How often has this happened to you? You’re reading a thoughtful blog post or comment from a Men’s Rights Activist and you find yourself thinking:
“Gosh! This post or comment on how women are a bunch of malevolent parasites/men are the real slaves if you think about it/women were never oppressed because they could just get maids to clean the house is so witty and wise. I only wish it were 50 times longer, and that I had to pay money to read it!”
Well, I’ve got good news for you: Now you can!
A Voice for Men, having already given the voiceless male gender a way to express itself online, has now launched A Publishing House for Men to give them a way to express themselves in book form!
Well, e-book form.
A Voice for Men’s new publishing house has just published its first book – well, e-book — a slim volume of thoughts on Men Going Their Own Way, written by Peter Wright of Gynocentrism.com with help from AVFM’s Paul Elam, using some material already published online!
Well, technically speaking, this is a relaunch. AVFM Press originally launched last October with the publication of this same book. But Elam decided to call a do-over. No, really.
On October 25th, you see, a bulletin on AVFM proclaimed that AVFM Press was publishing Go Your Own Way: Understanding MGTOW — an e-book it predicted would be but “the first of what will surely become a lengthy series of ebooks (and some hardcovers as well). … let’s get AVFM Press on the map as the iconic source for true red pill appetites.” (A source for appetites? I thought the source for appetites was an empty stomach?)
One day later, Elam announced that he was recalling the e-book.
What I have discovered … is that there were several procedural, legal, and formatting errors that should have been addressed before launching the book.
I made a whole bushel of lemons, folks, and the fault for that lies squarely on me.
But I do make some pretty good lemonade, which I am in the midst of doing as we speak.
I have pulled the book from Amazon Kindle for the time being, and I am removing purchase links from every place they now exist.
After the deficiencies with the product have been corrected, it will be re-launched at a level of quality that AVFM readers deserve, which is the very best possible. All the other issues will be corrected as well.
Please accept my apologies for the mistakes. This whole process of publishing is quite complicated, actually.
It is, Paul, it is.
Happily, Elam announced, the eager customers who’d hurried to buy a copy of the defective book on its first day of publication would be given a copy of the corrected book when it came out. All twelve of them.
That last bit isn’t a joke; according to Elam himself, there were literally twelve of them – less than half the number of those on AVFM’s masthead.
Elam also decided to call a do-over on AVFM Press itself – or at least its name — declaring that
AVFM Press is actually a working title for our publishing arm and will likely change very soon.
But now all the details have been sorted out, right? Well, mostly.
Yesterday’s big announcement on the launch – the real launch, this time – of AVFM’s new publishing house did not actually provide a name for the venture. At least not one that I could find. On Amazon, the publisher of the revised edition of Go Your Own Way is still listed as AVFM Press.
But never mind, because the book is getting rave reviews on Amazon!
For example, a woman named Suzy McCarley declares that the book “was worth the wait!”
Ok, so McCarley is an AVFM staffer who’s given 5-star reviews to everything she’s reviewed — from self–published books by manosphere blogger Aaron Clarey to Avalon Extra Moisturizing Fragrance Free Conditioner. But not all of the rave reviews are written by AVFM staffers under their own names. For example, a fellow calling himself xtime Past gushes:
There is great content for Men and Women of all ages. Most of red pill are apprehensive in reading this book since Paul Elam is a part of the MHRA arm of the manosphere. The read is great for MGTOW to better understand going their own way.
So I would like to congratulate AVFM’s Possibly Still Unnamed Publishing House for Men Who Don’t Write Good for getting off to such a strong start, at least if you ignore that first start that didn’t go so well.
During AVFM’s last donation drive, Elam declared that:
This year will see AVFM go into commercial ventures that will fund even more activism. I cannot go into any details at this point, but rest assured it is coming, and as with most everything else we have set out to do, we are going to pull it off. This track will ease the pressure on some of our larger donors who have always seen us through donation drives.
AVFM’s Possibly Still Unnamed Publishing House for Men Who Don’t Write Good is the first of these new money-making ventures. Because as everyone knows, a vanity publishing house that so seriously fucks up its first e-book launch that it has to do it over again two months later is pretty much guaranteed to be a massive cash-generating machine.
It kind of needs to be, as AVFM’s last donation drive (which just ended) didn’t do quite as well as Elam had hoped, at least according to this little thermometer graphic posted on AVFM.
I can only assume that authors will be rushing to sign up with AVFM’s Possibly Still Unnamed Publishing House for Men Who Don’t Write Good, so that AVFM’s Possibly Still Unnamed Publishing House for Men Who Don’t Write Good can put its name (which may be changed) on their ebooks – and take a share of the profits, if any, hopefully without introducing too many formatting errors in the process.
No, I can’t see how this could possibly go wrong.
Kudos, Paul!
“You should go post your story on the #NotAllMen tag, where you’ll find the support and love you need to get through what must be a trying time”
I know, right – what was I thinking, bringing that up? Mansplainer!
It’s only friends and reputation at the place I earn a living after all.
But but but what will Jemaine do on Wednesday nights?
Wednesdays are Totally False No Really I’m Definitely Not Lying About This Sexual Harassment Almost Charges night.
I think you are misinterpreting “advice” with “demands”. Probably deliberately. A man doing those things because he doesn’t want women to feel threatened by him is not the same as a hypothetical feminist police forcing men to do those things. The fact that you feel taking the fears of women into account and taking steps to mitigate them is a terrible, unfair burden already tells me loads about what kind of a man you are.
I’m going to assume that you are not here in good faith. I think you’re just another “but… but… Schrödinger’s Rapist!” troll. You have not even tried to understand the sentiment behind the concept, just taken to the typical MRA knee-jerk reaction about the sad state of affairs that women have to be afraid of men as being something feminists want. That’s really willfully stupid.
Newsflash: Feminists aren’t calling for any kind of segregation between men and women. The vast majority of feminists like men; in fact, many feminists are men (like the owner of this blog, and yours truly). It’s petty, sexist douchebags and misogynistic asswipes we’re not so fond of.
As for your anecdote: Assuming you’re not being biased in your analysis of the situation*, yes, people are complicated, and people can be assholes, regardless of gender. What is even the point of this anecdote? That women shouldn’t be allowed to report male behavior that they find threatening because someone might act petty? The fact that you bring this up only suggests that you hate that women can have support networks they use to keep boundary-ignoring creeps away from them.
Assuming that you’re a genuinely nice guy and not a creepy guy who sends unwanted messages to a woman who clearly wants nothing to do with him, this is what the concept of Schrödinger’s Rapist is all about; Women aren’t mind readers, so they have no way of knowing whether an individual man is a rapist or not. Since the consequences of making the wrong choice are so much worse if they assume that a rapist is a non-rapist, it’s better to play it safe. And a man insisting on pushing a woman’s boundaries is a perfect example of behavior that raises more than a few warning flags.
Also, why is accepting a Facebook friend request such a conflicting signal for you? Maybe she’s socially awkward as well? Maybe she didn’t want you to keep pestering her for not accepting the friend request? I’m very socially awkward, and I have frequently accepted friend requests from people I’m not that fond of because I don’t want to deal with the real-world drama of not accepting them. And since I’m a man, I’m not even remotely in danger of an entitled, angry person turning threatening towards me for not giving them the time of day, something they view as a personal insult. This is something women have to fear daily.
*Which I don’t actually believe; considering your enormous fail in comprehending fairly clear-cut, easy to understand feminist positions, I wouldn’t count on you trying or even wanting to understand why your “awkward” messages might make a woman uncomfortable (and your likely refusal to accept that if she doesn’t message you back, it’s a sign that you should stop). If you are truly conflicted, I suggest you review your messages again, and try to see why there might be an issue with them. Don’t assume women are too stupid to understand subtext; they’re not.
Why is this dude friending random female coworkers anyway? If he’s in a media related job then that makes sense, otherwise I really see no reason to be Facebook friends with people at work unless you’re close outside the workplace.
I’m assuming half a dozen awkward attempts at conversation equals half a dozen creepy come ons. Notice he said it was non threatening. He didn’t say he wasn’t hitting on her. I’m also assuming that almost accused of sexual harassment means a she asked him nicely to leave her alone and when that didn’t work it was leave me alone or I’m going to HR.
I’m still waiting to hear how almost accusing someone differs from not saying anything…
Since I’m not getting an answer I’m going to guess she saw you couldn’t accept a soft no, so she finally gave you a hard no and asked you to stop with the creepy behaviour.
ninjaed by WWTH!
If you’ve made multiple attempts to talk to someone and they’re not responding, chances are they don’t want to talk to you. This is the case regardless of whether or not either of you is interested in sex with the other. Even shy people will make some effort to respond if they like you and want to get to know you, so if you’re continually trying and getting nothing back? That person doesn’t want to be friends with/date you, leave them alone.
But not wanting to talk to a man is misandry and the same thing as accusing him of rape!
My favorite part was how pissy he was about the fact that she had friends and a support network. How dare she! How dare other people? The sex dispensing machines are for fucking, not making friends with!
^^:
You guys are a lot better at this than I am. My troll-trix bag stops at patronizing comments and thinly veiled insults.
Your style is great though Mewens. It adds to the rich tapestry of troll-baiting.
@Anarchonist
“Also, why is accepting a Facebook friend request such a conflicting signal for you? Maybe she’s socially awkward as well? Maybe she didn’t want you to keep pestering her for not accepting the friend request? I’m very socially awkward, and I have frequently accepted friend requests from people I’m not that fond of because I don’t want to deal with the real-world drama of not accepting them. And since I’m a man, I’m not even remotely in danger of an entitled, angry person turning threatening towards me for not giving them the time of day, something they view as a personal insult. This is something women have to fear daily.”
That occurred to me, although she was leaving soon so the potential for drama was limited. And it is *just* a friend request – anyone can (entirely reasonably) claim their profile is limited to close friends and family and leave it at that.
I hope you’re not being completely bigoted and assuming anger and entitlement occur one way. Oh, the number of times I’ve seen women react to any perceived slight with anger, extreme bitterness, profound resentment over the smallest thing like me not returning a smile (I’m awkward too)…
There can be no solution to ‘Schrodinger’s Rapist’, that’s why it’s such a powerful tool for feminism. There will always be an average size difference. Rape will always be an inherently difficult crime to prosecute bar extreme changes to the legal process (such as defining all sex as rape and all non-virgin men rapists by default). It’s hard to argue against, but it’s also used as an emotive rhetorical tactic which is why any fair minded person should be wary of it. And yes, it can and is used to conceal truly asshole type behaviour, such as women conveniently using their supposed fear to justify relational aggression against someone they simply *do not like* rather than feel genuinely threatened by.
As for why I friend requested her, most of my friends are also co-workers, including women. I didn’t think it would be a problem and there was no indication about her real attitude, such as negative body language or obvious avoidance. What should have been just been a minor faux pas turned into something I lost friends over (admittedly a minor complaint in the grander scheme).
‘the “harassment” amounted to half a dozen awkward but non-threatening attempts at conversation over 6 months’
Here’s a thing I never get…how did we even get up to half a dozen? If she didn’t respond the first time, or even the first couple of times, why would anyone keep trying? There must be other people in the world to talk to. What was so amazingly special about this one person that he felt he had to keep bugging her?
I think I know at least one answer to that question–the specific person is immaterial, but not responding is simply not done. I get to choose who I interact with, not the person I select–I get to make the decision, not her.
Such a surprise that your former friends chose the other person over you. Truly, the reason why this happened is a mystery that can only be explained by elaborate conspiracy theories about feminists wanting to ban sex.
Didn’t this site once host a troll named “bored with your schtick”? I seem to recall their eventually being banned for excessive tediousness (the irony!), an end to which our friend Games seems likewise destined.
Sealion.
That’s all I have to say: we have found a sealion. And not the clever, adorable, fisherman’s menace kind.
There is a solution – for rape and other male violence to be so reduced that women no longer have to make those sorts of calculations. Or had the idea that men could stop raping, hurting and hating women not occur to you?
I used to have such a crush on Jermaine Clement. How many misandry points do I get for preferring him over the elven Bret McKenzie? Lots? Hopefully lots.
For sir trollsalot: ‘Schrodinger’s Rapist’ is a way to discuss how women are blamed for everything. If a woman ignores a man (much like your colleague) she is a cold hearted bitch. If a woman smiles at a man and is later assaulted by said man, well, she shouldn’t have lead him on. Rapists don’t have flashing neon signs declaring themselves to be so. ‘Schrodinger’s Rapist’ doesn’t say all men are rapists, it says there’s no way of knowing until it’s too late.
@boredgames: The solution to “Shchrodinger’s Rapist” is for decent, non-threatening men to recognize that creepy men exist in our world, and they pose a legitimate threat to women, and they do not have giant flashing “CREEP ALERT” signs over their heads. It’s to understand and respect that women do not have to interact with, or feel safe with, men they do not know and trust. It’s to be willing to do small things like, “Hey, you go on ahead, I’ll catch the next lift”, to signal that you are on Team Keeping Women Safe. It’s about not treating it like a grave injustice that women feel uncomfortable, when all that means for you is that perfect strangers don’t automatically think you’re cool, while what it means for them is that they are actively trying to avoid being harassed/followed/groped/worse.
If average, nice men will actually be okay with women having boundaries, and respect them, without making them defend their every boundary, it erodes the culture that predatory creeps rely on to operate, leading to fewer predatory creeps operating, fewer getting away with it, and thus, women who no longer have to be as vigilant around strange men.
It’s hard to argue against because it is sound—there are an alarming number of sexual predators in our culture, and they look just like perfectly kind, reasonable dudes. Women should not be obligated to trust strangers. That’s pretty much the gist of it.
Of course there are emotions involved in it, because getting assaulted is pretty friggin emotionally truamatizing. So is getting yelled at and lectured for not smiling, for not taking a compliment, for not wanting to have a conversation.
If an argument is sound, it doesn’t matter if emotions are involved or not. Does the logic hold? (It does.) Is the premise reasonable? (It is.) Then that’s all you need.
Holy moly. How exactly to you expect to be able to suss out who is genuinely fearful in any given situation, and who is just faking it for an excuse not to talk to you? What evidence do you have that women would even fake fear to begin with? Even if they’re not afraid, isn’t it pretty reasonable for women to not be friendly to people they don’t like? What even *is* “relational aggression”?
The upshot of this quote means: “Women can arbitrarily not be friends/friendly with people”. And, yeah, that’s kind of intrinsic to being an independent human being. Women are not obligated to be friends with everyone who wants to be; nor are they obligated to be nice to everyone. Sure, some of them will be insufferable poopheads in the process, but that’s not your problem.
If you’re talking about your coworker, whom you describe as paranoid, paranoia is, by definition real fear. There is a chance it’s not a rational fear, but even if we assume so, anyone who has it still has the full right to decide who they do and don’t associate with. They have the right to tell certain people to leave them alone. They have a right to be alarmed and to get help if said people will not leave them alone.
Look, you can talk about inconsiderate, jerky, mean women all day long, but unless they are on a wide scale actually successfully getting men arrested and convicted for nothing at all*, actually getting men fired for nothing at all*, or actually making daily life physically unsafe for men, they are simply not your problem.
—————————————
*Note: “Nothing at all” means “Literally doing nothing that is against the law and/or company policy”, not “But I didn’t mean it like that / It was just a joke / Oh come on, it wasn’t that bad”
Very funny blog and insightful comments!! Once in a while you have to have a laugh at these people or you just feel depressed by them. And the irony of needing a book to tell you how to “go your own way”. Growing up, I just relied on my brain for that!! 🙂
I will admit, I’m curious to know what exactly is in the book, but I doubt it’s going to be anything we haven’t seen 50 times over. I’m also not willing to support AVfM just to satisfy my curiosity.
In response to the troll… Well, everyone else has already covered it.
Still, I find it interesting how many people take offense to the concept of Schrodinger’s Rapist. No one is entitled to anyone else’s time and attention in the first place, so why is it a problem if women decide they’d rather not interact with a man* for whatever reason? You can whine that it’s not fair all you want, but you can’t say women should be forced to give men the time of day whether they want to or not.
Either they don’t actually know what Schrodinger’s Rapist is (beyond “women think all men are rapists!!!111 all the misandry!!”) or they feel entitled to women’s attention regardless of whether she feels comfortable or even safe around them.
At worst, he’ll have one less friend and might be a bit annoyed/upset that someone assumed the worst of him. At worst, she’ll get sexually assaulted. Big difference there.
*This applies to everyone, by the way. No one is entitled to anyone’s time/attention regardless of gender, but my comment is specifically discussing Schrodinger’s Rapist. I’m only adding this note because I don’t want any sealions replying with “oh so men should assume the best of women, but women should assume the worst of men?!” because that’s not what I’m saying.
Nope, I really think you’re projecting. If I was to make a guess, I’d say you don’t like yourself very much, and make your judgements of other peoples’ reactions based on how you perceive yourself, i.e. negatively.
I’ve been there. I’m one of the people who interpreted laughter in my presence and weird glances in my general direction as people laughing at me, not at some unrelated event or joke in my vicinity. Then I grew up and learned that not everything is about me. Also, even when I was at my most bitter, I realised that my loneliness may not have been my fault originally, but it was still my problem that I had to deal with, it was nobody else’s responsibility to “fix” me. It seems you have swallowed an unhealthy amount of MRM conspiracy theories, and as a result, you externalize your bitterness.
I might also make other guesses, but I’ll leave it at that.
And, as I said, gender does not dictate who is an asshole. However, the problem feminism quite rightly points out is that men are socially conditioned to act like assholes. Acting like a jerk who doesn’t care about other people is considered a virtue in masculine behavior, “an alpha move”, so to speak. Contrast that with women being taught to be quiet, submissive, to always put other peoples’ needs above their own etc., and you may understand the statistical difference between violence against women by men and violence against men by women.
What a load of bullshit. Where do I even start?
1) There can be a solution to Schrödinger’s Rapist: To eliminate rape culture by eliminating the harmful beliefs and attitudes society has about men, women, sex and expecially rape. To call out rape apologism, to point out sexism wherever it happens, to get rid of dangerous ideas such as “boys will be boys”, to teach boys and men not to rape and not to make excuses for other men who do, to make politicians and the authorities to actually take rape seriously as a crime, to stop slut shaming and other ways society polices women’s behavior in order to excuse rapists are just some of the steps we can take.
If you believe rape will always be a prevalent problem in society and that nothing can be done about it, you are part of the problem.
2) Feminism is not a conspiracy, dumbass. Listen, I remember the time when I believed in conspiracy theories. I was a religious fundamentalist and a scared kid refusing to grow up and leave my childish things behind. It felt like the whole world was out to get me. It was terrifying, I get that. Amplify that with having grown up a shut-in with barely any social skills whatsoever, and you have a recipe for disaster. In order to grow up, I had to understand that not everything is about me. People aren’t out to get me. Conspiracy theories only serve to strengthen your decision never to accept that other people’s lives do not revolve around you.
Anyway, what’s feminism’s goal, if you think it’s such a huge conspiracy? What are its methods, its strategies, governing system, major figures, its methods of keeping things secret from anyone but sooper speshul ppl who can see thru the lies fed to the sheeple, anything? Why is the majority of world leaders men, if feminism is so successful? Have you even thought this through, or are you just knee-jerking here?
3) If you think the problem with rape is that it’s “an emotive rhetoric tactic”, then I think you’re a terrible human being with no empathy for rape victims. Go step in a box of legos.
4) Could it be that the “aggression” you’re seeing from women is only because you refuse to listen to the various polite, soft “noes” until they have to scream at you to fuck off, since such obnoxious behavior would frustrate and anger even a saint? Your commentary up to this point suggests that much.
5) If you think false rape accusations are as huge a problem as rape, statistically and individually speaking, then you’ve reached asshole nirvana, and I’m done with you.
Feminism is nowhere near what you think. Feminism doesn’t teach women that they are superior based on the fact that men are generally more violent. If you believe that, you do not understand the first thing about feminism, but have decided to swallow the MRM lies about feminists hook, line and sinker. Personal anecdote: As a sensitive, empathetic, very unmasculine boy and later man, I’ve faced a lot of bullying in my life. Not by women, but by other men. Understanding feminism gave me the tools to understand why men are socially conditioned to be mean to both women and men who do not conform to the “ideal man” stereotype. It has nothing to do with misandry; it has everything to do with misogyny. If we want to get rid of the various problems presented by the patriarchal system, we need to recognise their inherently gendered nature.
Look, here I am again, responding to you in good faith, because I am a well-meaning idiot.
“ The solution to “Shchrodinger’s Rapist” is for decent, non-threatening men to recognize that creepy men exist in our world, and they pose a legitimate threat to women, and they do not have giant flashing “CREEP ALERT” signs over their heads. It’s to understand and respect that women do not have to interact with, or feel safe with, men they do not know and trust. It’s to be willing to do small things like, “Hey, you go on ahead, I’ll catch the next lift”, to signal that you are on Team Keeping Women Safe. It’s about not treating it like a grave injustice that women feel uncomfortable, when all that means for you is that perfect strangers don’t automatically think you’re cool, while what it means for them is that they are actively trying to avoid being harassed/followed/groped/worse.”
Apply that to another intergroup dynamic then: over here there’s a large Polynesian presence, people overrepresented in the violent crime statistics and on average quite a bit larger than Europeans. Perhaps out of consideration they should cross the road at night to avoid making someone walking alone anxious. Of course that wouldn’t be at all insulting to them; it wouldn’t somehow imply they’re not full members of society… After all it’s just a minor inconvenience.
There’s something about asking members of another group to pre-emptively identify themselves as dangerous and adjust their behaviour accordingly, particular when it’s for the supposed benefit of the person asking them to do that.
I realize these kind of arguments have probably been run through many, many times before so if I’m being tedious it would be nice to get that warning first.