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.