AVFM Supporter

[DkaiksterParticipant 90]

Yes, I might be treading on dangerous territory here, but I support AVFM as much as I support MGTOW. I don’t know why MGTOW fights AVFM when clearly, they respect MGTOW in the AVFM forums.

AVFM and MGTOW’s methods might be different but we both are fighting for men in a world full of feminism. Please share your thoughts.

[HimeoParticipant 471]

AVFM is pushing the idea that MGTOW can be married, which most youtube MGTOWs disagree with. AVFM is pushing this because Paul realized most of his money is coming from Traditional Conservatives and more than anything else, Paul is a businessman.

I honestly don’t care. Call yourself what you want. But I’m not an ally of TradCons. When Government sponsored Feminism is finally repealed (or the Government destroyed) my next target is Traditional Conservatism.

The failure of Traditionalism spawned Feminism. While Feminism is becoming unpopular many women are jumping ship back to Traditionalism.

The Traditional paradigm promotes the enslavement of Men for the benefit of Women and Children. This is the paradigm I am against. Traditionalists are the enemy of my enemy but they are ALSO my enemy.

I’m happy to work with you to destroy Feminism. But don’t think the fight is over when Feminism falls.

[BrainPilotParticipant 7640]

My arrival here at mgtow occurred before I was even aware of avfm, but was only a relatively short time ago. As I understand it now, the friction between the two began prior to my arrival. I have not made the effort to get myself informed very well about that friction because I came here for reasons primarily having to do with myself, not a website or the relationship between two of them. I am unaware that I have any role in that friction, and am not interested in pursuing that role if I do.

My goal is to protect and preserve myself from what women would do to me with this gynocentric system if I allowed it. I did this better than most for decades before I was ever aware of this site. I don’t actively support or oppose avfm, but I understand avfm as focused on trying to change a system from within, and mgtow as abandoning that system.

Some stay longer on a sinking ship than others… perhaps trying to save it. I have no quarrel with those who do, but I swam early… and I believe I can save more men with that example.

Look, it's not my fault that tornado dropped a house on your sister. Now get back on your broom and get your ass out of here... and take your monkeys with you

[Anonymous 5]

I don’t think MGTOW has a problem with AVFM or anyone else.
If you see a thread with negative comments about AVFM, feel free to join in.
If you see any comment in any thread which attacks AVFM in any way, join in there too.
Don’t hold back either, I don’t,,,when people ask for advice in a thread or invite a response.

I agree that many here, including myself, don’t think the chances of having a successful marriage are not even close to being worth the risk.
As legislation is still increasingly leaning towards women, it becomes even less attractive, giving women more incentive.
The real problem is that it’s become acceptable, even trendy for women to divorce and devastate, for no reason at all, even on a whim.
If you or anyone else thinks otherwise and still entertains the idea of marriage, it’s none of my business to judge in any way.
MGTOW is by it’s very name, acceptance.
We don’t tolerate anyone telling us what we should do or shouldn’t do.
We’ve been there, done that, and seen where it’s got us.

[Anonymous 5]

Great post Tank!, thanks for that. Baa Baa has mentioned it a bit in one of his videos but it’s great to get a much fuller picture.

It also illustrates the real, almost empirically measured results of feminist perceived gains with the corresponding rise in dissent measured in membership increase.
Let the feminists go for it, even make the laws tougher, more insane. All it will achieve is more resistance.
No amount of reasoning will work. Anyone’s free to try and reason as much as they like though. Have fun with that.

I noticed something about a week back which confirmed my thoughts on this. It was a comment on the FEMINISM LOL clip “Cool Girl V Red Pill”
It was about the perceived debacle that took place behind the scenes regarding the GQ article interview about AVFM.
It wasn’t the clip itself that caught my attention, it was a comment down below with the YouTube nic of

Rod Van Mechelen:
“I HAVEN’T READ THE GQ PIECE YET BUT FROM WHAT I’VE HEARD IT’S A HIT PIECE AND A WORSE FAUX PAS THAN I MADE IN 1995 WHEN THE SEATTLE TIMES DID A HIT PIECE ON ME. YOU WOULD THINK PAUL, WHO USED TO FOLLOW MY WEBSITE, WOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM MY MISTAKE.”

I was stunned to realise that men having been trying this strategy for at least 20 years.
Listen to just Tom Leykis to see how the courts have evolved their decision making process during this time.
The problem isn’t feminists, it’s a gynocentric society becoming even more gynocentric with the meteoric rise in social media since 1995.
Up till then we only had to deal with Hollywood, TV, radio and gossip mags spewing their gynocentric biased opinions to their audiences which were overwhelmingly women audiences.

When resistance reaches critical mass, no matter how any dissenting individual labels themself, things will happen. Not before.
As a MGTOW I don’t have to wait for that. My problem,s already solved.
MGTOW has made me, and countless others feel like ordinary human beings, not some isolated individual with seemingly radically different views.

[GoneGaltParticipant 361]

I don’t think about AVFM at all, seriously. They can do as they wish but what they cannot do is redefine on their own what MGTOW means. I walked away over a decade ago and I have no interest in tradcon roles any longer even if the laws were rectified. I’m OTPFG as well – Off The Plantation For Good.

[Anonymous 42]

I can’t imagine fighting for a woman’s acceptability under the blanket of feminism. Women are permanently altered according to MGTOW.

AVFM are active in changing the laws, but they don’t seem to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Our society has linked women to being some sort of victim that should be compensated, creating a ten mile high heap of carnage in the process. Women are NOT the victims as they would have you believe, men and children are the true victims of feminism, children can do nothing to resolve their state of depravity. Men on the other hand, can deny this generation of feminists the tools of feminism; children, marriage, men, and all that they enjoy in their gynocentric universe. let them burden the government they have collectively created. Let them burden each-other with their gynocentric needs.

Men have needs too, the need to be free from the absolute tyranny of a gynocentric society. MGTOW is the only philosophy that seems to address MEN’S needs, not the courts, not the governments, not anything else! Just MEN’S needs that have been through the wringer and left outside to twist in the brutal winds of feminism!

MGTOW is the critical mass needed to finally detonate feminism and live peaceably under it’s fallout….

I have found real serenity in tossing the baby with the bathwater……  Only misery is found in feminism, I’m forever freed from that fate!

[CPT ObviousParticipant 2730]

Anonymous wrote:

My problem’s already solved. MGTOW has made me, and countless others feel like ordinary human beings, not some isolated individual with seemingly radically different views.

+1 for that comment.  I feel the same, and it is a common theme echoed in the introductions.

That is the great thing about MGTOW:  It is self-evident.  Men see how society has become gynocentric and misandric.  Usually the realization comes through red pill experiences dealing with women and society in general.

I contend the biggest and most effective red pill is found in family court.  It is there that a man truly sees how the system is stacked against him.  He is nothing more than an ATM to support women and the system.  His parenting rights are virtually non-existent.  He is presumed guilty of being a physically/sexually abusive person and a bad parent with the burden of proof to show other otherwise.

Through these types of experiences, men start to realize that relationships today, especially marriage, is a losing proposition.  That current society is gynocentric and men are disposable.  Consequently withdrawing is the logical conclusion.

However, we have been taught through our daily blue-pill dosage that this is a radical view.  So we feel isolated….until MGTOW is found.

Now I realize I am not crazy, the rest of the world is.

"You don't know a woman till you have met her in divorce court."

[CPT ObviousParticipant 2730]

Anonymous wrote:

Men on the other hand, can deny this generation of feminists the tools of feminism; children, marriage, men, and all that they enjoy in their gynocentric universe. let them burden the government they have collectively created. Let them burden each-other with their gynocentric needs. Men have needs too, the need to be free from the absolute tyranny of a gynocentric society. 

While I agree, I am worried because the government has ways of extracting blood from a stone.  Common law marriage is a current example.  Another example: The mistress law in Australia where just sleeping with a woman can result in being held to the same financial responsibility as being married.

As men continue to opt out and the financial burden on the government becomes greater,  expect a bachelor tax to be instituted.  Don’t think it can’t happen?  It already has in the U.S.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_tax :

By 1821, the state of Missouri applied a $1 tax on all unmarried men.[4]

The state of Michigan had made repeated attempts to instantiate a bachelor tax. In 1837, state senator Edward D. Ellis attempted to pass such a bill, but the measure failed. In 1848, a petition made it to a House committee, but did not reach the floor. In 1849, another proposal was made in a House committee that did not reach the floor. Again in 1850, another petition reached the House, but did not find a sponsor. During the civil war it was proposed again, this time as a revenue measure as opposed to a public welfare measure, but again failed to reach the floor. It was then repeatedly brought up in 1897, 1901, 1911, 1919, with the first resulting in counter proposals for a similar tax to be applied to women who reject marriage proposals and the final resulting in arguments that bachelors had a statistically higher rate of delinquency as opposed to other groups. The final proposed bill that also made the floor of the Michigan congress was in 1935 before it too failed due to economic considerations of the time. [5]

On February 12, 1898, Assemblyman Waller of the New Jersey state legislature proposed a bachelor tax as a sumptuary tax; however, the bill was not passed. [6]

In 1921, the state of Montana applied a $3 tax on all bachelors in the state.[7] One of them, William Atzinger, refused to pay on sex discrimination grounds.[8] On January 11, 1922, the state supreme court struck down the “bachelor tax” and another poll tax applicable only to men. [9][10] However, it was done so on the grounds that the Montanan constitution of 1889 did not grant the legislature the power to tax individual persons; and attempts to define it as a policing measure for matters of public health as opposed to a revenue measure were found invalid.[11]

In the state of California in 1934, as a response to the low 1933 birth rate in California, minister of Finance Roland Vandegrift proposed a $5 to $25 bachelor tax, but the measure did not succeed.[12]

Maybe in those instances AFVM is valuable even to MGTOW to lobby against such measures.

"You don't know a woman till you have met her in divorce court."

[harpo-my-“SON”Participant 2410]

I have a voice of my own and claim the exclusive right to speak for myself. Anyone or any-group attempting to speak for me is violating that right.  I support the separation from any group that attempts to step on my rights…The definition of MGTOW on the about section of this site more fully allows every individual man here to define himself…It was very clear to me after a short two weeks here that these men will not be boxed into a generalized consensus of any kind…

speaking of the definition of MGTOW .  If some of you have not heard I managed to publish it three times on urban dictionary.com  I up-vote all three once a day,  every day. I noticed 5 down-votes today.. so I have taken to down-voting all the others  1. by blue bastard=down  2. by trooper555=down 3. by mgtow for life=down  4th  5th  6th all copied and pasted from this site=up-vote  Hoping everyone here will spread the word and push our definitions to the top of the page….

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=MGTOW&defid=8156669

 

I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.

[Smitty the Great OneParticipant 1535]

Dude, I’m not against Paul Elam, and those good folk at AVFM, I think they are trying to do a very difficult job. I will say that there attempt to “qualify” married men as MGTOW is done with the best of intentions. MGTOW are the MRM’s army so to speak, and Mr. Elam was merely trying to increase the number of “foot soldiers” as much as possible. The problem, we don’t want to fight. We are perfectly content to play our little role as “guerrilla fighters”, but we have no desire to be “cannon fodder” in the war between the sexes.

To “Field Marshal” Elam, I admire you sir, and what you are attempting to do as it should benefit all mankind. That is as far as I’m willing to go though. Until you learn to respect us, and the decision we have made we will not actively support you. I wish it didn’t have to be this way, and neither do you, because MGTOW’s vastly outnumber MRA’s, and you know it sir. I won’t talk bad about you, I won’t foment descent against, I will simply add you to the list of folk I have walked away from. Now in the future should you take a less proprietary stance over MGTOW things could change, the choice is yours.

I’ve seen this rift growing, it does bother me, but the group dynamic effect is always in play. No matter the cause there is always folk that just don’t agree, even if it is over “minutiae” such as “married MGTOW”. None of here has all the answers, we are on a journey of discovery together. YOU can be MGTOW and you can be an MRA, you can be both at the same time. Neither are mutually exclusive, but AVFM seems to want to run rough shod over those that won’t blindly accept their leadership.

What we have here is a failure to communicate….

 

Life is too long to play by someone elses rules....

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Interesting this. Thanks to Tank as well.

On this topic (which I now avoid like a social disease), I was clicking around on Google+ and some s~~~ appeared in my feed.

I found a very interesting comment under some random video I clicked on:

My comment is the one in the middle, but it sure was funny finding it.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[DkaiksterParticipant 90]

The way I see it, Paul may do whatever he wants (Going his own way). And everywhere you get people who would try to benefit off something else. As long as it serves my own purpose, why push it away?

AVFM tries to give men equal rights and bring down feminism.

MGTOW teaches men to live their lives, free from women’s negative involvement in it. Follow your heart. That’s how I described it to my sister when she asked me what the deal was between these two groups.

All in all, I do consider myself a MGTOW, but I do support AVFM’s efforts. Maybe things changed now, but AVFM movement did not start out this way.

[Lazarus LongParticipant 365]

harpo-my-“SON” wrote:

If some of you have not heard I managed to publish it three times on urban dictionary.com  I up-vote all three once a day,  every day. I noticed 5 down-votes today.. so I have taken to down-voting all the others  1. by blue bastard=down  2. by trooper555=down 3. by mgtow for life=down  4th  5th  6th all copied and pasted from this site=up-vote  Hoping everyone here will spread the word and push our definitions to the top of the page….

So I went to look at the link you left to urbandictionary and thought it would be fun to go see what urban dictionary says about feminism. We all know the kind of crap that was there and there were some down votes on them but I could not down vote a single one of the feminism definitions but I could down vote any others I looked at.

Willfully turning aside from the truth is treason to one's self. -Terry Goodkind

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

I don’t have anything against AVFM or the MRM movement.  I just don’t see them as ever being in any way effective.    Certainly not effective the way MGTOW is.

That being said, I do have an issue with certain individuals within the AVFM and MRM who have seen the effect MGTOW is having and cynically tried to co-opt and claim it for themselves in a desperate bid for relevance and a greedy scheme for donations.  “Married MGTOW”?  Please.  That’s even stupider than “Communist Capitalist”.

They should have jumped behind MGTOW and used it as an example of the future if feminist gynocentrism is continued to run amok, but instead they let their greed and stupidity get the better of them.

[Author]

Posts