS to stupid shit.

    • You’re absolutely right. Let me forget everything my history professors and other prominent historians have ever taught me about the suffragettes because a post on the internet tells me that feminists delayed women emancipation. While I’m at it, let me screenshot your comment and show it to all my friends so that we can all be enlightened together about your wondrous revelation.

      • Haha so your ‘history professors and other prominent historians’ – your history professors were prominent historians then? Who were they? – couldn’t have… er…. lied about women’s emancipation? They couldn’t have been politically motivated? Fair enough, your education is complete. Whatever you do, don’t read SOME SILLY MISOGYNIST book, nor open the link I provided to an outstanding blog piece from SOME OTHER ANGRY MISOGYNIST. No happiness could result from you doing so. Enlightenment, yes. Happiness, no. Your choice.

        Have a nice day.

        >Edited for links and references to other misogynists.

        • Neither Moxon nor Purdy appear to have the slightest academic credential to write about evolutionary psychology OR history. They’re bloggers who have published their screeds through what looks to be a vanity publisher. They are closely associated with numerous misogynistic online sites. According to news reports, Moxon was dropped as a municipal political candidate by a very conservative UK political party for writing approvingly about Anders Breivik’s manifesto and ideas!

          And these two bloggers are recommended by a guy who wildly suggests that there is a conspiracy of academic historians writing peer-reviewed literature to lie about the history of women’s suffrage.

          I’ll pass. Right now I’m reading a rather good book by a Professor of Sociology named Michael Schwalbe, published by the reputable academic publisher Paradigm, Schwalbe is an expert in Critical Gender Theory. The name of the book is Manhood Acts: Gender and the Practices of Domination. It’s about gender inequality, concentrating on “masculinity”. I certainly don’t agree with all the ideas presented but I do find it enlightening.

          As for Harry and Paul casting about for ways to rewrite history and arriving at inconsistent positions, you can do anything you want when you’re telling fairy tales.

            Just for the record (and not in any way wishing to interfere with your trenchant rant), I am actually very highly academically qualified, from one of the oldest and finest universities in Britain.

            For what it is worth, I am also an author who is published by the largest academic book publisher in the world, based in New York.

            In fact, I think you would be fearfully amazed to find just how very highly able are the people whom you so readily label as ‘MRA’s. If I were you, I wouldn’t fall into that trap.

            Most of us could eat the average feminist for breakfast, and still feel hungry by ten o’ clock (metaphorically and academically speaking, of course, I wouldn’t want to give you the impression that I am a cannibal, as well as an MRA! 😉 )

            (And, incidentally, vanity publishing has a proud history – ‘On the Origen of Species’ is a very good case in point. Just FYI.)

            It is because I have a mind that is academically trained never to accept what people say at face value, or indeed to believe the standard line on anything, that I always go back to sources and satisfy myself as to the validity of what others say. I commend it to you. As Bertrand Russel once said, ‘If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.’

            I think you will find that what I wrote about the Suffragettes is all rigorously referenced, so go back to the sources yourself and critically evaluate them. If you have a different outcome to me – fine. But beware of being one of the 50 million!

            Critical thinking is the way knowledge has been advanced down the centuries since the Enlightenment and the subsequent Age of Reason. It is the way weak-mindedness has been held at bay. Sadly, though, it seems, not in your case.

            And as to your obvious fear of people like me and others in the so-called MRA movement, Baruch Spinosa said, ‘A man should be able to think what he likes, and say what he thinks’. I commend that philosophy to you. If you listen to criticism of what you think from others, rather than reactively rejecting them because of a label, you might learn something to you advantage.

            I am sorry that the truth causes you discomfort. It is called cognitive dissonance: a psychological condition where, when new evidence comes to light that challenges one’s deeply held beliefs, it causes disorientation, largely because of the inability of the person so challenged to deal with the fact that they might be wrong.

            The truth is what sets people free from the deep ignorance in which so many wallow these days, and if you want to remain steeped in the false ideas of feminism – fine by me. It is your choice, but good minds are on your case. We’re coming for you (metaphorically speaking, of course, in case you think I am suggesting stalking you).

            If you want to spend your time reading material that only ever supports your beliefs, you will never see if you are wrong. You will never challenge the null hypothesis, let alone seek to disprove it, which is the true philosophy of research that leads to knowledge of what is real.

            For my part, I prefer my own mind to the minds of those whom Hayek described as, ‘second hand purveyors of ideas’. I’m afraid that type of person is all too easily found in the gender studies faculties of far too many of our fine universities these days – but, hey, follow them if you like. You might be one of the Russell’s 50 million!

            For me? ‘Thanks but no thanks’ is what I say. I’d rather keep my rational sanity, my integrity, my ability to think critically, intact.


            Herbert Purdy

            /END MANSPLAIN
            >Translation: I’m so smart. I’m so freakin smart and you women must fear me because I’m scary. I’m really a creepy misogynist asshole but I want you to fear me because I’m so smart.

          • Anyone who cites every dead dude who ever wrote a mediocre line and responds, when pressed for any relevant academic credentials, that he does have them, but does not choose to indicate to hoi polloi like us what they are, is just another MRA dweeb using an alias. My guess is he has a second from Sheffield U. In poetry.

        • Edited = Censored. Exactly the point I was making about manipulation to fit your chosen narratives. You did the same when I posted links to studies showing more women on corporate boards leads to corporate financial decline. Why does the truth hurt feminists so much? Maybe it’s because they’re only happy when spouting and disseminating lies?


          >Edited for LINKS TO MISOGYNIST IDIOTS

          • Your links are crap and they were already known. You walked away from that argument because you didn’t have one and your silly theory is actually a bunch of bunk but go ahead now and tell us you didn’t walk away and that your theory is supported. MRA’s just think they’re so effin smart when the rest of the world laughs at them for being so silly.

            Go ahead silly man.

        • I just found a vid in which an older man on “Herbert Purdy”‘s youtube channel makes the odious and projection-soaked assertion that a group of men sexually victimizing children in an English town aren’t responsible for what they did, “feminists”, generally, are. This isn’t an evidence-based assertion – he just knows he’s right because he is positive feminists are responsible for everything vicious and disgusting that men do to to children and women. Because. He says so, and he has colossal, amazing academic credentials, too fearfully amazing to reveal.

          Reminds me of the MRAs trying to blame male violence generally on the fact that the men had mothers (fathers have no responsibility in their scenario). The fairy tale: mothers can overcome the tide of genetics and social conditioning to make violent males gentle. No matter that current scientific research into the topic shows that parents have far less impact on their children’s character development than peers and the genetics of maleness.

          So “Herbert” appears to be a separate person who is merely Mr. Buchanan’s go-to when he gets in trouble on feminist sites. They’re merely peas in a misogynist pod.

        • Was I shown the door? Didn’t notice. The abiding memory I have of our discussion is that you appeared unable to accept that you were wrong in claiming I had Laurie Penny’s US email address. But then a feminist can claim the moon is made of blue cheese and will never retract the statement.

          • Mr. Buchanan, it appears that you have run off to your dear friend and MRA associate “Herbert Purdy” for help.

            Mr. “Purdy”‘s bombast is however perhaps not the the best style with which to approach this blog. His meaningless and pedantic quotes from Spinoza and others are the sign of a poor education, not a fine one. I would suggest you save Mr. “Purdy” for his usual audience.

            I notice that Mr. “Purdy” seems to be a bit of a will o’ the wisp, associated intimately only with you. In the videos I viewed he does not speak. Why is that, Mr. Buchanan? With his profound educational achievements, which I unfortunately am not privy to, I am sure he would want to verbally articulate his male supremacist notions. I find no biography of Mr. “Purdy” on the Net. In short, I wonder if Mr. “Purdy” is you, Mr. Buchanan.

          • Anything’s possible with these freaks. I’m being harassed on twitter now. The idiots are claiming I retweeted an image, which I never did and of course they don’t retweet the retweet to prove it.

            They’re having a meltdown over the fact I said Andrea Dworkin was happily married. LOL

            They’re so furious. LOL I’ve had to block about 12 of them so far.

            Anywho, they’re in a snit. It’s hilarious watching them go nuts.

          • The abiding memory I have of Mr. Buchanan’s discussion is his statement that he has never known an MRA who was a misogynist, and his refusal to read the MRA hate comments I presented. Twice. Because then he would have to retract the statement.

            Again, since he seems to have no conception of his own and others’ misogyny, there is no possibility of any substantive discussion.

            Maybe there’s something good on the telly.

  2. I see you’re using screenshots again to pursue a narrative which is demonstrably STUPID. This is clearly your preferred approach. All it does is to make you look STUP*D. Why would you want to reinforce your reputation?

    Have a nice day.

    • Why did you add an asterisk to the word stupid the second time? Are you trying to get readers to annuciate the second syllable in their heads so that you sound like a sassy, condescending teenager?

    • Oh, come on! Keep talkin’, dudebro.

      At least, when you and your insane clown posse are trolling and harassing women online, you’re not out raping, lurking in the darkness, breaking and entering, beating an innocent woman unconscious, murdering one of us or committing more serious crimes against us – and that’s something, right?!

      Plus, everybody gets to actually see for themselves what your kind is all about.

      Seeing is believing.

      • Interesting. I’m not aware of any MRA in the world having been convicted of any of the five crimes you outline, not of committing ‘more serious crimes’ against women – more serious than murder? Please enlighten us as to who these criminals are. What does your psychiatrist say about your paranoid MRA-related delusions?

        • Dude,

          Maybe if you could just stop masturbating long enough to allow sufficient oxygen flow to your few remaining living brain cells, you could improve your reading comprehension as well as your ability to remember recent current events.

          You couldn’t even understand the first statement I made! LOL!

          What a moron you are – a harassing, trolling piece of human excrement. Your mother must have been horrified. I’m sure she has deep regrets.

          There’s not much point in talking to brain-dead masturbators.

  3. Christina Hoff Sommers is not a Feminist. She is a right winger. The two are mutually exclusive. Anyone who identifies with the 2 party system, endorses patriarchal/traditional ideals, and advocates for social and societal authoritarianism is not a Feminist. Not in the slightest.

  4. Dear me, I agree with an MRA… but then again, you know what they say about broken clocks.

    Democracy as practiced by nations today is a laughable farce… to put it politely. But so are MRAs… a laughable farce. So they seem to have something in common after all. 🙂

  5. Hey everyone, this is my first time commenting on this blog site. So please go easy on me. I’m a very shy person even when it comes to the internet. But I’ve been here many times and I’m starting to like this site. I wanted to make somewhat of a honest introduction. So I hope you understand. I also made a similar comment on we hunted the mammoth blog. Just trying to interact with common people.

    • Hi. 🙂 I get anxious too sometimes about online interactions because what happens online is real life- there’s no getting around that. The Internet serves as a bridge between real life people so I completely understand the feeling of being shy about posting on this blog site. If you don’t mind me asking, what branch of feminism do you identify with (assuming you are a feminist)?

      • No I don’t mind at all. Thank you for being so kind but when it comes to feminism, I don’t think I identify with a certain branch yet. I’m really new to this stuff so forgive me if I can’t give you a straight answer at this point. My views about all types of ideologies change over time, but if I had to give you an answer it would probably be between radical feminism and liberal.


      stopped reading what Veychera writes because she’s so stupid and bigoted, she gives me a headache.

      In the UK 20% of MPs are female but then only 10% of the people who apply to become MPs are women, so women are OVER-represented as MPs, unless your idea of equality is preferential treatment (which for feminists it always is). The same goes for female directors on FTSE100 companies, of course. On the basis of merit (work ethic, experience and expertise) fewer than 5% of FTSE100 directors should be women. But thanks to government bullying it will hit 25% in 2015, and the FTSE350 will be required to have gender balanced boards in time. All this despite the longitudinal studies which show that one impact of increasing the number of women on boards is corporate financial decline. I’d post links to the evidence but the moderator would remove the links, and Veychera is too lazy or stupid to establish the difference between correlation and causation.

      Must go now, we’re about to present Laura Bates – The Everyday Whining Project – with this month’s ‘Lying Feminist of the Month’ award.

      Have a nice day.

      >Are you a numbskull Mikey? Stop soliciting on my blog. Oh and once again you bring up this failure of an assertion that V already pwned you on and sent you on your merry way. Ally Fogg also decimated your silly argument that women drag companies down. It’s all in your head dude.

      You’re not going to have the permission to keep coming here with the same shit over and over again when you’ve been shown to be wrong.

  6. “I’m not aware of any MRA in the world having been convicted of any of the five crimes you outline.”

    This troll has never read a newspaper. He must literally live under a bridge.

    • @ C. B., hi there! Thanks for joining us!

      @ ellahawthorne :

      Seems Mr. Buchanan’s comment relies on the definition of “MRA”. Elliot Rodger, I assume he would say, was not an “MRA”. This is good current strategy, because I don’t know what “MRA” means either. AVFM seems to deny it is an MRA organization.

      The “manosphere” is a loosely-associated group of misogynistic web sites, many others of whom deny they are MRAs. Some call themselves “anti-feminist”, one “counterfeminist”, some do call themselves MRAs (Men’s Rights Edmonton, for instance), some call themselves PUAs and MGTOWs but not MRAs, individual mensrights sub commenters may deny that they are MRAs, or even call themselves names like egalitarians. The sub moderators refuse to define the sub, which in practical terms is a place for men to rant about the evils of women and to argue about whether sticking them pregnant and back in the kitchen or running from them entirely is the best bet.

      Then there are the masculists and masculinists, the anti-PUAs, the radical fathers’ rightsers, and very importantly the disturbed lonely men who drink in the misogyny this whole “movement” spreads and intensifies, and commit violent acts against women because we are women.

      All these groups are 1) heavily male, 2) misogynistic, and 3) anti-feminist (the definition of “misogynist” needs to be more specific too and I’m using it here to mean that they express contempt, condescension, dislike, infantilization, fear, being threatened, and deep-seated recurrent anger toward or by women , or advocate that women’s reproductive capacities justify their subjugation throughout history.)

      I’m going to start calling this entire group The New Misogynists along with Futrelle.

      I also think it is even more important to find a commonly-accepted umbrella word for misogynistically-motivated violent crimes, to include certain war crimes, certain domestic violence cases, killings where misogyny is a substantial factor, as with Breivik, Lepine, Rodger, and many others, sex crimes against women, etc. Once we have all this defined we can then look at the world we live in more accurately.

      Doing this work of definition would also spark I think intense discussion as to when, if ever, a sex crime can be considered non-misogynistic, and whether misogynistic crime should be very specifically defined as a hate crime in line with hate crime statutes benefiting other groups. Currently very few misogynistically-motivated crimes are called hate crimes. Model statutes defining such crimes should be developed by the U.N. and the World Court should start prosecuting them in appropriate cases.

      Finally, once misogynistic hate crimes are established as such in law, culture, and scientific research, we should ensure that gender asylum is available for women coming to our countries from their countries, when they have suffered or are in imminent danger of suffering what we have defined as such hate crimes, whether the crimes occur as a direct result of government action or as a result of government tolerance of such crimes.

      Then people like Mr. Buchanan will no longer be able to try to weasel out of a question like yours by relying on the semantics he relies on here. Elliot Rodger’s crimes will be clearly seen as only one of a category of crime that was not categorized before, i.e., misogynistic crimes. And we can all sit back in horror as the true extent of these crimes is laid out for the first time ever.


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