Masculinists Need Not Apply at AVFM
June 23, 2014 By Paul Elam 188 Comments
This is going to a short bulletin, as I haven’t the time for a full article.
For some years now I have seen people who identify as “masculist” or “masculinist” online in a few locations. I have even seen a few of them pop up here in the comments, usually with something really stupid to say.
I can’t (and don’t want to) control whatever fucktardery that some people choose to engage. All I can do is clarify, and when needed assert AVFM editorial policy, and the philosophy that goes into it.
From my personal perspective, the following applies to masculists.
Masculinism is feminism’s mentally and morally challenged younger brother. It is an ideology, and most, (I know, I know NAMASCALT), demonstrate that with political polemics, phallo-centrism and other forms of general stupidity.
You have, as best I can know these days, never seen a “masculist” article on the pages of this site, or even mild endorsement for any of the people so identified.
And that is how we roll. The principles of inclusiveness, pragmatism, evidence based, non ideological solutions good — ideology, separatism, divisiveness, polemics, well, not so much.
That is all.
Source
That is enough. I don't know why Elam is shitting on his allies,allies that helped prop him up and his fucking website. Ever since they allowed women and gays to run wild at AVFM things have gone downhill. I liked what AVFM was,not what's it's become. Paul once told me to mend fences and now he's burning bridges,which is a stupid move. Perhaps Elam should practice what he preaches.
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Unseat a corrupt judge
Navy submariner Matthew Hindes is stationed on a submarine in the Pacific. But he’s been ordered to appear in a Michigan courtroom Monday in a custody battle with his ex-wife Angela involving their daughter, Kaylee.
Hindes was given permanent custody of Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from Angela’s home by child protective services. Kaylee has been living with Hindes’ wife Benita-Lynn – her step-mother – in Washington state while Hindes is deployed aboard a nuclear submarine in the Pacific Ocean.
Despite Hindes’ assignment, a judge has ordered Hindes to appear in court or face contempt.
Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days” to defendants serving their country.
The judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagreed, adding, “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”
The sailor is not allowed to appear by Skype or phone, and in custody cases, being absent in court could have a huge effect on the outcome.
Hindes is not only facing the possibility of losing custody of his daughter, but also the chance to say goodbye
As a result of this blatant disregard for child welfare (the child was removed from the care of the mother by CPS) and intent to punish a father for being a member of the armed services, we call for the immediate resignation of Judge Margaret Noe.
SAY NO TO NOE.
petition
Hindes was given permanent custody of Kaylee in 2010, after she was reportedly removed from Angela’s home by child protective services. Kaylee has been living with Hindes’ wife Benita-Lynn – her step-mother – in Washington state while Hindes is deployed aboard a nuclear submarine in the Pacific Ocean.
Despite Hindes’ assignment, a judge has ordered Hindes to appear in court or face contempt.
Hindes’ lawyers argue he should be protected by the Service members Civil Relief Act, which states courts in custody cases may “grant a stay of proceedings for a minimum period of 90 days” to defendants serving their country.
The judge hearing the case, circuit court judge Margaret Noe, disagreed, adding, “If the child is not in the care and custody of the father, the child should be in the care and custody of the mother.”
The sailor is not allowed to appear by Skype or phone, and in custody cases, being absent in court could have a huge effect on the outcome.
Hindes is not only facing the possibility of losing custody of his daughter, but also the chance to say goodbye
As a result of this blatant disregard for child welfare (the child was removed from the care of the mother by CPS) and intent to punish a father for being a member of the armed services, we call for the immediate resignation of Judge Margaret Noe.
SAY NO TO NOE.
petition
Thursday, June 19, 2014
SB 967 update
SB 967 has been amended again. I will give you the good,the bad and the ugly about these amendments:
The good: this amendment lost a sponsor and the word "women" was crossed out. The accuser can no longer be exempt from the anti-drinking rules on campuses.
The bad: it is more misandric allowing for more privileges given to women at the expense of men including third party reporting.
The ugly:a third party can turn you in on a sexaul assault,domestic violence and/or stalking complaint on and off campus. That's right. If this passes your college is no longer an institute for higher learning but a feminist inquisition out to crucify men for their alleged action(s)-regardless of where they took place. Just think: someone who doesn't like you can now swear out a complaint about you or they can do it just to be sadistic.
The rest of the amendment was just a semantic shell game and a waste of California tax dollars. I wonder how they feel about that.
This bitch is going to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education so let's let the Assembly members know where we stand.
The good: this amendment lost a sponsor and the word "women" was crossed out. The accuser can no longer be exempt from the anti-drinking rules on campuses.
The bad: it is more misandric allowing for more privileges given to women at the expense of men including third party reporting.
The ugly:a third party can turn you in on a sexaul assault,domestic violence and/or stalking complaint on and off campus. That's right. If this passes your college is no longer an institute for higher learning but a feminist inquisition out to crucify men for their alleged action(s)-regardless of where they took place. Just think: someone who doesn't like you can now swear out a complaint about you or they can do it just to be sadistic.
The rest of the amendment was just a semantic shell game and a waste of California tax dollars. I wonder how they feel about that.
This bitch is going to the Assembly Committee on Higher Education so let's let the Assembly members know where we stand.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Glendale offers self defense classes to men
NCFM letter causes City of Glendale to offer free self-defense class to both men and women
June 5, 2014
By NCFM
self-defense classNCFM NOTE: Sometimes change through advocacy is a simple as a letter, like the one we sent to the City of Glendale about their free self-defense classes only for women. This is not the first time NCFM has been able to cause change, significant change we might add, with just a well written letter. For one of many examples, such a letter caused NIPPON Airlines to reconsider women only restrooms on international flights, and the PGA from having a “Women’s Day” at a major event. That letter also prevented the featured speaker from violating a host of laws. The speaker was just reelected Bonnie Dumanis, District Attorney for San Diego. These are not small victories. Each one brought with it media interest, which in turn helps us raise awareness of such inequalities. Consider, what if the city of Glendale decided to have free self-defense classes for “Whites Only?” Our guess is every Glendale elected official and employee involved in the event would be looking for other work. So, why isn’t it that way when such people turn a blind eye on half our population, e.g., men. Crazy stuff isn’t it?
Glendale male-only self-defense class scheduled
Session results from complaint of group calling for end to gender discrimination.
By Brittany Levine, brittany.levine@latimes.comJune 4, 2014 | 7:32 p.m.
Following a complaint that free self-defense classes exclusively for women and girls sponsored by a city commission violate equal-protection clauses of the Constitution, city officials have scheduled a class for men and boys for later this month, in addition to two new training sessions for females.
While the Glendale city attorney reviewed the complaint letter sent by the National Coalition for Men in March, the Commission on the Status of Women cancelled its two self-defense classes for females in April, which is also when the city celebrates “Sexual Harassment Awareness Month.”
The majority of the City Council voted reluctantly to add male-only classes at the city’s expense that month, with one calling the coalition a joke after the city attorney recommended they host the alternative training to minimize legal risk.
Reached by phone on Wednesday, Harry Crouch, president of the San Diego-based nonprofit coalition, said his group was glad the city scheduled a self-defense class for men and boys.
“We’re very pleased that the city of Glendale decided to provide the same opportunities and services to men as they would women and girls,” Crouch said.
The goal of the classes is to provide training that may help participants avoid sexual assaults and fight perpetrators if they are ever attacked. Crouch added earlier that men are also prone to violent attacks and could benefit from free self-defense classes.
Mayor Zareh Sinanyan suggested in April that the male-only class should incorporate conversations about bullying.
The two female classes, which cost $400, are to be paid for with funds raised by the Commission on the Status of Women. The cost of the men’s class will come out of the city’s General Fund, which pays for police, parks and other general services.
The two female-only classes are scheduled from 6:30 to 9 p.m. on Wednesday in the Glendale Police Department’s large community room, 131 N. Isabel St., and 6:30 to 9 p.m. on June 25 in Glendale Community College’s Student Center Conference Room, SC212, 1500 N. Verdugo Road.
The male-only class is slated to take place from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on June 18 in the Glendale Police Department’s large community room.
Participants must be 12 years old or older. Reservations are required. To hold a spot or for more information, call (818) 548-2000 or email women@glendaleca.gov.
Source
Way to go,NCFM,way to go. Thank you for this good news.
June 5, 2014
By NCFM
self-defense classNCFM NOTE: Sometimes change through advocacy is a simple as a letter, like the one we sent to the City of Glendale about their free self-defense classes only for women. This is not the first time NCFM has been able to cause change, significant change we might add, with just a well written letter. For one of many examples, such a letter caused NIPPON Airlines to reconsider women only restrooms on international flights, and the PGA from having a “Women’s Day” at a major event. That letter also prevented the featured speaker from violating a host of laws. The speaker was just reelected Bonnie Dumanis, District Attorney for San Diego. These are not small victories. Each one brought with it media interest, which in turn helps us raise awareness of such inequalities. Consider, what if the city of Glendale decided to have free self-defense classes for “Whites Only?” Our guess is every Glendale elected official and employee involved in the event would be looking for other work. So, why isn’t it that way when such people turn a blind eye on half our population, e.g., men. Crazy stuff isn’t it?
Glendale male-only self-defense class scheduled
Session results from complaint of group calling for end to gender discrimination.
By Brittany Levine, brittany.levine@latimes.comJune 4, 2014 | 7:32 p.m.
Following a complaint that free self-defense classes exclusively for women and girls sponsored by a city commission violate equal-protection clauses of the Constitution, city officials have scheduled a class for men and boys for later this month, in addition to two new training sessions for females.
While the Glendale city attorney reviewed the complaint letter sent by the National Coalition for Men in March, the Commission on the Status of Women cancelled its two self-defense classes for females in April, which is also when the city celebrates “Sexual Harassment Awareness Month.”
The majority of the City Council voted reluctantly to add male-only classes at the city’s expense that month, with one calling the coalition a joke after the city attorney recommended they host the alternative training to minimize legal risk.
Reached by phone on Wednesday, Harry Crouch, president of the San Diego-based nonprofit coalition, said his group was glad the city scheduled a self-defense class for men and boys.
“We’re very pleased that the city of Glendale decided to provide the same opportunities and services to men as they would women and girls,” Crouch said.
The goal of the classes is to provide training that may help participants avoid sexual assaults and fight perpetrators if they are ever attacked. Crouch added earlier that men are also prone to violent attacks and could benefit from free self-defense classes.
Mayor Zareh Sinanyan suggested in April that the male-only class should incorporate conversations about bullying.
The two female classes, which cost $400, are to be paid for with funds raised by the Commission on the Status of Women. The cost of the men’s class will come out of the city’s General Fund, which pays for police, parks and other general services.
The two female-only classes are scheduled from 6:30 to 9 p.m. on Wednesday in the Glendale Police Department’s large community room, 131 N. Isabel St., and 6:30 to 9 p.m. on June 25 in Glendale Community College’s Student Center Conference Room, SC212, 1500 N. Verdugo Road.
The male-only class is slated to take place from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on June 18 in the Glendale Police Department’s large community room.
Participants must be 12 years old or older. Reservations are required. To hold a spot or for more information, call (818) 548-2000 or email women@glendaleca.gov.
Source
Way to go,NCFM,way to go. Thank you for this good news.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Feminists want to silence George Will
George Will: Colleges become the victims of progressivism
GEORGE F. WILL
June 6
Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.
Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. “sexual assault.” Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”:
“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”
Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped. Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of “sexual assault” victims. It vows to excavate equities from the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones, alcohol and the faux sophistication of today’s prolonged adolescence of especially privileged young adults.
The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20 percent.
Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process. Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.
Now academia is unhappy about the Education Department’s plan for government to rate every institution’s educational product. But the professors need not worry. A department official says this assessment will be easy: “It’s like rating a blender.” Education, gadgets — what’s the difference?
Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.
It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.
What government is inflicting on colleges and universities, and what they are inflicting on themselves, diminishes their autonomy, resources, prestige and comity. Which serves them right. They have asked for this by asking for progressivism.
Source
Feminists are aiming their guns at George Will,we need to defend him. We have to show support to anyone is going to question the feminist misasndric narrative and show them they are right to question it. Some U.S. Senators were giving George Will shit about what he wrote and this is his response:
George Will responds to senators on his sexual assault column
BY GEORGE F. WILL June 13 at 5:53 PM
Editor’s note: On Thursday, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.) sent a letter to Post columnist George Will objecting to his column published online last Friday about sexual assault on college campuses. Today, Will sent the senators a response. Here is an excerpt:
Dear Senators Blumenthal, Feinstein, Baldwin and Casey:
I have received your letter of June 12, and I am puzzled. You say my statistics “fly in the face of everything we know about this issue.” You do not mention which statistics, but those I used come from the Obama administration, and from simple arithmetic involving publicly available reports on campus sexual assaults.
The administration asserts that only 12 percent of college sexual assaults are reported. Note well: I did not question this statistic. Rather, I used it.
I cited one of the calculations based on it that Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has performed {link}. So, I think your complaint is with the conclusion that arithmetic dictates, based on the administration’s statistic. The inescapable conclusion is that another administration statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college is insupportable and might call for tempering your rhetoric about “the scourge of sexual assault.”
As for what you call my “ancient beliefs,” which you think derive from an “antiquated” and “counterintuitive” culture, allow me to tell you something really counterintuitive: I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do. Which is why I worry about definitions of that category of crime that might, by their breadth, tend to trivialize it. And why I think sexual assault is a felony that should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus processes.
Source
The above link will take you to the Washington Times website where you can write a comment saying you support George Will and stand behind him against feminist oppression. The feminists want to silence their critics,we are one of those critics. I won't let them silence me. Are you going to let them silence you?
GEORGE F. WILL
June 6
Colleges and universities are being educated by Washington and are finding the experience excruciating. They are learning that when they say campus victimizations are ubiquitous (“micro-aggressions,” often not discernible to the untutored eye, are everywhere), and that when they make victimhood a coveted status that confers privileges, victims proliferate. And academia’s progressivism has rendered it intellectually defenseless now that progressivism’s achievement, the regulatory state, has decided it is academia’s turn to be broken to government’s saddle.
Consider the supposed campus epidemic of rape, a.k.a. “sexual assault.” Herewith, a Philadelphia magazine report about Swarthmore College, where in 2013 a student “was in her room with a guy with whom she’d been hooking up for three months”:
“They’d now decided — mutually, she thought — just to be friends. When he ended up falling asleep on her bed, she changed into pajamas and climbed in next to him. Soon, he was putting his arm around her and taking off her clothes. ‘I basically said, “No, I don’t want to have sex with you.” And then he said, “OK, that’s fine” and stopped. . . . And then he started again a few minutes later, taking off my panties, taking off his boxers. I just kind of laid there and didn’t do anything — I had already said no. I was just tired and wanted to go to bed. I let him finish. I pulled my panties back on and went to sleep.’”
Six weeks later, the woman reported that she had been raped. Now the Obama administration is riding to the rescue of “sexual assault” victims. It vows to excavate equities from the ambiguities of the hookup culture, this cocktail of hormones, alcohol and the faux sophistication of today’s prolonged adolescence of especially privileged young adults.
The administration’s crucial and contradictory statistics are validated the usual way, by official repetition; Joe Biden has been heard from. The statistics are: One in five women is sexually assaulted while in college, and only 12 percent of assaults are reported. Simple arithmetic demonstrates that if the 12 percent reporting rate is correct, the 20 percent assault rate is preposterous. Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, for example, that in the four years 2009 to 2012 there were 98 reported sexual assaults at Ohio State. That would be 12 percent of 817 total out of a female student population of approximately 28,000, for a sexual assault rate of approximately 2.9 percent — too high but nowhere near 20 percent.
Education Department lawyers disregard pesky arithmetic and elementary due process. Threatening to withdraw federal funding, the department mandates adoption of a minimal “preponderance of the evidence” standard when adjudicating sexual assault charges between males and the female “survivors” — note the language of prejudgment. Combine this with capacious definitions of sexual assault that can include not only forcible sexual penetration but also nonconsensual touching. Then add the doctrine that the consent of a female who has been drinking might not protect a male from being found guilty of rape. Then comes costly litigation against institutions that have denied due process to males they accuse of what society considers serious felonies.
Now academia is unhappy about the Education Department’s plan for government to rate every institution’s educational product. But the professors need not worry. A department official says this assessment will be easy: “It’s like rating a blender.” Education, gadgets — what’s the difference?
Meanwhile, the newest campus idea for preventing victimizations — an idea certain to multiply claims of them — is “trigger warnings.” They would be placed on assigned readings or announced before lectures. Otherwise, traumas could be triggered in students whose tender sensibilities would be lacerated by unexpected encounters with racism, sexism, violence (dammit, Hamlet, put down that sword!) or any other facet of reality that might violate a student’s entitlement to serenity. This entitlement has already bred campus speech codes that punish unpopular speech. Now the codes are begetting the soft censorship of trigger warnings to swaddle students in a “safe,” “supportive,” “unthreatening” environment, intellectual comfort for the intellectually dormant.
It is salutary that academia, with its adversarial stance toward limited government and cultural common sense, is making itself ludicrous. Academia is learning that its attempts to create victim-free campuses — by making everyone hypersensitive, even delusional, about victimizations — brings increasing supervision by the regulatory state that progressivism celebrates.
What government is inflicting on colleges and universities, and what they are inflicting on themselves, diminishes their autonomy, resources, prestige and comity. Which serves them right. They have asked for this by asking for progressivism.
Source
Feminists are aiming their guns at George Will,we need to defend him. We have to show support to anyone is going to question the feminist misasndric narrative and show them they are right to question it. Some U.S. Senators were giving George Will shit about what he wrote and this is his response:
George Will responds to senators on his sexual assault column
BY GEORGE F. WILL June 13 at 5:53 PM
Editor’s note: On Thursday, U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) and Robert Casey (D-Pa.) sent a letter to Post columnist George Will objecting to his column published online last Friday about sexual assault on college campuses. Today, Will sent the senators a response. Here is an excerpt:
Dear Senators Blumenthal, Feinstein, Baldwin and Casey:
I have received your letter of June 12, and I am puzzled. You say my statistics “fly in the face of everything we know about this issue.” You do not mention which statistics, but those I used come from the Obama administration, and from simple arithmetic involving publicly available reports on campus sexual assaults.
The administration asserts that only 12 percent of college sexual assaults are reported. Note well: I did not question this statistic. Rather, I used it.
I cited one of the calculations based on it that Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute has performed {link}. So, I think your complaint is with the conclusion that arithmetic dictates, based on the administration’s statistic. The inescapable conclusion is that another administration statistic that one in five women is sexually assaulted while in college is insupportable and might call for tempering your rhetoric about “the scourge of sexual assault.”
As for what you call my “ancient beliefs,” which you think derive from an “antiquated” and “counterintuitive” culture, allow me to tell you something really counterintuitive: I think I take sexual assault much more seriously than you do. Which is why I worry about definitions of that category of crime that might, by their breadth, tend to trivialize it. And why I think sexual assault is a felony that should be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and not be adjudicated by improvised campus processes.
Source
The above link will take you to the Washington Times website where you can write a comment saying you support George Will and stand behind him against feminist oppression. The feminists want to silence their critics,we are one of those critics. I won't let them silence me. Are you going to let them silence you?
Friday, June 13, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)