Fixing How Some MGTOWs Get The MHRM Wrong (Part One)

By Paul Elam: I recently received an email that was sent to both AVFM and to a prominent MGTOW online forum, regarding the assumed differences between MHRAs and MGTOW. In it, several questions were posed. The way the questions were framed indicated to me that the sender did not have a real horse in the race. His wording was for all appearances unbiased and his attitude genuinely in search of honest answers. He got cordial, fairly detailed responses from both parties.
There was more than one question, all of them cogent and deserving of answers. I will take one at time, answering them all in a series of pieces, hopefully returning the thoughtfulness of his query with commensurate effort on my part to answer in kind.
I do not have permission to reveal this individuals name, or copy verbatim the contents of his email, but I do state this with an open invitation to the writer to come to these comments and point out if I make any mistakes that might mislead readers.
I also note that the answer you see from me here is not verbatim what I sent back in the email. It is an edited and expanded response (for the sake of publication) of what I sent back to the writer, but it does not stray at all from the general intent of what I had to say. Again, the person who contacted me is welcome to appear here to either validate or contradict that as he sees fit.

Paraphrasing as accurately as possible, the MGTOW response asserted that one of the main differences between MGTOW and the MHRM was that MGTOWs did not spend their time negotiating for rights that they believe are inherently theirs for the taking. In other words, MGTOWs are not interested in making a deal with Massa for moving out of the cotton field and into a house job, which brings “better” treatment, clothing and food. Their aim is for leaving the plantation, not for a better position in running it.
This is a point, by the way, that has genuine merit, save the fact that the idea that this differentiates MGTOW from MRHM is ill-informed.
My response, now expanded, was as follows.

This is was pretty good response to you with a couple of caveats. MHRAs do strongly believe that the best choice for men is to make informed decisions that are in their own best interest without depending on changing law or gaining societal approval to back them.
Where your MGTOW responder failed, IMO, is that he does not understand that the greatest majority of MRAs don’t see legislation as a way to solve their problems. Most of us, as do I, believe that asking government to fix your problems is a like asking feminists to end misandry. That is made apparent throughout our literature.
Perhaps it is the simple use of the word “rights” that has thrown your responder off, or perhaps it is something else. But whatever prompted his perception it was not from our actions.
The mainstay of what we do at AVFM is write scathing, inflammatory and often highly offensive commentary that mocks and ridicule misandrists of all flavors. It has literally sent millions of people to this site, many of whom explore what we have to say and why we say it in the way we do. This is how we call more attention to problems faced by men who have never heard an alternative worldview, thus leading more men toward MHRA/MGTOW ideals. For example, we publish commentary exposing the corruption of legislation like VAWA. We have no alternative bill to propose, and are not interested in developing one.
We don’t want a “Violence Against Men ACT,” and a search of that term on AVFM will literally yield you nothing but contempt for the very idea of it. Similarly, we don’t want an “Equal Pay Act” for men or anything else of that ilk.
As you can see though our pages, we do no legislative lobbying, form no political action committees and endorse no political ideologies. We even eschew “left vs right” bickering in the comments precisely for the reasons I just outlined. It is pointless political “right chasing” in which we do not engage.
When we do challenge government officials, we harbor no illusions of it bringing change in government. We even joke in the comments about not holding our breath waiting for answers. The reason for that is simple. We mock and challenge a small amount of government officials in order to humiliate and provoke their ill-considered reaction. When that happens we use their own words for even more fodder to pull readers.
Our aim is not sweeping social or legal reform, but to fuck up and embarrass some really corrupt, misandric people. We then use the media attention to lead more men to MRA and indeed MGTOW.
It does not take a surplus of brain power to figure out that AVFM is just one of many conduits for newcomers to find MGTOW, given the reality that they cannot stay here long at all without being exposed to those ideas in different places in the web.
We do, however, get the occasional opportunity to help individual men by advocating against a corrupt legal system. That is not the same thing as lobbying for laws. For instance in the Vladek Filler alleged rape case we were not only very helpful in his exoneration, but in getting the prosecutor who legally terrorized him sanctioned, and the office that let her go after him voted out on their asses.
That was a huge plus, especially for Mr. Filler, and we are elated at the results. But a more informed eye can see that there was a larger goal in mind than one man’s freedom.
That case brought a lot of traffic here, and unless the laws of averages suspend at this URL, it means that forums and Youtube channels that run purely on MGTOW philosophy also enjoyed the benefits of that work.
Personally, I embrace and advocate MGTOW philosophy, even if I was compelled to come to the conclusion that there are many high profile MGTOW advocates who simply don’t understand what we do or why, thus the faulty ideas you were given in that email.
I also urge anyone reading this to consider that the supposed division between MGTOW and the MHRM, which is evident in some MGTOW communities, could hardly be proven by the heavy population of men on this site who identify as MGTOW yet participate fully as MHRAs. It is just a guess, but my take on the matter is that the “rift” is just a reflection of any given groups need to individuate and separate. It is a part of establishing group identity, which is most cases a healthy thing to do. The relative measure of health is in how you do it. Make of that what you will from the record of it online.”

There were more points brought up in the MGTOW response that I think were not quite hitting the nail on the head. In the days ahead I will cover all of them, even the questions that did not produce a MGTOW reply, one by one.
This is not for the sake of the MGTOW community outside of AVFM, though I wish them well and continued good effort. It is instead, for me, just an opportunity to take a reasonable inquiry from someone who cares about this subject and give them honest answers which may be of use to our MGTOW and MHRM readers.

Author’s note: I am as relieved as anyone that the supersized kerfuffle between AVFM and some elements of the MGTOW community has at least for the time being lost its intensity. That being said, this writing is in no way intended as an insulting shot at the MGTOW community, even the fringe elements of that community which I would term as extremely ideological. That intention will be evident in the text that follows. That said, I will not respond to anyone who plays victim to this article by mischaracterizing it as an attack. PE

About Paul Elam

Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, the AVfM YouTube Channel, and appears weekly on AVFM Intelligence Report, Going Mental with Dr. Tara Palmatier and weekly on MANstream Media with Warren Farrell and Tom Golden.

Source