Television interview

Paul On Weekend Sunrise Australia

Paul Elam was recently interviewed on Australia’s leading morning television program Weekend Sunrise. Discussion topics included gender roles, the need for a greater range of options for men and boys, and the rape hysteria increasingly responsible for miscarriages of justice.

About AVfM Video Source

AVfM Video Source is a group dedicated to finding and presenting to you the best videos from the internet that help illustrate the growing and evolving Men's Human Rights Movement, or that indicate society's changing attitudes toward the sexes. AVfM does not necessarily agree with or endorse everything in every video.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Gizmo

    Paul, you did a fantastic job responding to their questions, and I was actually impressed that the interviewers actually listened to you and let you talk. They may not agree with everything you said, but they certainly appeared to have much more open minds than most journalists out there. Great job, if only a journalist here in the USA would give you the same respect.

  • Jonathan Taylor

    Someone got a haircut since the conference.

    I think…or maybe just a beard trim :)

    • Shrek6

      Nah, just had his ears lowered!

  • Peter Wright

    This was a big program to appear on – half a million live viewers I believe. 😊

    Paul’s calm reasoned replies gained a win over the whole discourse/discussion. And in credit to the hosts/interviewers, they stepped back and let him fully answer their questions, unlike the “interrupting” style of the hard-hitting style TV programs. Such is the benefit of a moms-n-dads morning TV show – they must come across as people having a reasonable family discussion.

    Very impressed.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

      Huge!

  • Dennis Markham

    What? Strong women aren’t ruining our lives. Weak women who want us to piggy-back them through life are ruining our lives.

    Strong women are my life’s blood.

    • Guest

      Indeed, time to cut the parasites off.

      OT:- having fun in Toronto.

      • PlainOldTruth

        Hate! Are you suggesting lice, ticks and leeches aren’t people, too? You are a winged parasititophobic!

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

      Indeed, time to cut the parasites off.

      OT:- having fun in Toronto.

      http://tinyurl.com/kyd5sye

    • Whothehell Cares

      Indeed, that was my thoughts exactly. We need more strong women, not weak victims churned out by the Feminist Perpetual Grievance society.

    • ComradePrescott

      The presenters and the narration was flooded with such lies, as usual. If they are honourable and respectful I will genuinely be surprised. But as usual they were petty, spiteful, and snide.

      I for one don’t applaud them because they could have been worse. They couldn’t be better is what I say!

    • Tallwheel

      “Strong women”? I think what they actually said was “strawman”. It was a strawman argument.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com John Narayan

    Love being part of this movement.

  • Victor Zen

    Your work and conduct is much appreciated as always, Paul.

    I was irked that they were so hung up over acquitting on principle. Part of me suspects that is just a logical extension of “innocent until proven guilty,” and I cannot understand why the hosts took such issue with such a simple concept.

    Either way, I’m glad Paul was given a chance to finish his thoughts instead of being mercilessly interrupted by the arrogant punditry of United States talk show hosts. The message needed to sink in, and I give props to Weekend Sunrise for at least giving Paul the breathing room he needed to lay out the facts.

    • Shrek6

      ” I cannot understand why the hosts took such issue with such a simple concept.”

      Mate, the reason why, is because the male host is either a radical feminist or a sympathiser of the sisterhood. Read what I say about him in my other response.

      I am of the same opinion as Paul too, because you just cannot trust the alleged evidence that is put before you. Here in Australia there are large numbers of young and older men languishing in prison on trumped up rape/sexual assault charges and probably most of them circumstantial evidence.

      Several years back in Western Australia the family of a young fella paid an ex British Detective who was a forensic expert and retired, to come out and work to help free their son from prison. They knew the girl had lied.
      He did the work and the boy was freed with conviction gone, but of course the girl didn’t even get a talking to from the courts or the police. To my knowledge that is. It wasn’t publicised if she did.

      However, before this ex cop left the country to go back to pommie land (UK), he had a parting shot at the WA police and the system.
      He said that he noted in this case that there was a lack of ‘any’ real evidence. That just because the girl pointed the finger at the boy, he said that the police couldn’t find any evidence, so they set about stitching the poor kid up with circumstantial evidence, which he was eventually convicted on.

      He accused the police of deliberate tunnel vision, refusing to look for evidence elsewhere and using archaic forensic practices that had gone out with the dinosaurs. And I am only talking about probably less than 7 years ago.
      He also said that after a cursory glance at several other cases, he was convinced that there would be many others just like the one he just worked on.

      I think there should be a law against some criminal convictions being achieved on circumstantial evidence alone. This happens too often in my book and it should be stopped.

    • Partridge

      Feminists don’t seem to understand the concept that an accusation, or even a handful of accusations, is not proof of guilt. And where the justice system effectively invites women to come forward with accusations, many will do so falsely in the hope of settling grudges, making some easy money, or simply out of hatred for men.

      Acquitting accused persons in the absence of any corroborating evidence is a principle feminists cannot accept because in their minds it is better that a hundred innocent men are convicted than for one genuine victim to be denied vengeance. Feminists are quite happy for the principles of justice to be turned upside down because, in their minds, all men are guilty simply because they are men.

      • Mark Wharton

        I think many of them understand it. They are just bigots.

    • Andybob

      “I was irked that they were so hung up over acquitting on principle.”

      Paul Elam’s stance on jury nullification in rape trials is one of the two or three examples of his alleged extremism that are invariably raised to discredit him as violent rape-enabler. It is a predictable feature of the kinds of articles that have been written about the recent conference.

      When it is raised in a live interview with the man himself, it gives him an opportunity to explain a few facts about due process in relation to rape accusations of which the interviewers, and the audience are invariably ignorant – and feminists really don’t want revealed to a wide radio/television audience.

      You can safely predict that the researchers assigned to dig up the dirt about the likes of Paul Elam were feminists, who probably used feminist sources – like David Futrelle – who never quite give the whole story. This is why the hosts were entirely unprepared to respond to Dr Elam’s reference to the Dear Colleague letter. They’d never heard of it, or the egregiously unjust evidentiary standards they endorse and impose. Nor were the hosts aware that rape shield laws undermine due process in a manner that is clearly misandric and unacceptable.

      The hosts sat there like stunned mullets because the researchers didn’t bother to examine any of Paul Elam’s positions in their complete form and context. They relied on the dishonestly cherry-picked versions of the nearest available feminist source. It made the hosts look like ill-prepared hacks who hadn’t done their homework properly. The same impression was given during Dean Esmay’s recent interview.

      It doesn’t irk me at all when Paul Elam is asked about jury nullification because it provides an opportunity for him to reveal the kind of uncomfortable truths that feminists have been hiding or denying for decades – and leaves hosts like these stumped. I liked the wry smile Pail Elam gave when asked about rape hysteria on a programme taking place in a country plastered in “Don’t be that guy” posters and littered in white ribbon paraphernalia.

      Paul Elam did a splendid job, as he always does.

      • Shrek6

        Andy, I’ll tell you one of the sources of information on Paul Elam that these two show hosts would have used to try and bait him. That source is the one and only Michael Flood, who is an ambassador of the White Ribbon campaign here in Australia and obviously a mate of the male host, who is the Foundation Chairman.

        • Andybob

          No doubt. Let’s hope the talking heads in the MSM are briefed by researchers who continue to get all of their information from the likes of Michael Flood. People like Paul Elam, Dean Esmay and Mike Buchanan come across as knowing important and relevant facts that the audience has never heard before, and the MSM is too lazy, bigoted or stupid to find out for themselves.
          Another example of Paul Elam’s so-called extremism that they like to trot out is the ‘Bash a Violent Bitch Month’ article. It is obvious that the writers who refer to it have absolutely no idea that it was a parody of a Jezebel article celebrating female-perpetrated domestic violence.
          Some feminists have even gone on record condemning this parody, forgetting to mention that it was a parody and remaining completely silent about the Jezebel article which inspired it. They have either intentionally misrepresented it, or just as likely, got their information from other feminists who are equally ignorant of its genesis.
          When some smug talking head brings it up, I hope Dr Elam gives a few examples of the hundreds of comments responding to the original article’s invitation for readers to share their ‘stories’. He could mention the woman who punched her ex in the face at a mutual friend’s wedding for no reason whatsoever, or the woman who poured boiling water over her sleeping boyfriend because she was annoyed with him for some reason she didn’t bother to explain.
          Dr Elam could mention the dozens of ‘you go girl’ replies to each of these stomach-churning examples of women cheering about the violence they felt entitled to inflict on whatever man happened to be handy at the time. Listeners would understand that the obvious purpose of his parody was to expose feminist hypocrisy while simultaneously condemning the advocacy of domestic violence.
          He could then ask the talking head why they had chosen to criticize AVfM’s parody of Jezebel’s celebration of DV instead of the original feminist article which actually did the celebrating. Could it be possible that they hadn’t done their homework, or is it because they think that violence against men is hysterically funny?
          I often wonder how people like Paul Elam, Dean Esmay and Mike Buchanan can look so cool. calm and collected in such a high pressure situation. Then I remember that they are greatly helped by the fact that they just have to tell the truth. This always less stressful than trying to sell bigotry and lies, which is why Michael Flood always looks like he’s about to be stuck by a bolt from above during interviews.
          Let them bring on their feminist-sourced ‘research’. It just makes the talking heads look like a bunch of clowns with something to hide. It is also a huge PR boost that our spokespeople look like real, authentic people that audiences can relate to – as opposed to primped and waxed frauds with an agenda to sell.

          • Shrek6

            Amen to that Brother!

  • Shrek6

    Wow, what a great interview!

    Paul you were interviewed by Australia’s Purple Poodle in Chief. He spearheads the ‘White Ribbon’ campaign in this country and runs around telling men to man up and stop smacking the chicks. He is one of those so-called ‘men’ who is willing to throw most of the male population under the bus, by accusing them as potential rapists and DV perps. He does this by what he represents with the white ribbon campaign.

    Why Andrew O’Keeffe didn’t cut you off and speak over you much more than he did, actually took me aback. I was actually shocked that he sat there and listened quietly to most of what you said.
    Maybe he was instructed to give you plenty of rope, just in case you were going to hang yourself and prove to Australian viewers that are indeed a woman hating kitten eater.

    Paul, thank you so much for appearing on Australian TV. It is such a shame it was not on the weekly Sunrise show, because the audience is far greater. Nevertheless, it was absolutely well done and you handled it like the professional you truly are.

    • Peter Wright

      He spearheads the ‘White Ribbon’ campaign in this country and runs around telling men to man up and stop smacking the chicks.

      I didn’t know that, Shrek! And he appeared to agree with Paul in serveral places – so perhaps the white ribbon supporters will take that as a nod to the great work of Paul Elam and A Voice for Men. Can’t get the smile off my face here.

      • Shrek6

        Peter if you look about one third the way down this page: http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/update/adelaide-white-ribbon-breakfast-2012, you will see that it is mentioned that Andrew O’keefe is the Chairman of the White Ribbon Foundation, which was in 2012. So I could be wrong. He may not be in that job now, because I couldn’t find anything to say he is.
        I doubt his position would have changed much even if he isn’t in that job any longer!

        Peter, you could have knocked me down with a feather when I sat there watching this video and A. O’Keefe was actually sitting quiet listening to what Paul was saying. This man has been the public face of the white ribbon campaign in Aus for some years now and when they are having campaigns, he is often on TV pushing the usual trumped up stats that we all hear about so often.

        The Sheila who is his partner on TV is also a feminist from what I can make out. She has not proclaimed this that I have heard, but she has never shown herself to be a sympathiser of men and boys, but to the contrary like most women in the media.

        • Peter Wright

          I do remember O’keefe being a chairman/embassador now….. must have had a mind freeze. If they were giving Paul enough rope, he used it to lasso the truth and demolish their little ambush party. 😄

      • Matthew Lane

        Yeah the white ribboners are not taken at all seriously here…. They’ve been openly mocked as knee jerk reactionaries, tilting at windmills they think are giants. At this point even the people running the organisation don’t take it seriously…. Its pretty much just a pay check for some people now as I understand it.

        • Rob

          “tilting at windmills they think are giants.”

          thats a phrase I gotta remember next time hysteria hits the fan!

          • Matthew Lane

            Its of course a reference to the classic story of Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha

            Alonso Quixano, the protagonist of the novel, is a retired country gentleman nearing fifty years of age, living in an unnamed section of La Mancha with his niece and housekeeper. While mostly a rational man of sound reason, his reading of books of chivalry in excess has had a profound effect on him, leading to the distortion of his perception and the wavering of his mental faculties.

            Later in the book after being entirely ineffective & delusional he convinces a uneducated male peasant to be his squire, at which point the two tilt at windmills, that Don Quixote thinks are actually evil giants.

            If this book had been produced today we could probably have swapped out the term chivalry for feminism & it would continue to be wonderful social satire about an increasingly delusional ideologue.

  • Alex Neo

    Good interview, got across the points that are important. Its great to see this on mainstream media. Here in Australia that show is one of the top morning programs. Well done.

  • Mike Rainbow

    That was amazing. They were very polite and listened well!

  • PlainOldTruth

    The investment of time and donations made by volunteers, writers and fundraiser donors is paying big dividends. AVfM is a great example of the entrepreneurial spirit. The fundamental weakness of Goliath of bureaucracy, peer-pressure fueled “consensus,” state power, wealthy shakedown operations, ultra-wealthy and ultra-stealthy NGOs, official credentials and monopolies (law, medicine), corporate censored media is revealed as the bricks of logic issue from the David of free, generous, inspired truthful people of integrity WHO WILL NOT GIVE UP.

    A poll was just released today showing 80% of people US regard government is corrupt. Apparently 20% are in a coma. We will do our part to document the details of that corruption and show the specifics of how the reign of terror of fanatical ideologues, social control quacks, “elected” panderers, subsidized narcissists and opportunistic bureaucrats are the parasites who are sucking the blood of the host: the people who do actual work, actual inventing and actual building. We are the entrepreneurs and we will not let our culture and our economy to be finished off by the leaches.

    • Susie Parker

      That 20% are the undeserving recipients of corruption. They’re in a sugar coma.

  • scanspeak

    Looks like the blue-pill mainstream media are finally “getting their feet wet” as I think Kristal Garcia put it recently.

  • scanspeak

    “Only 3% of rape cases end in a conviction” – gives us a clue about the rate of false rape accusations.

    • Susie Parker

      I just had a woman post that “fact” to me recently. My reply was “Especially if the rapist is a female school teacher – THEN she only gets community service and child support.”

      Her reply?

      “You have a point.”

    • Jon

      Exactly!! I’m baffled how people can claim the low conviction rate for accused rapists suggests that society is letting rapists run free. It seems like it suggests the exact opposite – that society is overzealous in prosecuting rape and that innocent men are often accused. I would like to know what statistics the guy was citing – anybody know?

      Regardless, I wonder what the reaction would have been if Paul turned around and said: “So, you are saying that in 97% of rape cases the accused (after being subjected to intense scrutiny by the criminal justice system) is found not-guilty in the court of law.”

    • DukeLax

      The perverse part of this…..Is American law enforcement are now getting federal pork bloating dollars to manufacture faulty and inflammatory statistics….that may in fact be unconstitutional.

  • mark mooroolbark

    Paul-you just get better every time I watch you speak or do an interview. Your demeanor and ability to support your point of view with facts and relevant anecdotes was so impressive. Any neutral observer would have to have been won over by your calm, reasoned approach.

    As Shrek has already said-I cannot believe how much respect you were shown by Andrew O’Keefe. I have written more than one angry letter to him. To his credit-he let you speak and acknowledged the validity of the points you made.

    You are an inspiration , Paul Elam.

    • Dagda Mór

      Agreed, fine work Paul.

  • DukeLax

    Piece by piece…the “woozles” that are fueling the hysteria, that is infecting law enforcement;….. that are the the foundations for “perverting the course of justice”….are being dismantled!!!

    • PlainOldTruth

      You get the blueprint. You analyze it. You put the charges precisely at the most crucial weight-bearing points of support. Nobody on the outside can tell what is happening. Then, when all is ready, when all the columns have peen accurately identified and prepared for dissolution: BOOM! —- The whole thing collapses in seconds.

      • DukeLax

        I think one of the heaviest weight bearing points….besides the “media lace curtain”…… is the “manufactured statistics alliances, and “pork bloating triangles” that are manufacturing the inflammatory statistics that are now used to “Inflame” the public with.

      • DukeLax

        I agree…Identifying the “lynch pins”…..no pun intended…..then pulling out these “lynch pins” and the train comes apart.

      • Andybob

        That’d exactly how I predict it will happen. The dissolution of feminist hegemony will happen very quickly once the preparation has been done. I believe that AVfM is the only organization that has identified those “weight-bearing points” accurately, and has designed the blueprint that will achieve the desired results.

    • crydiego

      It is beginning to look like feminism is an empty building. All the people who were once there have gone on to work lucrative angles of feminist theory. They were so successful that they had no fear of attack because shaming could bring down anyone.
      Shame is a powerful weapon only if other people join in and the target feels the shame. Shame is the weapon of bullies. It doesn’t work any more but it’s all they got!

  • PlainOldTruth

    Paul has disappointed his hosts. They invited him on so they could hear this old song. But he was NOT COOPERATIVE:

    • wakjob

      Now THAT would have been impressive.

  • DukeLax

    Maybe Elams interview will jumpstart the MRM… in ozz.

  • Dash Riprock

    I have seen David Koch, a senior morning anchor on that particular network, more than occasionally point out that it’s not all beer and skittles for men even though he receives the expected feminist backlash in reply. That can’t be easy. And Jim Muldoon featured Natalie Barr, another morning anchor on this network, on AVfM Australia some months ago after she stated that she had never been discriminated against for being female. She also received quite substantial feminist criticism. After all, imagine saying that!!! This show (and perhaps the network) just might be worth watching. Something is happening there. Just maybe the tide is beginning to turn in the mainstream. Fantastic interview Mr Elam. Armed with a feminist précis they were hoping for ‘crazy’ but they got intelligent empirical reasoning presented flawlessly and signed off with style. Marvelous.

    • wakjob

      Beer and Skittles? Fucking gross.

  • Druk

    A bit unfair to bring up the Innocence Project statistic, since they work pretty much exclusively with innocence that can be proven via DNA evidence. Which of course will mostly be rape cases.

    • Andybob

      DNA is used predominantly in rape cases? I don’t think so.

      • Druk

        Why don’t you think so? How many other crimes leave the perp’s DNA at the scene in almost all cases?

        • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ Paul Elam

          Certainly you are aware that DNA is a major factor in murder cases as well?

          Let us hope, anyway.

          But let’s assume that your criticism is correct for a moment (which it is not). This is a seven or eight minute max television exposure, with one guy going up against a rigged and biased media machine, bent on turning the audience against the guest. That is precisely why they brought up the nullification piece instead of one of the other 600 or so articles I have written on AVFM.

          And they did it to form an attack.

          I stated a fact. The number one crime for which people are exonerated by the Innocence Project is rape. I stated it as fact because it is. And I included police and prosecutorial misconduct, which played a role in the exonerations. Go read the Innocence Project website, or at least the article I read on the subject. I don’t even recall mentioning DNA in the interview. Perhaps more time would have allowed more vetting, but that is not the scenario I created. I just roll with what is dealt me.

          You look at the whole picture here and your response is that what I did was “a bit unfair”?

          I am fresh out of expletives that would accurately define my reaction to that kind of thinking. Suffice it to say I am glad it was me up there and not you.

          • Druk

            I admit, DNA is definitely a factor in a large number of homicide cases. But I challenge you to provide a source that contradicts my criticism that you say is incorrect. Here is a source that backs me up:

            “That the majority of DNA profiling cases concern sexual assault–usually rape–is not surprising. In few other criminal endeavors is the perpetrator as likely to deposit significant physical evidence.”
            https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/dnaevid.pdf

            And while you didn’t bring up DNA, The Innocence Project certainly does:
            “The Innocence Project ONLY considers cases [where]:
            2. There is physical evidence that, if subjected to DNA testing, will prove that the defendant is actually innocent..”
            http://www.innocenceproject.org/about/Contact-Us.php

            I apologize if you found my comment too harsh. I understand that public speakers can’t be perfect all the time. I’m sure you’re a much better public speaker than I.

            That said, the implication you were making was that the fact that The
            Innocence Project’s work mostly exonerates in rape cases was somehow
            unexpected or unusual, and therefore evidence that prosecutorial
            misconduct was more likely in rape cases than other cases. I stand by my
            statement that I believe that to be unfair.

            And I definitely realize that I’m nitpicking here. I do that a lot. I
            think it can help smooth out the edges of an argument if someone is
            looking to do so. If you’re not, that’s fine; just ignore it.

          • mramra

            Dear Druk,

            I still fail to see why this is unfair. Paul mentioned rape hysteria as a problem. The innocence project has produced data (through lots of overturned convictions) that shed light on the issue. Paul uses this data to make a point. What exactly is unfair or problematic?

          • Druk

            Because The Innocence Project’s exoneration numbers don’t back that up. They specifically work with the types of cases that are likely to be rape cases. I wouldn’t call it problematic, exactly, but it doesn’t support the rape hysteria argument any more than a property lawyer mostly winning property line cases supports a ‘property line hysteria’ argument.

          • Susie Parker

            Innocence Projects mainly only work with cases of currently incarcerated wrongful convictions, and the vast, vast majority of long term incarceration cases are either murder or rape.

            Illinois called a moratorium on the death penalty after DNA testing showed a full 10% of those on Illinois State Death Row were in fact the wrong guy. Death Row cases carry the burden of proof to the highest factor. Imagine how many innocent would be uncovered if they randomly DNA tested every person convicted of rape.

            It takes a LONG time to overturn a wrongful conviction.

          • mramra

            Sorry, I still fail to see your point, but it might me being stupid here: If the innocence project concentrates just on rape cases – and finds a lot of wrongful convictions – why doesn’t that shed light onto the issue of whether there might be a rape hysteria or not?That they selected rape should have no bearing on the argument, or should it?
            If they selected only a certain, biased subset of rape cases – which doesn’t seem to be the case for me so far – then I can see that using their cases of proven innocence might be disingenuous.

  • http://menaregood.com/ Tom Golden

    Home run Mr. Elam! They had set multiple traps to prove you were a hater and you easily disarmed each one with truth in an articulate and calm manner. Paul, you are a very potent spokesman for our issues. In fact, I think you are the best spokesman we have and are doing a fantastic job.

  • crydiego

    Great job Paul, ignore the cartoon cutouts asking the questions. Their questions mean zero, -speak to the audience. Very well done!

  • crydiego

    It is interesting how AVFM and the MHRM has recieved a lot of press lately and yet we are still dealing with the second string of team feminism. It is also interesting that these people don’t even know the basics of what this movement is adout. We still just get shaming tactics and insults for saying bad things. So where are the heavy hitters of feminism? Where are the leaders? Do they just not know we are out here, and we’re growing, or are they avoiding us?
    How do we find the wonderful wizards of feminism and talk with them. Why do we have to face all these evil witches and their flying monkeys. Where is the yellow brick road to Gloria Steinman’s and her bicycle?

    • Andybob

      Great questions, Mr Crydiego. I like to think of it as the very early stage of their learning process in which Paul Elam must start with the ABCs before moving on to words and phrases which may bamboozle them. It’s going to be a very long time before they stop asking dumb questions, my friend. But it will happen.

  • http://francisdroy.wordpress.com Francis Roy

    Just a quick observation: when discussing the choices that men and women have, I could hear Warren’s rhythm and tone of voice. That’s an example of a a meme that has been well placed.

  • http://www.angryharry.com/ Angry Harry

    Male Interviewer “If only 3% of rape cases end up in a conviction … then you can’t say that the system is flooded with vexatious complaints”

    Notice the two really huge misconceptions contained in the above statement – which we come across ALL THE TIME

    1. The fact that the conviction rate is very low, if anything, supports EXACTLY the contention that “the sytem is (INDEED) flooded with vexatious complaints”. And yet the male interviewer concludes the very opposite!

    The inference that he makes is totally illogical.

    He has been well and truly hypnotised!

    He is a zombie.

    Albeit a very pleasant one.

    2. In his mind, he actually conflates two populations: victims of rape and false accusers. His emotional mind subsumes the latter under the former.

    In other words, he implies that because many women are, indeed, raped, then it is not possible for there also to exist many (if not more) false accusers.

    But the two populations are totally unrelated. They have nothing to do with each other..

    • mramra

      Hey, I had actually the same thought watching the video. I think saying ‘Well, ok, but doesn’t a figure of just 3% maybe tell you something about the number of false complaints?’ would have been very effective in turning the argument around. But I still think that this was a nice and calm response by Paul Elam.

  • earth one

    Great job Paul, you were on point, focused, and responded to every question with real information. No matter, how they may have tried to spin it, you can’t beat that!

    The ball is rolling – the MHRM is now a “thing” and there is no going back!

  • Rick Bradford

    A very statesman-like performance. Excellent.

  • Gman0730

    The interview was fair, but the interviewers minds were closed. They were closed because these two well dressed, well paid and protected white Australians live in a vacuum. A vacuum where no ghettos exists, a vacuum where no economic stress exists and a vacuum that is sterilized of the experience of being accused, arrested, or divorced and accused of being a child molester by an ex-spouse. In other words, they sacrifice their empathy for a political comfort zone. Where as long as they agree with the person sitting next to them or the policies of the government, or the policies of the corporation that signs their pay check, they are safe from ridicule or destruction of the social system that has been created for us.

    • mythago

      Their minds are closed cause their talking heads. The next segment was probably on pandas.

  • ComradePrescott

    Very well spoken, Mr. Elam!

    Those two presenters were rather shameless… you could see that they simply didn’t care. How that woman snidely put in that last comment knowing that no more time remained for you to reply was very petty.

    But that’s what you are up against and you carried yourself well.

  • PeterPan

    Very well done Paul! Extremely well done!! Its clear they both had already made up their minds, and I really like how you explained this dick, that this is not small meter if individual lives are destroyed due to obscure process.

  • Rob

    well done
    BTW I noticed mr Futrelle is still getting his panties into a twist over the conference like a rabid dog that can’t tell its looking Pet Euthanasia in the eye.

  • Turbo

    Interesting that Andrew O’Keefe says that it is only a very small amount of people saying that all men are potential rapists. He was the Chairman of the White Ribbon Foundation in Australia, which petty much spouts exactly that sentiment, as well as totally ignoring male victims of violence and spewing demonstrably false statistics.

  • Mark Samenfink

    That woman’s face, right at the end of the interview. That look of shock/disgust. That’s what the enemy of men’s human rights looks like, right there, a shocked and disgusted person with preconceived notions indoctrinated into them their whole lives by feminist media and education.

  • Astrokid

    They followed it up with a piece on feminism. LOL
    Laci Green became a feminist coz her Dad didnt help with the amazingly difficult task of doing the laundry. And the obnoxious OKeefe cant help but bring up all those serious issues hurting poor wimminz.
    https://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/video/watch/24394891/is-feminism-a-dirty-word/