wa·ter·shed (wô’ter-shed)
n.
1. A ridge of high land dividing two areas that are drained by different river systems. Also called water parting.
2. The region draining into a river, river system, or other body of water.
3. A critical point that marks a division or a change of course; a turning point: “a watershed in modern American history, a time that … forever changed American social attitudes” (Robert Reinhold).
Life, or at least one that is lived with the aim of learning and growing, should be marked by watershed moments that are separated by periods of time spent chasing ideals and dreams, or excellence in life’s pursuits. In fact, I would argue that any life spent in the absence of those ambitions will have few, if any, watersheds.
I suppose that saying that is my own way of trying to convince myself that my own life is not just a straight line, marked by nothing and going nowhere, relegated to the ranks of those who might as well not have existed. While the jury is still out on that one, I do believe I had what I would call a watershed moment.
It was the moment I found out that Earl Silverman had hung himself.
I did not know that it was a pivotal moment at the time. It was, on my first reaction, just a gut wrenching punch that took my breath away. I am still reeling, truth tell, and I may be for a while. Earl was one of the few that spent more time acting than talking and his loss is significant.
The question then becomes what to do with this tragedy.
As I have managed to digest some of the loss; sifting through my anger at an establishment, and a culture, that marginalized and dismissed Earl till he ended his frustration at the end of a rope, I have actually come up not with what I am going to do so much as what I am not going to do any more.
Actually, with one thing I am not going to do any more. I am not going to waste my time. Just as importantly, I am not going to waste yours.
Whether by fate or coincidence, Earl’s death came at a time of unprecedented growth in the M(H)RM. Even as twenty years of frustrated efforts on his part to provide services for male victims of domestic violence ended disastrously, we have also witnessed a groundswell of men and women who are adamantly rejecting the falsehoods of gender feminism and taking a stand against the corruption and tyranny endemic to the ideology.
The growth has brought with it some growing pains, as well, and some other unfortunate complications. Left unchecked, these problems will only sap the finite resources of time and energy available to us that need to be expended on matters that further our mission.
The first problem, as is characteristic for our ranks, comes from within. I have been literally inundated of late with attempts at backstabbing, mostly in the name of furthering personal and political agendas.
Someone in the comments here made the assertion that one of our top tier editors had a hidden political agenda. It is not only baseless, as far as I can tell, but it is also cowardly and destructive. How, pray tell, does a man defend himself against this? How does he prove that he does not have a secret agenda? Well, of course he can’t, which was the point of making the accusation in the first place as far as I am concerned.
It was a conniving and disingenuous attempt to undermine, for, as you might have guessed, the sake of the accuser’s own political agenda.
In another case, one of our senior editors has been accused of being a feminist plant. Again, there is no proof offered; none, just the attempt to slide a shiv into this persons back for the sake of doing it.
First, let me say this. If the editor in question is a feminist plant, PLEASE for the love of god, send me some more feminist plants. The accused in this case has done a great deal more work directly on behalf of men and boys, including some serious FTSU, than the accuser. So if that is what having feminist plants gets AVFM, I want them lining up.
Sadly, in both of these cases there is not a shred of evidence. Even sadder, in both these cases the accusers were known M(H)RAs.
When I said I knew what I was not going to be doing any more in the future, putting up with this kind of pointless, juvenile, time wasting crap is one of them.
So here is a rule going into effect immediately. I invite all conspiracy theorists, would-be snitches and witch hunters to offer clear, irrefutable proof – the beyond a reasonable doubt variety – of their allegations toward fellow M(H)RAs. And I want that proof immediately upon receipt of your accusation. If said theorists, snitches and witch hunters fail to provide said proof, whether the accusation is posted to the comments here, or is received in any other fashion, your affiliation with AVFM and your ability to comment here will be immediately and irrevocably terminated.
This rule applies to all AVFM staff as well. The days when we enable any sort of circular firing squad at this website are done.
Henceforth I am asking all editors and site mods, if you see any comments on this site that amount to an unsubstantiated allegation against any known M(H)RA, please put the comment in moderation for review and advise me of it, regardless of who posted it. Whether it comes from a brand new commenter, or from JTO or myself, put it in moderation till we get it sorted out.
I am also going to take this opportunity to address the subject of partisan politics with readers. It is my estimation, and I think it is a fair one, that AVFM overall takes a fairly balanced view toward politics. That is to say I get complaints all the time that AVFM leans too heavily to the right, usually followed by a complaint that we lean too heavily to the left.
That is our sweet spot. As long as AVFM is pissing off polemicists across the board, I figure we are doing well.
As a matter of complete self-disclosure here, I myself am right of center in the general neighborhood of the small “l” libertarian camp, which of course means that my political beliefs are better than your political beliefs. Or so I think when I am washing down blue pills with mainstream Kool-Aid and fighting with others according to the script provided by the mainstream media.
I also have the general feeling that most but not all of AVFM readers generally lean toward conservative political values.
It does not mean those, or any other political values are going to guide editorial policy. I have shown a couple or three right wingers the door and I will do the same for as many as it takes to keep us safe from political co-opting. And yes, for those of you about to whine, “Hey man! What about left wingers. Are you showing any of them the door, too?”
Uh, yes. I have. And I will do it again if there are here to push politics instead of support activism.
The reason for this is purely practical. We already cut ourselves off from those that would dilute the message by refusing to budge on overtly defying gender ideology. By insisting on a politically neutral stand that simply opposes the violent ideology known as feminism, as well as the utilitarian ideology of many social conservatives, we cast a much wider net into the arena of public opinion.
That leaves people here on the right and the left to each work against misandry in their own way, without allowing them to dictate the activities of the site or the management team.
It is purely practical.
Political divisions and bickering are a stupid blood sport, and usually constitute little more than a blue pill, masturbatory pastime for those hopelessly ensconced in a left-right paradigm that sold them down the river ages ago.
Even if you disagree with this, it is the position we take in relation to trying to accomplishing activism on behalf of men and boys.
And there is little more to say about that. I know there are people on the AVFM team whose political views are different than mine. As long as they are not pushing their personal politics here, and as long as they are doing advocacy (and they ARE), then I will have their back against all comers. Period.
I do ask and insist that everyone recognize that this is not a website for partisan political squabbles, and that I will not allow it to be turned in to one.
There are a couple of other “distractions” that I also intend to put into the rear view mirror today. Effective immediately, I am asking all site editors and mods to immediately remove and/or reject approval on comments from feminists with the standard “patriarchy-penis, feminism helps men, fake wage gap, fake oppression, fake rape epidemic, blah, blah, bullshit” that come to the site to derail threads.
There is a thousand places on the internet to spend time arguing with people who neither want nor care about the truth. I respectfully submit to AVFM readers and contributors that this is not one of them.
I am asking all the editors and mods to handle seagull comments in the same fashion. For those of you that don’t know what a seagull comment is, that is where someone from the outside flies in, flaps around a lot, squawks, and then shits on everything before flying out again. This includes those who register to share their “concerns” about our tone, or with advice on how they would be doing things differently than us if and when they ever actually got off their lazy asses and did anything. Just spam those comments right out of existence.
We will never lose site of the need for critique, but we have ample diversity and actual experience here to provide it without relying on the flimsy ideas of someone doing a drive-by.
I know, for some this will reduce the entertainment value of the comments a bit. To that I can only say that I found the idea of Earl Silverman, dead, hanging from the rafters of a garage, less than entertaining.
We are an activist site, and we are more and more in the future going to be hard-nosed about acting like one. If that bothers anyone, we have plenty we can give you to do to help take your mind off of it.
I am pretty sure Earl would be happy to know you are doing your part.
