Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AVFM Mission statement

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • AVFM Mission statement

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/policies/mission-statement/
    ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
    virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

    It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
    AVFM Mission Statement
    sigpic

  • #2
    RE: AVFM Mission statement

    Thanks for posting. Always good to refresh. +2

    Comment


    • #3
      RE: AVFM Mission statement

      This needs to be pinned to the top of The Lounge and the In The News forums.

      Comment


      • #4
        RE: AVFM Mission statement

        Seconded. I'm going to put it in my sig.

        Comment


        • #5
          RE: AVFM Mission statement

          Originally posted by victor.zen
          Seconded. I'm going to put it in my sig.
          I just did, good idea.
          ethikē aretē--phronesis--eudaimonia
          virtue of character--practical/ethical wisdom--human flourishing

          It is not a battle to win but an attitude to share.
          AVFM Mission Statement
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            RE: AVFM Mission statement

            I remember reading this when I first starting
            You are either FOR or against Human Rights for ALL human beings. Pick a side - Anja Eriud.

            Not A Feminist: http://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/

            Comment


            • #7
              RE: AVFM Mission statement

              Thanks for posting that. Good stuff. Not sure I agree with everything in point #3 in "Mission Statement" but everything else, yes.

              Comment


              • #8
                RE: AVFM Mission statement

                Originally posted by Vance
                Thanks for posting that. Good stuff. Not sure I agree with everything in point #3 in "Mission Statement" but everything else, yes.

                What do you "not agree with" and why?
                You are either FOR or against Human Rights for ALL human beings. Pick a side - Anja Eriud.

                Not A Feminist: http://mensrightsarehumanrights.wordpress.com/

                Comment


                • #9
                  RE: AVFM Mission statement

                  Originally posted by Eriu
                  What do you "not agree with" and why?
                  Specifically I don't agree with this: "Recognize the institution of marriage and the family unit as the foundation of civilized society."

                  If I say that X is the foundation of Y, that means without X, Y would fall apart or be unable to exist. I think civilized society can exist without the institution of marriage. Therefore, I cannot believe that it is the foundation of civilized society.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    RE: AVFM Mission statement

                    I have to say, this is a mission statement I pretty much totally agree with. Basically, it's intellectual, honest, and truthful with regard to what society is like and what feminism does. I remember first feeling something was badly wrong with feminism when I watched the Clarence Thomas hearings with Anita Hill. First, I almost didn't even believe what she was complaining about since that appeared to be freedom of speech. Then it was appalling to see how the year after she did her thing was labeled "the year of the woman," all of which was a big way for the media to try to send a message to women that manufacturing accusations against them was THE TICKET to all sorts of lush rewards, pomp, and circumstance and positive attention.

                    Society should not be "making amends" to all women just because one particular women may have gotten the short end of the stick at some point. Such a precedent would encourage some women to feel they can exploit the abuse of other women for their own personal benefit, without even helping the victims. Aka, bad thing happens to one woman =====> we absolve our guilt by making it up to and rewarding a different woman.

                    I had, by then, had enough opportunity to observe the workings of government and government bureaucracy to fully know and understand the horrible potential for abuse to occur here with false accusations and kangaroo courts. I just knew, for society to try to encourage women to engage in this kind of institutional abuse of men en masse for money was one of the most vicious things that ever could be done. I mean, the way it works, most people don't abuse the system. Still, to deliberately set up a system and design it so as to encourage and enable abuse and the infliction of suffering like this is positively evil.

                    The question, of course, is why.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      RE: AVFM Mission statement

                      Originally posted by Vance
                      Originally posted by Eriu
                      What do you "not agree with" and why?
                      Specifically I don't agree with this: "Recognize the institution of marriage and the family unit as the foundation of civilized society."

                      If I say that X is the foundation of Y, that means without X, Y would fall apart or be unable to exist. I think civilized society can exist without the institution of marriage. Therefore, I cannot believe that it is the foundation of civilized society.
                      The mission statement is saying that family and marriage have historically been operating in conjunction to, yes, set the basis for civilization. Granted, marriage is not a necessary or sufficient condition for building society, but pair bonding does aid survival given how difficult it is to raise a human child.

                      A human being has the longest period of helplessness of all species of the planet, and requires extensive training in highly-nuanced skills to help keep the species alive by growing food and building houses. And while being trained, we will make mistakes and essentially add work for everyone until we get good at what we do. We are complicated, high-maintenance creatures that need tons of time and money to even FUNCTION.

                      If a man has too many women/kids in an agricultural or other survival-oriented context, the risk of ending up with dead family members goes way up. Too many cows in a pasture, so to speak. Pair bonding turned out to be a useful arrangement given limited resources, which probably led to its ritualization. That thing we call marriage.

                      Family has been historically considered the basic unit of civilization. The "atom" of human organization. Every child grows up in the presence of some family. The child need not have married parents, or even have two parents of different sexes. Hell, a kid might just have to share a nanny as an orphan. The configuration is arbitrary, which means family is just a concept to a physical manifestation, like "home" is to a house. Family shapes a child, and that child will grow to shape another child.

                      That said, family is pivotal. If all families were dysfunctional or dangerous, I would not be the least bit surprised if things started fucking up on a broad scale. Families can be seen as mini-factories that produce human beings prepared to serve the culture that nurtured them.

                      Needless to say, it's important that any family that decides to organize be allowed to do the best possible job. The quality of our lives do depend on how well families operate. Every person you will ever meet is the product of his or her environment, and you will depend on many of them throughout your life. Would you rather them be fearful and fucked up, or not?

                      If you are going to produce a human, make it a good one.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        RE: AVFM Mission statement

                        Originally posted by victor.zen
                        That said, family is pivotal. If all families were dysfunctional or dangerous, I would not be the least bit surprised if things started fucking up on a broad scale. Families can be seen as mini-factories that produce human beings prepared to serve the culture that nurtured them.

                        Needless to say, it's important that any family that decides to organize be allowed to do the best possible job. The quality of our lives do depend on how well families operate. Every person you will ever meet is the product of his or her environment, and you will depend on many of them throughout your life. Would you rather them be fearful and fucked up, or not?

                        If you are going to produce a human, make it a good one.
                        It's government involvement with 'marriage' and the politicization of personal relationships that is the problem IMO.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          RE: AVFM Mission statement

                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_pastoralism

                          Nomadic shepards often were interspersed with settled families.

                          Historically nomadic herder lifestyles have led to warrior-based cultures that have made them fearsome enemies of settled people. Tribal confederations built by charismatic nomadic leaders have sometimes held sway over huge areas as incipient state structures whose stability is dependent upon the distribution of taxes, tribute and plunder taken from settled populations.[5]
                          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepherd

                          In many societies, shepherds were an important part of the economy. Unlike farmers, shepherds were often wage earners, being paid to watch the sheep of others. Shepherds also lived apart from society, being largely nomadic. It was mainly a job of solitary males without children, and new shepherds thus needed to be recruited externally. Shepherds were most often the younger sons of farming peasants who did not inherit any land. Still in other societies, each family would have a family member to shepherd its flock, often a child, youth or an elder who couldn't help much with harder work; these shepherds were fully integrated in society.
                          http://www.amazon.com/The-Invention-Heterosexual-Culture-Louis-Georges/dp/0262017709

                          If you read the above book, you'll note the profession of a "knight" -- which was quite similar to that of a shepard -- tended to attract a heavily gay following. Particularly when you consider the fact that it wasn't compatible with heterosexual marriage. This association with homosexuality even can be seen in the correlation between how the younger sons of women are MORE LIKELY to be gay than the older sons, and it was the younger sons who tended to be shepards while the older sons stayed with the land/house, married women, and became heterosexual "husbands" with big families.

                          I note how primogenitor resulted in members of the same family being both husbands/landowners/farmers with the younger brothers being nomadic shepards -- that would tend to ameliorate the potential conflict between settled farmers and nomadic shepards.

                          I do know that homosexuality was expected among the military in the Roman Empire, and to such an extent that they had rules regarding the activities a man could (or could not) engage in with a lower class man not of the military aristocracy. Bottom line, though, is society consisted of large families with many children who were STUCK on the land, and then a whole other class of nomadic shepards, travelers, and tradesmen, all of whom you could also call knights since those activities all were involved in transporting and guarding resources. That division of labor is the basis of our modern civilization. Basically, not everyone doing the same thing but some differentiating.

                          In the end, it's almost like the nomadic class of mostly men acted as a bit of a safety net for those families who were stuck on farms immobile. Children, though, were all brought up in families. I think, also, that some women worked as well rather than get married. While those who did get married tended to have large families.
                          [hr]
                          Originally posted by rayc2
                          Originally posted by victor.zen
                          That said, family is pivotal. If all families were dysfunctional or dangerous, I would not be the least bit surprised if things started fucking up on a broad scale. Families can be seen as mini-factories that produce human beings prepared to serve the culture that nurtured them.

                          Needless to say, it's important that any family that decides to organize be allowed to do the best possible job. The quality of our lives do depend on how well families operate. Every person you will ever meet is the product of his or her environment, and you will depend on many of them throughout your life. Would you rather them be fearful and fucked up, or not?

                          If you are going to produce a human, make it a good one.
                          It's government involvement with 'marriage' and the politicization of personal relationships that is the problem IMO.
                          The politicization of personal relationships by feminism all stems from the fact that feminism is a bunch of greedy self interested mercenary interests whose profits all depend on swooping down like vultures all ready to take advantage of the misery of broken or difficult relationships, along with a capitalist system that wants to control the individual lives of people and interfere with relationships all in the interests of atomizing society in ways designed to guarantee a cheap labor force and easy profits.

                          To a large degree one could say feminism = capitalism.

                          It's unlike what some people warn of -- how we should not let "unfettered" capitalism go out of control, but always keep it "in check" by a powerful government interested in maintaining good morals and not letting greed undermine good morals and the family, etc. Unfortunately, feminism is a process whereby capitalists try to infect the government and society in a manner so it becomes a tool of those very same capitalists whose business interests lie in destroying the family, interfering with personal relationships, and creating an atomized labor force easily exploited. Instead of protecting us from excesses of capitalism, feminism is a process whereby the government allows the interests of capitalists to run rough shod over the personal lives of everyone. And becomes a tool for capitalists who want to do that.

                          When you see that, what you realize is, if society used to uphold certain standards of decency and morals, which limited the excesses of capitalism, it wasn't government that was responsible for that, it was a population that voluntarily strongly held onto a certain set of morals and standards of decency.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by dmschlom View Post
                            .....I had, by then, had enough opportunity to observe the workings of government and government bureaucracy to fully know and understand the horrible potential for abuse to occur here with false accusations and kangaroo courts. I just knew, for society to try to encourage women to engage in this kind of institutional abuse of men en masse for money was one of the most vicious things that ever could be done. I mean, the way it works, most people don't abuse the system. Still, to deliberately set up a system and design it so as to encourage and enable abuse and the infliction of suffering like this is positively evil. ....

                            The question, of course, is why.
                            'I had, by then, had enough opportunity to observe the workings of government and government bureaucracy to fully know and understand the horrible potential for abuse to occur here with false accusations and kangaroo courts. I just knew, for society to try to encourage women to engage in this kind of institutional abuse of men en masse for money was one of the most vicious things that ever could be done'

                            here in Australia we have, right up front, The Sex Discrimination Commissioner a feminit quango for shoehorning unearned advantage and impunities to Australian wimyn

                            I thought one of the first missions of this new age sinecure should be to repeal the Family Law Act which set out the creation of our ' Family Law, kangaroo courts -

                            there should be a sign above its portals to guys entering "abandon all hope ye who enter here"
                            Last edited by shaazam; 05-27-2014, 07:22 AM.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X