How many times has Paul Elam and other wingnuts on his website told us they don’t conflate women and feminist? Probably more times than any of us can count. In the recent rant by John Hambling he says
‘And if we accept the public messaging we are endlessly bludgeoned with, how can we come to any conclusion other than feminine inferiority?’
See what he did there? AFVM is about hating women AND feminists. Throw in some more rape apology:
‘Women, we are authoritatively informed, are so weak, and so bereft of personal agency, that after consuming an alcoholic beverage, they lose the adult power of being able to make a decision to participate in the act so many women and men drank for the purpose of facilitating in the first place. Namely, to get themselves a piece of ass.’
Let’s tackle this. Women drink to have sex? No John. They drink for pleasure. Sex isn’t automatically part of drinking alcohol. It may be John’s idea that drinking is synonymous with sex or even rape.
‘A woman participating in sex while drunk is not acting with the self-actualization of an adult, nope. She’s a victim of rape, even if she thinks she wants sex.’
Can anyone understand this guy? A person can drink to intoxication. If someone is intoxicated they cannot give consent. If the only manner in which you obtain sex is by waiting for women to become totally intoxicated then you might just be a rapist. According to AVFM, women who drink are children and men who take advantage of incapacitated women are just expressing their male sexuality.
John talks about the wage gap, which I will spend a bit of time on in another post. However, he parrots Mike Buchanan who thinks sex quotas kill businesses. This has been debunked over and over again. Ally Fogg did a great job of that. 
What was really strange about Hambling’s writing is this part:
‘Men, by contrast, live with the concept of the “real man”. This is public personhood dependant on behavior, accomplishment, provision for others, and adherence to consensus evaluation of social attitudes.’
This is yet another example of contradiction at AVFM. MRA’s are biological determinists. To hear him talking about social construction of gender roles is a feminist idea. The fact he doesn’t mention women’s gender roles isn’t so surprising. AVFM calls feminists ‘gender ideologues’ and yet publishes feminist scholarship regarding gender. Who’s the ideologue here?
Then he repeats the same old MRA talking points that have been thoroughly debunked time after time. This one stood out as particularly idiotic.
‘Now however, in spite of that, the term [rape culture] is used to maintain a fiction that women are victimized by a common social acceptance of female-targeted rape.’
I guess he’s never heard of the Daisy Coleman case where she was run out of town because she was raped. Her home was burnt to the ground too. Rape culture is about a set of rape myths prevalent in the culture we live in you turd. If you would stop ranting about this stuff and actually take 5 minutes to look this up on Google you’d find out that rape myths include men too. Oh, but that would take initiative and a certain level of intelligence that just isn’t present in MRA’s.
John then complains about censorship. I dare any feminist to go to AVFM and counter-argue any MRA rhetoric. You will be banned in less than 2-3 comments.
John’s come up with a neologism too, that he never defined: Statist Gender Ideologues. What in the hell is that? I can only imagine from my knowledge of the Manosphere that it’s a reference to the conspiracy theories MRA’s have about feminists ruling the State when in the same article John admits that politics is dominated by men. Also, the term ‘gender ideologue’ is strange when feminists have denounced gender. MRA’s can’t even get that right.
And finally, this little part:
‘The question naturally emerging is just this: How stupid do we believe ourselves to be, to keep buying into this popular narrative? Because however much we believe ourselves stupid, we become just that stupid.’
John Hambling in a nutshell.