[dropcap]I[/dropcap] just posted a fucking article from Manuel motherfucking Dexter that addresses the tone and scope of the cock sucking language in MRM articles, and their ultimate impact on shit-eating mainstream mangina consciousness. This is largely due to the fact that the god damned material on MRM websites is increasingly being used as a teaching aide to help mainstream writers, particularly some of the gynocentric cunts, bitches, feminist fucking whores and piece of shit manginas, cut through their own stupid, fucked-up ignorance and actually start forming refutations of misandry in modern culture, despite what dumb fucking assholes they are.

Language is a tool. So is creative language, when it is creative. “Bad” language is a tool of a different kind. Used effectively, thoughtfully, it is a spice that adds flavour and impact to particular ideas, or to draw attention. Used without discretion, or as a way to vent instead of a way to communicate, it is a toxin that undermines the very points a writer is trying to make.

But best not to dwell on that for now (though I am going to return to it), because the article by Dexter (do you remember that as clearly as the cock suckers and motherfuckers?) was not just a simple critique of language and style, and neither is this follow up.

It is, rather, a needed first step toward a dialog about whether we shape the content on AVfM consciously, to further a mission, or whether we will complacently devolve into a platform for venting and/or a pillar for the whatever-the-fuck-I-want-to-say-damned-the-effectiveness-of-the-message crowd.

I am sure that last sentence might cause alarm in some, and of course you are welcome to be alarmed, but I don’t think it is warranted.

Allow me to give you a scary little peek at the inside of my mind, and what I have always envisioned as “the plan” for AVfM from the time I started it. And remember, I hold the personal record for using the fucking f-word on this site, so hear me out.

The AVfM concept started in earnest some years back with me, still aspiring to use the internet as an MRA platform after a badly failed attempt ten years earlier. I was reading Angry Harry and thinking, “man, this guy is a genius.” He totally understands men’s issues, feminism and very importantly, the potential of the internet. I thought, “When I grow up I want to be just like Harry, but being from Texas I can be meaner and much more vulgar.”

Actually, I didn’t think that last part consciously, at least not the part about Texas. We’re a refined, cosmopolitan bunch round here. 🙂

But anyway, what I was thinking then was that there was still something missing from the online MRM; collective, focused and intense outrage. I don’t mean simply the indignation of people offended by bad thinking and stupid ideas, but angry people, so angry in fact that if you were with them in real life that you’d be hard pressed to do anything but let them talk. They’d be that scary.

There was anger aplenty online, but most of it was undirected, poorly articulated and sometimes puerile. Subsequently a lot of the message fell (and still falls) through the cracks, going largely ignored. It was precisely at the time I connected these dots that I knew that to further the mission to make my work and the future AVfM stand out I had to make “Fuck You” a bit of an art form. I had to say it loud and often and in aggressive tones, but that I also had to back it up with impeccable logic that would lead most reasonable people (all of .5% of the western world) to decide that the “fuck you,” was warranted and indeed a bit of an understatement.

The value of all this is simple. A cogent position that is gaining traction and involves a “fuck you,” will get noticed. And as we were, even as recently as the initial launch of AVfM, still barely a blip on the radar screen, worries about containment, blow back and losing fence sitters were put on the back burner.

Things are not the same as they were when AVfM started. That does not mean we are jumping headlong into change, but it does mean that our awareness of that is critical.

Thanks to the already well-established work of Harry, AVfM and other sites like The-Spearhead and In Mala Fide, we are in fact, seeing the worm start to turn where it concerns the open discussion of men’s rights issues.

We have all been seeing more and more of it in recent times, from the Wall Street Journal to New York Times and even to places like Salon.com, the voices against misandry are rising. There has even been a recent article published from Yale challenging the existence of rape culture, and calling it out for the PC hokum that it is.

This sharp uptick in mainstream coverage of misandry is not accidental. They are reading our sites, our literature, and opening their eyes a bit, as well as getting valuable lessons on how to present arguments against misandric ideals.

We have seen it in other areas as well. Most women’s studies programs have changed their names to gender studies in an effort to conceal the fact that they are female centric. Many, many domestic abuse programs have adopted gender neutral language to justify their services, even though they operate the same way they always have.

Even feminists online have shifted down to more gender neutral language on their websites and have toned down the DIRECTLY anti-male rhetoric.

Simply put, all of them have gone into a type of intellectual hiding. They are covering their misandry in a cloak of phony gender inclusiveness, because the standard, overt line of man-bad – woman-good is experiencing rapidly decreasing popularity.

Why? Because of you! Yes, I totally believe it. The online men’s movement has caused a significant shift in how feminists operate. They are learning that they can’t get away with the same blatancy, even if they can still get away with their misandry under a different guise.

That is the impact that we are having, as predicted, promised and delivered by Harry himself. We are filtering up and as a result of that it will mean even more expansion for us. And a lot of this has happened because we drew attention to our work with an outrage the world was not used to seeing.

But those of you who cursed enough to have had a college intro course on economics will be familiar with the law of diminishing returns. It’s a loose association, perhaps, but I think it’s applicable here. Just because we have gotten to this point on one method does not mean that it is guaranteed to serve us well into the future. In fact, diminishing returns assures us that we will need to adapt and improvise.

The feminists have had to shift strategy to survive, and it is unavoidable that we will have to begin to make adjustments ourselves. When, not if.

Does this mean that we will ban “bad” language? No. Does it mean that we will start censoring articles here, or turning them down because they are too harsh. No.

In fact, I hope the articles are harsher than before. More direct; more in-your-face, in many ways, but hopefully written with the big picture in mind.

This is a time, however, when we need to start asking questions, and answering them as well. For instance, one of the ambitions I have for this website is to continue, with the hard work provided by Bob O’Hara, to grow a legitimate and respectable news department, so that we can get listed with the Google News Index. It’s a move, that if successful, that would likely double our traffic all on its own. And it would greatly increase our influence on the mainstream media.

But of course, if every third sentence on this site has the word “fuck” in it, we are sunk before we start. So we have to question, and the way we do it here is openly: What is in the best interest of our mission?

It is the same question with comments, which I am pledged to manage in the same way I always have. What is in our best interest?

Suppose we run a piece by TDOM, and it goes viral. It would not be the first time. His piece “Legal Insanity” was hit 12,000 times in the first 24 hours it was online, and resulted in a brief shutdown because the site ran over its percentage of CPU limit with that hosting company.

It was a brilliant piece, full of disturbing, uncensored realities; very much in-your-face material. Now imagine that the first comment posted to it was “Great work TDOM! Yeah, fuck all those fucking cunts!”

Thankfully that did not happen, but it could have given some of the comments that end up here. And if we are going to value the mission we have to at least question the potential impact of all this. How do we regard someone who read that article and was stirred by all the injustices it exposed, and then looked at the comment and decided that it was a bad problem and we were the wrong people to be addressing it.

Screw ‘em and don’t look back? Reconsider the comment? What? These are the questions that I put to you, expecting that your take on it will be supported by the same articulate reasoning you give to everything else you offer at this site. We do need to ask these question, and we need to aspire to answering them.

And that is what we are doing, with your participation. Keep heart, we won’t be censoring articles or comments that don’t violate TOS. And we won’t need to.

I am a big fan of the idea that we are the ones that shape our culture. The vast majority of men and women who come to comment on this site are above average in intelligence and insight. I think, at the risk of being called naïve, that we can actually shape the culture here without a bullwhip or a ban hammer; that we can count on your intelligence instead of insulting it.

There will be more articles on this in the future. It is an ongoing conversation we are going to have with activists that frequent the comments well into the future. We are not in a panic to come to conclusion, but we are opening up the doors to the process of our own evolution.

In the end, you have my personal word. AVfM will be kicking ass in the days to come more than we ever have in the past. We may or may not do it differently than expected, but those asses will be just as bruised.