Adios AVFM

Update: I am now officially blocked from AVFM:

If you’ve come here via disqus and wondering why I haven’t responded to your comment directed to me at AVFM here’s the takeaway:

For further details, please see below:

I reproduce herewith the Disqus comments which, collectively, have resulted in my voluntary self-expulsion from AVFM, after one “Strike”.

These comments were copied from my Disqus pages on February 23, 2016. I am aware that writers can edit their comments and am prepared to address challenges in the event that there are any inconsistencies. However, I hope that AVFM will be so honorable and technologically proficient such as to preserve the original thread and otherwise honorably adjudicate such challenges.

It would appear that AVFM is cleaning house with regard to alliances that no longer serve them, and I laud them their efforts, albeit tempered by criticism.

In no way could it be said that AVFM has any sort of alliance with me. After these events there is even less of a reason for anyone to presume an alliance between us. That may well be all for the best in terms of both the concerns of AVFM and my own objectives.

Moreover, ironically, in my quest to criticize a false accusation made within the AVFM pages, I was falsely accused of impure motives. I will render those accusations herein.

I will also attempt to defend myself against a portion of these false accusations here for the record, not because I wish to be subject to another round of them within AVFM. However, should the occasion arise, I will not shrink from any further challenges to my integrity on neutral grounds.

What AVFM fails to realize is that, unlike Roosh or AVFM, my voluntary contributions are not at risk because I do not receive any, and my book sales result in a minuscule return to me (which I would be happy to reveal in the proper venue), such that the loss of which will not injure me.

People in glass houses should not throw stones! I hope that for the sake of the legitimate issues which AVFM addresses that they will divert from their current course rather than implode. In any case, they can do so without my comments. Adios AVFM.

The article in question where the comments appeared: The truth about Christina Hoff Sommers

I “Recommended” the article through the Disqus interface, upvoted the video therein, and then commented as follows:

I’m delighted to see Christina Hoff-Sommers and Second Wave Feminism taken down here, even knowing that my head might too one day meet the MHRM guillotine, such as was recently accorded Roosh whose views it would seem intersect more with my own than do those of the anti-PUA’s (which is a group which includes Feminists and chivalrous gynocentrists—quite the MHRA bedfellows).

I hope that one day Mr. Elam puts a magnifying glass to Bill Baird, father of birth control rights, who was thrown under the bus by Second Wave Feminists. According to Wikipedia he is 83. Please don’t delay. Birth control and abortion are men’s rights issues with birth control a far easier topic to discuss without divisiveness. Bill Baird is responsible for three Supreme Court victories. Right to Privacy is a men’s rights issue. Roe vs. Wade used Bill’s victories as precedents; he was not only not directly involved but vilified and marginalized by that legal team. Of course, I’ve written about him on my blog, but, perhaps, my views aren’t in accordance with those of the MHRM, and therefore, a political slant more in accordance with the MHRM is warranted.

By the way, the only organization to welcome association with this hero in the ’90’s, was the American Humanist Association, which sponsored the event where I was to finally meet him, shake his hand, and thank him.

I am not a MHRA but I support men’s rights, while calling myself anti-feminist. It’s no skin off my back if the MHRA’s want to throw me under the bus, or, for that matter the inimitable Karen Straughan or Janet Bloomfield who I admire with somewhat of a religious passion in terms of the insight and courage they represent.

I desire a reverse of the political and economic and social ascendancy of women, and it would seem, Ms. Bloomfield is gradually coming around to my views given her vantage point in the midst of the vicious PSYOPS catfight in which she battles.

Of course, non-egalitarianism is not politically pragmatic for the MHRA, but since I have no financial support from any sociopolitical movement, I’ll take my lumps. I don’t care.

I am motivated by the personal stories of men who were and are very important to me (not all are living today), as well as women who are unhappy with the “empowerment” and “ascendancy” of women and otherwise do not appreciate the pedestal.

These sorts of women are a marginalized group with no particular unity amongst ourselves because we prefer the leadership of men over power-hungry, hypocritical gynocentrists. If during that battle we should appear at all strident or domineering it is due to the duality of women who on one hand must remain appealing to her protectors and yet fearsome and fierce toward the harpies, termagants, and shrews who attack us, and the PUA’s, at every turn.

I will caution the MHRA however, that those who don’t remember history are destined to repeat it. Egalitarianism such as promoted by Maximilien Robespierre generally has the same outcome throughout history.

Speaking of throwing men under the bus, please do not throw the PUA’s under the bus. Not all anti-feminist gynocentric philosophies are completely opposed to men’s rights. Thank you!

My first response was promising (and I upvoted it):

“I’m delighted to see Christina Hoff-Sommers and Second Wave Feminism taken down here, even knowing that my head might too one day meet the MHRM guillotine, such as was recently accorded Roosh whose views it would seem intersect more with my own than do those of the anti-PUA’s (which is a group which includes Feminists and chivalrous gynocentrists–quite the MHRA bedfellows).”

Roosh was always under the bus/without a head…. So how could he be taken down from a position he never held?

Myself and others always thought CHS was gynocentric – nothing new here, it is just that this has hit mainstream.

My response:

Thank you for your civil response. I also have been highly suspicious of Hoff-Sommers, in particular, her Feminist Imperialism such as to promote that First World Feminists ought to “empower” Third World Women. I regret that Camille Paglia, who, on balance, I admire more than criticize, takes that same stance. It is tunnel vision which may be another term for gynocentrism.

I am far less familiar with the works and history of Roosh than I am Hoff-Sommers and Paglia. However, that which I have become acquainted with in regards to Roosh and ROK and Rationalmale and many others, would put me into more of the “neomasculinist” camp than the MHRM on most issues. That said, the MRM gave Roosh his rhetorical coronation now, thankfully, back-pedalled. The MHRM response, however, I believe is overblown. That said, distancing oneself from him…or Me…is perfectly understandable. However, resorting to a false accusation of Roosh is, in my view, worthy of criticism.

Ooops. Freudian Typo: I meant to say “MSM” (Mainstream Media) not “MRM.” I guess I was rattled given that I responded in reverse chronological order, given that Disqus reports notifications in reverse chronological order. My bad. (I’ll just leave that comment as is rather than issuing a correction.) I do not pretend to be either perfect or dispassionate.

Perhaps I was rattled given that the next response (and the first one to appear to me) to my initial comment was not so civil:

What a passive/aggressive load of old shit.

Why do you expect MHRAs to embrace and support anyone who opposes men’s rights at all, “completely” or otherwise? The only way you can throw anyone under a bus is if you were walking alongside them at the time – that’s what the phrase implies – and the MHRM has never walked alongside PUAs.
They’ve been too preoccupied trying to piss on us from across the street.
The only thing MHRAs have ever asked of PUAs is that they zip it up and continue on their way, preferably in the opposite direction.

You characterize yourself as one of a “marginalized group of women” who prefer male leadership. Nice way to dump all of the obligations and responsibilities that leadership entails onto the shoulders of men, who are, quite frankly, becoming fed up with holding up the sky for women like you. Why not step up and do your bit, as Suzanne McCarley, Karen Straughan and Janet Bloomfield have done?

It’s hardly surprising that you knock egalitarianism. Its principles demand that men and women share both rights and responsibilities, and you seem to be highly selective about which ones you want and which ones you don’t. History does not always repeat itself. In fact, it rarely repeats itself, but this hackneyed phrase has long been convenient with agenda pushers too lazy or disinterested to actually study history in any depth. AVfM’s egalitarianism goes way beyond political pragmatism – it is a fundamental principle which underpins many of its goals.

I agree that you are not a MHRA, despite being an anti-feminist, but your comment casts serious doubt on whether you support any men’s rights that conflict with your own interests. As I have stated before, the MHRM isn’t an ideological free-for-all for anyone who opposes feminism. It’s a movement that advocates for the rights and welfare of men and boys – all of them, not just the ones that affect or interest you.

I don’t know what others read into your comment, but I read a whopping sense of entitlement mixed with a set of demands from someone who doesn’t even identify as a MHRA. Perhaps it’s time for you to come clean about why you’re really here, and clarify which men’s rights you don’t “completely” support – just as a matter of interest..

My response:

Before I begin to address your concerns, I wish to preface my remarks as follows: My desire for men to be restored their rights and imperatives under British Common Law, among other precedents does not imply that I am my giving your arguments here any credence.

Since you accuse me of blowing “a passive/aggressive load of old shit” and if I were to return in kind, I may be banned, I will instead choose to request specifics on how you personally are “stepping up”.

As for my own “stepping up,” perhaps you’re not familiar with my disqus profile, my blog, my book, or my other Internet presences since Caprizchka was created in 2011. In what other manner would you request that I “step up”? For your ideology of egalitarianism? Pass.

As for my “highly selective” stance, would you care to quote me in order to prove that allegation?

“History does not always repeat itself. In fact, it rarely repeats itself…”

Nothing I can add there. Do go on.

I discuss how intellectual devolution, of which you are an excellent specimen, arises in response to unquestioning ideological adherence here: https://caprizchka.wordpress.c…

“…your comment casts serious doubt on whether you support any men’s rights that conflict with your own interests.” I return that allegation in kind.

“It’s a movement that advocates for the rights and welfare of men and boys – all of them, not just the ones that affect or interest you.”

Even the rights of PUA’s ? Do go on.

In order for the evolution of the species to address improvement of character such as to allow men to be returned their rights and imperatives, then all men will need to be so empowered, including you. I’ll take my chances.

I come entirely clean in my blog. It is highly non-politically-incorrect and probably not politically expedient to publicly align with me, regardless of which ideology you personally espouse while representing yourself as representative of the MHRM.

The purpose of my comment is to espouse anti-feminism such as to laud this exposé of Hoff-Sommers while decrying the false accusation made within these pages about Roosh and other PUA’s as being inimical to men’s rights.

Thank you for having the courage to respond to my comment.

In response to my own typo, rather than editing under these conditions, I simply replied to myself:

Edit: “non-politically-correct” rather than “non-politically-incorrect”.

I also found another typo of mine. Oh well. It’ll stand.

The response from the same commenter:

Where did you get the idea that I, or anyone at AVfM, have ever promoted the idea that PUAs like Roosh should be denied their rights? That is exactly the kind of mischaracterization of AVfM’s position on Roosh that PUAs have insisted on making. It is a complete fabrication. Since you have made the allegation, it’s up to you to prove it.

I refuse to engage in a ‘who’s done more to oppose feminism’ pissing match with you, and I would have thought that you were above that sort of thing. You pass on egalitarianism in favour of “restoring” men’s “rights and imperatives”, which, according to you, includes leadership roles which places the onus of all responsibility and obligations back on to the shoulders of men. Don’t you think you might want to check with men if that’s ok with them? Rather important point don’t you think?

“In order for the evolution of the species to address improvement of character such as to allow men to be returned their rights and imperatives, then all men will need to be so empowered, including you.”

So, for men to return to leadership roles, they’ll have to learn how to be ‘real men’ again. Typical PUA bullshit and trying to spin it here at AVfM only proves that you don’t really get what the MHRM is about. Men don’t need to be reassigned roles by you, or by anyone. We can do that for ourselves. Your approval of our choices is neither sought nor anticipated.

The man-up challenge implied in my ‘courage’ to respond to you has not gone unnoticed, but it has made it very clear exactly where you’re coming from. Where do you think you are, Return of Kings? You can’t get away with that sort of thing here. You’ve been around long enough to know better.

Rather than address what was essentially in my view an entrapment to violate AVFM Comment Policy, a backpedal from his challenge to me to “step up,” given that he hasn’t, masked as a diversionary tactic, and a strawman, I responded thus:

So many questions that I have already answered and no answers to mine.

Meanwhile, I was the beneficiary of the following moderator comment, to include a warning and a response to my answering the prior challenge to “step up”:

Strike 1:

This is a friendly reminder that this is an activist site, not a discussion board. Please read this important announcement for a better understanding of this environment. Please also reread our Comment Policy, in particular the bits about misandry and misogyny, general attack and trolling.

Thank you. [Ref: 7848]

Additional remarks:

Has your account been hacked? Or are you merely trying to use this forum to sell books to Rooshtards? Andybob’s analysis of your dishonest and manipulative comments is dead on. If you were a new commenter you’d be insta-banned as a troll.
Knock that shit off.

My response, which is to be the canned response I will issue to any further comments within AVFM directed to me, pending disposition from an AVFM moderator, (for which, I will not be holding my breath):

Thank you. If you’ll reassure me that your questions are sincere then I’ll be glad to address them. Otherwise, I presume that they are not and that any answers I may proffer in response to any question addressed to me will be misinterpreted. No need to Strike me again. I’ll leave without further warning. Adios.

Rather than focus on the hypocrisy represented herein, I will leave it up to the readers of this blog to make their own conclusions.

Meanwhile, I shall address this AVFM Moderator concerns directed to me personally herein:

Has your account been hacked?


Or are you merely trying to use this forum to sell books to Rooshtards?

No. I do not rely on the minuscule income I receive as a portion of the total retail book price, exclusive of shipping and handling, a price which is discounted at the majority of the outlets in which it appears, thereby reducing my net royalty. My mission concerns integrity to my beliefs, regardless of whether such integrity results in my marginalization. Such is the mission of my blog. There is nothing that any human can do to me that exceeds what has already been done. Nothing. I fear no man nor woman. Bring it on.

Andybob’s analysis of your dishonest and manipulative comments is dead on.

This analysis doesn’t portend well for the future of AVFM. Where was I dishonest? As for “manipulative” that is subject to interpretation. Of course simply pummeling me with insults as bait to reveal my bona fides as a set up to attempt to discredit my motives or to have me banned is not considered “manipulative” by this moderator, apparently, nor in opposition to AVFM Comment Policy, as interpreted by this moderator.

I respect the issues that this moderator regularly deals with, and, without revealing my own bona fides, know that it is a difficult and often thankless task. Therefore, rather than continuing in this rhetorical brawl unnecessarily expending AVFM energies, I withdraw.

Adios AVFM.

You know where to find me.

Postscript. The Moderator continues to attempt to bait me into violating the Comment Policy by flinging at me her own shortcomings:

You should know by now that if your questions were intellectually honest, you’d get answers here. Shame on you.

Should I desire to give her a reason to ban me, then I would respond as follows:

Likewise. I hereby accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. Even so, I address all of your questions in my blog. You know where to find me.


33 thoughts on “Adios AVFM

  1. A bit TL;DR but it appears you stumbled into a mano a mano gunfight and got caught in the crossfire. Perhaps don’t go to male centric blogs?

    I realize you probably meant no harm. But… we men do like our clubhouses. I myself have told a female to shoo a few times when the tribal circle is closed.

    • I don’t recoil from honest intellectual debate. However, I was both threatened with being banned, and then hamstrung and goaded by a woman. I’m sure you can relate…LOL. You’re one of only two commenters herein thus far put into moderation, but in your case for your protection more than mine. I’m glad that you’ve decided to keep commenting. 🙂 So far, I have only banned one commenter (he got tedious):

      If I am unable to respond to an attack without being banned but yet the attacker is not similarly hamstrung, then there’s no point.

      By the way, I have edited this comment, because I can. I also will edit just about any commenter’s comment upon request. Haven’t refused such a request yet.

  2. What you have been through is typical of any “moderated” forum. They may start out with all the best intentions, but they end up forming a sycophantic echo chamber around the admins and their opinion of ideological purity.

    As to AVFM, I had to google it to find out what it was. You show me a group of men who form up to discuss what it means to be a man – and I’ll show you a group of guys who will probably never figure it out.

    • Aw. That’s harsh. Men used to have all sorts of places, like locker rooms, men’s clubs, male professions before affirmative action, men’s clubs, male schools… all that. Feminism ruined that. I think that it’s OK for men to have their “safe space,” but that doesn’t mean immune from criticism.

      That said, they probably did me a favor. I’m getting tired of the Socialism, Dean Esmay’s denial of rapefugee culture (huh?), false accusations of Roosh, and in general a false egalitarianism beneath Elam, the paternal figurehead. That said, I agree with just about everything that Elam says, but even Elam is a bit too harsh on PUA’s in my view. Oh well. Sayonara.

      • You’re aware of my views on the idea of a ‘safe-space’ However male only spaces are different. It essentially boils down to freedom of association. If men wish to enter a female-free environment to discuss matters that concern them without the need to moderate their language and ideas to appease a feminine presence, such a space should exist, hence why ROK heavily discourages female comments. And of course the women (children) who largely comment do so in a deliberately inflammatory and antagonistic manner, not wanting to actually discuss anything, just vomit rhetoric and ride the high of her manufactured outrage. Like any movement or ideology there are flaws with AVfM and like any dangerous ideology they’re largely self-righteous condescending fragile pricks about it. This whole egalitarian clinging, with a rallying cry against language (such as the term real men) really just seems like early third wave feminism with the genders swapped. It may have been for the best for you to extricate yourselves from their web of hugs and self congratulatory pats on the back for their ‘activism’. I found the anger and vitriol directed at Roosh contrasted with how the mainstream see MRAs intriguing. They loathed Roosh, which only arises when there is fear, while they laugh at MRAs. Quite a telling comparison.

      • Well-stated. No arguments here. I hope not to make an idiot of myself at ROK. Probably best I mostly stick with takimag, I reckon, when it comes to commenting. It’s quite the paradox. Thanks for commenting!

  3. Too many words for me. I continue to see females and males having different and complementary traits and tendencies in the emotional/sexual realm, and often similar abilities in the intellectual realm. But isn’t it asserted rather convincingly somewhere that when we argue or decide something ‘intellectually’ we are really listening to our innermost, basic instincts, using logic and other techniques to explain or justify? I’m not a Christian (or anything) but I rather like the concept attributed to him: love thy neighbor as thyself. Or even Rodney King: “Can we all get along?”

    • I don’t see it that way, in terms of this being a male/female communication issue. Note that the moderator is female. Rather, I see this as divisiveness between Socialism/Egalitarianism/Androgyny and Capitalism/Authoritarianism/Biology. Of course, I’m not being objective here.

      Meanwhile, given that they’ve accused me of being aligned with Roosh and Return of Kings, I thought I’d go make their acquaintance.

      Turns out, the water’s fine!

      • I find it endlessly hilarious that they have female moderators that can and have banned even men at a website called, “A Voice for Men“. I stopped going to their website some time ago when I realized this equality business was just nonsense. It’s the reason we’re in this feminist dungeon to begin with.

        The idea of egalitarianism was silly to begin with anyway. We tried that and what happened? Men and families in general were destroyed, government spending skyrocketed and now children are the property of the government not their parents. And women, who are never the builders of civilization, get to tell men what to do with it. Yet we have groups like AVFM who come on the scene to support the very thing that got us here in the first place. That’s a very serious blind spot they have.

        BTW, nice blog you have cap.

      • Axel would tell me that he gave up on “vanilla” because it was by default female-dominated, despite all protestations and play-acting to the contrary. However, of course, this isn’t limited to the “vanillas” by a long shot.

        All civilly-enforced “equality” between men and women always ends up female-dominated. I think that the reason that men, particularly very young men and very old men, buy into the notion of “equality” between the sexes is because the young men believe that “equality” will reverse the dynamic described below, and old men are just bitter and want to somehow punish women for their own poor outcomes by giving them “equality” good and hard:

        “The double standard will go away when that reality goes away, and men like Eric or Turtle are considered by the average woman to be just as attractive as men like Vince despite their less promiscuous histories and lower levels of charm and game. When that happens, the celebration of the stud will end: women will obviously not be favoring the stud and men (who only worshiped studs because of how many women they could attract) will cease their praise as well. The stud will be held in no higher regard than the slut. Why desire to be a stud like Vince when you can just be Eric and be on a level playing field? At this point there would be no more double standard.” However, it never works. “Equality” doesn’t erase biology, and the charmless guys still don’t get women aggressively competing for them even when the charmless guys poutily go MGTOW. Meanwhile mid-range age men in their sexual and professional prime don’t cater to these bitter men, and the harpies, termagants, and spinsters certainly don’t–unless you make one into your banhammer queen I guess. LOL.

  4. Fascinating just how many bridges AVfM is apparently itching to burn with this latest incident all around really;I was banned from off that post’s thread myself not for disagreeing with the content under discussion itself,but for merely(and extremely politely) asking for some factual backup to some of the positions brought up by an unrelated commentator while questioning the style,tone and motivations of the video itself.

    That was enough to trigger the response ”fuck off feminist” from the same lady mod who goaded you (as ironic as it gets since she probably never even realized she was speaking to a man to begin with and I’d probably have a fortune for the times I’ve been called a sexist pig and banned from several feminist sites for merely doing the same with their positions…) and the fall of that fatal banhammer.

    Even funnier is the fact that another moderator chimed in essentially in agreement with me after the fact,but I couldn’t answer any further even in defense of myself,nor could I care less about a site with such a cultish and insular mentality as AVfM is rapidly becoming.

    If digging themselves into a ditch and cowardly throwing stones at any dissenting voices,however friendly or moderate even from within their own general ranks is the alternative they are seeking to feminist paranoia,they can keep it all to themselves;I’m sure they’ll get real far…

  5. When I discovered the manosphere about 3 years ago, it was a breath of fresh air, and AVFM was at the van. Then as now, they have a truckload of good articles.. but over the past 18 months they’ve gone stupidly ideological, as evidenced by the noisy exit of key contributors, like JTO and Atilla. And others who haven’t quit AVFM per se, like Karen Straughan and Alison Tieman, do they even contribute any more? As for their Stalinist moderation policy, don’t even go there. I’m no fan of RooshV, but Esmay’s article on him was a butthurt hit piece. And now CHS. AVFM has crashed and burned.

    Oh, and Alexia rankings don’t lie.

    • Thanks for the information, I haven’t been avidly reading AVFM such as to know these details, but now I’m curious. JTO is who? I’m familiar with Atilla and the ladies you mention (yes, I used that word!) but haven’t kept up with any rift if any.

      I have been gradually diverting from Esmay for a while now as his Socialist-like views are becoming more pronounced, but yes, that article about Roosh took the cake. It could have been written by David Futrell, as I believe Roosh says himself in his latest piece, which I recommend: .

      I’m becoming a fan of Roosh and I’ve long been suspicious of Hoff-Sommers, and actually felt that the take-down of her was justified even overdue. However do not believe that her views are without merit to men’s rights and Elam concedes that. I find Elam to be largely an admirable character and have great hopes that he’ll come around to see the errors of his ways soon, which, it turns out are typical when it comes to moderated boards and overzealous female moderators. I think personally I could do a better job as an internet board “comment facilitator” with a liberal moderating policy, albeit obviously not on AVFM.

      Thanks for commenting and you’re welcome to disagree with any of my views. There is currently only one banned commenter here. I welcome nasty comments until they get tedious or full of viruses–and both were the case with that particular individual. Otherwise, I enjoy the spectacle. Cheers.

      • I think Bern has had Dean Esmay rightly pegged as a left-socialist for some time.

        “overzealous female moderators.”

        It’s why Roosh does not allow female writers or moderators on his board. It’s been refreshing not having to tip-toe around a board dominatrix for once. But then I usually don’t tip-toe which is why I’ve gotten banned so many places. Of course you’re the moderator here and that’s fine since it’s your blog. 😛 But I’m sure you can see where Roosh is coming from. Besides, it’s a “man’s space” anyway.

        AVFM is attempting to do what MRAs have tried for over a century: preach equality but never get anywhere with it. This hasn’t worked and never will given male and female nature. I just don’t think it’s realistic.

      • JTO = JohnTheOther, aka. John Hembling. He was Elam’s right hand man at AVFM for a long time, with Hembling being the more hotheaded of the two (believe it or not). But they had a BIG falling out about 18 months ago IIRC. At the center of it was a female AVFM editor named Diana Davidson (who was also Hembling’s girlfriend). When Hembling & Davidson were told not to attend the 2014 AVFM conference, on account of their “COCK” campaign (Community of Compassion & Kindness), which Elam felt wasn’t exactly media friendly, they packed their shit and left. They formed their own MGTOW group, and have been sniping at Elam and MRAs ever since.

        Don’t get me wrong, I haven’t given up AVFM entirely. They still put out good articles and information. But like I said, they went hardcore with their ideology and advocacy probably not long after JTO quit. They even announced it in an article, with warnings that the banhammer would be deployed much more severely. The result being the comments section has become an echo chamber, as you’ve observed. I haven’t been banned myself, probably coz I don’t comment nearly as much as I used to, but I’m appalled at how quickly people are banned now. Elam has always been a “like it or lump it” kind of guy, which is fine, but lately he’s taken it to extreme and so many readers have opted for “lump it”. Hence the viewership crash.

        Besides Straughan and Tieman, another Honeybadger who left AFVM quietly was Kristal Garcia, which was a shame coz I really liked her. I still follow her Youtube channel, but she’s not forthcoming on why she quit.

        As for Roosh, he’s an interesting character. I probably disagree with half of his diktats (like his tradcon, biological determinism and views on LGBT). Plus I have no interest in Game.. and it’s curious that Roosh is distancing himself from it too, probably to the detriment of some of his readership. But if his “RoK Meetup Day” shitstorm was engineered specially to rile up the mainstream media and instigate a “2 minutes of hate”, thereby demonstrating how crooked the media is and driving more men to the manosphere, then I doff my cap to him. I suppose riling up Dean Esmay was icing on the cake 😉 But seriously, I’m also appalled at how AFVM yelled their hate the loudest.

        But in the end, whether we’re talking AVFM or RoK or MGTOW or whatever, over the past 2 years the manosphere has devolved into factionalism. Sadly that always seems to be the way with men, which is why the collectivism of Feminism will always kick our asses. Maybe someone like Hoff Sommers really is the best horse to bet on :/

      • I’m nodding along until the very last as I actually agree with Elam that essentially Hoff-Sommers is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

        I think AVFM is on one hand entitled to pick their focus. On the other hand, although they may be perceived by the media to be the male equivalent of N.O.W., they aren’t. They are a “Equalist” faction of the MRA.

        I have my own differences with the other individuals you mentioned but they are petty rather than politically strategic. They most certainly have valid voices whether they can easily be herded into a “movement” or not is one of those easily degradable topics of “debate”. Any “men’s movement” has its own issues, not the least because men’s competitive nature doesn’t lend itself toward even a figleaf of “equalism” whereas I suppose at least women can fake it–under a paternal figure of some sort to include government. Ironically, it would appear, that AVFM copies that model. That may or may not be politically-expedient on some level in the mode of “if you can’t beat them join them.” I don’t have the answers.

        Meanwhile, it would appear from my perspective that AVFM did me a favor kicking me out–and that may well apply to the other characters you listed as well.

        Individualism itself doesn’t lend itself well to a “movement”. This story isn’t over by a long shot. What theater!

      • ps. I was hopeful when Roosh and Elam got together and had that chat online a few weeks back. Things in the manosphere actually started looking up. But as Roosh extended the olive branch, AVFM grabbed it and beat him with it. Seriously, fuck AVFM for that.

      • Sounds like primitive male sexual competition to me. So yes, “fuck AVFM” if you’re inclined LOL. My view is to Not fuck them. So, there you have it. They’re “fucked” by other men who actually have the means to “fuck” and “not fucked” by women except for female-hating female-supremacists. Pass. Not my thing. Yawn. LOL.

      • Sound points. Still, I pine for the good ol’ days of 2013.. AVFM was at the fore of men’s rights and anti-feminism, it was the major clearing house for MRM resources, articles would often get 1000+ comments, and it’s Alexa rankings actually beat out Feministing. No shit, AVFM’s ranking topped 15,000 or something, and I still remember Elam’s crowing about what a boon it was for men’s rights getting all these views. A shame he’s done a complete about-face on that one.

        Anyway enough of that. We have to manage the best we can — some MRAs, MGTOWs and PUAs, and a lot of lone wolves not fitting any category. I think I’ll stick around this blog.

      • Sigh. Maybe Elam’s bitter. Activism of any sort can do that to a person. Dissatisfied persons (people possessing of the key ingredient to become interested in activism) can be a pain in the ass.

        Thanks for stopping by! I’m just a crazy woman talking to myself in the dark. Nice to know that there are a few people interested in what I have to say. I don’t check my Alexa ratings.

        I get more attention, that I know of, on Disqus. And that’s OK too.

        Not so bad for an unaffiliated “middle aged” broad (if I live to be 108 that is) with no idea of where she belongs.

        I’m sort of hoping that I figure that out. If any of my readers think they know, I’m open to suggestions.

      • You have a large body of written work. I see you on an intellectual par with with Camille Paglia, though interested in different facets of the general subject of sexual politics. How about some editing with a conscious focus to end up with a book?

      • You flatter me or insult Paglia, or both! 😀 She had a huge influence on me when I was younger. Still enjoy reading her stuff even if I don’t believe that her motives are entirely pure. Are anyone’s?

        I’ve thought about turning this blog into a book. I might yet. The end result however would doubtless improve if I had myself a collaborator/publisher/taskmaster. I’d like a happy ending and that would be one possible happy ending for sure.

        There are several ways this thing could go. I am hoping that the way comes clearer for me as go along.

  6. Pingback: Is it All About Sanders? | caprizchka

  7. Not relevant to the politics of the thread here in general, but whenever you or anyone else is dealing with a situation where you expect censorship, you can make a record of what you’re seeing at the site or onscreen using at least one of two methods:

    1) will preserve a copy of a complete page from a site.
    2) preserves a screen capture of what you’re viewing on the screen at the moment along with date/time info etc.

    iCyte is somewhat limited in what comments it can capture. Dunno the tech details of it, but it captures them from some sites and not from others. It *is* nice though in being able to capture entire pages rather than just the currently viewed segment on your screen. It has a monthly/annual charge, but if you’re regularly dealing with censorship issues (Heh, active “Free Choice” folks arguing against smoking bans get hit a lot.) it can be worth it.

    – MJM, who is against ALL censorship that goes beyond banning commercial/irrelevant spammers and *maybe* some of the nastier hate material (mainly in cases where it’s personally directed in a clearly hurtful way or exposing someone’s privacy.)

  8. Pingback: Milo vs. Roosh | caprizchka

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s