Shattering the Mens rights movement

Started by outdoors, Feb 14, 2013, 03:06 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

Factory


Quote
I will air my dirty laundry in public till I'm blue in the face...ESPECIALLY if it embarrasses him and his sycophants.  In fact, I am publicly stating right now that anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, that would like to make use of my services or knowledge in order to undermine and destroy both AVfM and the Mens Movment as a whole, is more than welcome to contact me.,  I will give your efforts every bit as much time and energy as I have thus far sunk into both AVfM and the MRM.


Factory - I hope you aren't going to blow us up to!  We are a part of the men's movement....

Maybe you could offer some links of the conversations you had where you feel you were wronged.  That might be helpful.

You are loved and respected here man, take a deep breath.


Dr E, I am sorry to say that the actions of the folks at AVfM have indeed soured me on being an 'MRA' any longer.  I have no 'beef' with you or your site, so you obviously have no need to worry I'll even disappear, let alone 'blow up' the thing (like I have that kind of power or anything).  I'm still the same guy, but the Movement is definitely not...and that's my point.

Here's the thread in question...I hope word limits are huge here...

Quote


Near Earth Object in reply to ManUpManDown.

It would appear that we are both aware that this movement is being fought on multiple-fronts and in many of those battles, women are at the head.

I am losing some patience with this man (us)/woman (them) false dichotomy at AVfM.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but AVfM is a 'we', comprised of men and women (women and men), and we have all come together to do combat with a common foe--feminism.
In my humble opinion, we will be far more an effective force to be reckoned with after 'we' get that!


My response to NEO:

Quote

Factory in reply to Near Earth Object

Our 'common foe' is not Feminism. Our common foe is Gynocentrism, and the most common weapon used by Gynocentric thinkers, is a Politically Correct form of Damselling, which you tread awfully close to here.

Truth is, the Mens Movement SHOULD be led by men, even though I echo the praise of the women involved. I find the fact that the masthead here is literally dominated by women to be both ironic, and sadly indicative of how PC we have gotten as a movement.

When, for example, did the MRM become a movement 'about equality'? This movement STARTED as a movement demanding men have equal legal rights....but now, we are 'about equality'....hmm.

There are several subtle semantic shifts that have taken place throughout the MRM, most notably on Reddit, but also here. The value of this shift is debatable, but the existence of it is not.

Personally, I don't find the gyno-heavy editorial board here to be a symptom of ass-kissing women (even though there is no doubt at all that this shift has had a profound effect on the tone, direction, and even goals of the MRM), but a symptom of how little men are willing to commit to this job.

Right now, the "Best man for the job" is a woman. And while there is lots to support aversion to this state of affairs, the fault lies not with the women who are working hard, nor the Management that keeps 'hiring' them.

The fault lies with the multitudes of armchair quarterbacks infesting the MRM, and their proclivity to criticise rather than create. In short, if there's not enough men on the Editorial board for your liking, then step the fuck up and out perform these women.

Kinda makes all the "men are naturally better at everything than women" crowd look like a bunch of morons though, that's for sure.


Paul Elam's response:

Quote
Paul Elam in reply to Factory

"I find the fact that the masthead here is literally dominated by women to be both ironic, and sadly indicative of how PC we have gotten as a movement."

The simple math doesn't support you on this.

The majority of this websites management is male, and everyone in a director level position is male. The owner is male. So the first part of your statement is simply untrue.

"Our 'common foe' is not Feminism. Our common foe is Gynocentrism."

Agreed. 100%

And while there may be elements of what we would call the men's movement that are PC (I know a couple of organizations so PC that they won't even say they support men's rights), I am not buyjng your analysis if you are applying it to AVFM.

We are still as hated as ever for not mincing words.t

"There are several subtle semantic shifts that have taken place throughout the MRM, most notably on Reddit, but also here. The value of this shift is debatable, but the existence of it is not."

Everything is debatable. Reddit has always been rife with feminists and compromising neophytes. As I have said to you before, I don't think you are making a case for this, as there is little value to the simple declarations of "fact".

"Right now, the "Best man for the job" is a woman."

That is what I mean. I don't see any support for this. The best man for the job is anyone who understands the issues being willing to do it. That is not some PC schmaltz designed to make me look egalitarian. It is precisely what I believe, and I think for good reason. I would not feel differently if ten times more men were stepping up.

"The fault lies with the multitudes of armchair quarterbacks infesting the MRM, and their proclivity to criticise rather than create. In short, if there's not enough men on the Editorial board for your liking, then step the fuck up and out perform these women."

:) What position shall I put you down for?


Peter Wright's response:

Quote
Peter Wright (Tawil) in reply to Factory

"...the masthead here is literally dominated by women... sadly indicative of how PC we have gotten as a movement."

Always wonder what your attraction is to AVfM is when you complain about how it is not working. I notice you came out with a similar statement last week: @Factory: "I gotta be honest, I don't like the direction AVfM is going in at all." Are there not MRMovements out there that don't inflict PCness on you personally - ones that you would like?

I'll take a guess and say that you privately admit the brilliance of this place - despite (in fact, because of) the number of women in leadership you are grumbling about... otherwise you wouldn't remain here.

Having women assist in the running of AVfM doesn't take away from the fact that Paul has the last word on everything. Did you not see his reply to Shrek assuring on this point?

I like the idea that we are trying to have a dialogue with the world about the issues rather than reinforcing some male-only fortress of paranoia. And on that basis I also recognise that 'the world' currently listens as much to women as men so it makes sense to have women in management. The women here are all for men's human rights- there's no need for paranoia. They have demonstrated it in thousands of posts and are a significant part of our outreach.

This is the Second Wave, and as I wrote in the article on same, AVfM is "more committed to building bridges between the MRM and the general community (unlike 1st wave)". The second wave has walked outside from the fortress and is mixing with the rest of humanity.




My reply to Paul, Tawil, and Aimee McGee (her response not quoted here)

Quote
@Paul

Without getting into semantic pissing matches, 'dominated' doesn't have to refer to numerical superiority, and more to the point, this is exactly what the MRM is fighting in general society.

The mistake you seem to be making is that I'm frothing-at-the-mouth freaked out about it, which I am not. I don't give a fuck about the 'H' in MRM thing either.

What I care about is the mission creep that's gone on, and the crowing about how 'acceptable' and 'inclusive' we are...and I care for Strategic reasons, not for Ideological ones. The telling thing, is that all the push back I've gotten in bringing these issues up is itself ideologically driven. The reason I am so anti-PC is because it is the primary mechanism used to undo society...which we all recognize and 'fight'....yet adopt so readily we don't even notice most of the time.

You guys want to keep taking my criticism as personal attacks, or undermining of support. They are not. I am trying to give you a perspective you are not accepting. So, I have by and large stopped.

But this attribution of beliefs I DON'T have, simply to pigeonhole me into someone you can dismiss if needed, is distasteful in the extreme.

I understand we have a society in which 'Mens Rights Activists' view Angry Harry, and You, and John, and probably Pierce Harlan (definitely me) as well, as Hate Monger extremists that the 'real MRM' should disown. I get it. What I am saying is that this thin line you tread (and I know how difficult it is to follow) is best 'fallen off of' in the direction AWAY from PC-think, rather than toward.

And the reason why is because those PC organizations already exist, and use us as a scare tactic to accomplish their goals...which is the exact reason for adopting a more angry tone in the first place, if you'll recall.

As for the petty inter-site bickering, I've had my fair share of it and I'm done. I'm not going to personally invest myself in trying to actively shape this thing anymore, because frankly, it's too big. What I can tell you is this though...the narrative is being very quickly stolen by Feminists, and we are being far LESS effective when we adopt their tone, rhetoric, and 'rules'. The more we 'self police' and become ideologically 'pure', the easier we make this co-option.

Since I trust you know that already, I don't see much point in beating a dead horse.

"What position shall I put you down for?"

You mean I still have to prove myself? Kidding. You know damn well my time is yours whenever you need it. Problem is, my middling skills are eclipsed by those chosen...and I'm still kinda looking for a job, and that takes priority. But I am serious as you well know, just let me know what you need, and I will do it in between job hunting and trying to write a book.

@Aimee: I know exactly what you mean, and in fact I am myself of course still living through it all as well. The defensiveness around here, or the assumptions about my attitude (not sure which) makes a lot of people not notice that what I was saying was...hey assholes who don't like women 'leading' the MRM...get off your ass and 'lead better' if it's such a goddamn problem. While I see a more PC strain of the MRM seemingly every week, it's not the women 'leading' the MRM that is to blame, but the rapid growth of, and inability to properly educate and subsume, Blue Pill newcomers trying to shape the MRM to fit their Feminist worldviews, rather than accepting their worldviews are largely based on fiction.

The failure is not that we are being led down the Garden Path by women, it is that we are focussing on the wrong immediate needs hoping to appeal to Blue Pillers more, rather than looking to make the education of such more effective, which was really the reason they showed up in the first place..

This, I believe, is in turn based on sheer underestimation of just how flat out fucking interesting the Manosphere really is to most people. In spite of the weekly letters from people who thank us for giving them huge, life changing revelations.

We don't need to change...in fact, doing so is like thinking "New Coke" was a good idea. We are tailoring the message to suit those tastes we ASSUME people want, without looking at why they even hear of us in the first place, or what their motivations are for seeking the MRM out.

In short, we are selling them steak, and giving them hamburger. And Feminists are whipping up a couple recipes of their own...once they figure out how to light the BBQ, we're fucked if we don't smarten up.

@Tawil

"Having females assist in the running of AVfM does not take away from the fact that Paul has the last word on everything. Did you not see his reply to Shrek assuring on this point?"

First off, you are assuming a stance I do not take, because you assume there is some sort of 'me' vs 'AVfM' thing going on here. Let me assure you that the two things that stand out to me from this quote, and my outlining them to you, are not meant to be insulting, though they may sting.

First off, you show a willingness to submit to authority here that is admirable on some levels (being a team player is important), but it is also important to realize that Paul is the Grand PooBah of a site that would be literally nothing if he treated people with such petty tyrrany. The people that are here, are here not because they worship Paul (who at one time recoiled at the thought of being regarded as you describe, as I remember), they are here because we ask the hard questions, we say the unpopular things, we refuse the demands of others, and we question fucking near everything.

As for 'privately' supporting this site, give me a fucking break! I was the guy that suggested Paul treat donations to get this site up and running as a competition, for instance, and as far as I know (I could be wrong), I was the one who convinced him to do it. I'm also one of the few people who both advised Paul on marketing the site (need for better look, etc) and to some degree he listened to that advice.

It really bugs the shit out of me to see this 'if you're not 100% on board, you're an enemy' bullshit, but it is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

I bet I can count on one hand the number of people in this movement that could out-debate me, or has more knowledge of the workings of, this movement...but because I say critical words, I am an 'outsider'?

Talk about acting like a total radfem.


NEO's attempt to paint me as 'damaged extremist'.

Quote
Near Earth Object in reply to Factory

"Our 'common foe' is not Feminism. Our common foe is Gynocentrism, and the most common weapon used by Gynocentric thinkers, is a Politically Correct form of Damselling, which you tread awfully close to here."

In your opinion Factory, and with all of your personal baggage, Factory. Brother to brother here, are you carrying that baggage or is that baggage carrying you?
When you read, "...we have all come together to do combat with a common foe--feminism," did you have any understanding at all, of what I was attempting to convey? My money is on the affirmative. And I will double up on the notion that you selected that word to make what you believed to be a larger point--your dissatisfaction with the masthead at AVfM.
"Damselling" I had to look it up. Damselling: experiencing a feminine life imaginatively from the inside. You remind me of a young feminist I used to work with. One day, for reasons unknown, she uttered, "(w)hen I am feeling insecure, I will pull out the big words." A rhetorical question for my brother: did you just do that to your brother? If in your opinion, I tread awfully close to damselling, then I tread awfully close damselling, in your opinion. In my opinion, you present like the opposite number to a feminist, and radical one at that. Both extremists, both looking to bash each other's brain in, or out, and no compunctions about taking the rest of humanity along for the nihilistic ride.
Though we evidently have our differences, Factory, let's not forget our commonalities.




Paul's reponse down the thread:

Quote
Paul Elam

@ Factory

Without getting into semantic pissing matches, 'dominated' doesn't have to refer to numerical superiority, and more to the point, this is exactly what the MRM is fighting in general society.

What am I supposed to say to this? It is not semantics. It is a literal understanding of YOUR words. Do I have to stumble through a smokescreen to get your meaning here? There is no female dominance going on that I can see at all, and I am afraid the only way I can measure that sort of thing is by the numbers, unless you have a different way to explain it.

I am not trying to bust your balls here, but I hardly think I should be called out for taking what you said precisely as you said it.

The mistake you seem to be making is that I'm frothing-at-the-mouth freaked out about it, which I am not. I don't give a fuck about the 'H' in MRM thing either.

Personally, I don't feel that you are frothing at the mouth, nor have I ever. But I honestly don't think you are making a strong case here for anything.

A couple of weeks ago, in another thread you said that you did not like the direction that AVFM was going. I asked you then what direction we were going that we have not always been going and you never answered that I saw.

Like being "female dominated" I think this is a totally unsupportable position based on the facts at hand. And again, that is not semantics.

It is frustrating bro, because this discussion with you is like trying to nail jello to a tree.

What I care about is the mission creep that's gone on, and the crowing about how 'acceptable' and 'inclusive' we are...and I care for Strategic reasons, not for Ideological ones. The telling thing, is that all the push back I've gotten in bringing these issues up is itself ideologically driven. The reason I am so anti-PC is because it is the primary mechanism used to undo society...which we all recognize and 'fight'....yet adopt so readily we don't even notice most of the time.

Acceptable? Factory, this is nuts. Please, without trying to be insulting to you, and hopefully without your relying on a charge of playing semantics, would you kindly point the fuck out where anywhere on this site you see an editorial slant toward being "acceptable"?

We are dealing with a fuck ton of our being UNACCEPTABLE and it is increasing all the time. Symantec was the latest round.

Do you see us backing down from any of this shit?

Being inclusive has a strategic advantage, true, as it negates the charge we are a White Boys Club. And if that makes us more acceptable to blue pill society, that is fine, but that is NOT why we do it.

And it has never been any different here. I approached and "recruited" Dr. T while I was still at MND. I asked for gay writers to contribute about a week after this blog was set up.

So I am going ask again. What is going on at AVFM that was not always going on?

You guys want to keep taking my criticism as personal attacks, or undermining of support. They are not. I am trying to give you a perspective you are not accepting. So, I have by and large stopped.

I suppose if the only choice you have is to either stick with poorly supported points or stopping, that stopping is probably a better option, but I expect a lot better than that from Factory.

I am dead serious about there being a place for you here any time you want to step up. I don't agree with a single thing I can find in this particular thread from you, but you still have my respect and a lot of love.

I don't take what you are saying as a personal attack, so I naturally don't accept that claiming that is a reason to bow out and not support your arguments.

I am still totally open to giving anything you have to say a great deal of thought, but I can't let you off the hook on saying things like "female dominated" and the charge we are trying to be "acceptable" without insisting those things be supported with better than "dominated isn't just about numbers."

I am still listening, Factory, and always will.




My response:

Quote
Factory in reply to Paul Elam

What am I supposed to say to this? It is not semantics. It is a literal understanding of YOUR words. Do I have to stumble through a smokescreen to get your meaning here?

Not really, you just have to think in alternate terms. I guess what I am getting at is that the 'female perspective' tends to overarch a lot of recent articles, and most definitely trends among the commentors. It's a difficult and subtle thing to pick out, so sue me if I'm not exact.

It's like in this thread you are responding to, where people, you included, are jumping to conclusions, even becoming hostile, without even restating the argument I made properly, let alone reacting to the real thing.

And frankly I would think I have WAY too much of a track record to be spot-judged like that, I'm no stranger to anyone here at least, and if anything I am more radically pro your strategy than anything.

Did you even notice, considering I pointed it out 5 times, that the post was actually DEFENDING your editorial policy? Because judging by your response Paul, you didn't. All you could see was the side criticism of a rather female heavy tendency of late, and a criticism of Politically Correct thought....even when I posted a clarification on the topic.

Now, tell me how I'm supposed to feel about your assurances I'm "still" welcome here?

A couple of weeks ago, in another thread you said that you did not like the direction that AVFM was going. I asked you then what direction we were going that we have not always been going and you never answered that I saw.

It's hard as hell to find posts when even clicking on the link just takes you to the top of a 150 post thread.

And it's not exactly secret what my criticism is now is it? The speaking of 'dangerous' things around here is defined as 'things that would make us look bad'....which is still just commentors, but the attitude is seeping into posts as well, and moreover this trajectory mirrors what happened on reddit precisely Paul, as in it's not deviating even one little bit.

You pshaw me all you like...fine, it's your site, you run it how you see fit. Maybe this time, doing the exact same thing WILL yield a different result. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.

But even discussion about these issues is fiercely attacked with the fervor normally reserved for those committing the cardinal sin of 'generalizing'...Jesus fuck I'm so sick to fucking death of all of this.

What happened to the days when we knew our goals, and worked towards them? Now, the VAST majority of MRAs think having the ability to wear a skirt, or cry, is a 'mens rights issue', and that MRAs should take that on par with Family Court reform.

MRAs mind. Know who started this bullshit argument? Feminists, for fuck sakes.

I point out the PC 'concessions to marketability' as the collossal mistakes they are, because hey are the rhetorical 'thin end of the wedge', and adopting their frame is fatal.

But, I might be wrong, I guess we'll find out.

So I am going ask again. What is going on at AVFM that was not always going on?

Go read the comments on damned near any of the posts on the site from, say, the first week after the conversion. Then, read the politically correct whinefests that pass as 'discussion' now. Seriously Paul, why do you think I'm doing this? Cause I don't see danger ahead in the strategy adopted?

The weird thing is watching most of the guys who I figured 'got it' completely lose their way at the first sign of success. And yes Paul, I think you and your site are being maneuvered, you're too much a 'figurehead' for the whole movement (ergo, discrediting you discredits us all), and if subversion don't work, sabotage will.

I said in a post to...Aimee I think...that we are doing a piss poor job as a movement educating the noobs, and THAT is the issue causing so much strife....again I couldn't help notice that escaped your attention....but at least I'm 'still welcome' around here...

I suppose if the only choice you have is to either stick with poorly supported points or stopping, that stopping is probably a better option, but I expect a lot better than that from Factory.

Considering you didn't pay any attention to what was said, and instead seized on something you found objectionable, let me make it clear. I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR POLICY....moreover, the original fucking comment was in SUPPORT of your policy, with a caveat.

I am dead serious about there being a place for you here any time you want to step up. I don't agree with a single thing I can find in this particular thread from you, but you still have my respect and a lot of love.

Given the reaction from you folks lately, I'll take that as political nice-nice, because I have no confidence that is in any way sincere. Not anymore anyway.

I am still totally open to giving anything you have to say a great deal of thought, but I can't let you off the hook on saying things like "female dominated" and the charge we are trying to be "acceptable" without insisting those things be supported with better than "dominated isn't just about numbers."

So, if one domineering woman in a room makes sure all the men present feel her wrath if they speak out of turn, but never overtly says anything objectionable...are you telling me her numerical inferiority makes her powerless? That her viewpoint isn't subtly enforced? Come on Paul, that's a weak assed argument. And don't go taking this to mean that I am asserting there is some kind of Matriarchal Cabal pulling the strings. It's just one way to show the weakness of that reasoning.

What I do find interesting as Hell though, is this blindness to the idea that the inclusion of so many female viewpoints will INEVITABLY inject the female viewpoint, and female sensibilities, as they have literally every other time women have 'improved' male spaces, come to colour, or dilute, the male opinion.

Again, I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID THIS IS A GOOD THING, but I have the fuckin audacity to suggest we should also beware of going too 'soft' (as it were).

I am still listening, Factory, and always will.

You haven't listened to a fucking thing I've said.




Paul:
Quote
Paul Elam in reply to Factory

Well, I am at a total loss.

I have asked you multiple times to answer simple questions, and all I have gotten is smokescreen about alternate terms, no answers, whining about whinefests without a single fucking example or link, and not a goddam specific thing you think anyone should do...ALL TO DEFEND THE EDITORIAL POLICY.

If I started laughing at this point I would not stop.

"Now, tell me how I'm supposed to feel about your assurances I'm "still" welcome here?"

This is histrionic bullshit. I never said you were "still" welcome here, and never needed to because I never implied that you were not welcome in the first place. I reiterated that the offer was still on the table for you to take a management role on the site rather that whatever the fuck it is you think you are actually doing.

You got a boatload of obscure shit that you think we aren't doing right, all of it stated with the clarity of bottom water. Something about the looming threat of gynocentric dominance that is or may be leading us to PC softness or may be we need to be aware that we may be leading to that shit or something, all because we are trying to be "acceptable." Not a shred of evidence for any of it except we appointed some female activists to help run the site.

Oh, but I forgot, your words don't really mean what they do to everyone else in the fucking English speaking world, so I have to consult my alternate terms dictionary to figure out what the fuck you are talking about.

TOTAL BULLSHIT.

If there is anything going soft here, it is your thinking on this whole matter. Now, in ten days we have what might be a landmark event back at University of Toronto. I am making arrangements to send our new Ontario news guy there (take heart, he has a dick). So I really don't have time to entertain any more of this shit.

Do what you need to do Factory. I tried, but I can't figure out what bug crawled up your ass, so there is nothing left for me to do.




My response to Paul

Quote
Factory in reply to Paul Elam

Un fucking believable. I have over a decade of stating that women should be in the MRM, and have written several articles talking about the unique benefits of such involvement, and have directly told several female MRAs about my appreciation...but the instant I say something out of step with your current strategy, or something you choose to see in a certain light, AND choose to divorce from several tears of familiarity (as in, you know way the fuck better), you take a comment out of context, and fucking blow up in my face with it?

I don't know what the fuck is wrong with you people...maybe I just see the clique from outside now or something, but this whole fucking thread makes me sick.

You tell me you can't understand what I'm saying....a fucking Psychologist 'can't understand' the ideas behind social proof, frame control, or any of that. The guy who JUST WROTE AN ARTICLE about how most men are conditioned to seek female approval, can't see how there might be legit concern that so many women in the steering house just might start leaning the tiller their way (or how this is not mistrust of individual women, just distrust of the vulnerability...especially given the rabid, thoughtless fucking response I got from one of who I thought was the more level headed of the bunch), or how most MRAs will fucking DEFEND their right to do so - are you contending you never see this?

If pissing off Dr F (by doing something he did so much of, the one day ban had to be created in the first place, by the way), or censuring a personal fave MRA of the site owner, is enough to set this many years of hard fucking work to 'worthless', then I truly am done with this place, and you.

The fact is, I said something in a manner you didn't like, and in spite of the fact that what I said SUPPORTED you, you decided I didn't support you fully enough, and jumped down my fucking throat.

So bite me Paul, You and the rest of your cronies.


{quote]Paul Elam in reply to Factory

If this is about you and Dr. F, you would have been wise to keep it there.

Everything you are saying here is complete bullshit. I am going to tell you why, then you are welcome to go find yourself some cronies to swallow your chicken little concerns.

Yeah, I am the guy that just wrote about men's psychological dependence on women. I am the guy that gets that fully, and I am the guy that also happens to be at the helm here, aware of those issues and prepared to deal with them by any means necessary to ensure that the mission, advocacy for men and boys, stays job #1.

You, at this point, are they guy that is upset and raising a shit-storm about what MIGHT happen. You started out in the threads talking like it already had happened, but your language changed directly to concerns about what might happen when you were challenged to present evidence of your claims. Yeah, I noticed that.

Yeah, you're that guy.

You are the guy who says you don't like the direction we are headed but can't to save your fucking life answer one simple fucking question about why you think we are headed anywhere different than we have ever been.

You are the guy saying that we are dominated by women, even as there is no evidence at all to support that; that we are turning PC, same lack of evidence; that we are softening, same lack of evidence; that we are seeking to be "acceptable", same lack of evidence.

And nothing but your pissing harder when you are asked to actually cite what you are talking about.

You are the guy who could not take the fact that I insisted you support your statements, even as I invited you to play a much more active role in shaping what happens here.

And now you are the guy taking your toys and playing elsewhere. That is sad, but it is fine with me.

The grown ups are working here, not playing.[/quote]



My response the next morning:

Quote
Factory in reply to Paul Elam

OK Paul, you want answers? Here is the part of my post you went off about:

Personally, I don't find the gyno-heavy editorial board here to be a symptom of ass-kissing women (even though there is no doubt at all that this shift has had a profound effect on the tone, direction, and even goals of the MRM), but a symptom of how little men are willing to commit to this job.

Right now, the "Best man for the job" is a woman. And while there is lots to support aversion to this state of affairs, the fault lies not with the women who are working hard, nor the Management that keeps 'hiring' them.

The fault lies with the multitudes of armchair quarterbacks infesting the MRM, and their proclivity to criticise rather than create. In short, if there's not enough men on the Editorial board for your liking, then step the fuck up and out perform these women.

You will note that this comment is

a) refuting the idea that women are hired for positions here because of ass kissing, and also defends the editorial decision you seem to think I attack.

b) Lays the 'blame' not on a PC affirmative action type motive, or even on a 'see, women like us!' motive, but on a simple QUALITY motive.

In other words Paul, I said women were doing the jobs because they were BETTER SUITED CANDIDATES.

The 'snark' in that post was reserved for the people saying the whole thing was a PC girl-worship move for political purposes, and I invited THE DETRACTORS to stand up and outperform the wimminz if they had such a fucking problem with it.

I then made a contention that there is in fact, a 'politically correct'* strain running through the MRM which shuts down debate, silences certain lines of thinking, and is basically every bit ass irrationally based on Dogma as the most rabid feminist.

Your response, was to fixate on the WRONG interpretation of what I said, refuse to let go of that interpretation, and relentlessly attack me based on a false accusation.

Moreover, you made those contentions after years of knowing my views on these things, and after having me tell you..repeatedly...that my take and yours on these matters overlaps considerably.

In short, Paul, you acted like a Shit Reddit Says asshole busy excising 'unbelievers' without pausing to find out if you even had the right guy.

Politically Correct bullshit.

And I'll tell you another thing. This whole episode has taught me a valuable lesson, and that is one you won't like (but will likely use to rationalize your shitty behaviour), your conduct on this thread has convinced me, far better than anyone else ever could, that female involvement in the Mens Movement is poison, anathema, and should be avoided at all costs. Because if the involvement of women has even the great Paul Elam going off half cocked White Knighting for his Harem, even against long time allies, based on the shit you used for an excuse....well, a better argument for turfing women hasn't been made, in my view.

So you go ahead and preen, pat yourself on the back and congratulate yourself on 'YOUR' success, and YOUR site...this isn't the only game in town. It pisses me off to see this elitist bullshit coming from here, but at least now I truly know it can happen to anyone.

And if this thread is an example of you staying on message Paul, then this place is fucking doomed.

* Politically Correct is not set in stone, it is a set of beliefs common to the group in question. What is PC in the corporate world is different from what is different in the MRM world. But both are PC, since it means politically palatable to that group.


Paul:

Quote
Paul Elam in reply to Factory

Dan, I have calmed down and gotten over the disappointment. I don't even find myself reacting to any of this stuff any more than I would if I never knew you.

Clearly you don't need to be here given the way you feel.

I wish you luck.




http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/why-women-need-the-mens-human-rights-movement/

neoteny

I highly doubt the feds have a similar program going on in the MRA community, for serveral reason


Although I don't think that LE people are actively (for example as agent provocateurs) get involved in the MRM, I'm sure that some 'progressives' have the interest & will to 'infiltrate'. After all, the SPLC does list the MRM as a "hate movement"; and we all know that anything & everything is fair against those 'haters'...  :rolle:
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Factory


its sad that pretty much every movement oppossing the coming police state and socialist NWO is plauged with infighting.
what you are seeing with factory and tiger is civil compared to the beefs within the ranks of the militia movement. there is so much distrust and accusations of people being fed assets and snitches, if shit ever did hit the fan, the feds would just sit there drinking beer and watch the patriots kill each other.  But there is more of an excuse for the infighting in the III pecenter/patriot/militia movement than there is in the men's rights movement, because its a known fact that there are paid federal assets within the movement who's sole job is to keep a shitstorm brewing internally. I highly doubt the feds have a similar program going on in the MRA community, for serveral reason


Good post, but I think there is one small detail in which you might be mistaken...

Quote
I highly doubt the feds have a similar program going on in the MRA community, for serveral reason


The Federal Government in the USA has had a 'social bot' program runningto troll 'activist groups' online, it's been around for years.  There is also a group of Gov workers whose job it is to monitor 'activist groups' communications.  White Male Activists have been named by the Washington Times as 'terrorists' now, in fact.

I find it funny you believe in such things as the NWO, but fail to see the role feminism plays in the 'othering' of segments of society, or which segments those are.  But let me ask you this....if FEMA camps are real, if the NWO is real, and if things like a Police State are in the offing, why do you think they WOULDN'T plant shills in the MRM?  After all, Feminist prionciples and Gynocentric/Feminist prejudices aer what is being used to demonize white males...some believe in preparation for Genocide.

I'd say if those goals are even CLOSE to accurate, the MRM is BY FAR a bigger threat than Militias....since Militias only count once the shootin war starts...which can't happen until the hearts and minds of enough 'Liberals' have been won....

dr e

Factory -   I read through the above posts and didn't see anything that seemed so bad.  Seemed more like a difference of opinions and not getting what each other meant.  Am I missing something?

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Tigerman

Here in this one post I am going to address both Dr E's questions and Factory's latest accusations

First of all to my knowledge Angry Harry was not banned from AVFM. That he disagreed with Paul Elam over some issues arising from a post made there I acknowledge - it was a very long comment thread and indeed Angry Harry did not make any threats implied or otherwise of a violent nature (it's just not in his nature is my judgement of the man).
Heated words were exchanged by both sides that is true and from my personal perspective it was not exactly a comfortable sight witnessing that (albeit somewhat later) .
As I stated before I have enormous respect for Angry Harry even when I may not fully agree with any particular one of his opinions (as it happens I agree with what he writes 90% + of the time) I never doubt the sincerity with which he writes nor his humanism.
There are two things that can get you banned in commenting one is promoting violence in any way and another is being chronically disruptive.
My recollection of Factory getting banned is that he was warned about expressing violent intent - he ignored it and was subsequently banned - that's it. You can accuse AVFM of many things but when it comes to the primary rule of not promoting violence (even as an idea) no one is exempt whether they be a newbie or old timer so partially is not a charge that will stick against AVFM.
As for Factory's allegations of "doxing" I honestly know nothing about this and I certainly don't recollect seeing any such details in the thread he got banned in.
Nor after all the consistent hostility, ill-will and insults that he has sent my way do I have any inclination whatsoever to be his "champion" on this issue - I am not a saint and although I generally route for what I perceive to be the underdog Factory has thrown too much shit for me to ignore and still feel some sympathy for.
Should he prove his allegation and there is no satisfactory explanations from the other side - I will take that on board and  react according to my conscience on the matter.
I should also point out there is a world of difference between being banned and so called being "driven away".
At this point let me be frank and state the extremely angry tone of Factory's responses does present me something of a challenge as although it might seem otherwise I am as red blooded a guy as the next man. That said I don't think ill willed invective laden exchanges make for a better understanding of anything on the contrary my experience is that they solidify divisive positions.
That said I will quote Factory directly because then he cannot accuse me of ignoring his points invective laden as they are.
Me:
Quote
"As for being "assholes" let him who has not been one cast the first stone to paraphrase a certain historic personage. For sure I have my opinions on what goes down not just there but everywhere else but I am also mindful of the wisdom "don't wash your dirty linen in public.""


Factory responded:

Quote
I think you are under the mistaken impression that I want to move this movement forward, EVEN IF IT MEANS SUPPORTING CRAP IDEOLOGICAL TOTALITARIANISM.  Let me put it to you straight, right now...


Quote
I will do everything I can to undermine that site, and this whole fucking movement if I have to, in order to restore some kind of humanity to it.  That fucker posted a personal email ALONG WITH MY CITY OF RESIDENCE on the Internet, and I STILL can't get a job because of it.  I once thought he was just a fucking moron for doing it,. now, I'm not so sure.  THAT is the kind of shit I hold against him and his site.  ALL of you show complete willingmness to 'sacrifice a brother for the greater good'.

Quote
I will air my dirty laundry in public till I'm blue in the face...ESPECIALLY if it embarrasses him and his sycophants.  In fact, I am publicly stating right now that anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, that would like to make use of my services or knowledge in order to undermine and destroy both AVfM and the Mens Movment as a whole, is more than welcome to contact me.,  I will give your efforts every bit as much time and energy as I have thus far sunk into both AVfM and the MRM.

Quote
Betray me, and try to toss me over the shoulder as an 'extremist'?  Fine, fuck you and the horse you rode in on...and fuck anyone associated with you.  I'd FAR rather not fight for the rights of men, if it means I have to associate with the likes of you or Paul to do it.  And I would DEFINITELY rather see the MRM destroiyed than simply replace feminism as the ideology of oppression du jour.


The sheer arrogance and expressions of hate in the above is simply breathtaking - you would be willing to undermine AVFM and the whole men's movement because YOU alone are the one that knows what "humanity" is and how to restore it???
In..fucking..credible now I have heard it all.
Perhaps you would also like to lecture Erin Pizzey on what HUMANITY is since she is also not only a member of AVFM (and MRALondon another affiliate of AVFM for that matter) but also on it's editorial board??

....
Factory:

Quote
I love how you narcissistic asshats think this is something new in the MRM.  Until your 'enlightened' asses hit the benches, we MUST have all been old white racist and sexist guys....since we didn't make a point of stressing all that shit...


Quote
Or, conversely, we were smart enough to realize that pandering in this way is THE EXACT SAME SHIT THAT LED TO THE PROBLEMS WE FIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE>  It doesn't deviate, not one fucking iota, from the exact same trajectory Feminism followed, and using the exact same fucking methodology to do it.  But yeah, you guys are SO SMART, that it won't happen to you like it did to literally every other movement adopting the memes...  Nope, you guys are DIFFERENT, therefore, it'll work this time....


Quote
Morons.


First of all let me make it perfectly clear that I do not regard recognising the common humanity in the diversity of human beings whether it be colour, creed, sex, politics or beliefs as "pandering" . If a human being recognises the need to address the issue of neglected mens and boys rights and is otherwise respectful of others differences then I have no problem with that.
As for the insinuation that "inclusiveness" is what turned feminism into what we see today I am almost at a loss for words at the stupidity and ignorance that belies such statements.
The fact that he does regard "inclusiveness" as pandering says much more about his own state of humanity (or lack of it) than anyone elses in my view.
Feminism became what it is today because a network of groups of very nasty individuals took the movement over a long time ago. In the UK how this happened and came about is presented in great detail by a woman who was there first hand to witness it.
They are the ones responsible for the very non inclusive patriarchy theory and duluth  model where one half of the population is made scapegoat for the other. Comparing AVFM genuinely egalitarian and and inclusive stance to that is preposterous and comes across as nothing less then the rantings of someone with such a massive chip on their shoulder that they have lost touch with reason.
Factory went to say:
Me:
Quote
"So sure such keeping and maintaining any sort of unity in such a diverse group requires a lot - not just from the site and it's admin but the goodwill and intelligence of it's diverse supporters. "

Factory:

Quote
'Diverse' huh?  PC speak...PC guidelines, PC 'groups', PC everything...but nope, according to you, all those identical traits are NOT indications you've gone Pee Cee....nope, nothing to see here, move along.


The term "diverse group" wasn't part of some empty rhetoric but is in fact an accurate description of the support and membership base and this FACT is something we should be celebrating not cynically sneering about! One of the consistent charges against the MRM by our opposition is that it is peopled by just a bunch of embittered, angry, right wing white men!
Now as it happens I am white, male and I used to be "right wing" ( now I am thoroughly disillusioned with all mainstream political party's right and left.) as for "angry and embittered" it is unfortunate fact that again major double standards exist ie how can we  have a right to be "angry and embittered" when  we come from a so called "privileged" group and thus such emotions have been unfairly deligitimised by the feminist dominated culture we live in. Sadly over a long period of time there false messages about mens rights supporters tend be taken in as fact as our feminist dominated MSM has been too successful in controlling what gets published and suppressing dissenting voices. This is all old news to most of us of course and on the plus side there are signs that the stranglehold of feminism on the media is loosening somewhat.
All that said most people I would conjecture (based on experience) are intellectually lazy and will tend to follow in agreement with opinions about groups that have been consistently fed to them for even a moderate period of time if they see no dissenting opinions or information that informs otherwise.
For this reason among others I would suggest (I am guessing here as I did not create the editorial and commenting policy @ AVFM) that in addition to being pledged to non-violent activism it was decided to have a strict policy on zero tolerance for expressions of violent intent from supporters and commenters. Unscrupulous quote miners from the likes of Manboobz (as an example) will still merrily take quotes out of context in any case and paint as negative a picture as they can - knee jerk reactionary readers will lap it up mostly without checking for themselves the accuracy or context of those quotes. Nothing can be done about that but then there are others (MSM journalists perhaps with a modicum of integrity) who will actually check out the source for themselves and if what they find is not representative of the picture they have had painted for them said smear(s) will backfire big time.
Anyway that is MY reasoning behind supporting a zero tolerance policy for violence.

Anyway moving on to the next piece of insult laden invective and smears...

Me:
Quote
"AVFM is not for prioritising vexatious  "venting" however - there are much better places for that and yes Factory that remark is aimed directly at you - pissing contests are for schoolkids and "talking tough" on the internet has never impressed me."


Factory responds:
Quote
Vexatiuous venting....is that what you call any kind of criticism of an INSANE course of action?  My guess is, Tigerman, that you had a LOT to do with this shift in direction.  Along with the 'contributing supporters' that happen to have a desire for this change in direction as well....hmmm...


I make no secret that I have indeed actively encouraged AVFM to evolve into a more apolitical and inclusive stance in order to attract as wide a support base as possible. I see this as a strength for reasons I have repeated before you don't - fine we have a difference of opinion so what. I am also delighted that the humanitarian aspect of mens rights is also being emphasised and as redundant as you imply this position is it has nevertheless already has helped lance the boil of feminism and help expose it's uglier side to public scrutiny

Although my ego would be flattered to take credit for any of this evolution in reality  this was the overwhelming shared consensus of opinion of behalf of both the editorial team and the active participants at the time.

Quote
The fact hat you STILL cannot admit that AVfM ever did anything wrong, or that the 'ousting' of longtime MRAs was ill-conceived at the very best.  You still can't deny that AVfM is doing it's level best (as are you) is casting as 'extremist' (just like the SRSers on Reddit have wanted for years) anyone who doesn't agree with the 'full support' of these groups, EVEN IF THE OBJECTION IS ONE OF SIMPLE OVER REPRESENTATION.  Yeah, that's the ONLY reason I was attacked...because I didn't support the Official Policy IN THE CORRECT MANNER.  I was attacked because of simple criticism of methods, not even the goals behind them.


I have never pretended that AVFM is incapable of making mistakes it made a very serious one a few days ago by one of it's editorial team I spoke out in plain unambiguos  terms about this
and to the credit of Paul Elam he acted quickly and decisively as soon as he became aware of the issue.
Nor do I think Paul and other contributors are always in the right but I do make a considered judgment on when and how to express my dissent according to the seriousness (in my view) of the disagreement.
So in summary I am delighted at the overall direction AVFM has taken - that said I take no joy at all when I see commenter's falling foul of commenting policy and ending up getting banned - in some cases I would have maybe acted differently than the moderator concerned but even that is speculation unless the responsibility is yours and you are actually in their shoes and have followed the posters concerned history.
Should someone receive a ban that was outside current policy I would question it but so far I have not seen an example of that so have had no cause to question a decision.
Again I will reiterate being banned is one thing choosing not to post there again is another ie as long as someone is not banned there is nothing to prevent anyone from posting their opinions there.

Okay I just realised something - I was using google to try and get back the thread that led to your current ban and the penny dropped regarding you, AVFM and another rather personal issue\incident.
I am not going to elaborate in case it is an embarrassment  to you.
All I'll say is sorry you are not there any more and many there have a lot of good will towards you.
That is all - peace out.

Tigerman

Factory:
Have just read your post where you copied the exchanges between yourself and Paul (and one or two others). All I can say is that as far as I am concerned it does not validate your accusations and claims against AVFM and it's "direction" etc whatsoever.
I don't want to speculate or insult you but something has thrown your judgement wayyy off.

Tigerman


Factory -   I read through the above posts and didn't see anything that seemed so bad.  Seemed more like a difference of opinions and not getting what each other meant.  Am I missing something?




Yep it was very weird reading that because it simply does not validate or demonstrate what Factory clearly seems to think it does.

dr e

um, Tigerman, you never answered my question.  At least I couldn't find it in what you wrote.  I am curious what your perspective might be but you seem unwilling to comment.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Tigerman


um, Tigerman, you never answered my question.  At least I couldn't find it in what you wrote.  I am curious what your perspective might be but you seem unwilling to comment.


Sorry Dr E I set out to do just that in my very long post (ie the one before the last one I made) but ended up consuming so much of my time trying to first make sense of then address Factory's accusations. Anyway here goes...

Dr E
Quote
Tigerman -  I am less concerned with the actual policy and more concerned with the daily reality.


Quote
Quote
It seems factory that you are suggesting that they have indeed excluded some for their ideas while at the same time hoisting the banner of inclusiveness.  A rather odd combo.  Can you comment on that Tigerman?


Quote
Is this correct or not?  Is there personal attacks for having ideas that differ?  Are people free to speak their minds and insured a degree of safety?  Please don't quote the moderation policy.  That is not what I am asking. 


In short no it is not true - not in my experience anyway. That said I don't think you should just take my word for it either - you or anyone else is free to examine what is written there both editorially and in the comments - the only exceptions being where some articles have been recently removed from the site because of the possibility some of them could have been plagiarised (I mentioned this earlier in this thread) but that will be only a handful of articles out of hundreds if not thousands that are published and acrchived there for all to see.

dr e

Thanks for offering your perspective Tigerman. That's what I was looking for.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Tigerman


Thanks for offering your perspective Tigerman. That's what I was looking for.


Happy to oblige :)

dr e

Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

Tigerman


Pretty interesting article here about AVFM  http://rockingmre.blogspot.com/2013/02/now-even-angry-harry-is-wrong.html


No I find it disappointing that a number of mens rights activists that I used to have a lot of respect for are taking every opportunity to pick over and distort every faltering step that AVFM  might make in its progress and evolution. Before I say more let me make clear that Angry Harry is NOT one of those opportunists I am referring to but "Rocking Mr E" is.
I don't pretend to know or fully understand whence this hyper-criticality has arisen but I have my own personal suspicions. Anyway to correct some of Mr E's inaccuracies in the article.
The article that Angry Harry and Paul Elam fell out about was not about "recovered memory syndrome" - the actual title of the article was "The rapists & victims they refuse to see" written by former marine James Landrith. In that article James describes a rape wherein he was raped while incapacitated and initially unconscious etc. Angry Harry begins to cast doubt on the veracity of James Landrith's account - he doesn't accuse James of knowingly lying but he begins to assert that what James described was a "recovered memory" and that he feels compelled to point this out etc. Paul Elam and some others at AVFM supported James account now at this stage let me say I really don't know which of those two sides was factually correct because as far as I know there were no witnesses to what transpired in that hotel room apart from James and his alleged rapist.
In short I have sympathy with both sides  - with Angry Harry's POV because I do appreciate the risks to our credibility when we post allegatory articles like that of events that happened (or not) such a long time ago. Those who know the author of such accounts very well may well be in a better position than most others to judge how trustworthy a source they are but for most readers they won't have that privilege. Certainly I have been personally critical when feminists have printed accounts concerning allegations of rape as if they were proven facts so I could appreciate Harry's concerns. That said Paul believes in the mans integrity and doesn't accept Angry Harry conjecture that James account is merely a "recovered memory" and not a reliable account of what actually happened.
All I can say is that since the article was published I have not seen another similar being published on the site and I am very happy about that for many of the reasons of credibility that I outlined earlier.
Rocking Mr E also claimed that AVFM is also guilty of "endorsing marxism" and provides links to a couple of articles published last year on AVFM.
Lets take the first article linked to called "MRM Marxism?" - this wasn't AVFM endorsing "marxism" but rather allowing a marxist supporter who also supported mens rights to explain his left wing philosophy and what makes fellow mra marxists like himself "tick". I thought this was a very positive thing to do because I can think of a certain country (five letters - first letter is "c" and last is "a") where this understanding could be extremely useful in the future. Some individuals though were very upset that this article got published because despite a consultation amongst supporters of AVFM overwhelmingly supporting an apolitical stance in it's activism there were others like Bernard Chapin who refused to accept that with good grace and were miffed that their partisan view did not prevail. I find this highly ironic because on balance I would say that the majority of AVFM supporters including Paul Elam favour the right in their personal political views than the left! 
This is why I chuckled when I saw Mr E write the following:

"Here lies the contradiction. Paul doesn't see the leftists, almost at the point of total domination at AVfM, as comparable to fascism."
This is pure paranoid bullshit - the takeover by "lefties" most certainly has not occurred unless you think being "inclusive" and tolerant of differences (in a genuine sense) is the exclusive province of the left! Certainly there are many right wing supporters (some very high profile) who see the wisdom of not trying to dictate what politics an mens rights supporter must follow in order to be regarded as a valid activist.
To say this kind of "reds under the beds" hyperbole is misplaced is an understatement. AVFM is managed and run by a Texan not exactly known for being tolerant of attempts to bully him into compromising what he sees as his mission and that the support he has for that mission is despite what some naysayers are trying to claim is actually rapidly growing. Only today in fact AVFM has published an article pointing out that it has now outgrown not only Feministing but also The Good Men Project the latter starting out with a massive investment of funding!
Success alas often brings resentments in certain quarters and while I don't pretend that everything AVFM does and says is beyond reproach it has got it right where it matters far more times than not.
When you see the likes of Erin Pizzey giving it her backing and active support  you can bet that that isn't just empty rhetoric on my my part.

neoteny


Lets take the first article linked to called "MRM Marxism?" - this wasn't AVFM endorsing "marxism" but rather allowing a marxist supporter who also supported mens rights to explain his left wing philosophy and what makes fellow mra marxists like himself "tick". [...] Some individuals though were very upset that this article got published because despite a consultation amongst supporters of AVFM overwhelmingly supporting an apolitical stance in it's activism [...]


Marxists are known of taking over organizations and pushing out non-marxists (cf. "salami tactic"). One's "explaining left wing philosophy" is another's agitprop activity, and is pretty far from an "apolitical stance".
The spreading of information about the [quantum] system through the [classical] environment is ultimately responsible for the emergence of "objective reality." 

Wojciech Hubert Zurek: Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical

Factory


Factory -   I read through the above posts and didn't see anything that seemed so bad.  Seemed more like a difference of opinions and not getting what each other meant.  Am I missing something?





Actually yes, buit it's OK...it's a non issue for me anymore.  I've made my decision.

Go Up