A few hours after I was pointed to the news that Paul Elam was scrubbing some of his misogynist screeds off the AVFM wall, another commenter brought to my attention this lovely new hate-filled work by MRA August Lovenskolds. Let’s look at some of the raging need to violate women.
When feminist Pamela Clark made a simple suggestion list on Tumblr that men take on half the housework, AVFM retorted:
I do 100% of the housework because I absolutely refuse to live with a demanding, entitled, lazy woman like Mistress Pam.
If you are man who lives with a woman, you need to humiliate her with both her 77% paycheck (Mistress Pam’s claim*) and her poor domestic skills. This will let her know that she is inferior
*She never claimed such a thing.
How did AVFM respond to Pam recommending that men be emotionally available in committed relationships?
men can support “equality” by dominating women emotionally as well as professionally, domestically, and physically.
Can’t you see how clean this image of AVFM is becoming? Let’s continue.
The age-old oppression of women begins with controlling women’s bodies, especially our reproductive capacity. AVFM wants to control women’s reproductive functions a la, they want to ‘have a say’ in abortions. Pam Clark made the point that women are often overshadowed, outspoken by men when women talk about their lived experience (remember #YesAllWomen?). One of the biggest subjects of that lived experience is women’s capacity and decision to have children. AVFM suggests
when a woman claims that abortion laws are sexist, I agree, because men get no say in the abortion decision but are on the hook for 18 years of child support if the child is not aborted. That’s wrong—men should have the option to renounce fatherhood legally, just as women can renounce motherhood
When it comes to rape, AVFM has thought of a strategy to do just that. Never mind ongoing consent, just
Use your phone to record her consent, and text her the day after to show you had proof of ongoing consent both before and after the act.
Clark suggests that men should think about last names before marriage and that women should keep their own last name if they wish. How does AVFM interpret this?
take HER last name as yours. That way, the last vestige of your manhood will be stripped away from you and she will dump your unmanly self sooner rather than later, meaning that you can go back to the blissful life without women as soon as possible. Nothing says “unromantic loser” to women more clearly than “Guess what, future wife, I’m going to take YOUR last name!”
How red-pill sounding. As if taking a someone else’s last name emasculates men? Hmm. Interesting how patriarchal that is. Somehow I don’t think any of these men are blissful. Many have taken themselves out of the gene/dating pool through MGTOW, which is a good thing, but MGTOW isn’t about living life without women. MGTOW men are obsessed with women.
Lovenskold’s takes a departure from Pam’s list and has a mantrum, letting us know that AVFM isn’t about men and boys at all.
since feminists heavily moderate or close comments to their blogs. Join websites like A Voice for Men so you can challenge feminists (as I am doing in this article) who make, say, or post sexist things on the Internet, especially on social media.
AVFM doesn’t even know what Pam Clark is talking about. Take this for instance. Pam asks men not to police women’s appearance. What she meant she explained quite well. Don’t tell women how to dress, how to look ‘pretty’ or do the opposite. If a woman wants to wear makeup and heels, fine. AVFM twists that into this:
a woman with toilet paper stuck to her shoe, or spinach/lipstick in her teeth, or a rip or other flaw in her clothing should be allowed to continue to embarrass herself in front of more people than just you. Humiliation can be hilarious if handled properly by not protecting her from it.
The one that I found most interesting was Pam’s suggestion to find female role models. We know that women are erased from history. Our achievements are hardly ever listed or taught. AVFM thinks only ‘mothers’ should be role models, thereby erasing women’s contributions outside of being a baby machine.
Despite their general poor reputations among feminists, mothers, as long as they eschew feminism, can make excellent mentors and leaders of young male children and adults.
Is this particular MRA saying he needs Mommy? ‘Mommy, please come save me from the big bad evil women-folk who won’t cater to my every whim and not allow me to dominate and humiliate them!’ It’s funny because MRA”s are constantly going on and on about how ‘young male children’ need fathers, not single mothers, whom they despise.
Mothers don’t have a poor reputation amongst feminists. It’s feminism that changed women’s thinking about motherhood. It’s not our only destiny yet we see the male supremacists over at AVFM saying they’ll only see/acknowledge women if they’re mothers. If a woman doesn’t want to have kids or mother, AVFM considers her invisible. This is the patriarchal regression so many people mean when they say men’s rights activists want to return to traditional norms.
In choosing Detroit for their conference they said the city was a testament to masculinity. All women’s accomplishments and inventions that contribute to society are whisked away in one sentence. Lovenskolds repeats:
As soon as women start building cars; generating electricity; running water systems; drilling for oil; growing crops; slaughtering cows, pigs, and chickens; designing airplanes and cellphones and home appliances, etc., I will consider becoming a shameless bootlicker
Erasing women. Hating women. That’s the mission of AVFM and there’s no way the can clean up their image. Every single response to Pam’s excellent list contains the rage of MRA’S who want to dominate, humiliate and control women. This is standard fare at AVFM, not an old mess that Elam keeps telling the media is ‘four year old satire’. AVFM published this yesterday. The only way to clean up their online image is to not have one at all.