Messages

61

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 11, 2013, 07:41 PM

What happened between Harry and Paul Elam?  Was this recent? I must be rip van evil or something.

It was a few months ago and Harry had a difference of opinion with Paul over an article that was published - as I have no intention of making life any the easier for the quote miners out there I am sending you the url of the article concerned via PM.

EDIT: PM sent 

62

Main / Men’s Rights March 2013 Internet Statement

Mar 11, 2013, 06:16 PM

Please read the publishers note at end of document - important. (Tigerman)
Men's Rights March 2013 Internet Statement

63

Main / Re: The male positive music and video thread

Mar 11, 2013, 06:12 PM

And for Monday, there's Manic Monday by the Bangles.  Its nice how the female singer describes her lover:

Bangles - Manic Monday

Bangles - Manic Monday (original video)

Love that tune - thanks for posting

64

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 11, 2013, 05:41 PM

To Factory
First of all *I* am not AVFM. AVFM is there - it exists and so far I support it aims and goals ONLY because they largely coincide with my own personally held convictions.
Nor am I happy with all that is decided or that goes on there but I don't have to be - it is not my site and if I don't like it enough I can ignore it and move on.
I understand and sympathise perhaps more than you think that indeed some veteran MRA's have had their noses put out of joint in clashes with site policy and\or some of any of the moderators there. I was very saddened by the clash between Angry Harry and Paul Elam for example. Had I been in charge of the site I may well reacted differently than Paul .
I still read Angry Harry's articles and I have enormous respect and love for the man.
It was he prior to the last Gulf war that initially annoyed me with his opposition to the coming campaign - at the time I was still stupid and gullible enough to believe that the offensive was for the good of the poor Iraqi's, the Gulf in general and world peace (due to the elimination of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction etc). Yet Harry's voice troubled me - Harry foresaw the coming carnage and the undue collateral damage as a basic affront to humanity and boy was he right although it took me longer than I am proud to admit to see his perspective and agree with it.
I am not the sycophant you think I am. Like I said before AVFM  is a weapon and in my view it is being honed into an ever more effective one - so please for the sake of your own nervous system chill the fuck out and let it do it's work.

65

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 11, 2013, 04:02 PM

Hey,

My view is... all should be welcome to the MRM. However we need to focus on Men's rights not gay rights. I think all should be allowed to say or believe anything they want. However I think there should be rules on veering too far off topic in the MRM.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this.  No sense in deliberately excluding people but not getting sidetracked and maintaining our focus on our shared issues is crucial.

this is my opinion so please dont crucify me over it---but I think that a lot of the energy spent in activism by hard core MRA's is spent in a direction that is less productive than it could be. See, I think if MRA's focused more so on things like lower taxes, getting big government out of the social engineering business, ending stupid bullshit wars, reforming drug laws and dismantling the prison industrial complex,etc rather than "specific" MRA issues like misandry in the media, womens studies bias etc etc.........things would fall into place and america would be a better place to live for men and boys(and women and girls too)

Actually those are very sound suggestions indeed in my view. I still think the so called "MRA specific" issues should be broached because that is an excellent litmus test to check progress in the evolution of our societies i.e. if it is socially unacceptable to broach such topics (or even illegal heaven forbid) then we have oppositional forces lurking which will attempt to impede all progress where men's human rights are concerned. It should also be said that reforming governments, institutions, laws etc is one thing but if we do not positively evolve with such changes (ie to become more tolerant human beings respectful of each others humanity) then the greater freedoms could turn into greater scope for a few to exploit the many.

66

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 10, 2013, 11:09 PM

Actually I fully agree with you neoteny - my point wasn't about appeasing our enemies in any way - it was about not giving them ammunition which could be used by them to discourage interest and support for our goals from those who otherwise have an open mind. Of course even with this policy feminists will still quote mine away and use comments completely out of context etc but at least those curious enough to investigate for themselves can discover they were being misled.  

67

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 10, 2013, 09:35 PM

"As it happens I agree but ironically it is (mostly calling themse4lves MRA's) critics of AVFM that have been precisely guilty of just that. If you don't believe me I challenge anyone to find a single article on AVFM promoting gay rights."

How about thread after thread of the AVfM crowd vilifying and attacking anyone who doesn't expressly support the agenda, even to the point of doing so to those who don't support it 'enough', or 'properly'?  There is no 'Gay Agenda' at AVfM...sure.  But there is a wickedly intolerant politically correct strain that DOMINATES the discourse there now, and the message at AVfM has most definitely deviated from a 'Mens Rights' path, and towards a 'Humanist' path (ie, we're "about equality" now, for instance, instead of standing up for men and boys).

I can think of about 10 LOOONG time MRAs that initially supported the shit out of Paul and his cronies...guys who literally wrote the MRA-book, that are flat out disgusted with the behaviour there....and I am one of them.  Moreover, nearly ALL of this intolerance and PC totalitarianism showed up in the short span between AVfM garnering attention, and the influx of 'inclusive' types in the masthead....nearly NONE of which have more than a year's presence in the MRM, and nearly all of which are completely incapable of listing off the issues men face (save the 'Humanist' concerns)...

AVfM has most definitely tried to pervert the MRM (and no, that's not a 'gaybashing' reference), and now not only claims itself the 'Second Wave of the MRM', but feels justified in policing the speech of all who visit.

Sorry Tigerman, but just because YOU agree with them, it doesn't mean they are right.

So like I said there hasn't been a single article on AVFM promoting a gay rights agenda.
What is the problem with being "inclusive" anyway ?? As long as people (PEOPLE) support our aims and goals what business have we questioning their sex, sexual orientation, religion or not, nationality, politics or anything else as long as they are on board with our goals?
I agree it does police the speech of those who comment there - AVFM with it's increasing popularity it is a target of much hatred (and now from it's own side it seems) usually from feminists who are continually trying to depict the MRM (and MRA'S) as violent, right wing, homophobic misogynists and so because it was thought not a good idea to have the whole movement characterised by a disgruntled minority a policy was developed.
This last comment of yours is interesting:-
"Sorry Tigerman, but just because YOU agree with them, it doesn't mean they are right."
Do you know something I really don't care if I am right or wrong about this or that aspect of activism or how to go about it - the important thing to me is what works and for the sake of that my petty ago can go and fuck itself.

68

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Feb 26, 2013, 04:58 AM

Hey,

My view is... all should be welcome to the MRM. However we need to focus on Men's rights not gay rights. I think all should be allowed to say or believe anything they want. However I think there should be rules on veering too far off topic in the MRM.

Yes, I pretty much agree with this.  No sense in deliberately excluding people but not getting sidetracked and maintaining our focus on our shared issues is crucial.

As it happens I agree but ironically it is (mostly calling themse4lves MRA's) critics of AVFM that have been precisely guilty of just that. If you don't believe me I challenge anyone to find a single article on AVFM promoting gay rights.

69

Main / Re: Male Positive Media: American Family Insurance ad

Feb 21, 2013, 04:58 AM

We are having an effect on the advertisers .... sometimes favorably, and other times antagonistically.

For example, that sickening "So you say men are better drivers?" ad plays more often now than it did before the criticism. Coincidence? I think not!          

I think it's a good idea to critique both kinds of commercials, those that are male-bashing and those that are male positive. I would include even those that portray good inter-gender relations in general.

Well in Europe a directive last year ended the ability of car insurance companies to give female drivers cheaper deals because of their sex. One female targeting car insurance company in particular called "Sheilas Wheels" blatantly promoted cheaper deals for women with a series of equally blatant (and misandric) car insurance ads on Television - this is a typical example of the ads I am talking about. Now of course such ads would have to be quickly banned as the new legal directive bans discriminating against either sex in offering car insurance.Sheilas Wheels in response got itself a massive free advert in The Guardian (where else) claiming that female insurers with them wouldn't be facing much of an increase since the directive because the large majority of their clients are women!
Quote:

Jacky Brown, head of projects at Sheilas' Wheels, said: "Each company equalising prices ultimately needs to match premiums to claims, and our claims costs should continue to be relatively lower due to the sheer number of good, safe drivers who comprise our mainly female policyholder base today."

She added: "We have insured men from day one but our marketing has always appealed to women more - that won't change." The price of policies currently offered through Moneysupermarket includes a free spa treatment.

Since men are far less likely to use spa treatments let alone accept them as inducements I have a feeling that this strategy to put off men insuring with them will be challenged legally if it continues today (after 18th December 2012 which of course it now is but the quoted article was published 10th October 2012 i.e. before the deadline for change).
Anyway the whole article makes an interesting read and shows up well the prejudice of the female journalist in attempting to promote a company that positively revelled in making it's discrimination against male drivers one of it's chief selling points.
Sheilas Wheels could have bought better copy for an advert had they paid for it!

EDIT: In light of the above info in the quoted article any male MRA's living in Europe (or wherever in Europe Sheilas Wheels sells car insurance) would be well advised to make sure they include Sheilas Wheels when getting quotes for car insurance because if they are as good as their word they will have to offer the same alleged cheap deals to men as well - and don't lett all their blatant use of PINK and their slogan "Insurance designed with women in mind" (yes it actually does say that even now!!!) put you off in any way. It is clear from the article I quoted above that it is Sheilas Wheels intention to put off as many male drivers as possible from taking up their deals - well as far as I am concerned such blatant bigotry (whether commercially motivated or not) acts as a great incentive to take up insurance with them ie get a cheaper deal AND piss them off - win win!

70

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Feb 21, 2013, 03:52 AM

Great to hear Tigerman. Thanks for posting this.

My pleasure dr e. I know I don't visit SYG very frequently any more but i always have a soft spot for this place. There are many seasoned old timers here whose views I don't always share but who I respect because we've often shared the same fox holes over the years even if one or the other didn't know it at the time! lol (alias's etc)

71

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Feb 21, 2013, 03:35 AM

As far as "AVFM is on our side all of us"

With friends like them...   I started to lose interest in that place, when the profanity in use at that place just kept going off the rails.  Yea, that adds so much to the image of integrity and plays well in the halls of government doesn't it?

The profanity is from a small minority there and for the record *I* have some issues with AVFM over that but frankly is that's all you got then it is a poor excuse for overlooking all the other positive work done to bring men's issues into higher public visibility.

72

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Feb 21, 2013, 03:32 AM

MHRM.....The Fall Of AVFM?

Are we now seeing the rise of AVfHM - just clarifying the human aspect of men as if it needed the emphasis?

Yes apparently it does. Did you not read the article and videos detailing the feminist reactions in Vancouver to posters from AVFM that included the declaration that "Men's rights are Human Rights" and that where feminists had not had these posters torn down they had produced a stencil with the word "WRONG"  which they then sued to answer that question?
If not (to save you the trouble) most of the meat of the situation is included in this video here.

73

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Feb 21, 2013, 03:27 AM

AVFM is on our side all of us

Lol.

Another one of "elam is god" sychophants.

You people over there have completely divided the mrm with your our way or the highway rhetoric.

You have banned everyone that does not bow down or hail elam or his kitten's as some type of god,including Angry Harry,Bernard Chapin and Rockin mr. e. etc etc,you have even banned people who refuse to take side's and now even Factory is being criticised.

Jesus,you even have a woman telling over half of all mra's(mens rights activist's) they are homophobic and should "fuck right-off" from the mens rights movement(their movement) for simply coming up with differentiating opinion's.

Why do you people not listen to what other people are trying to tell you?

I knew Elam's narcissism and lack of integrity would bring him crashing down at some point and this seems to be the point.

This is a non-issue that Elam has made into an issue.Gay's were never stopped from joining the mrm and are more than welcome,but to take on their definitive issue's along with ours only dilute's the whole movement.

I will help any man in need but that does not mean I will give them a special place because of their sexual orientation,our government already does that.

As far as "AVFM is on our side all of us",why don't we ask a little over half of the mrm about that?

I guess anyone that doesn't agree would be pasted as homophobic,when that is far from the case here.

You said:
"You people over there have completely divided the mrm with your our way or the highway rhetoric."

Sad to say there are many MRA'S  who fail to think strategically when it comes to movement towards our goals i.e. they are too willing to put their personal differences to the fore and thereby end up "throwing out the baby with the bath water" as the saying goes.
I was accused of being a Paul Elam sycophant but irrespective of your beliefs I am most certainly not one. I am not in 100% agreement with every policy, position and decision made @ AVFM or Paul Elam. What I do recognise though that whilst AVFM is a project he founded and maintains (albeit with a growing band of helpers and contributors) I am agreement with such a large majority of it's positions (around 95% approx if I were to give a figure) that I can easilly live with myself for lending it my support.
Of course what I do recognise as more contentious is the above average readiness (above average for MRM  not feminist websites that is) to wield the ban hammer and I myself am not always happy with the way it is used in every case. That said I do understand why they felt they had to draw some clear lines in the sand so to speak. One of the chief reasons is to deny the persistent feminist "quote miners" (see Paul Futrel and his Manboobs site for example) as much ammunition as possible. Another is the fact that one of the most common allegations made against MRA'S and the MRM is that we are violent and\or seeking to use violent means to achieve our goals. Whilst I strongly don't believe this is true of the MRM generally AVFM has gone further than many other MRM websites by making opposition to using violence as a means of activism very explicit not just in words but in deeds. Hence anyone caught promoting violence on AVFM is subject to an instant ban and harsh as it may seem I support that because even if the call for violence was in reality nothing more than "venting" from some poor sap who has been royally fucked over by our misandric culture (esp. say in the family courts) our quote mining enemies are totally unscrupulous in what they are prepared to use as "evidence" in order to discredit our aims.
That said the strict application of this policy does cause me unease at times - for example although I have never been a father I have witnessed the terrible effects that the bias against fathers has had upon friends, acquaintances  and the testimonies (often evidentially backed up) of fathers I have read about on the internet. With knowledge of the injustices many of these fathers have faced I can easily understand whence the frustrations, anger and rage of many of these men and why in moments of anger they might vent said anger in words, words even promoting violence but not with the intent of carrying them out rather just using them to let off steam as the saying goes. That said on the internet it is difficult to separate out those who are merely venting from those who mean to be taken literally. Again though our quote mining enemies don't agonise at all on such matters as they will eagerly use any violence promoting quote they can and promote it as an example of "proof" that the MRM is promoting violence as a means to achieve it's ends no matter the context or the state of the guy when he wrote those words. AVFM in short is not a site for venting if said venting includes promoting violence other than that it is perfectly acceptable to express anger, frustration etc  when relating violations and injustices to men's rights.
As for "splitting" the MM well all I can say is that some splittings aren't always a bad thing. For example it is pretty common knowledge that Angry Harry himself did not exactly have a pleasant experience recently @ AVFM and personally I was much discomfited by the whole affair personally because I see both sides pov. That said I chose to keep my reservations to myself at the time because too many others had already chipped in and I thought adding my 2 cents would only put more fuel on the flames and divert too much attention away from the goals we are trying to achieve collectively. Now remember what I was saying earlier about "strategic thinking" - good then this is a good time to mention that that is one quality I would never accuse Angry Harry of lacking - he has just published and excellent piece on this very topic called Breaking Up Is Not So Bad . Harry is certainly no sycophant I think you will agree but he is man enough to put aside his personality clashes and petty differences in order to be able to stand back and see the bigger picture. To be clear I am not accusing you outdoors of being unable to do this - I merely think you have been distracted by some either misread or misinformation about AVFM and AVFM's "it's my way of the highway" policies on commenting only apply to AVFM not to the MRM as a whole of course. Website admins can choose how they run their sites - we don't have to like it (and I often don't for what it is worth!) and I understand why I come across as sycophantic - in defence I will say that I saw too many misunderstandings or out and lies (intentional or not) being put out as "fact" when I knew such was not the case, because of this and knowing the opposite I felt it my duty to try and put the record straight.

You said:
"but to take on their definitive issue's along with ours only dilute's the whole movement."

I agree and so does AVFM and is also why AVFM is NOT doing that!

You said:
As far as "AVFM is on our side all of us",why don't we ask a little over half of the mrm about that?

-------------------------------------------------------------
First of all let me give a chance to rethink your response and I will also clarify mine in the course of my response here.
Again AVFM actual policy is to allow gay men (as it allows the numerous other sub-groupings of human beings including women for that matter!) to be active participants and contributors to AVFM's policies on activism to secure men's human rights. The fine details of what AVFM is all about is spelled out in great detail in it's Mission Statement it's a long read because it contains many links to published. The sort form of their mission statement is as follows (from same source as the link I just provided)

Statement

It is the mission of A Voice for Men to:

    Promote he dissemination of information that will expose misandry on all levels in our culture.

    Denounce the institution of marriage, in its current state, as unsafe for men and children, and to promote awareness of information designed to protect men and fathers who are already married.

    Promote a rejection of chivalry in any form or fashion.

    Promote the legal and nonviolent antagonism of all agents of misandry, from members of academe, to holders of public office, to law enforcement and other state functionaries, to popular bloggers and to corporate agents who promote misandry for profit.

    Support peaceful acts of civil disobedience when necessary

    Educate men and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance and to promote an end to that governance.

    Debunk sex based lies and distortions wherever they occur.

    Offer a more reasoned, cogent and intellectually honest view of sexual politics.

    Address the variety of problems faced by men and boys under feminist governance and attempt to ameliorate those problems.

    Push for an end to rape hysteria, DV hysteria and false allegations.

    Promote a culture that values equal treatment under the law for all human beings.

    Facilitate a new social contract between men and women, leading to mutual respect, accountability and expectation.

Our Values

    AVfM regards gender ideologues and all other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would klansmen, skinheads, neo Nazi's or other purveyors of hate. We will educate them where they are willing to learn, but hold them accountable for their ignorance as much as their actions.

    We take no side at all in partisan political struggles and, after weighing the evidence at hand, generally tend to view all organized mainstream political options as misandric.

    We support and endorse only non-violent reactions to feminist governance and in fact are trying to prevent future acts of violence that feminist governance has already inspired.

    We oppose all state authority over or interference in the private lives of consenting adults engaged in any form of sexual or romantic relationship.

    We oppose any state authority over or interference in the commercialization of sexual relations between consenting adults.

There are only three items on that list that I can foresee some MRA's as being possibly objectionable - the subgroup of MRA's that might thus object I shall call "traditionalists" for want of a better term. The three items are:-

Denounce the institution of marriage, in its current state, as unsafe for men and children, and to promote awareness of information designed to protect men and fathers who are already married.
Promote a rejection of chivalry in any form or fashion.
We take no side at all in partisan political struggles and, after weighing the evidence at hand, generally tend to view all organized mainstream political options as misandric.

But even here if it is read carefully most "traditionalist" MRA's (if not all) will readily agree that the institutions that deal with marriage including the breakup of marriages leave a lot to be desired both in legislation and practice (to put it mildly!) and few if any would argue against that. Not only that but AVFM has a good positive record in standing up for fathers rights to the point of hiring lawyers to defend the site when feminist, fiscal greed and\or misandric pushback has tried to silence their voice of advocacy fro disenfranchised dads. The Vladek Filler case being just one high profile example.
As for item two again most if not all "traditionalist" MRA's would agree that institutionalised forms (or vote pandering if you prefer it) of male chivalry are a major reason it is so hard to get traction on beneficial reforms of family courts and practices, education (polices favouring girls at expense of boys), health spending and many other areas including male sports activities through Title VIIII etc
What I will agree with is that this part of the Mission Statement needs some further clarification - without the prefix "male" for example many if not most dictionaries focus on the medieval meaning of the word in terms of it's use as a code of conduct in battle or in dealings with others not just women although again even there it is men who follow or not that code.
AVFM does promote good relations between the sexes and indeed between all human beings what it doesn't promote is extending gallantry and courtesy etc for the sole reason of the recipient being a woman. I will ask for further clarification over this from Paul and await his comments or site admins views before I say more than what I already have.
Even so I acknowledge that SOME "traditionalists" MRA's may still object because they may still adhere to personal sex based chivalry as a "good thing" I don't recall personally any "traditionalist" MRA's stating such an affirmation just that I regard it as a possibility is all.
The third item about partisan politics has already become a sticking point for some MRA's  to that I say tough shit. My views happen to be right of centre and indeed one of the most active supporters of AVFM is a former Tory MP and current lobbyist, author and now founder of a new political party to support men's rights (note men's rights NOT a mainstream party nor affiliated with any partisan political stance!). Other AVFM supporters range from the totally apolitical to Marxists (not Marxist feminists of course though!) at the other extreme.
All these supporters see the value in prioritising goals and that men's human rights is an issue than spans all political leanings.
If some want to make their partisan politics before principles then they are free to do so and I am free to tell them I think they are fucking crazy! lol
Anyway this response is taking up too much of my time but I sincerely hope it has been enough to address some of your misgivings etc.

74

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Feb 21, 2013, 12:37 AM

The M(H?)RM and Gay Rights

The M(H?)RM and Gay Rights

I do not advocate for gay rights ans as it happens neither does AVFM! There is a difference between welcoming men who want to advocate on behalf of men's human rights ie the pursuit of rights we share in common as men and pursuing the agenda of minority interests. Thus because gay men are MEN  we welcome them too if they want to support our effort to secure equal human rights for all men. At AVFM there is a very active contributor "Andy Bob" who also happens to be gay and thus far has had 5 articles of his published at AVFM - feel free to find and report back anything in those 5 articles that is pushing  a "gay rights agenda"  have fun looking!
As for the video all I can say is that it is a massive strawman argument why? Because AVFM  never even proposed taking on a gay rights agenda and does not intend to for ironically the same reason stated by the guy in the video ie they have their own sub-set interests groups doing set up to do that for them!
I have often criticised feminists for creating myths and arguing against positions we never made but to see some seasoned MRA'S doing this is somewhat of an unpleasan

75

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Feb 17, 2013, 08:50 AM

However

Gay men are a part of the victim olympics that we see with numerous groups vying for, and having won, victim status in the culture at large. (men (generic) will never be given victim status since they are demanded to be providers, protectors and disposable.  You can't make the paper towel a victim, it just won't work)

Gay men have been aligned with feminism which is a natural enemy of men.

There seems to be a natural distrust between gay men and straight men. (call it homophobia and heterophobia but it seems to go both ways from my observation)

You do the math.

I disagree Dr E........Back in the 80 the political leaders of the Homosexual (male) movement .....most of them died of aids.....Lesbians stepped in to fill the vacuum.....Believe it or not most homosexual males I have come in contact with are on our side.

I do hope you are correct.  If most are on our side can you find some links or articles written by gay men that support MRA positions? 

Ironically a gay man who is a supporter and donating contributor to AVFM has written five strongly pro-male articles already for AVFM. Here is the address of the page from which links to all five articles can be assessed. http://www.avoiceformen.com/author/andybob/
To outdoors - you seem like a nice enough chap (assuming that was you in the video you posted) but I do wonder where you are getting your information. AVFM supports all men of whatever creed, colour or sexuality. To my knowledge (and I visit and read articles on the site almost every day) AVFM has not published a single article promoting "gay rights" - there is a strong consensus fully supported by Paul Elam that AVFM distance itself from partisanship of political, cultural, sexual or religious because men of all different kinds are potentially subject to the unfairness and injustices of a largely misandric culture. For this reason the focus has been put where it should be i.e. on the human rights issues we share as men and that's it.
We are not there to promote left, right or even no wing politics neither religion, atheism, agnosticism, sports teams, white guys , non white guys, straight guys, gay guys , trans guys, not sure guys, blue collar, white collar, rich men, poor men, teetotal, alcoholic, fathers, non fathers, married, divorced, bachelors etc etc etc. As a result of this policy and attitude we are beginning to see something quite wonderful occurring and it is not just a wide diversity of men, one of the regular callers to the radio show is a really hip kid of just 13 years old! His grasp of the issues would shame many a seasoned MRA and what's more he shares his knowledge and views with many of his school mates. On top of that we are beginning to attract more women too  - some are already very widely known like Erin Pizzey and "Girl Writes What" (she now uses her real name in posts to AVFM  but I have forgotten what it is (lol) others not yet as widely known (although I think most here are familiar with typhonblue) all told there are now 8-10 approx women that are very active - some go out postering, contribute funds, write articles and write pieces for and appear on the radio show. Some indeed do all of the foregoing and more! Most of them are mothers and all of them are concerned for the plight of men that they are close to and indeed for men in general. In short to a woman they are dammed good MRA'S and all of them make me feel a little guilty such is their energy,commitment and enthusiasm for marching forward in the humane cause of helping men. There is no mission creep - the gays and the women that have joined the ranks over there are very focussed and crystal clear about the goals and the obstacles that men are facing there is no  "well we'll help out a bit if you take this womens issue on board as well" as many paranoid critics are either fearing alleging or both!
AVFM is on our side all of us