Shattering the Mens rights movement

[Factory]

Yeah, it's been a while...  Now that I remember my password, things can change.... 

[CaptDMO]

AVfM has most definitely tried to pervert the MRM (and no, that's not a 'gaybashing' reference),

And yet, some would say that the introduction of "diversions" was an attempt to pervert/co-opt the MRM. And no, that's not a gaybashing thing, NOR is it meant to endorse any particular folk that loiter at AVfM.

Hi Factory,
I've only recently begun trolling here again myself. Now. Where's Pete?   

[Factory]

I am inclined to bet he will be along shortly....

[dr e]

Factory!  Good to see you and thanks for your perspective on this.  Seems like we are getting some old folks coming back in. 

[Tigerman]

"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.

[neoteny]

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?

Indeed, IMO there's nothing wrong with being "inclusive" and driving away people because of any particular characteristics of them (with the exception of criminal proclivities) is counterproductive.

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.

"Policing the speech" of a "disgruntled minority" might be useful for not driving people away... but I'm sure that it will not buy any favor with the anti-MRM feminists and their "allies". MRAs could march in every Gay Pride parade and lobby for same-sex marriage until the cows come home: they'll always be woman-hating knuckle-dragging patriarchal Neanderthals in the eyes -- and in the propaganda -- of their political enemies. It isn't about who is right: it is about who has power. The more power MRAs gain, the more they are going to be attacked by those who consequently lose power, ie. all those who materially benefit from their current positions: the politically active (ie. majority) Women's Studies academic crowd, politicians like Joe Biden, the Southern Poverty Law Center with its couple hundred million dollars "endowment", the judges, prosecutors & cops who live off the DV industry, the "facilitators" of court-mandated "anger management" classes... and the list goes on and on.

So "policing" the MRM might provide other benefits, but expecting that it'll take any heat off the MRM from its political enemies is a pipe dream.

[Tigerman]

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.  

[neoteny]

at least those curious enough to investigate for themselves can discover they were being misled.

Fair enough.

[CaptDMO]

at least those curious enough to investigate for themselves can discover they were being misled.

Fair enough.

Now, for the OTHER 98%...?

[neoteny]

at least those curious enough to investigate for themselves can discover they were being misled.

Fair enough.

Now, for the OTHER 98%...?

For those the MRM has to make propaganda/counter-propaganda efforts (just like everyone else). There's no royal road to power/influence: the work has to be put in.

[Factory]

"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.

What is this with trying to paint everyone against this change as being some kind of reactionary against 'articles promoting the Gay Rights agenda'?  I'm starting to think you are employing the typical feminist tactic of Strawmanning, in order to paint me as some intolerant asshole you can dismiss...

Tha't not actually what you're trying to do now, is it Tigerman?

Let's get one thing straight right fucking now.  I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GAY MEN IN THE MRM.  Is that fucking getting through to you?

Ok, good, now we can move on.

The issue is the hardline PC attitude to anyone not 'fully supporting' the agenda now unofficially pursued at AVfM...this newfound political correctness explicitly caused not one or two, but SEVERAL longtime MRAs (and supporters of, and initial BULDERS of, AVFM) to be summarily dismissed, and attempts at 'ostracism' are fucking RAMPANT among that crowd now.  Identical in every way to the way SRS behaves, in fact, and for that matter even over many of the same issues.

So, yes, I think the 'contributors' to AVfM that want the 'Gay agenda' to have more prominence are indeed fucking up the movement to suit their own selfish, narrow needs, rather than helping men in general.  And if that isn't the intention, then either THEY fucked up royally somewhere in communicating that, or the 'staff' at AVfM royally fucked up and went overboard in their enthusiastic support (ie, went fucking nutso PC), and no one is man enough to rein it the fuck in.

Another thing, as I have incessantly tried to get through your 'Progressive' noggins, acting out of FEAR will ALWAYS end up fucking things up.  Fear of 'looking bad' is the stupidest fucking reason I have ever heard to change tactics, or modify one's beliefs for that matter.  Fear is the means used to control us already, and the MRM fights against fear-based coercion all the damned time.  How the group at that site could be appallingly stupid enough to forget this lesson is utterly beyond my comprehension.  But acting out of 'fear of looking bad' just tells your opponents how to control you.

It's stupid, really REALLY FUCKING STUPID.  On EVERY DAMNED LEVEL.  And I am FURIOUS you assholes think you are morally superior while selling men out like this.

And this I can't let go...:

"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."

This whole argument, this whole schism, is nothing but the EGO of the masthead at AVfM thinking they ARE the MRM.  It's the unmitigated gall of casually dismissing those who BUILT THE FUCKING MOVEMENT YOU LAY CLAIM TO...guys like angry harry, for instance.  What AVfM is doing is moronic on nearly every level I can think of, and the smug protestations of guys like you that this isn't some kind of ego-driven power grab only serve to harden my resolve.

[Cordell Walker]

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)

[Tigerman]

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.

[Tigerman]

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.

[dr e]

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