Tuesday, February 26, 2013

Fuck you, Paul Elam.

OK Paul, you want answers? Here is the part of my post you went off about:

Personally, I don’t find the gyno-heavy editorial board here to be a symptom of ass-kissing women (even though there is no doubt at all that this shift has had a profound effect on the tone, direction, and even goals of the MRM), but a symptom of how little men are willing to commit to this job.

Right now, the “Best man for the job” is a woman. And while there is lots to support aversion to this state of affairs, the fault lies not with the women who are working hard, nor the Management that keeps ‘hiring’ them.

The fault lies with the multitudes of armchair quarterbacks infesting the MRM, and their proclivity to criticise rather than create. In short, if there’s not enough men on the Editorial board for your liking, then step the fuck up and out perform these women.

You will note that this comment is

a) refuting the idea that women are hired for positions here because of ass kissing, and also defends the editorial decision you seem to think I attack.

b) Lays the ‘blame’ not on a PC affirmative action type motive, or even on a ‘see, women like us!’ motive, but on a simple QUALITY motive.

In other words Paul, I said women were doing the jobs because they were BETTER SUITED CANDIDATES.

The ‘snark’ in that post was reserved for the people saying the whole thing was a PC girl-worship move for political purposes, and I invited THE DETRACTORS to stand up and outperform the wimminz if they had such a fucking problem with it.

I then made a contention that there is in fact, a ‘politically correct’* strain running through the MRM which shuts down debate, silences certain lines of thinking, and is basically every bit as irrationally based on Dogma as the most rabid feminist.

Your response, was to fixate on the WRONG interpretation of what I said, refuse to let go of that interpretation, and relentlessly attack me based on a false accusation.
Moreover, you made those contentions after years of knowing my views on these things, and after having me tell you..repeatedly…that my take and yours on these matters overlaps considerably.

In short, Paul, you acted like a Shit Reddit Says asshole busy excising ‘unbelievers’ without pausing to find out if you even had the right guy.

Politically Correct bullshit.

And I’ll tell you another thing. This whole episode has taught me a valuable lesson, and that is one you won’t like (but will likely use to rationalize your shitty behaviour), your conduct on this thread has convinced me, far better than anyone else ever could, that female involvement in the Mens Movement is poison, anathema, and should be avoided at all costs. Because if the involvement of women has even the great Paul Elam going off half cocked White Knighting for his Harem, even against long time allies, based on the shit you used for an excuse….well, a better argument for turfing women hasn’t been made, in my view.

So you go ahead and preen, pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself on ‘YOUR’ success, and YOUR site…this isn’t the only game in town. It pisses me off to see this elitist bullshit coming from here, but at least now I truly know it can happen to anyone.

And if this thread is an example of you staying on message Paul, then this place is fucking doomed.


  1. Hi,

    Could you provide a link to the thread to give some context? I read AVfM, but only occasionally; I don't have time to read everything over there, so I just read what interests me. If I read 1 out of 10 articles over there, then that is a lot. While I have noticed more women writing over there, that's all I've noticed. I haven't been over there enough to notice the impact that they've had...


  2. So you're blaming men for editorial women on avfm? Instead of the pc bs of avfm?

    Im surprised paul elam even bothered to put his foot up your ass to begin with ....

    1. "So you're blaming men for editorial women on avfm? Instead of the pc bs of avfm?"

      Ahhh, THERE's the strawman bullshit attack I know and love. It's such a poorly constructed strawman that I can't even tell what the fuck it is you're trying to falsely accuse me of...but good job, ya fuckin moron.

  3. I'm with MM; I read AVfM only occasionally, but even so have noticed that there now seem to be more women than men creating content there (or maybe the women are more prolific - they likely have more time on their hands anyway). Also, the tone has changed and become decidedly less masculine. Just an observation. Paul needs to conserve and focus his ire on targets that merit it, but I've got the sense that he has no problem participating in the who circular firing squad model. Idealogues - what are you gonna do with them?

    Perhaps you would prefer Price's more detached persona at "The Spearhead", and maybe make that a "suggested link" instead?

  4. There's not a lot of context to be had...the quoted bits were taken as some kind of attack on either Paul's editorial selection, or the women themselves...and it was neither. I posted this simply because I'm sick to fuckin death of people creating strawarguments I 'made' and then smearing my name based on them.

    As for the tone at AVfM, I actually have no problem with it, I was more or less making an observation, with an undercurrent of warning that he's getting close to losing male MRAs (or at least the MGTOWs), which he seems to be OK with. Essentially, he's tossing his core audience to chase the fickle crowd.

    And even that I don't officially oppose. What set me off, is this thread in question was obviously Paul looking for a way to blow up at me, likely because he views me as a political liability. The issue I take, is with the similarity between his and Dr F's blow up....both of which were arguments that assumed the worst possible intent in my position, and in some cases stretched the meaning to straw status in my eyes.

    These days I'm sorta questioning having anything at all to do with this movement, seeing how easily corrupted it is, how eager many of the 'team' are to prove their moral superiority, or that their backers are more powerful than your backers.

    I will say this though. I don't think they see what's happening, and I think they're far too drunk on their successes to accept any kind of criticism now. So I'm more than happy to step back and watch the rot set in, just like it ALWAYS does when people take the 'accomodating' attitude of shutting people up for saying certain things.

    Happened to Glenn Sacks, happened to reddit, and it will happen at AVfM...the thread itself is proof enough of a PC mindset setting in. Anyway, if I end up doing anything of any real effort at all from here on out (which frankly is doubtful), it will likely be as a solitary guy. I'd rather be invisible than betrayed, any day of the week.