MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Niggers want to test us? Bring your #2 pencils. Get your webcam, a dry pair of panties, and let's get it the fuck on! Also we interview hos.
Post Reply
Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10515
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am

MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by Info » Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:05 pm

Manhood 101: Special Ed at Best
Sunday, May 2, 2010, By Paul Elam

Feminism is characterized by one primary and toxic element. The women’s movement failed to self police.

By valuing power over principles, and unity over legitimacy, they coalesced around malevolent elements that would ultimately define, and disgrace, their cause. Rather than remaining true to an ostensibly reasonable call for inclusion, they mutated into a bald faced grab for female centricity. They became the very sexist louts they claimed to abhor.

As a result, gender feminism is not the light of reason, but much more like a burning cross, issuing a grotesque, dystopian glow; a suitable backlight for an Orwellian nightmare.

I know, not all feminists are like this. But until the voices of those supposed “not all’s” break their convenient and conspicuous silence, this is all the mention they will get, which is more than they deserve.

There is a lesson here for the men’s rights movement, and one we need to observe, in my opinion, with thoughtful diligence. And as fortune would have it, we now have just that sort of opportunity.

It is a training exercise in moral housekeeping courtesy of The Manhood 101, a website that is flying the banner of men’s rights, and claims to promote advocacy for men, but actually does nothing more than hide a couple of fascist pigs beneath a thin veneer of social consciousness.
so let's prepare ourselves... a guy who writes: "[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads" is now going to lecture us on "moral housekeeping."


for more on "moral housekeeping" practices advocated by Paul Elam, please refer to this screen capture below:


here we see Paul Elam praising the use of his own "smear" tactics.

then in utter desperation, Paul attacks some random guy named Jay Hammers--on his own forum--and somehow links Manhood 101 with pedophilia in the process.. with ABSOLUTELY NO RHYME OR REASON. ...completely out of the blue.
[here's the image paul created]

...imagine your delusional hatred has grown so much that you suddenly accuse someone of murder for no reason whatsoever... just because.

welcome to Paul Elam's school of journalistic integrity.

paul... imagine if we just randomly accused you of raping young children:


how would you feel about that?

i think it's pretty clear by now that Paul Elam has no interest in telling the truth. he is waging a delusional war against his own credibility.

so to recap: Paul ADMITS TO LYING in the name of spreading his delusional agenda and then tries to justify this to others as "moral housekeeping"... all while making random accusations of pedophilia. just because.

talk about shooting your own credibility in the foot. =-)
At the core of their “philosophy” is an e-book entitled The Principles That Govern Social Interaction. The title is the most succinct thing about it. The contents are like an assortment of cut outs from internet discussions pasted together in a stereotypic fit by a tweaking meth freak. As a result it reads like a plane (a loose thesis) circling an open field in search of a landing strip (a cogent description), and runs out of fuel before even making the initial approach.
and in Paul's opinion, the dictionary reads like a comic book for african kids high on fermented olive oil baking like crystalized epoxy in the Alaskan sunshine, equivalent to the ritualistic beating of human pinatas on Cindo De Mayo in hell. wearing a sweater. underwater.

are Paul's pitifully duct-taped, Frankenstein-monster analogies supposed to enlighten the discussion or provide spank material for Dennis Miller fans experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

Paul, we don't mind if you get colorful with your language, but at least try to form a coherent point.
As far as I was able to extrapolate from the jumbled maze of irrelevancies, it all boils down to a few central points.
so in other words, you're admitting that single-syllable words frighten you or you're just too intellectually dishonest to even bother reading the book. it's funny how, with all your so-called education, you're still unable to put together a coherent point.

how were all the other lesser educated men able to grasp the fundamentally sound points that you obviously missed? how were they able to point to specific passages that spoke directly to their experience while you were unable to make sense of anything? were these other men all just pulling your leg? are you accusing everyone of being crazy? are you seriously going to sit there and claim that all the men who benefitted from our work--who went through the trouble of writing thoughtful critiques--are just part of some giant elaborate Machiavellian conspiracy designed to make you look stupid?

Paul.... there's intellectual dishonesty... and then there's outright FRAUD.

i'd like to assume you're just being dishonest for the benefit of your hurt pride... but you're really stretching the truth here. even the men on your own site who reviewed our work, are calling you on your fraudulent review.

spending your life locked in an ivory tower of childish elitism--just to protect your hurt pride--doesn't speak well for your cause.
1. Men are superior to women in every way and have the right, and duty, to subjugate them- by any means necessary.
this is intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree. it's even obvious to those who support you, that your claim here is completely false and without merit. in fact, we specifically addressed this fallacy in the ebook (the same one you claim to have read). your false accusation mirrors that of feminists who have a vested interested in lying about gender distinctions as it plays to their advantage academically, economically and politically.

our ebook takes great pains to make an intelligent, clear distinction between gender functions and gender value. to misrepresent this point in particular is unconscionable, given all the effort we put toward clarifying it.

let me give a simple illustration:

when you're comparing the function of making babies, women are 'superior.'

when you're comparing the function of physical strength, men are 'superior.'

this is no different than saying your hand is 'superior' to your head at picking things up. this only relates to gender function. it is NOT designed to be a commentary on gender worth as you deceitfully claim; both the hand and the head serve different functions, but both are equally necessary to the functional operation of the body. that is to say, both are equal in value even though they serve different functions.

the functions themselves are complementary in nature. the thought of 'superiority' only enters when comparing a function that is more suited to one gender's design (such as those stated in the above examples).

in the same manner, men are only 'superior' to women when competing for male gender functions like physical strength where one gender is more suited to that function by design.

we are careful to state in the ebook that we are definitely NOT referring to 'superiority' of worth--the male gender is not worth more than the female gender. if we did make such a claim, that would negate the entire concept of complementary functions that we are arguing for in the ebook.

since the book already makes this point, we can only guess that your reading comprehension ability is just above Down Syndrome level. either that, or you're an intellectual coward making baseless claims to suit a personal agenda/vendetta.
2. Any form of majority rule (or human decency) gets in the way of this. We need masculine dictatorship, Manhood 101 style.
not surprisingly, we also cover this retarded fallacy in the book. see the analogy regarding "majority rule" between 100 children and 2 parents to fully appreciate the gamut of your short-sighted approach to practical governance.
3. They are willing, hoping rather, to teach other men to be just as screwed up as they are, and turn a buck in the process.
again, more intellectual cowardice from the head mangina of the so-called "men's rights" activists.

as this fucktard obviously hasn't figured out yet, Manhood 101 has ALWAYS prided itself on NOT "turning a buck" where men's lives are at stake. all of our intellectual content has always been and always will be FREE OF CHARGE. that has been our policy from this academy's very inception. everything we teach can be found in our ebook, The Principles of Social Competence.

i challenge anybody to prove otherwise--that we've ever charged for anything we haven't already freely expounded upon in our ebook.
When I say they, I am referring to the sites admins, who go by the pseudonyms of Professor Plum and Dr. LeDice. In the book they support their ideas with several gems of Academy wisdom, oh hell, lets call it hisdom for the sheer manly thrill of it.
the irony is that manginas like Paul Elam have no qualms about lecturing feminists on their shaming language. and here he is using the same silly chick tactics employed by feminists. by trying to demonize the concept of masculinity, paul hopes to shame men into adopting his tragic mangina philosophy.
Here‘s Doc’s and Prof‘s central tenets, in their words:

Simply put, manhood is your authority- to govern the lives of others, especially women.
Do not tolerate disorderly behavior from women. (Paul’s note: “disorderly” appears to be interchangeable with “disobedient“)
(Manhood 101's note: Paul Elam is a fucking moron).

again, we've already addressed such fallacies....*drum roll*.... in the ebook--the same one Paul claims to have read.

we clearly make the distinction between disorderly behavior and disobeying dysfunctional authority. in fact, we have a section devoted just to that.

here's just a small excerpt from the section titled "Honoring Vs. Obeying":
Women who honor and fear your authority will obey you. They will defer to your judgment, obey your directions and submit to your will.

Functional women honor your position of authority, regardless of whether it proves functional or dysfunctional. But obedience should only be given to decisions that do not violate fundamental ethical principles. This means the authority position should always be honored and preserved; however, the exercise of authority should meet a minimum ethical standard before it is obeyed.
i.e., Paul Elam's reading comprehension = fail

or Paul Elam's intellectual cowardice = win
Allowing women to vote is no different than allowing children to govern themselves.
And, in one of my favorite passages, the authors take a shots at Angry Harry and yours truly for apparently not being willing to dwell on the “superior strength and intelligence of males.” p. 45 Radio personality Tom Leykis takes a hit as well for distracting men from their “loss of authority” with women by saying that sitting down to pee is unmanly. p. 46
this is a FRIGHTENINGLY poor use of context. in fact, this statement implies exactly the opposite of what was actually conveyed.

in the example given, peeing while sitting down was deemed "unmanly" by Tom Leykis. but this is not a principle of manhood. it's a cultural preference. we were careful to point out this very fallacy when referring to the concept of masculinity. we made sure to clarify the difference between cultural preferences and universal principles. peeing while sitting down falls under the former category.

unless of course Paul Elam is fucking dumb enough to believe that you have to pee standing up in order to be considered a man.
Hey, I don’t make this stuff up. Go read for yourself if you have time to waste. Or, if you set your watch back 100 years, it may prove to be a home away from home.
i think after reading your intellectually dishonest and flat out retarded critique, trusting you should be the last thing any man should do. especially since you ADMIT to lying about opponents as part of your overall strategy; the ends justifies the means in your delusional world.

thankfully, public scrutiny is the truth's best ally.
Now, there are some snippets throughout the text that ring true. Nothing new, mind you, mostly the standard critique of political correctness and feminist ideology.
Paul is trying to impress upon you the fact that he almost finished section I. the other 2 major sections, he couldn't be bothered with.
Most of it in some form or another could be found in the comment sections of any MRM forum going back at least 15 years. But even those tidbits of accuracy are wasted. Whatever truth these morons possess is as useful as a Stradivarius to a man with no arms.
if only Paul Elam's dinosaur brain could keep up with the hard work of his crackwhore analogies...
One of feminisms most successful hoodwinks was that it convinced the world that the 1% of men who are real deal sloping brow bullies are somehow representative of men in general. It is a lie I have refuted with so much regularity over the years that I had all but forgotten that some of these guys are actually out there.

And now a couple of them are waving our flag. The first two words at the top of their home page are “Men’s Rights.” When I read it I wanted to hurl.
as you've probably guessed, Manhood 101 is at odds with many manginas in the so-called "men's rights" movement because most of them reflect this retard level of professional victimhood displayed by Paul. granted there are those few who are intellectually honest enough to discover the truth. but the vast majority are simply emasculated to the point of accepting bad leadership in lieu of no leadership. they've exchanged the shouting voices of overbearing wives for the passive-aggressive, intellectual impotent voices of self-annointed gurus like Paul Elam.
One might ask why all the fuss. Why give any press to or pay any attention to a couple of rejects on the internet? The place is full of them. It is a fair question that deserves an answer.
part of the problem is Paul Elam's elitest, self-righteous Southern Belle indignation. he can't cope with the fact that men are actually responding positively to our work and he's not the cause of it. in Paul's distorted senior citizen view, unless his golden seal of approval is on it, nobody is allowed to enjoy it.
Actually it deserves a couple of answers.

One, as messy as it can get, we do have the responsibility to do what feminists won’t, e.g. pursue justice, not domination, and do so without practicing the bigotry we are fighting. That’s the simple part.
so this idiot's answer to the call of 'justice' is to silence opposition he doesn't agree with, especially anything that exposes his emasculated views. instead of rationally making his criticisms known, like a cowardly spineless worm, he goes behind our backs to criticize us.

let this coward DARE to debate us out in the open.

Another reason is that this stuff can hurt us if we are not careful.

In a totally innocent effort to support the idea of examining the effects of feminism on men, Dr. Miles Groth, who hosted the recent Symposium on Male Studies at Wagner College, made a comment to the Manhood 101 forum in which he stated the general idea that literature that pursues that course of inquiry was suitable to be evaluated for inclusion in a male studies program.

Doc and Prof Manhood played it though, just as though Professor Groth had given them an honorary doctorate, and the next thing you know, the “endorsement” is being “exposed” over at the Daily Kos by some writer named Angry Mouse, as proof that the male studies initiative is about oppressing women.
Paul is making his typical sour grapes face. this fucktard is actually pretending to be privy to personal correspondence between Manhood 101 and Dr. Miles Groth:
Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 10:35 AM

Dear Professor,

I've been reading some of your blogs concerning male culture and identity. I am hoping you can help us. I am working with a group of academics, primarily psychologists and psychology professors. In response to a lack of understanding of male physiology, psychology, biology and behavior, their foundation is working to introduce a new program of male studies to colleges and universities worldwide.
Miles' response to our ebook submission:

"This is an excellent resource."

as usual, Paul Elam's lack of intellectual integrity is easily exposed by the threat of public scrutiny.
I have had the pleasure of speaking with Dr. Groth on several occasions, and working with him on the articles he publishes here at Men’s News Daily. Any idea that he is interested in subjugating women would come as a complete shock to me.

In responding to the Kos article. Dr. Groth told me the following:

“The authors of Principles 101 took my comment entirely out of context. I was simply supporting the idea that all materials addressing the effects of feminist ideology on men should be reviewed for inclusion in male studies curricula. It was not a direct endorsement of Principles 101, which I had not read. Upon reviewing the material in that book, I can only conclude it is promoting a misguided and now certainly dangerous perspective on boys and men.”
and there's the real problem. you can see the inherent intellectual dishonesty rampant in the men's rights movement. we showed you emails directly from Dr. Groth. the only "context" he created is the one he imagined in his delusional senior citizen head.

first he claims to have read our blog (which is basically the content from our ebook). then he calls it an "excellent resource." and then he claims never to have read it?

how can such two-faced intellectual cowards ever be trusted to speak for men? these fucktards can't even keep their lies straight.
And for the record, Dr. Groth’s statement is consistent with every bit of experience I have with him.
and it's also consistent with our experience with MRAs. they have the intellectual integrity of grapefruit. and these posts prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. this is the danger of dealing with emasculated men who refuse to hold themselves accountable to their own word. they've made the classic chick mistake of replacing personality integrity with high school popularity.

sorry Paul, but it will be a cold day in hell before consensus ever shames the truth.

this what you haven't learned yet paul: while consensus may be on your side today, it won't be forever. the truth has a funny way of rearing its head when you least expect it... and unlike consensus, the truth can weather any bout of public scrutiny you throw at it...

opinions standing on nothing more sturdy than the agreement of fools will always fold under examination..

the truth on the other hand doesn't care how hard you press on it. the more you examine it, the more you poke at it, the more you test it, the more you try to suppress it, the more it resists you..

what you haven't learned yet, paul, is that the truth THRIVES under the assault of con artists like you ... the more you try to discredit it, the stronger it becomes.

unfortunately for you, the same can't be said about consensus; if consensus has no basis in truth, it will crumble with the slightest push. and that's exactly what you're experiencing right now..

on the other hand, truth requires ZERO consensus to remain valid. it stands, regardless of the number of enemies/lies you throw at it.
Edit: btw, this fucktard will be happy to note that, yes, we've been solicited again by the Foundation For Male Studies for their 2nd annual conference. lulz :D :dance: and yes, they did provide us with FREE passes. we have the receipt to prove it.
I have to hand it to Angry Mouse over at Kos. She played a good round of gotcha, with a major assist from the faculty at Mantard School. She even blocked off quotes from the book under Groth’s name, as though those specific words had been read and endorsed by him, though no such thing ever happened.
kinda like Paul Elam who has no problem INVENTING quotes, contexts and accusations out of thin air.

like mother, like daughter.
Sometimes lessons come hard, as I am sure Miles Groth just found out. I am sure he would do that one over. But I hope we are all paying attention. The men’s movement is not just playing comment wars any more in obscure forums populated by opinionated spectators of a growing cultural battle. The movement is actually moving now, and where we have always been targets for condescension and ridicule, those little cap pistols will be replaced by much bigger guns. Even a totally innocent misstep like the one from Dr. Groth will be seen as a cut in which to pour salt. It will be exploited the same way we see gaffs by politicians played in the media.
does this "hard lesson" involve tolerating a delusional senior citizen's vampire thirst for constructing vacant analogies with the precision of a cerebral palsy hand juggling your balls?
Every vulnerability, real, perceived, or fabricated, will be played against us in a major league game of dirty pool that will make Kos‘s antics look like nothing.
Expect it. Count on it. And be prepared to draw lines.

Now would be a good time. Allow me to respectfully suggest that if you are an MRA blogger and/or activist, that you go on record about this one. If you link to them, please consider removing it. If you visit the site, please consider there are better options that don’t put you in the company of the mentally unemployed.
translation: please check your intellectual integrity at the door if you want to be on Paul Elam's team. either you let Paul control what you're allowed to say/think, or he will take all his Star Wars action figures and go home. that's not a threat--that's a promise.
There are enough MRA’s, and the numbers are growing, that we don’t have to defend every idiot that can start a website and say he’s against feminism. Indeed, things are getting to the point that if we aren’t careful about that, it is going to really do some damage.
Paul's delusional assumption is that his penchant for intellectual cowardice is supposed to be a selling point for joining his jr. cult.
Let’s do what they didn’t and what they won’t. Let’s go on the record that we stand for something greater than this lunacy. Let’s take out the trash and keep our house in order.

Paul, try not to mistake your self-righteous indignation for everyone's home.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.


Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by churro » Wed Nov 17, 2010 6:14 am

I wouldn't even have thought for a second that Prof. Groth would lie to save his own ass from public disagreement after being caught with supporting the e-book. I was taken aback when Prof. Groth denied the fact that he read the e-book and that he also believed you guys took his email out of "context". On top of that, he lies for more public approval by stating his conclusion
[...] I can only conclude it is promoting a misguided and now certainly dangerous perspective on boys and men.
Or it could be his, sadly, true opinion now.

Nobody likes to hear lies.

Great post Prof.


Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by Steven » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:04 pm

Hmmm, I must have read a different one then you did, Paul. My take on the ebook was different than yours.

I’ll reread it again, but it seemed to be only a guideline of how to control the outcome of a male female interaction. The same techniques can be used between men.


Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by JCAR » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:11 pm

Dear Mr. Elam,

I was open to your criticism of the Manhood 101 and their ebook until you started making hangman arguments. The ebook does not say that men have the right to subjugate women. It does not say that men are superior to women in every way. It does not say that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. These are outright lies.

I don’t agree with every single thing the ebook says. The author can sometimes come across as an asshole. I do, however, agree with the social principles that it endorses. It endorses male/female cooperation instead of competition for power in private life. It endorses male leadership and authority in a relationship because evolutionary psychology has made males the most fit to lead. It condemns oppression and violence against women. It encourages men to turn a dysfunctional situation into an orderly situation with assertion and discipline. It encourages men to lead their women and their male peers by example.

I was annoyed by the typos, though. Couldn’t they just have gone over it and made the corrections? There were so many typos that I almost think it was intentional. lol


Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by Collin » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:12 pm

I strongly disagree with how you took the e-book. Firstly, I think you were either reading it in an entirely different mindset, or just plain out don’t understand the meaning of authority over competition.

Obviously the author was not trying to say that women are worthless creatures not worthy or capable of even taking care of themselves, rather he was arguing against the position they have placed themselves in, in today’s society. They fight for a position of domination and leadership, when, in general, men are much more suited for this position of power. We have genuinely different levels of thinking and processing that allow us to handle a vast majority of situations entirely differently.

I think you should reread it, except this time without such a bias mindset that the author was out there just to bash women. If you would take your head out of your ass and actually listen to some of the things the author claimed, you will see that most of it was not very far from the truth. He at no point said women should not be able to vote and never said they were inferior to men. He simply stated that men and women were created to fulfill different roles in both relationships and society and the appropriate parties should stick to their respective duties.

Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10515
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am

Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by Info » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:30 pm

JCAR wrote:It endorses male leadership and authority in a relationship because evolutionary psychology has made males the most fit to lead.
the reason you quote or imply here--that men are fit to lead because of evolutionary psychology--is highly inaccurate. our ebook does NOT state this because it's wrong-- we don't speculate on unproven reasons.

we spend our time concentrating on the observable effects of male authority and the observable capacity of men vs. the observable capacity of women. it's clear from these observations that men are not only much more fit to lead, they're designed to lead. this is no different than observing similar gender axioms in women such as females being designed to bear children because they have a womb.
I was annoyed by the typos, though. Couldn’t they just have gone over it and made the corrections? There were so many typos that I almost think it was intentional. lol
you've probably read very early revisions of our work, when we were more eager to get the word out quickly rather than spend the requisite time editing the text for grammar issues. admittedly, this is a sloppy, poor example on our part. the latest revision should be less painful to your discerning eyes.
social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.


Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by NCH » Wed Jan 19, 2011 9:37 am

" sorry Paul, but it will be a cold day in hell before consensus ever shames the truth."

Well said!

No matter how numerous, it is very possible they are just all wrong! The truth will speak for itself. It is self-evident.


Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by recti » Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:12 pm

Greetings. I have stumbled onto this site...with honorable intentions.
It's a pity you gentlement have to bitchslap each other. Very unkindly, and the enemy might laugh at us. At any rate, only 1 comment. Peeing sitting down. Damn straight, this is not "cultural"! Damn straight it's biological to pee standing up! Take a look at females when they pee in the Deep Woods. No seat? well, they squat. Take a look at males when they pee in the Deep Woods: do men squat? Hell no, they pee standing up. It's every bit as simple as that. Also, there are signficant opinions in medicine that suggest men should NOT pee sitting down. Here's a tip for men making a statement for their sex. DO NOT PUT THE FREAKING SEAT DOWN. The reason your wife wants it down is because she's too damn delicate to use her hands to pull it down-- as it was designed to be pulled, by the MALE who invented it. In solidarity, for the coming liberation of men, Recti

Dean of Beatdowns
Posts: 10515
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:34 am

Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by Info » Sat Mar 19, 2011 6:33 pm

recti wrote: Peeing sitting down. Damn straight, this is not "cultural"! Damn straight it's biological to pee standing up! Take a look at females when they pee in the Deep Woods. No seat? well, they squat. Take a look at males when they pee in the Deep Woods: do men squat? Hell no, they pee standing up.
let me guess; you think that cars, corner offices, Cuban cigars, porcelain flush toilets, nuclear reactors, your computer and this forum are all found in the "Deep Woods" too?

social interaction is an interruption.

shape or be shaped.


Re: MRA coward, Paul Elam, scolds Manhood 101

Post by notanmra » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:32 am

I have to say something here.

Darth Elam says, "The women’s movement failed to self police."

When he says this, it is almost like he has a secret admiration for them. Am I mistaken?
In addition to that, his statement is wrong from the gate: the women's movement did self-police: except, they policed the wrong women: they policed women who were not a part of their movement, and they policed people who disagreed with their movement.

He also says this, "They became the very sexist louts they claimed to abhor."

Wrong headed. They were sexist louts. They simply had a warped definition of what sexism is. Sexism has NOTHING to do with sex. It is about hatred of a sex. Since the feminists were too retarded to understand this, they were from the get-go sexist bigots. Add to that herstory revisionists installing more hatred of men in women, and you increase the number of women who are sexist bigots.

"not all feminists are like this" This is what MRA's call "NAWALT" spin off "NAFALT". Darth Elam denounces this, yet he uses it himself. Clearly, he is not convicted to his principles.

"There is a lesson here for the men’s rights movement, and one we need to observe"
Clever "WE" placed in the sentence. to make it sound like he speaks for the group.

I can go on, but I'll save it for my own blog.

This is why I will never call myself an MRA. The "movement" has been infected with too many "men" who are the enemy they describe.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests