Categories
a voice for men antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? drama drama kings grandiosity hypocrisy internal debate irony alert kitties men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA narcissism no girls allowed paul elam

Manosphere Civil War: AVFM fires back at the MGTOW rebels. Also, kitty pics.

Dude against dude. Not sure why the dogs are floating in midair.

Manosphere drama is always a bit surreal. You may recall my post the other day about the feud developing between two sites that are regular sources of material for us here at Man Boobz: MGTOWforums and A Voice for Men. As you may recall, the folks at MGTOWforums were working themselves into a lather because AVFM was committing the cardinal sin of allowing women – sorry, “cunts” – to post articles and comments. The horror!

Now AVFM has fired back. In a thread on AVFM’s relatively new forum, head cheese Paul Elam lashes out at the “MGTOW Forum Fuckwits,” declaring them a bunch of shit-stirring “piss ants” and announcing his plans to turn the AVFM forum into MGTOW central.

I see an opportunity here, This forum is very user friendly to MGTOW’s. MGTOW Forums is the largest one of its kind, but it is run by children. I will happily siphon off as many of the men they ban and shame for not measuring up to their cliquish little band of alpha wannabe’s as I can.

God knows [MGTOWforums admin] Nacho and his bootlickers run them off as quick as they come in.

AVfM is already a more traveled site than their forum, and as time passes the MGTOW presence here will eclipse their little circle jerk.

Speaking of circle jerks, here’s Paul, in an unrelated thread on his forum, banning a dude for having the temerity to suggest that “Reddit, not avoiceformen.com, is the most important online resource for Men’s Rights Activism.”

BANNED! Nothing must challenge the supremacy of PAUL ELAM!

Naturally, I found out about this by reading about it on MGTOWforums, where A Voice for Men is now being dismissed as — I kid you not — “A Vagina For Manginas.”

Still, the strangest development in this civil war is this: some MGTOWers who’ve been banned from AVFM’s forum have set up an alternative forum of their own, which they’ve rather confusingly named “AVFMforums.” Yes, that’s right, it’s a battle between the AVFM forums and … AVFMforums. How can you tell them apart? Well, when the latter group uses the acronym AVFM they mean “Alternate Voice for Men” rather than the original “A Voice for Men.” Also, the dudes at AVFMforums think that AVFM’s Elam is “a lying hippocrite [sic] with no credibility.”

If this is all a bit confusing, perhaps this brief video clip will help elucidate some of the issues here:

Also, for no particular reason, here are two new pictures of Sweetie Pie Jonus, one of my kittens:

Actually, the combatants in this latest mansophere civil war could learn a thing or two from my kittens. They fight, but always seem to end up licking each other’s heads. The kittens, that is. I’d love to see Paul Elam and his critics doing the same.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

373 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Angela
Angela
8 years ago

“I didn’t dispute the accuracy of that statement; I did dispute its relevance given the passage of the 13th amendment.”

You’re arguing the relevance of a statement that showed Lincoln allowed unions who fought in support of his federal government to keep their slaves for the two years between the proclamation which was to be effective January 1, 1863 and the passing of the amendment in December of 1865?

If the war was about slavery the war should have ended slavery but it didn’t. Instead, human beings were kept as slaves while other people, who happened to be geographically on the losing side, were free.

2-D Man
2-D Man
8 years ago

I’m calling boring troll as boring.

nerdypants
nerdypants
8 years ago

I don’t think Angela’s trolling? (With the qualification that I’m Australian and don’t know US history).

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
8 years ago

Nobody has ever believed in states’ rights as a thing. NOBODY. It doesn’t make any sense–sure, there are good arguments for local control, especially in a large, diverse country like the US, but states can’t have rights because they are arbitrary political entities. Nobody who argues for states’ rights actually believes in states rights’. Example number one: the fugitive slave act. It’s only supporters claimed they were for “states’ rights” but what they were really for was slavery.

Also, you are going to make a big deal out of two years between the Emancipation Proclamation and the thirteenth amendment, I’d like to point out that (a) the Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order under the President’s role of commander-in-chief, and therefore had minimal bureaucratic blue tape (this is also why it didn’t apply to the slave states that didn’t secede), (b) four of the border states outlawed slavery before the war ended, and (c) two years is actually quite quick for a constitutional amendment.

katz
8 years ago

When a troll melts down and then gets banned, it’s Cusser’s Last Stand.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
8 years ago

nerdypants–The “the civil war wasn’t about slavery” is kind of a hot-button issue in the US.
I think it is a remnant of racist history teaching trying to play down the legacy of slavery and racism in the US–we didn’t go to war over black people, we went to war over states rights–so promoting the theory isn’t just neutral jousting over history in the US, but parroting racist narratives even if unwittingly.

A really interesting take is from “Lies my Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen, which is that the South seceded because of fear of abolition, and the North started fighting to preserve the Union, but switched to ending slavery because it was more motivating–which is why four of the border states voted to end slavery during the war without any push from the federal government.

Nova
Nova
8 years ago

The Tampoffs… LMAO!

The discussion on slavery is really freaking interesting. The only things I know about it was that slavery was legal in the US for a period of time. There was a civil war over it and Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. Reading about the nuances and the other factors involved make me wish my school spent more than a couple of weeks on American History.

Angela
Angela
8 years ago

You could argue until you’re blue in the face that it’s either one or the other or both, but saying that NOBODY could believe it could be either or the other is a bit arrogant. I’ve been googling all night. There are as many pro arguments as there are against.

I’m sure you 100% believe in your opinion. But what was left after the civil war, between the Black Codes and the Jim Crowe laws, while not abject slavery, was pretty horrible. The racism, low pay, and second class citizenship enshrined in one horrible law after another remained in place for almost a fifty years after the civil war. It’s a shame that 1/4 of a million people died to change “slave” to “second class citizen with almost no rights to speak of”. Separate but equal is a mockery of all men being created equal.

And that people suffered untold horrible amounts, dying as boys in a cold battlefield over a society that took until 1913 to convict the first white-on-black murder (it’s referenced here, (http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/williams-john-s.htm but with no actual information of the crime and I can’t find any reference of it anywhere else and you can’t prove a negative).

I’m not a person of color, but I am gay. And the idea of being told to wait politely until equal rights to be given to people is a powder keg inside me. White, straight people men of the era told others who were not white, straight and male exactly how much “equal” they could expect to be allowed to enjoy.

2-D Man
2-D Man
8 years ago

I don’t think Angela’s trolling?

That’s fair, nerdypants. But I’m still calling troll because the original claim was:

[I]n fact the civil war didn’t end slavery as slave owning northern states were still allowed to own slaves after the war.

But when confronted with the 13th amendment, it’s mutated into:

Lincoln allowed unions [sic] [states] who fought in support of his federal government to keep their slaves for the two years…

It also should be noted that the 13th amendment passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate before the war actually ended. Only the dumbest slave-holders in the union would have thought they’d get to keep their slaves. Angela is trolling.
Also note the bucket-full of red herrings zhe’s puked up in the above comment.

2-D Man
2-D Man
8 years ago

A really interesting take is from “Lies my Teacher Told Me” by James Loewen, which is that the South seceded because of fear of abolition, and the North started fighting to preserve the Union, but switched to ending slavery because it was more motivating–which is why four of the border states voted to end slavery during the war without any push from the federal government.

I wouldn’t quite put it that way. I’d say that the Confederates seceded because D.C. was failing to live up to their constitutional obligation to return escaped slaves to slave-holding states. There wouldn’t have even been a war over that, except that the Confederacy was afraid of the United States condoning terrorism in favour of abolitionism. That fear was legitimized by John Brown, and the Confederates attacked the United States. At that point, it was clear that the two nations could not coexist; war was inevitable, regardless of what rallying cry was issued.

nerdypants
nerdypants
8 years ago

@2-D Man: I see it now in the side-by-side quotes of Angela’s. That’s a definite goal-post shift, though most people are bad at admitting when they get it wrong, and switching arguments is a tactic to save face.

I wish they had polls back then. It would be interesting to know what proportions of whites were against slavery and where they lived. It isn’t clear to me how much political advantage there was in shifting the focus from maintaining the Union to freeing people?

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
8 years ago

IIRC, there were two big issues that lead to emancipation. Both Britain and France had their own interests in North America and would have liked to have seen the South win, since this would have permanently weakened the US. But slavery had recently been abolished in both countries, so by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln basically made it politically impossible for either the British or French to actively assist the Confederacy.

The other matter was that the slaves weren’t just twiddling their thumbs, waiting for things to happen. During the war, they fled North in great numbers, often seeking out Union forces to help free them. Initially, the Union simply sent back any captured slaves, (except for those who were directly engaged on the Confederate war effort, who were considered contraband of war). As time went on, this became approach became untenable, and various Union commanders basically developed their own policies as to what to do, until the sheer volume of the problem forced the hand of the Union government.

So while, initially at least, the Civil War was not about Abolition, there’s a very good argument that the slaves themselves made it be about Abolition, whether the powers that be wanted that or not.

wordsp1nner
wordsp1nner
8 years ago

Sir Bodsworth–I hadn’t heard that interpretation before. I’m not a historian, so I don’t know how settled the “when did the civil war become about slavery for the North” debate is, but that theory sounds really interesting.

(I’d argue that it was always about slavery for the South–even if abolition wasn’t on the table right then, the South had seen the writing on the wall–but I think the North initially just wanted to keep the country together.)

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
8 years ago

@ wordsp1nner – I agree, it was always about Abolition in the South; the North was very reluctant to make it their cause.

jose
jose
8 years ago

Every now and again it’s fun to take a break from planet earth and go see what folks are doing in their amazing parallel world.

Kat
Kat
8 years ago

Hey! Did you write about/ see this one on another split; this time between the gamers and the MRAs?
http://mattforney.com/2012/09/10/we-come-not-to-praise-the-mens-rights-movement-but-to-bury-it/

blitzgal
8 years ago

Ew, that is not “gamer” as in video game, it’s “gamer” as in douchebags who neg while wearing funny hats.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

I was going to say, I’d expect most gamers to respond to “what do you think of MRAs?” with “what’s an MRA?”.

Not that gamers aren’t frequently very sexist, I just don’t think most of them have any idea that MRAs exist, and I think even the most sexist of them would mostly balk at the idea of reintroducing medieval torture devices to get women to stop talking.

blitzgal
8 years ago

Yeah, PUAs do not get to call themselves gamers. That name is taken, thank you very much.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
8 years ago

@blitzgal

I’d suggest Pissant, meaning “an inconsequential, irrelevant, or worthless person, especially one who is irritating or contemptible out of proportion to his or her significance”, except now that I think about it, that would probably apply well to MRAs too.

ithiliana
8 years ago

I know others have spoken very well to Angela’s Trollish Arguments (James Loewen’s work is TEH INCREDIBLE), but I just have to say, grrr, argh:

1. The whole History department at my rural Texas university has set as the single most important student learning outcome for the first semester history course that the students understand that slavery caused the Civil War. A huge percentage of students in the South (at least), and Texas for sure, and possibly elsewhere, I don’t know are taught STATE’S RIGHTS, and it’s a racist dogwhistle in this context. Period. I know, appeal to authority, but racism is systemic in the U.S. educational system.

And holyfuckingshit, talk about goalpostshifting:

But what was left after the civil war, between the Black Codes and the Jim Crowe laws, while not abject slavery, was pretty horrible. The racism, low pay, and second class citizenship enshrined in one horrible law after another remained in place for almost a fifty years after the civil war. It’s a shame that 1/4 of a million people died to change “slave” to “second class citizen with almost no rights to speak of”. Separate but equal is a mockery of all men being created equal.

Because one war is supposed to solve all of humanity’s problems? Grow the fuck up.

You’re also ignoring how there were changes made during Reconstruction that disappeared AFTERWARDS because of the white backlash:

http://www.ulm.edu/~ryan/206/documents/jcrow.htm

Yes, Jim Crow a reality. And even today, systemic racism exists.

But on the other hand, as horrible as the backlash was, I imagine that in some minor ways, it was better than slavery–but then as a white person I don’t think I have the right to lay down authoritative shit on the racisms in the U.S.

And the “people are in slavery still” is true–but it’s a fucking stupid argument to use to say that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

Sorry, must go deal with ongoing stuff at work!

Howard bAnnister
Howard bAnnister
8 years ago

And even today, systemic racism exists.

Fun fact! I was just reading about Nixon’s Housing Director. A very principled man who Nixon had to boot because he was trying to deal with systemic racism in housing.

On propublica.org.

George Romney, naturally. Last of a dying breed of Republicans.

(see also What Mitt Romney Learned From His Dad, if you haven’t already seen it)

Falconer
8 years ago

@emilygoddess:

@Falconer, why is Wikipedia an Octopus? Does “magnificent octopus” = “magnum opus”?

Yeah, it’s a stupid malapropism I picked up from Blackadder III and which has lodged itself in my brain ever since.

White Christian men paid a heavy price to erase the stain of slavery.

Except they didn’t, did they, because the children of the slaves are not on the same footing as the children of the slaveholders even 150 years later, are they?

Rough estimates are 2% of European Christians, 3% of native americans and 40% of European Jews owned slaves.

‘Cause them Jews, amirite? /snark

You’re disgusting.

PsychoDan
8 years ago

Here’s a little quote for ya, “Records show that some Native American women bought African men as slaves.”

Just as a fun little reminder of how incredibly disingenuous NWO is, this is the very next sentence after the one he’s quoting: “Unknown to European sellers, the women freed and married the men into their tribe.”

chibigodzilla
8 years ago

Would it kill any of you to say that maybe, just once in the history of the world, white Christian men did something that didn’t wanna make ya puke?

Yeah! Why aren’t we giving out medals for meeting the baseline of human decency!?

I mean, won’t someone think of all the Christian, white men who haven’t been told “Hey, so your ancestors may not have been racist assholes who were willing to kill/die so that they could go on owning other human beings.”

chibigodzilla
8 years ago

I should note that there are plenty of white, christian men who are/were genuinely good people. It’s just that “not making you wanna puke” is setting the bar pretty fucking low.

In fact, “not supporting slavery in civil-war era America” is also a pretty low bar.

Sarah
Sarah
8 years ago

Slightly off topic, but I was raised in the South, and we spent so much time learning all the wrong things about the civil war. I learned a lot about all the different battles white men fought, about the tragedy of war and of brother fighting brother. I certainly learned about States Rights! I learned about how the men of the Confederacy were noble, even while losing. I grew up visiting battlefields and learning of the thousands of white men who died, and I visited plantations to learn about how white people lived.

Certainly slavery was mentioned, but it was glossed over. The suffering and pain and horrible deaths of millions of people was barely mentioned.

Because the Confederacy was our heritage! We were proud, strong, independent people who built a country on our own backs and fought for our freedom.

So, yes. The Civil War was about slavery, and saying otherwise a massive lie constructed by US school systems trying to glorify the ignoble deaths of our ancestors.

(On a side note, this is part of what disgusts me about the “pulled myself up by my bootstraps” rhetoric espoused by many conservatives. You did not! Stop pretending like no one helped you, you didn’t benefit from other’s labor.)

Rahu
Rahu
8 years ago

And the “people are in slavery still” is true–but it’s a fucking stupid argument to use to say that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery.

Ithiliana – I might be wrong, but I suspect that Angela’s comment was in reference to my earlier one about how there are more slaves in the world today than during the four centuries of the African slave trade (and my implication that people should be concerned about this). I don’t think she was specifically stating that this is connected in any way as to why the Civil War was fought.

Angela replied to me (and, Angela, if you return, I’d love to discuss this with you) that one of the problems with freeing today’s slaves is that it might cost about $150 per person in rehabilitation. My quick response – “yes, and why not free them and spend the $150?”

Full disclosure – fighting human trafficking and raising awareness of it is something I do. I initially wrote this in this thread, not to derail, but to reply to NWO when he made his comment about how people like him erased slavery, and I wanted to point out to him that it’s still alive, strong and bigger than ever, and could really use some help in being erased.

blitzgal
8 years ago

Just as a fun little reminder of how incredibly disingenuous NWO is, this is the very next sentence after the one he’s quoting: “Unknown to European sellers, the women freed and married the men into their tribe.”

Holy shit.

howardbann1ster
8 years ago

@blitzgal: this has been your daily reminder that a well-crafted quote-mine can give you a word for word quote that changes the meaning of the text to mean the exact opposite of what it said.

Brought to you by fundamentalism and the letter A. (for A-hole)

2-D Man
2-D Man
8 years ago

Actually, Rahu, Angela’s specific claim was that the slave-owning Union states were allowed to keep their slaves after the American Civil War. Actual quote:

[I]n fact the civil war didn’t end slavery as slave owning northern states were still allowed to own slaves after the war.

This is about the American Civil War, and specifically about slavery carrying on in the United States after said war.

The states-rights defense of the Confederacy is a lie and it doesn’t matter if Angela was spreading that lie due to ignorance, stupidity, insanity, or dishonesty; the lie has to be called out as a lie.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

David, do you smoke weed around your kitties? Sweetie Pie looks high as a kite in the photo where she has her eyes closed.

Rahu
Rahu
8 years ago

2-D Man – I wasn’t talking about the rest of what Angela wrote regarding slavery in America before, during and immediately after the Civil War. I was only talking about her comment on modern-day slavery.

2-D Man
2-D Man
8 years ago

Ah, fair enough.

chibigodzilla
8 years ago

I think the whole question of why the American Civil War was fought gets muddled by the fact that the Union didn’t initially pronounce that it was about abolition for fear that the remaining slave states (Kentucky, West Virginia, et al) would join the Confederacy and tip the balance in favor of the Confederates.

Shaenon
8 years ago

Here’s a little quote for ya, “Records show that some Native American women bought African men as slaves.”

Just as a fun little reminder of how incredibly disingenuous NWO is, this is the very next sentence after the one he’s quoting: “Unknown to European sellers, the women freed and married the men into their tribe.”

Oh my gosh, ULTIMATE NWO MOMENT.

From now on, whenever he tries to post, I will reply with this.

Falconer
8 years ago

Is one of those guys’ super dogs in the post picture called Poodle? He’s saying, “To him, pudel!”

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
8 years ago

I would reckon – poodles were popular dogs at court.

Pear_tree
Pear_tree
8 years ago

So from the BBC documentary I watched (which also pointed to a lot of racist comments from Lincoln) said that states’ rights was used at the time (as well as now I guess) for the right to keep slaves. The idea of states’ rights and slavery was apparently synonymous. I don’t know how true this is as I don’t know what other “rights” states consider important. However given the use of states rights today seems to mean banning abortion and not letting gay people marry it wouldn’t surprise me. So I guess what I mean is can someone explain states’s right in terms of it’s good points.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
8 years ago

Yes, “states’ rights” is a grubby phrase to me, given the things it’s currently used for. Funny how the No Big Gummint types are perfectly happy to have Big Gummint when it’s a state turning its power against the vulnerable “Other”.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
8 years ago

I’m pretty sure it’s because when government intervention benefits them, they don’t see it as government intervention. Tax benefits for (heterosexual) married couples? Well, that’s just the natural order of things! State schools? That’s the way things are! Sanitation systems? They probably don’t consider that those are at least partially government projects.

If you took those things away on the grounds of “you don’t like government interferance, rugged individualism, Ayn Rand hooray!” they’d start whinging about how unfair it is, and probably never think that it’s equally unfair that gay people don’t get to marry (or whatever their pet ‘states rights’ issue is).

pillowinhell
pillowinhell
8 years ago

Of course Slavy is minimizing todays slave trade. The majority of todays slave trade is composed of women and children.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
8 years ago

Yes, in Owly’s world, that’s how things are supposed to be anyway.

ithiliana
8 years ago

@Rahu: I’m sorry! Thanks for the clarification–I was skimming waaaay too fast.

katz
8 years ago

Remember, the problem NWO has with slavery is that, if people are owned by the government or by a group of other people, that’s communism.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
8 years ago

“Group” being the problematic part, I presume?

katz
8 years ago

Natch.

Rahu
Rahu
8 years ago

@ithiliana – no prob! 🙂

chibigodzilla
8 years ago

“States’ Rights” is easier to remember than “Doctrine of Nullifications

pecunium
8 years ago

Angela: But more importantly, slavery might have been the fourth grade test answer to why the Civil war was fought. Those precious white Christian men died over states rights, and in fact the civil war didn’t end slavery as slave owning northern states were still allowed to own slaves after the war.

Yeah… the rights of people in those states to own slaves. They made a big deal of it in the months they spent campaigning for secession while Buchanan (the worst president in the history of the US) failed to do a damn thing to stop them.

And no, after the war there was no slavery allowed in the US. It was made part of the constitution, and everything.