It’s no secret that the Men’s Human Rights Movement (MHRM) is gaining traction. Not, perhaps, in the form that many would normally ascribe to a social movement. We have the emergent discipline of Male Studies and a loose scattering of legal and legislative efforts, mostly on behalf of fathers. But in general, organization is in a state of infancy that may well be perpetual.
Men’s organizing on their own behalf (successfully anyway) is, despite a century of feminist propaganda and claptrap, an extreme rarity. Most likely it has never happened. It is contrary to our biological programming. We are wired to protect, provide and sacrifice for others (read: women), and to regard men who defy that programming as weak, biological deadweight.
Perhaps that is why we shine brightest in the faceless, impersonal world of the internet, where, if we choose, our beliefs can be expressed from behind a shroud of anonymity; where whatever notions we have of manhood cannot be smeared in ways that follow us through each and every day into the most private, vital parts of our personal lives.
And in this light speed milieu of circuit boards and binary code, we are reflecting and often shaping a new consciousness of manhood.
That is where the trouble begins, and where we have not seen even the least of it.
In this burgeoning electronic community, we are divided into overlapping but philosophically distinct factions that coexist in a sometimes uneasy peace. And sometimes, of course, there is a more palpable friction.
It has always been conventional wisdom that there was not enough real estate to mark too many boundaries; that we needed to share a platform, even with vastly divergent views, and cling to whatever unanimity we could muster.
It appears to me, though, that it is time to draw some lines. Tricky business, that.
But sooner or later it will prove necessary and unavoidable.
What we face here is a division between those who long for a return of traditional masculinity and those who are ready to turn the page into a new era. While I often respect those who take solace in the old world arrangement, I cannot escape the certainty that in the modern age it amounts to nothing more than a death trap for most of the men who enter it. And I offer that an objective look at history would reveal that it always was a death trap. Perhaps a necessary one in its time, but that time has passed.
Yes, the time for traditionalism has passed.
I am not going to enter into any snarky rant, the kind that I would normally reserve for fembots. But I do want to make some items clear, because they will be factors that guide the content of this site for the foreseeable future. I am going to work on these items in the coming days and they will be used to replace the current “Mission and Values” listed at the top of this page. They will also have the added utility of serving as the foundation for this sites editorial and commenting policy.
Please allow me to remind you that as always, this site is “A” Voice for Men, not “The” Voice for Men, for a good reason. I declined any identification as a leader a long time ago. I am speaking for myself here, and for the editorial policy of this site. I am calling it my little corner of the MRHM, but I am acutely aware that I am only dealing with my own opinion.
That being said, let’s get started with AVfM’s 10 editorial policies. I like to refer to this step as going Zeta.
A Voice for Men is:
- Pro Male- That means men and boys as a monolithic group, without consideration to race, creed, color, religion, lack of religion or sexual orientation. Racists, religious elitists or the anti homosexual obsessed need not apply.
- Anti-feminist- AVfM regards feminism as a corrupt, hateful and disingenuous ideology based in female elitism and misandry. And AVfM regards all self proclaimed feminists as agents, unwitting or otherwise, of that hate and corruption.
- Anti Marriage- this site supports the marriage strike and post marriage culture. There will be no articles posted in favor of the institution, or inferring to young men that it is a safe endeavor.
- Pro Male Reproductive Rights- AVfM supports the concept of Legal Choice for Men (LC4M), which would allow men to unilaterally reject parental obligations during the same time a woman is allowed to obtain a legal abortion. AVfM takes no actual moral stand on abortion, save recognizing the fact that the repeal of Roe v Wade would result only in a massive spike in entitlements for women, dysfunctional children and a commensurate increase in court enforced slavery for men.
- Anti Chivalry- AVfM supports the idea of total and complete equality of opportunity between the sexes. Chivalry is a form of sexism that works both against the well being of men and the credibility of women. No articles at AVfM supporting chivalry will be published.
- Apolitical- AVfM rejects the current political paradigm, accepting that it is misandric on all fronts. AVfM will not endorse ANY political candidate, of any party, though articles may address misandry or the lack of it in certain political figures or activities. On this site, Republicans, Democrats, Labour, Conservative and Liberal parties are all viewed as equally worthless, and their partisan followers as equally brainwashed.
- Anti Proselytizing- No articles will assert religion of any kind as a solution to men’s issues, though articles pointing to the coercion of religion on men may run as submitted.
- Anti Traditional- AVfM articles, in general, will reject traditional values where they apply to expectations of men. This includes, but is not limited to men’s roles as protectors and providers. At AVfM each man is free to define his own masculinity outside, and in total indifference to the expectations of others. There is no such thing as a “real” man, except as defined by the individual.
- Anti-violent- AVfM supports only peaceful change on all levels of human interaction; social, political and otherwise.
- Pro Free Speech- In this, there is a distinction between editorial and commenting policies. All manner of dissent and expression, with the sole exception of violence, or the ideation of violence, will be tolerated. Some conditions on this will be explained in the comments policy.
The comment policy is simple. Threats, advocacy and ideations of violence are strictly verboten. All other manner of speech is allowed unless it becomes disruptive to the continuity of discussions.
Of course, there will be those from time to time that post comments bashing men, women, gays, transgender, racial slurs, anti-Semitic or other similarly ignorant and misguided ideas. If you are one of those people, you will be treated like to moron that you are, and you will get booted when your painfully stupid ideas become a distraction. More simply put, you will be used as the community piñata till we get tired of you and then you will be shown the door for derailing. That’s how we roll.
The editorial policy does not apply to comments. Readers are free post any and all ideas in dissent of published articles or the comments of other readers. The only exception to this will be the “redundancy” exception. For instance, if you want to assert that “real” men do not support LC4M, fine, post away. But if your posts become a repeated diatribe, incessantly repeating your objections after they have been vetted by other readers, then an intervention from management could occur. The same goes for mainstream politics, chivalry, religion and other matters. Also, personal attacks will not be tolerated, and the response will be anything from a warning to a banning. While we strive hard not to, we may also occasionally declare some conversations too far off topic to be allowed to continue.
You have a right to be heard here, but not a right to derail every discussion with your agenda.
Management will strive to use as much constraint as possible in enforcing these policies. It is unavoidable that a certain amount of subjectivity will play into decisions. This cannot be avoided. But it will be AVfM policy to support the unrestricted speech of its readers wherever possible.
Addendum: 12/09/2013 After some questioning about the comment policy, AVFM management determined that clarification on certain aspects of commenting was needed. The following provisions have been added:
Special policy on decorum and derailment
At AVFM we encourage healthy and robust debate and invite thoughtful and respectful dissent, both from the opinions expressed by our article contributors and from fellow commenters on the site.
We also insist that debate and disagreement does not include ad hominem, personal attacks or the intent to derail threads with either an agenda not germane to the OP or with “badgering” a point to the degree that it undermines the quality of the environment or the unity of the activist community.
Obviously, measuring standards along these lines is a subjective affair and not everyone will be pleased with management decisions, but so that readers know, our great tendency will be to err on the side of decorum. Derailing and overt disrespect, particularly of activists that are doing the hard work on the behalf of our cause, will not be tolerated.
Also, if a member of management asks you to not belabor your point or otherwise beat a dead horse, please heed their request. Ignoring that request won’t be allowed.
If you have received a warning from a member of the management team, and have been referred to this page as a result of one or more of your comments, please be advised that this has happened to encourage you to understand these policies and avoid banning from the site.