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.
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..
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”:
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]
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.
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.