I Am An Mra

I love that post by manboobz where he lists all of Elam's hateful, crazy, misogynistic quotes. Here is a copy from another great post I found about Elam, and it is written by a man from the UK:

"Oh hi Paul, how nice of you to take an interest in my writing.

First, credit where due. This line was a zinger:

“Fogg said what MHRAs have been saying since before he could spell DV”.

That’s a great line. it’s spectacularly inaccurate, for what it’s worth, but why let the truth get in the way of a good joke, eh?

But talking about “jokes”, let’s glide over your ad homs, your spurious readings of my motives, and indeed some legitimate differences of opinion about the issues, and look at the bit that seems to have rattled your cage – my reference to your response to that obscene Jezebel piece and thread. You quote yourself saying:

Now, am I serious about this? No.

You carefully omit your next few words.

“Now, am I serious about this? No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.”

Yes Paul, it is. It is very wrong in all sorts of ways. First of all, you were not discussing the right to reasonable and immediate self-defence, which nobody seriously challenges. You were revelling in a fantasy of retaliatory violence, peppered with shamelessly misogynistic language and imagery, which is not the same thing at all, as I think a reasonably functioning five year-old could explain.

I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women - to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

And then make them clean up the mess.

More significantly, you seem to have this strange idea that it is morally acceptable and politically constructive to spout the most vile, hateful, arguably even criminal shit for paragraph after paragraph, whether it is instructions to beat shit out of women, or fabricated claims that women enjoy being raped, providing you conclude with some variation on “ha ha, only joking. SATIRE SEE?”

I’m not going to insult your intelligence by spelling out to you all the reasons why that type of behaviour is wrong and indeed dangerous. I’m sure you’ve heard it all before. But what astonishes me is that you appear to believe you can pull shit like this and then still expect be taken seriously as a commentator, even a force for social change? You gleefully and knowingly squirt misogyny and hate from every orifice and then get all affronted when people conclude you might in fact be a misogynist, or describe your site as a hate group. What the fuck do you expect?

You suggest your article was “a red herring”. it was more than that. It was a whole basket of rotting, stinking fish carcasses, and three years old or not, it remains a technicolor illustration of everything that is wrong with the men’s rights movement today. It is you. You are the problem. Not so much that you personally have attained a degree of prominence and influence, though that is worrying enough, it is more that the broader movement is prepared to indulge you, laugh along, defend you from criticism say things like “oh that’s just Paul being Paul, he doesn’t really mean it.” The fuck you don’t. The men’s rights movement is swimming in so much misogyny that it has become oblivious to it, like a fish is oblivious to water. You may recognise that metaphor from somewhere. You cannot judge a movement by the rantings of one individual. You can judge a movement by how it reacts to that individual.

The rest of the MRM needs to recognise and address the fact that you, and a fair few others of your ilk, regularly drop huge, steaming turds which pollute and poison the whole pool. I honestly hope they can recognise it, because until that happens those of us who genuinely care about the welfare and wellbeing of men and boys and try to do something about it will continue to work under the putrid pong wafting from the pool next door.

The ultimate, indeed the only victims of that are vulnerable men and boys."

http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/03/dear-paul-elam/

He pretty much sums up how most people (and not just feminists) are viewing Elam and his foolish minions.

JB wrote: "Your smoke screen won't work ladyblu. Its in the bill in black and white."

my response: Oh really JB. Well prove it.

1. Show where it states in the bill "in black and white" that if this bill becomes law it "would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." And don't just imply things or make assumptions. Prove that what you are claiming is actually written in "black and white" in the bill.

2. Show where it states in "black and white" that this bill actually applies to rape charges and that when someone is legally charged with rape they will be required to present proof that they got consent, and as a result when the case is tried the burden of proof will shift from the accuser to the accused. Prove it instead of just claiming that something exist that doesn't as you so often do.

JB wrote: "As for your second comment. You wanted equality with men Im giving it to you. A woman's life and safety is no more valuable than a man's. So why should he put his life and safety on the line for someone else simply because he is a man and the person in trouble is a woman. That doesn't would like equality to me."

my response: I have never said that women's lives are more valuable than men's. Everyone's life is valuable, and that is why good, caring, honorable, unselfish people often will do what they can, including putting their lives and safety on the line at times, to help people (not just men or women) if they can to try to keep them from being raped, murdered, beaten, robbed and other things that will damage the victim regardless of whether they are a man or a woman. Why would a good man who is seeing a man who is smaller than him and does not have a weapon, but is stronger than the woman he is trying to rape, not jump in and try to help her. Because he is selfish and uncaring? Women help men and do things for them all the time. Women (and I am sure your wife does things for you) cook for men, care for their children, do their laundry, care for them when they are ill, take them to the hospital in an emergency or call 911, try to step in and help or call the police if they see them being beaten, robbed, and other things, and sometimes support them if they cannot get a job and are on the verge of losing everything. Good men also care for women and help them when they can when someone is threatening their safety.

Equality does not mean that people are identical. Anyone who thinks that is an idiot. Most men are stronger than women and can fight better than they can. Most women are more nurturing than most men and can care for them and their children better than they can. Men and women are also different in many other ways as well. Equality isn't about treating men and women exactly the same in every instance. It is just about equal pay, equal benefits, equal rights, and things of that nature. If you think it means that women and men should be treated exactly the same in every respect you are an idiot. Do you treat your wife and daughter, and other female family members and friends the exact same way that you treat your male family members and friends? I seriously doubt it, but if you do I feel very sorry for them, because I am sure they don't do that kind of thing to you.

JB wrote about me: “Of course you would claim that feminists had nothing to do with this bill. It reeks of bigotry and violations of the accused rights to a fare trial. Obviously you would want to distance yourself from this bill but the problem is that it has feminism written all over it.”

my response: do some research dumbshit and learn how to read, and understand what you read so you will stop assuming that bills and other things say, apply to, and require things that they don't, and were written by feminists. This bill doesn't apply to rape trials so how does it reek of “violations of the accused rights to a fair trial” as you claim. And this bill does not only apply to females. Is is gender neutral so how does it reek of “bigotry” as you claim.

Senate Bill 967 which you have incorrectly claimed "would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." was written by Senator Kevin de Leon. There is nothing that indicates that he is A FEMINIST http://sd22.senate.ca.gov/biography

Carol Liu is the Chair of the Senate Committee on Education. There is nothing that indicates that she is a feminist either although she does belong to groups that try to benefit women, just like MRAs do things to try to benefit men. So what. What is wrong with that? http://www.asianamerican.net/bios/Liu-Carol.html. If you think that people who do that are bigots then you and all of your anti-feminist MRA buddies are clearly bigots as well.

The consultant on the bill is Lynn Lorber. She is a Principal Consultant to the California State Senate Education Committee. There also is absolutely nothing that indicates that she is a feminist either.

Contrary to what JB falsely claims, I never said "that this bill does not require a person to prove that they had consent". What I wrote was that contrary to what JB claimed below it (the bill) doesn't "require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." Contrary to what JB wrote below there is nothing in this bill that indicates that "This bill if it becomes law would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." Contrary to what he wants to believe this bill DOES NOT apply to rape charges. The fact that he continuously attempts to claim that something applies to rape charges when there is nothing in it that says that it does, or when he indicates that in a rape trial the accused will have to prove that they got consent, which thereby shifts the burden of proof, when there is nothing that indicates that that is the case, proves how he tries to manipulate things in an attempt to get people to believe that "feminists" are doing something that they aren't while trying to claim that I have said things that I haven't. He is the one who is constantly spewing bullshit to try to make it look likes things are going on that aren't. He obviously doesn't read the bills and just believes the bullshit that someone who is undoubtedly an anti-feminist/pro-rapist writes about it, and it is clear that he doesn't understand law. Someone who doesn't read bills and doesn't understand laws shouldn't write about them because when they do so they very often make themselves look like idiots.

Lady blue said that this bill does not require a person to prove that they had consent. Here is what the bill says.

" The governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing board of independent postsecondary institutions, as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (i) of Section 67381, shall adopt a policy concerning campus sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that includes all of the following:(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant. “Affirmative consent” is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior, expressed either by words or clear, unambiguous actions. It is the responsibility of the person who wants to engage in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. For that reason, relying solely on nonverbal communication can lead to misunderstanding. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of a past sexual relationship, shall not provide the basis for an assumption of consent. Consent must be present throughout sexual activity, and at any time, a participant can communicate that he or she no longer consents to continuing the sexual activity. If there is confusion as to whether a person has consented or continues to consent to sexual activity, it is essential that the participants stop the activity until the confusion can be clearly resolved.(2) In the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a defense that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:
"...... The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting. ......"
So in order to defend yourself against a rape charge you must prove that you to reasonable steps to gain consent.

I wrote: " Show where it states in "black and white" that this bill actually applies to rape charges"

and JB responded with: "This bill would apply to college campus tribunals only...... for now"

my response: Exactly, except there is nothing that indicates that it is just "for now" as he claims. So it looks like he finally got it right and realized that, once again, what he had written was not correct. The bill does not apply to rape charges, and it only indicates that when a complaint is made against someone on a college campus for rape, if the accused claims that they didn't rape the person because they had consent, they must prove that they actually had consent. It doesn't indicate that everyone who has had a complaint made against them for sexual assault must prove that they had consent. Stop making things up and exaggerating to try to make it appear that laws exist that don't JB.

Also, it is perfectly valid for someone who is claiming a defense to a crime or complaint to have to prove that their defense is valid. That has been the way things have been in the criminal system years so why shouldn't it also apply to rape? IF someone claims a defense to a crime the burden shifts to them to have to prove that their claimed defense is valid. The accuser will still have to provide proof that crime actually occurred, but if the accused comes up with a defense they will also have to provide proof that the defense is actually valid. What is wrong with that? Its called being fair. For instance, if someone is being criminally tried for shooting someone and they claim it was done out of self defense they must provide proof that that is actually true. Of course the prosecution will still have to prove that they shot the victim, but the accused will also have to prove that they did it out of self defense. Where is the problem with that? Should someone who comes up with a defense just be believed and have the charges dropped without having to provide any proof that what they are claiming is true? That would be absurd.

" Show where it states in the bill "in black and white" that if this bill becomes law it "would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent...."
I already have. But since you obviously missed it or couldn't understand it I will explain it again in simple terms.

If a person accuses someone of a crime first they must prove that a crime took place. With rape its a little different in that they must prove that the they and the accused had some sort of sexual contact and that said sexual contact was nonconsensual. At least that's how it supposed to work. But we both know that more and more the burden of proof is being pushed onto the accused. But setting aside the violation of due process rights for now and for the sake of argument lets say that the accused should have to prove his innocence.
How would he go about proving his innocence?
A. Prove that no sexual contact took place.
Or.
B. That the sexual activity was consensual.

Lets look at B as it pertains to this bill.

" In the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a defense that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:"...... The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting. ......"

According to this bill he would have to prove that he took reasonable steps to obtain consent in order to use consent as a defence.

JB wrote: "This is achieved by presenting the public with examples of feminist dogma, thinking and actions plus presenting the public with the types of legislation feminists have pushed through our government. Example is the current bill being discussed in California. This bill if it becomes law would require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused."

my response: Wrong once again JB. You really need to do research and understand what you read before writing the things that you do, because by constantly getting things wrong makes you look like an idiot or a bullshitter.
Here is the basis of the Bill. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

It doesn't "require anyone accused of rape to present proof that they got consent there by shifting the burden of proof from the accuser to the accused." as you are claiming, and feminists aren't the ones who came up with it (the dumb MRAs always blame laws they don't like on feminists regardless of whether or not they actually know that feminists are the ones who actually wrote the laws, voted for them, and mandated them. All this bill does is require that educational boards instruct those who want to engage in sexual activity (both males and females) that it is their responsibility to ensure that he or she has the consent of the other person to engage in the sexual activity. There is nothing in the law that indicates that if they fail to do so they will be accused of rape, and the burden of proof will be shifted "from the accuser to the accused" as he claims.

If ffb is a credible source of information on the mrm why hasn't a single one of his articles on the mrm been published by his former employers? Also, why is he no longer employed by any of these mainstream media organizations? If ffb is correct then why do mainstream media writers like Barbara Kay write articles in support of the MRM? Why does she still work for mainstream media publications but ffb doesn't?

JB wrote "Where is the research done on women in bars that deserve to be raped?"
I have never said that. Paul has never said that."

my response: Oh yes he has. He didn't write those exact words, but he wrote the equivalent. This is what he wrote:

"In that light, I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it."

JB, if you don't think that is the equivalent of saying that women who behave that way in bars deserve to be raped, you are showing yourself to be ignorant and biased once again.

Your smoke screen won't work ladyblu. Its in the bill in black and white.
As for your second comment. You wanted equality with men Im giving it to you. A woman's life and safety is no more valuable than a man's. So why should he put his life and safety on the line for someone else simply because he is a man and the person in trouble is a woman. That doesn't would like equality to me. But you are a feminist and it has been proven that feminists have no interest in equality especially when equality negatively impacts women. You want your cake and eat it too. You want to say "I need a man like a fish needs a bicycle" and "Im a strong and empowered woman" out of one side of your mouth while telling men to " man up, do your job and protect women" out of the other side.
Your an adult. You are my equal. Protect yourself. If you can't call the cops. They get paid to risk their lives for others. I don't.

Yet the feminist fat bastard's blog is relatively unknown while the mrm continues to grow and gain support from both men and women.
David Futrelle has less credibility than a supper market tabloid. He is equivalent to sael Palanti aka Diana Boston. He is a bigot and a joke. You all supporting him shows a serious lack of character on your part.

"I would help anyone I love and care about. Everyone else is on their own. Women aren't special. Get used to it. "

Jack Barnes.

Picture the scene. Jack's truck, overturned in the freeway, not his fault, hit by a speeding criminal. Jack lays unconscious in his cab, trapped by his seatbelt. A driver pulls up, sees the flames surrounding Jack and thinks......

"I would help anyone I love and care about. Everyone else is on their own. Women aren't special. Get used to it. "

Jack dies a lonely death.

JB wrote: "That is why he has no credibility. His evidence is at best quotes taken out of context and at worst manufactured. His thinking is anything but objective. These two are a testament to his level of integrity."

my response. No, that is what Elam and his minions do, and not David Futrelle. Here we go with more projection and accusing feminists of allegedly doing the things that AVfMers constantly do.

So much of lady's bullshit so little time.

JB wrote: "Ladyblu.
How does a person prove that they got consent?"

my response: Think about it and figure it out yourself. It could be proven lots of ways. Use your brain for a change instead of expecting me to write something that you will probably turn around and argue with, and somehow use to make me look bad. Ain't gonna happen :-P

As I have stated numerous times in the past I support the statements made by Paul Elam quoted in the article written by the feminist fat bastard (manboobz).

of course jack came back and he went directly to the young females, who are right out of high school to rage on them and recruit them!

He's obviously flipped his pancakes.

Oh another far more silly note: manboobz. Heheheeee.

Ladyblu.
How does a person prove that they got consent?