Michael Flood: A Voice of Reason

Michael Flood is a  pro-feminist senior lecturer in Sociology at Wollongong Uni in Australia. He’s done great work around male violence against women and has gone toe to toe with Paul Elam who libels him in this video, calling him a child abuser. Elam can’t speak intellectually with Flood so he insults him and once again, Elam has problems pronouncing ‘methodology.’

Flood’s CV is very extensive:

Dr Flood has an extensive record of publication, with a total of 27 journal articles and 19 book chapters, 20 research monographs, and over 80 other publications. His research has attracted close to $900,000 of external funding. As evidence of his esteem in research communities, Dr Flood is an Expert Assessor. He has given 51 keynote or invited addresses, and been the referee for 66 journal articles and three book manuscripts. He is the co-founder and Co-Director of the Centre for Research on Men and Masculinities (CROMM), the first research centre in Australia focused on this field of scholarship. He is the lead editor of an international encyclopedia on men and masculinities (Routledge), he has presented invited papers at international gatherings held at the United Nations (New York) and the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) (Bangkok), and he has contributed by invitation to various reference and expert groups (including for the Australian Burea of Statistics, the Human Rights Commission, the NRL, and the AFL).

Elam has none of these qualifications and can’t read a research study to save his life so it’s no surprise that when Flood left a comment on Elam’s site correcting him about a small error in an article, Elam and his friends called Flood names, made silly pictures of him and insulted his children.

Flood linked Elam some research to show exactly what we all know about male domestic violence: it’s a gendered problem. The result was Paul dismissing him outright, like the uneducated sop he is:

elam to michael floodPaul Elam’s latest bid for attention has him libeling the White Ribbon Campaign, a group formed after Marc LePine lined up women at a Canadian university and murdered them because he perceived them as feminists who ruined his life.

Elam white ribbon vile plague of deciet Elam White Ribbon is causing child abuseThe rhetoric of LePine and Elam are quite similar. They both believe their problems come from feminists and both want to end feminism, which will never happen. I think blaming feminism gives Elam a way to rant and rave his hatred at women, which he does interchangeably.

One factoid I recently exposed on Twitter is that Elam’s ideas and the Manosphere in general are the same ideas the 13th century Catholic church had toward witches, who were mostly women practicing the old pagan country customs.

Burning times‘Women are intellectually like children’ is repeated endlessly on AVFM. It’s not a surprise these men are in the dark ages.

Elam thinks that men should beat women down if a woman ‘starts it.’ MRA’s falsely state that most violence is 50/50 and that women start it more. They use a handful of cherry picked studies with horrible methods to make this claim.

The main researcher AVFM uses is Murray Straus who invented the Conflict Tactics Scale. The CTS doesn’t measure context within domestic violence. If a man and woman hit each other the CTS counts each as 1 violation. What’s missing is who hit first and was the woman defending herself? What is the context around the violence? This is the main reason why the CTS isn’t recognized as a good tool for measuring male violence against women. It’s purposely devoid of anything that recognizes the fact of gender inequality and the fact that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators.

Another tactic of MRA’s, when you ask them for research to support the idea that 70% of violence is started by women, is to post the Fiebert bibliography. It’s highly unlikely MRA’s have read the many studies included in that bibliography because about 60% of the studies involve the faulty CTS.

Michael Flood has addressed MRA’s, Fathers’ Rights groups (which are extensions of MRA’s) in this wonderful paper from 2012.

We are in a very important time in our culture because of the male supremacist backlash. Third wave feminism is very prone to absorbing the faulty ideas that women are ‘just as violent’ as men because of the neo-liberal emphasis on individual issues and the lack of seeing male violence against women as a ‘women as a gendered class.’

No matter what Elam does to flail about and scream to get attention, he’ll always be wrong. His attempts to inject falsehoods into the culture have failed each and every time. This latest bid for a lawsuit from White Ribbon will soon blow over too.

He can’t take donations on his fake White Ribbon site because that provides the impetus to sue him since it’s a material benefit of fraud. What Elam is doing is trying to get White Ribbon to make public statements of a lawsuit so he can solicit for money. It’s the entire purpose.

His site is dying a slow death, and he knows it. Calling White Ribbon child abusers and frauds riles up his audience and provides him with more clicks. Let’s hope White Ribbon knows not to say a word to him because that will only get the donations running and Elam turns into the poor martyr.

I’m in touch with White Ribbon and though I cannot divulge our conversations I will say they are aware of Elam’s manipulations and what he’s trying to do.

I would officially like to extend an invitation to Michael Flood. I will be emailing him soon to discuss these matters and strategies to deal with these male supremacists.


9 thoughts on “Michael Flood: A Voice of Reason

  1. I read the paper. Of course, he doesn’t say much of anything we don’t already know, except in relation to anti-woman groups in Australia. But, one point he makes that I agree with is that while all these groups are dangerous, the most insidious are the ones that seem more reasonable, in particular, the Father’s Rights groups.

    Here in the U.S., they have made a lot of progress with getting made up things like “parental alienation” into the courts and getting an in, at least, with pop psychologists like Dr. Phil. I’ve seen a few episodes of Dr. Phil (available at YT), in which he warns women that if they’ve done what he thinks is “parental alienation” – an entirely made up thing! – that they will lose their rights to their children and the underlying assumption always is that women like about abuse and children lie because women put words in their mouths. Then, they do a lie-detector test and almost invariably determine that the father is an abuser. But, he always begins with the assumption of this misogynist idea of parental alienation.

    So, thanks to Dr. Phil (these pop psychos like his comrade Oprah have really poisoned U.S. culture with their pseudo-science), some well-placed men in government, in universities, in the legal system itself, perhaps, the men have been able to steal children away from women through the system – instead of doing in the usual way – hunting down the women and children or kidnapping the children and murdering them.

    I have mentioned before the number of women I met in the clubs on the run with their children from murderous men aka. the children’s “fathers.” Father’s rights means subjugation for women and children. There’s nothing progressive or liberal about it. It’s just men exercising the right of death over their families and other slaves, which they were granted under the law (they invented) since the time of the Romans.

    • Error in Paragraph 2, Line 5 of my comment: …the underlying assumption is the women always LIE about abuse… (not “like* about abuse, although many men seem to assume that we like it, too).

      • Also, regarding the last line of my comment above: The word “family” comes from “famulus,” which means a man’s slaves, which include his wife (or wives), children and purchased slaves, with himself as master or head of the family unit. He owns them. They are his property and as his property he has the legal right to do whatever he wants to them, including abuse and kill them.

        We all grew up under a version of this system.

        Men’s rights and Father’s rights are really one in the same, except that Father’s rights pertain specifically to men’s legal rights over women and children – his slaves, ie. his personal property. This is the perception of the men who talk about Father’s rights, in particular, and men’s rights, in general.

        I think it’s hard for us to see it this way sometimes – even men tell us to our faces what they think of us! – because we see ourselves as free people. But, we will never be free as long as Mister is around. He’s never going to leave us alone. He can’t leave us alone. It’s not in his nature – women are children belong to him under the laws he created, in states and religions constructed by men with men at the center of it all. We women must be instructed by these men and kings. Even the lowliest, hairiest, stinkingest, stupidest man is is superior to us in his own mind, which is why they are angry at us all the time and want to kill us – they know they are very much inferior. But, men must still try to assert themselves through violence, through harassment and with all the arrogance he can muster. We must have men tell us how to do everything – how to be proper women, even. They must be part of our conversations, they must be part of any grouping of men. They must insert themselves with, “I” and “me,” into every obscure nook and cranny of space occupied by what they perceive to be THEIRS, THEIR PROPERTY – us. They know every f##king thing in their world of make-believe to which we must adhere or suffer some consequences or other – at least, some trolling!

          • Sorry for all the errors. My excuse this time is that I just woke up from a nap after downing some medicinal Seagrams 7. I might be a little groggy. But, I hope you see the point of what I’m trying to say.

            Even I thought Father’s rights didn’t sound entirely crazy when I first heard about it – then I learned more about the subject and realized what they really are. They’re dudebros like that Victor-something whose always running around abusing people, filming it and putting it on YT – they’re those guys who call their 9-year old daughters “fat,” then throw fits because social workers rightly call them out as abusers. I think you’ve made quite a few posts about these guys in the past.

            In all my life, I’ve known about as many people as I can count on one hand who did not grow up with abusive fathers. I’ve known a few people with abusive mothers. But, I’ve known way, way more people who had abusive fathers. Lots of women I worked with in the club had sh#tty, abusive fathers that they had no contact with.

            When men say they care about children and want custody because they love their children, I am highly skeptical. No, the truth is this: I don’t believe it, at all.

        • Even a boy child is superior to a grown adult woman. I was watching one of my favourite shows by BBC ‘Lark Rise to Candleford.’ A husband tells his wife she can’t discipline the boy and that they’re both ‘men under their own roof.’ Pissed me off to no end.

  2. Also, regarding the subject of women hitting men, women starting it and men finishing it: Again, I refer to the hierarchical structure of both the family and male/female relationships. Historically (and presently), one party is the oppressor and the other (women and our children) are the oppressed within any such grouping. When men hit women, they are asserting their domination. They are asserting their self-perceived power over women. On the other hand, women are always in a subordinate position to the man because of the unequal nature of our present system and because of the fact that these monsters are generally much, much larger and stronger than us and don’t have to worry about things like loss of pregnancies and life through such violence. This is the case no matter how much these dudebros screech about egalitarianism, ie. “I’m an egalitarian. I’m an egalitarian. Awwk! “I’m an egalitarian.Pollywannacracker! Awwk! I mention this because lately it seems to be a favorite steaming pile of sh#t for a whole lot of smarty-pants, know-it-all dudes who must mansplain the world to women.

    Violence between slave and master has a different connotation for each. The former is asserting his authority while the latter is asserting her independence. The former has the power under the law, the latter has no equality under the law.

  3. Very well-written article, thanks. I haven’t read Michael Flood and look forward to doing so. Regarding AVFMs culture being about the same as the 13th century Catholic Church’s, they seem to agree — there’s a new article up at the AVFM site rehabilitating “traditionalism” as having benefits for today’s men. Yep, they’re openly MGTOW back to the Middle Ages now. Get rid of the few tiny shreds that were beneficial to women, the article says, and keep the bennies men had, which was essentially all the bennies.

    This MGTOW-MRA schism is exposing the lack of any substance in their thinking, and throwing them into a state of complete confusion. They can’t find any way around their internal contradictions.

    How can one be a traditionalist, yet condemn the main traditional institution affecting men in their personal lives, marriage? Confused answer: Pretend you can have traditional patriarchy without marriage.

    How can you be a MGTOW, having decided any sexual relationship with a woman is risky and the equivalent of having a loaded gun pointed at your head, and have such relationships anyway? Confused answer: Draw the line at marriage, or don’t, or don’t have any sexual relationships, or have them but do so on a frankly exploitive basis (bound to attract hordes of women).

    Should marriage be abolished? Confused answer: We can’t put it that way because that’s what radfems have been advocating for years, and then we’d have to face the fact that radfems correctly want marriage abolished because it’s the primary method by which women lose their sovereignty, and we actually don’t want to abolish marriage, we actually want the old marriage back, and so we’re going to pretend women aren’t leaving marriage as fast as they achieve the rights to divorce and work. We have to pretend that we’re punishing women, that men walking away from marriage wouldn’t be the best thing that ever happened to women.

    The truth is, AVFM (MRAs) is in freefall into an openly reactionary position that wants male sovereignty retained a la the 13th century, which is an unattainable goal.

    MGTOWs OTOH pretend that they have grudgingly accepted that women have a right to personal sovereignty, and do not wish to associate with women on any basis other than the “traditional”. Instead of conning themselves into pretending the good old days can be brought back, they’re going to simply stop associating with women, kinda.

    Until they get lonesome. Then they’re going to push all that going-it-alone stuff aside and get back to the business of controlling women.

    I hope while they’re dancing around with their hopeless theories, that women everywhere will abandon marriage, establish families separate from marriage, work, get political, save the planet, and watch the patriarchy smash itself.


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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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