Community Organized Compassion and Kindness


I have a dream.

I’d like to present to you the foundation of Community Organized Compassion and Kindness (COCK) for which I am the current spokesperson. Erected in Victoria, BC we expect it to grow quite quickly across the globe.

I am an enthusiastic supporter of COCK. I have been boning up on history and am ready to penetrate the dark depths of deception that have led society to our current state of disrepair. I am confident that COCK will become a massive appendage of the Men’s Human Rights Movement. It will be the philosophical meat of the movement and encourage activism on the individual level.

COCK isn’t a single member, it is a state of mind.

Some may argue that COCK is merely trying to fuck TWAT (The Women’s Activism Tyranny) but this simply is not the case. COCK takes a hard stance on personal responsibility. TWAT keeps telling us they are fixing everyone’s problems, but are too focused on blame to achieve anything productive. COCK will cause some friction but, as our members swell, we believe we can fill the gap in social cohesion.

The MHRM has thus far been given the shaft and we must keep our heads to plunge forward with renewed vigour. COCK has been waiting for its time to come. That time is now.

The world needs COCK. Our governments have proven to be impotent in meeting the needs of the masses. They have milked our personal resources and wasted the seed money on useless TWAT propaganda. COCK doesn’t need artificial stimulation, it grows naturally and, in the right hands, is capable of achieving climactic change.

COCK does not take a soft approach to interaction within the community. Stereotypical female compassion tries to unite people in victimhood instead of the unyielding and sometimes forceful approach that is required. Instead of filling the empty hole, they have focused on excessively selfish surface demands.

Too much time has been wasted pussyfooting around trying to placate TWAT under the premise that they have some sort of map to a hidden utopia. Nevertheless, there is a way that women can fit with COCK that is unique and exciting if they are willing to meet COCK on an equal level of participation.

COCK may be particularly overwhelming for some women but, if they are open and willing to accept responsibility, they will find it intensely rewarding. While we don’t want to ram it down anyone’s throat, it is time for a change in the status quo and COCK is up for the challenge.

There is no magic trick or deft move that can guarantee a wad of results and COCK doesn’t claim to have all the solutions but we do believe that when you take matters into your own hands and participate in your own fulfilment, the results will be more explosive. Where society typically shames people as self-indulgent when they seek self-satisfaction, COCK promotes personal involvement and believes that empowerment of the individual will not only take a load off of society but will result in a healthier community.

COCK knows no boundaries and isn’t focused on a single source of relief. We will forage every cavern, explore every chasm, and traverse every niche in our search for prosperity. We consider happiness a matter of self direction and responsibility. The only path to contentment is to act as an agent in your own satisfaction and COCK will not entertain freeloaders.

You can not just lie back and expect great things to happen to you without reciprocating.

There is a special note that needs to be addressed to women who think they can handle COCK. The modern woman has been raised to believe that she embodies compassion by virtue of her nature and has been taught to manipulate others into pleasing her then claiming that success as her own accomplishment. COCK will not be fooled by such games.

Out of compassion and kindness, COCK demands that women cease to be TWATs and take responsibility for their own lives. Whilst COCK would like you to come, we won’t bend over backwards to make it happen. We expect women to participate in their own liberation without any special attention.

Because women have been historically coddled and catered to, they require special screening rituals. If you are honest with us and yourself you won’t care how closely you are examined because you know you are clean of TWAT infection. If you are a true supporter of COCK you will be willing to suck it up.

TWAT has convinced women that everyone should like them. That simply isn’t the case. Respect in society must be earned or it becomes arbitrary. Women care an awful lot about being liked. Get over it fast because, despite the best efforts of social justice warriors, we live in a merit based society and your actions speak louder than words. If you speak hypocritically COCK has no use for you.

Women don’t need to worship COCK because it’s not a religion. TWAT will claim that COCK is trying to suppress it but, if they let go of their inhibitions, women will find that COCK sets them free. Where TWAT claims that women are objects which men act upon, COCK asks you to meet on an equal level of participation.

If you’ve arrived at the MHRM and COCK as a woman, you are being challenged to interact as one who finds her femaleness irrelevant. There are only a couple of things in which being female helps the MHRM and they are the only reasons COCK is interested in your vagina:

1) You can say things about women and feminists in public that men can’t get away with saying. Say them as loudly and as often as possible. Your freedom depends upon it.

2) You can divulge the secrets of women that they don’t want men to know: Their ways of manipulating and controlling dialogue. We were raised in the world of women and we know exactly how women operate. Men quite often have no clue what conversation just happened after they talk to a woman but women listening will hear every nuance of the information-dig or set up. Women can teach men how to see it, hear it, and call it out. Though many of the men in the MHRM are quite good at catching this in comparison to other males, women know there is always another devious layer going on. That’s why women will go over and over a single conversation for days – we know there was something we might have missed.

Unless you are doing one of those two things we don’t care that you are female.

COCK does not support “cliques”. No one in particular will back you up in an argument when you get in trouble. Just as women like to travel in packs to the bathroom, women like to have a group of friends with them when they pick a fight. That is not going to happen here. You are on your own and we expect you to hold your own when the going gets tough. COCK demands personal accountability.

The women of the MHRM, called “Honey Badgers,” are women who don’t act like “normal” chicks. We are happy and surprised to find other women who don’t have their heads up their asses but we won’t be your BFF just because we have the same genitals. In fact, I’d wager most Honey Badgers are less likely to find you either interesting or enchanting than the men are and we are far more likely to warn men when they are getting sucked in by a woman who can’t swallow the truth.

The touchiest area for women in the MHRM seems to be how they feel about MGTOWs (Men Going Their Own Way) who reject marriage or long term relationships with women. COCK supports Going Your Own Way as not only a powerful form of activism, but an amazing tool for social change. We show compassion and kindness to those who are capable of withdrawing from unsupportable institutions.

For women who think they love COCK, there are a few phrases you’ll hear that are important: “NAWALT” (not all women are like that) and “NAFALT” (not all feminists are like that). You won’t get a good reception if you pull either of those.

All feminists ARE like that- if they believe in patriarchy they are “like that.” If they don’t believe in patriarchy they aren’t a feminist. Patriarchy is a fabricated external scapegoat for personal failure.

All women ARE like that- some just choose to not act “that way” but we were all raised to be that way either by parents or peers. I wrote an article that shows what “that way” is fairly well and it simultaneously explains why women will have a bigger challenge meeting COCK on an equal level.

Ultimately, for women who think they want to join with COCK, just being here doesn’t mean anything, it only matters what you contribute. This is a “show, don’t tell” kind of organization. We will empower you to find your own solutions and rescue yourself from victim mentality.

Women in the movement are good to have but only if you’re here for COCK and not for your own ego. This is a place where everyone takes personal responsibility for their own actions. Get used to it. Where TWAT tries to legislate compassion and manipulate resources to bail out only half the population, COCK puts your future under your own personal control.

COCK isn’t trying to fuck the world, we are saving it from the hell hole of TWAT ideologies and giving victims the chance to be heroes. Don’t wait for someone to save you, choose to be virile. COCK won’t pander to you any more.

Editor’s note: feature image by Terry Robinson. –PW

Also posted on A Voice For Men


The First Gender Warrior: Christine de Pizan

A long time ago (15th century) in a land not too far away (France) a protofeminist named Christine de Pizan initiated a public debate later named La Querelle de la Rose. Simone de Beauvoir honours Pizan as the first woman to “take up her pen in defence of her sex”[1] but Christine was not fighting for new rights, she was strictly defending the chivalry-based gynocentric culture that she saw crumbling away before her eyes.

Though some feminists deny Christine’s status as a member of the gang, she did seem to have set the standard for how women change the public narrative; lies, elitism, deception and manipulation of history bordering on fraud.

Like all feminists who followed in her footprints, she set a Machiavellian example. The end justifies the means and, while you re-write “herstory”, make sure to claim you are meek and helpless the whole time.

But let us go back to the start of this adventure. We shall travel to c1275 when a man of some talent took up an incomplete poem called La Roman de La Rose and added a whopping 18,824 additional lines to the original 4,000 to create what would become one of the most widely read works of medieval times. Not only did the second author, Jean de Meun, create a cult following, his work was mimicked by Chaucer and Dante. Overall, a charmingly good chap for literary culture.

For over a hundred years this poem proliferated, was translated, adored, and revered as a work of genius. It outlined the troubles and challenges a youth may face when trying to woo a young lady in the world of chivalry. As in most good stories, the goal was not attained easily.

Presented in a dreamlike setting, our hero is guided by personified attributes such as Reason and Genius who help him to bypass all the lady’s defences and capture her “castle.” The language is considered quite risque for the times.

Around 1401 a gentleman named Jean de Montreuil, who served as secretary in the king’s chancery of France, was convinced to read the poem and wrote a glowing review which circulated about the land. It crossed the path of a woman named Christine de Pizan.

Christine was in a unique position compared to other women of her time. She had been raised in the court where her father, despite her mother’s disapproval, urged her to learn how to read and write. These skills came in handy after both her father and husband died quite young leaving Christine with debt and children. She was not overly pleased with her reduction of social status but managed to secure some work as a copyist instead of having to work at spinning or other demeaning trades.

She had begun by writing romantic poetry and secured some patrons who paid her for the work she sent them. She was a clever mimic and was able to write in whatever style her patrons preferred. She would likely have continued to meet survival needs as things were but decided, upon seeing Montreuil’s treatise, to take a chance and use her pen in defence of her desire to improve her career.

Thus began an exchange of letters between Christine and defenders of the poem La Roman de La Rose.

These letters became public because Christine de Pizan decided to publish them. She was quite creative in her publishing by arranging them out of chronological order and removing the best arguments that her opponents had offered. Just like a feminist.

Some of the missing letters have since been recovered.

Christine’s main problem with the famous poem amounts to censorship. She takes exception to the naming of genitals and with advice being given as to how to trick women into having sex. Christine was a very conservative Christian. As such, you might think that she really did find the whole storyline repulsive if she hadn’t stated in a letter that the debate was “good-humored, an example of a difference of opinion between worthy persons”[2] and mentioned in another letter that a reply made her laugh.

The Romance of the Rose is rather bawdy and, at times, obscene: kind of like The Vagina Monologues.

Christine intitiated the debate by replying to a letter she acknowledged was not addressed to her. She bypassed that fact by publishing the letters out of order to make her “reply” look solicited.

She begins by stating that her opponents are very learned and that she is very ignorant, which she hopes will not taint their reading of her correspondence. She claims to be weak and timid. Of course, only timid people publish private letters and send copies of it to the Queen.

Speaking of the Queen, who was one of Christine’s patrons, one of Pizan’s approaches was to link female virtue directly to Queen Isabeau of Bavaria “to the point at which the Queen becomes synonymous with virtue, Christine essentially lays the Queen under an obligation to accept her position; not to do so would be to reject her very self.”[3]

Nice trick.

Despite feminist claims that Christine tackled this monumental task alone, she was abetted by Jean Gerson, a long time family friend from her courtly days. Gerson was a strange bedfellow but he and Christine shared some religious ideals and were united both on the misogyny front and in speaking out about the “body politic” in other works. He’s not always mentioned in the discussions of the Querelle because feminists would like you to think Christine didn’t have a white knight helping her out.

The problem faced by both Pizan and Gerson was that de Meun’s poem was, and is, a work of art. When his characters speak they speak as that character would and do not represent the thinking of either the author or God. That is often the problem of censorship fanatics. The other big problem is that they have to admit they actually read the cursed thing.

When you read something distasteful, it is hard to blame anyone but yourself for the fact that you read it. If you didn’t read it or look at it, you can hardly have an opinion. Christine claims to have skim read over the worst of the worst but still approaches it as if she can fully assess the artistic merits of the work.

The accusations against her, which she deletes from her version of events, are that she is a novice who can’t comprehend advanced works and that she is speaking out of turn because she got a lot of recent praise and is suddenly full of her own ego:

“Yet what do we make of Pierre Col’s contention, suppressed by Christine, that her actions have resulted from her envy of ‘la tres elevee haultesse du liver’ [the very loftiness of the book], and that she had better be careful so as not to suffer the fate of the crow who, when ‘someone praised his song, began to sing louder than usual and let his mouthful fall.'”[4]

Christine responds with continued claims to humility and simplicity which, ironically and with calculation, guarantee her fame.

While feminists praise Pizan as a defender of women, only a third of what she wrote in the debate is devoted to perceptions of women. The majority of her complaint is pure Christian objection to obscenity.[5] The purpose of her diatribe can be discerned in the writings that followed, after winning the prestige to write full fledged books.

So what did she write next?

The iconic work in the list of some feminist “must read” resources is Christine de Pizan’s City of Ladies. This is the first book that she published after the Querelle which took up the cause of women.

The City of Ladies copies the format of previous male writers, like de Muen, who present a story in allegorical dream sequence. As a character in her own book Pizan is ordered by her ficitonal ladies of Reason, Rectitude, and Justice, to construct an city with her pen in which women can take shelter. Not all women, only “virtuous” women of her discernment. Christine doesn’t actually believe that all women are good and pure and worthy of men’s love, she just wants to build really solid walls behind which some women can hide so that they can continue to be treated as godly creatures while the other women burn in fucking hell. It was a form of alchemy: Burn off the undesirables.

“Only ladies who are of good reputation and worthy of praise will be admitted into this city. To those lacking in virtue, its gates will remain forever closed” [6]

Those whores are giving women a bad name. Slut-shaming Central.

The gates of Pizan’s City are locked tight to adulteresses, lustful women of any sort, and those who don’t uphold Christine’s religious ideals. She has built this city on the foundations of mythical women, appointed the Virgin Mary as queen (who she alludes to herself as representing), and predicts that her city of imaginary wonder will never fall. It can’t because it’s not real.

If we had any doubt about Christine’s intentional trickery, we need look no further than the pages of this debut novel which, unlike the letters of the Querelle, are unmolested. She takes examples of awesome women from the Bible and pagan mythologies and leaves out all the bad parts of the stories so that they all look virtuous.

For example, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, becomes a woman who was so lusted after that King Pharaoh forcibly stole her from her husband. For those who actually read the bible, you’ll find out that Sarah and Abraham tricked Pharaoh by telling him they were siblings so that he might fall in love and give her many riches. When God punished Pharaoh for seducing a married woman Pharaoh was flabbergasted and gave them whatever they wanted just to get the fuck out of town. They pulled this trick twice. And it turns out they actually were brother and sister. God didn’t seem to care about that.

Christine laments that one of her heroines, Semaramis, married her son to avoid having to share her kingdom with another woman but excuses her because it wasn’t a law at the time that she shouldn’t do that. That Semaramis managed to defend her kingdom after the death of her husband was more important than the laws of nature. The laws of nature are somewhat mutable in Christine’s world, when it suits her purpose.

“As for those men who are slanderous by nature, it’s not surprising if they criticize women, given that they attack everyone indiscriminately. You can take it from me that any man who wilfully slanders the female sex does so because he has an evil mind, since he’s going against both reason and nature.” [7]

So it’s in man’s nature to go against nature? It’s not hard to argue against logic like that.

In the final reading, we are left to wonder what it is Christine was really trying to accomplish. Did she think women were strong, capable people or objects to be fawned over and worshipped like children or gods? Christine answers that upon seeing the perfect dream ladies of her vision who arrive to show her the path of truth:

“I didn’t know which of my senses was the more struck by what she said: whether it was my ears as I took in her stirring words, or my eyes as I admired her great beauty and dress, her noble bearing and face.” [8]

Christine! You misogynist!!
How dare you objectify these women with your gaze?

Christine’s “city” presents and shelters women as goddesses. Like Pygmalion, who was uninterested in real women, she sculpts the perfect female so that men can worship the illusion. Christine was a traditionalist attempting to uphold and entrench all the privileges enjoyed by her gender since chivalric love had been introduced.

As a pioneer of feminism, she taught those who followed that every female flaw which can’t be excused can be erased from herstory.


1. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, p105
2. Heather Bamford, Remember the giver(s): the creation of the Querelle and notions of sender and recipient in University of California, Berkeley, MS 109, 2009
3. ibid
4. David F. Hult, Words and Deeds: Jean de Meun’s “Romance of the Rose” and the Hermeneutics of Censorship, New Literary History, Vo. 28, No. 2, Medieval Studies (Spring, 1997)
5. Ibid
6. Christine de Pizan, City of Ladies, p11
7. ibid, p19-20
8. ibid, p9

Editor’s note: feature image by Hans Splinter. –PW


It’s a woman problem


Women are facing a very real and grave problem in our culture: They are obnoxious cunts.

We don’t know exactly how long this has been going on but we do know that no one is doing anything about it. By the tender age of four, girls begin to show symptoms of this affliction which is technically referred to as relational aggression. By the age of fourteen they are guaranteed to have been affected in some way as it is contagious. Young boys are thankfully spared from this disorder by something commonly called “cooties”.

There is good news and bad news: Relational aggression appears to be a learned behaviour. That’s both the good and bad news. Because it’s not innate, it can be fixed, but because it’s being taught to them by their mothers we can’t just fix the toddlers we need to fix their role models as well. We all know it’s hard to teach an old dog a new way of being a bitch.

Much attention was drawn to this enduring problem with the release of the film Mean Girls. (If you haven’t seen the movie The Intern Extraodinaire can recite it, word for word, in less than thirty minutes.) The obvious resulting concern over our darling female toddlers was to conduct more studies until it was shown that boys are guilty too. To accomplish this feat of avoidance, researchers studied young adults and by the time our kids reach their twenties boys have also started learning these techniques.

“As males and females enter adolescence and adulthood, cross-sex interactions become increasingly common. As a result, the relationally aggressive behaviors more characteristic of elementary school girls may become more common among males as mixed-sex interactions increase.”*

The wikipedia entry, and many others, deceivingly imply that relational aggression occurs equally between males and females and, though they are stuck with the results of empirical evidence, they do their best to mingle discussions of male violence in with the subject of what is indisputably the preferred female form of aggression. Feminism is not interested in fixing it.

The pioneer of relational aggression studies, Nicki Crick, continued the research into more detail when it was discovered that men start to pick up this behaviour and, with a team of experts, took it one step further to study what’s going on with adults. The findings show that, while men start to use relational aggression equally by adulthood, women predominantly turn their abuse on romantic partners as men, behind in the game, are busy practicing it on their peers.*

Relational aggression involves manipulating social hierarchies through exclusion, gossip, reputation damage, visible displays of disgust in the target’s presence, and various forms of humiliation or degradation.

Is this a serious problem? Absolutely. After two decades, the problem is still under-examined and largely ignored.

Gone unchecked, Queen Bee syndrome leads to murder. A prime example, Kelly Ellard, was finally convicted of the second-degree murder of Reena Virk, in Saanich BC, in 2005. The crime took place in 1997 but it took four trials and eight years to finally get a guilty verdict that wasn’t overturned. Wikipedia, unsurprisingly, names Ellard’s boyfriend first as a perpetrator but the murder went like this:

Ellard organized an outside party and had Virk invited. Virk was keen to be “in” with the popular girls so she keenly attended, hopeful that it was a good sign for her social life. When she arrived, the girls (most of whom were not named in the criminal case) swarmed the unsuspecting Virk and beat her until one of the girls told them to stop. Virk managed to stumble away but Ellard told her boyfriend to follow her. Ellard smashed Virk’s head into a tree, knocking her unconscious, and the two of them dragged Reena under a bridge where they continued to beat her and then drown her in the water. Reena Virk was fourteen years old, Ellard was fifteen.

This event is dated but significant. It caused a moral panic: Girls aren’t supposed to do that. We can toss boys in jail but when girls go bad we need to find a way to blame it once more on boys. In this case the boy, unlike Ellard, expressed remorse and responsibility for his actions choosing to communicate with Reena’s parents to help them heal. Ellard has never publicly admitted that she did anything wrong. In the girl world of relational aggression, she hasn’t – she just went a little bit too far.

Unfortunately, the moral panic did not persist in finding a solution and, as long as we hold female aggression as taboo, women will continue to author their own misfortune as well as that of others. There isn’t a man alive who has been meaner to a woman than women are.

The “patriarchy” that feminists are so fond of referring to is not a male construct, it is part of the female hierarchical social aggression scheme. It is created by women, maintained by women, and used by women for their own advantage. It’s exactly what women designed it to be. Girls use boys to compete with each other. Women, when losing a verbal argument, will quite often revert to bragging about the greatness of their boyfriend or spouse. Men are objects to women by which they gain social status and it is not something men have orchestrated, it is just an easy and convenient measure on “the scale of cunthood.”

In fact, all the things that feminists blame on men are results of the peer oriented relational bullying games they learned to play so well as children. Beauty, fancy clothes, foot mutilating shoes, cosmetic surgery, all body image disorders, slut-shaming, ridicule over poverty conditions, and even purported female ignorance are all daggers that women use and throw at each other from the time they are four years old. It’s how we make “friends”.

We know that feminists care about the results, they just don’t seem to care about finding and treating the actual cause. They are too busy staring at their surface reflections in the mirror to bother with what’s inside.

When Toronto Constable Michael Sanguinetti told university students they should “avoid dressing like sluts” it was a generalization of a term he’d probably heard other women use quite often. If you think that’s a wild guess, I direct you to recent events in a matter less ambiguous.

Two teenage girls, aged fifteen and sixteen, were convicted in June 2013 of simultaneously slut-shaming thirty-eight peers in their Swedish school. Alright, feminists, we’ve caught your culprits and they’ve confessed. It’s certainly a crime: They broke the rules and went after too many targets at once, causing a school riot but giving us a face to put to the name of slut-shaming. Only girls could do it so well. Go get ‘em.

Feminists are also very concerned about men bailing out of relationships. Kaye Hymowitz didn’t bother to read Crick’s later work showing that “initial work indicates that relational aggression enacted against romantic partners is associated with romantic relationships of relatively low quality.”*

Feminists are deeply concerned with the amount of hostility men hold towards women while intentionally ignoring that “findings also suggest that as females get older, they may transfer relationally aggressive behaviors learned in the peer context to interactions with romantic partners.” and that men are more prone to reactive relational aggression in response (which, incidentally, is also more connected with prior abuse history than the other types).*

All evidence indicates that Women’s Studies from early childhood education is a great idea. They just need to change the focus from women whining about their victimhood to women learning about how they victimize each other and teaching them to stop being cunts.

As cyber-bullying becomes the new tool for assisted suicide, I think it’s time feminists admit that girls are92% more likely to engage in online bullyingAlong with their mothers.

Instead of #twittersilence they should focus on the real problem with #don’tbethatcunt.

I suggest the following course titles as options for future consideration:


  • How to enjoy life without wrecking someone else’s;
  • How to share friends and be happy;
  • Don’t be defined by the number of gifts you get;
  • How to openly and honestly fight your own battles;
  • Popularity isn’t worth killing or dying for
    and, ultimately,
  • How to stop being a cunt.

 Source: * Proactive, reactive, and romantic aggression in adulthood: Measurement, predictive validity, gender differences, and association with Intermittent Explosive Disorder, Dianna Murray-Close, Jamie M. Ostrov, David A. Nelson, Nicki R. Crick, Emil F. Coccaro, 2009

Also posted on A Voice For Men

Victim Nation

I’m a little bit late reposting this as I was on vacation in a place with poor internet but will follow up shortly with this week’s new instalment. Two for the price of one. Almost.

Victim concept.

Author’s note: This article is based on the work of Dr. Ofer Zur and his attempt to draw attention to the need of studying victim-hood in order to help both victims and perpetrators. All quotes are from his paper on the subject, linked both above and at the end of the article. His work on the subject is available on his website and offers an excellent list of suggested further reading.

Culture has always tried to define its advancement on scales of morality. Superior morality has an unfortunate need for inferiors against which to measure and so we love to both judge and condemn in the personal pursuit of happiness. Such games have reached the status of entertainment in the modern world.

With each generation’s goal of raising the ‘quality’ of society by removing identified immoral elements the Western world in particular has ‘advanced’ to a point where more than 100% of society are deemed victims and we all want justice. We have become a Victim Nation scouring under rocks to find more people to blame.

Everybody wants to be a victim because if you’re not the victim you’re the bad guy.

Social justice organizations pop up daily like rodents in a carnival Whac-A-Mole. Every right they fight for assumes that right was denied through oppression and, invariably, requires a cloak of victimhood to gain sympathy. The inequality that victimhood claims to fight becomes an essential element of the movement to the point of embrace.

“Ironically, the rights movement often victimizes one group while liberating another. What seems to be a noble, justified, long overdue act of protecting a victim can easily turn to blame and warfare. When this happens, conflict, injustice, and victimization are perpetuated, and the possibility of resolution and healing is destroyed.”

Equality has become the focus of social justice for the last two decades. We are no longer content to accept that people are born with different characteristics and skill sets which make some stand out as leaders and others remain followers. While leadership is a desired quality, anything that makes someone different is no longer seen as good, it has become a source of evil. “In this Western worldview, inequalities and differences are often associated with injustice and victimization.”

It doesn’t require an act of injustice to make some people more or less fortunate. All it takes is birth. Inequality has always existed in many forms and will continue to exist. The social justice presumption is that inequality can be eliminated by somehow training or forcing people to become blind to nature. By removing some words from the dictionary we can make the concepts they represent disappear along with the descriptive tool.

We all know quality when we see it but we can’t say what causes quality to exist or exactly what makes one thing better than another. But we do know it when we see it. We also know that some ice cream is better than others but we haven’t asked Häagen-Dazs® to cease and desist.

If you carry the social justice principles to their conclusion we end up with some hilarious and disturbing results.

As long as someone in the world can’t read no one should write books. As long as there is someone without footwear none of us should go shoe shopping. As long as there is someone who can’t get a $200 haircut we should all use a Flowbee® or, as long as there is a bald man, we should all shave our heads.

When feminism fought against victim blaming they had some things right but they got the solution wrong. Dr. Zur describes this second approach as one which “also concentrates on blame; however it lays all blame entirely on men. This approach has been promoted by a brand of feminism, which holds the male dominated patriarchal system responsible for all the evils in the world. Whether the issue is wars and politics, domestic violence and sexual abuse, toxic dumps and the corporations, or nuclear weapons and the military industrial complex, the finger is pointed at men as the culprits. At the heart of this approach is the split between men’s aggressive and violent nature and women’s inherent goodness.”

Where there is good there must be evil. To feminists, women are good and men are the only convenient target to label as the evil enemy. The characterization of men as inherently violent and beastly is essential to maintaining the victim class of all women. While they insist that it’s not men they are fighting it’s the “patriarchy,” their plight is reduced unless the perpetrator is tangible. Patriarchy can’t be put in jail.

The insubstantial nature of the feminist foe makes feminism weak so every male crime with a female victim is hauled into the public media court to make the enemy flesh and blood. Patriarchy is the name but individual men are the bodies to be held accountable. To feminists, every man who commits a crime is an example of male oppression of women, while female criminals are called bizzarities and declarations ensue that “that never happens.”

“These two approaches of blame have not only failed to resolve the violence and suffering but in fact, as Zur’s paper explains, have tended to perpetuate and exacerbate them.”

If victimhood mentality doesn’t help women or society, why does it continue?

Personal benefit. Aside from the sense of moral superiority that they glean by being victims, feminists need resolution for a bigger problem: they have no justification to exist unless they have victims to save, a foe to blame, and a cause to write about. Feminists want to exist. They may be obnoxious but their stupidity is calculated.

“The culture of victimization is closely tied to what Amitai Etzioni (1987), a sociologist at Georgetown University, called the ‘rights industry.’” Among other service industries, psychotherapists and lawyers also stand to benefit from perpetual victimhood. They are the cheerleaders in an un-winnable game and as long as the game goes on they keep getting paid.

“In claiming the status of victim and by assigning all blame to others, a person can achieve moral superiority while simultaneously disowning any responsibility for one’s behavior and its outcome. The victims ‘merely’ seek justice and fairness. If they become violent, it is only as a last resort, in self-defense. The victim stance is a powerful one. The victim is always morally right, neither responsible nor accountable, and forever entitled to sympathy.”

Responsibility takes a lot of hard work and strength of character. It is not an innate skill, it’s learned… but not in Women’s Studies classes. Women are not born in a glass box, it is built around them by misguided ideology. Where feminists claim to liberate women by convincing them they are oppressed, all they’ve done is to teach women how to blame their personal failures on external sources. While it sells many books, blame has never built a house.

As unhelpful as feminism has been with their obsession over externalizing personal failure and inadequacy, they have successfully intimidated others into supporting their ill-conceived ideas. They’ve turned it into a fad. It’s the new black.

“The blame-victim approach is not confined to the rights or recovery movement. It is also at the heart of the legal system’s approach, which attempts to respond to injustice and violations by identifying and prosecuting the perpetrators and compensating the victims (Sykes, 1992; Hughes, 1993). The faulty part of this legal approach is the focus on simplistic, linear, short term, and face-value justice.”

Dr. Ofer Zur took a chance with his research. He notes that “[v]ery few writers have warned against the unrealistic and ultimately patronizing portrayal of victims of crime as total innocents” and admonishes that is it is a grave error to continue down the road that’s being paved.

“We have become a nation of victims, where everyone is leapfrogging over each other, publicly competing for the status of victim, and where everyone is defined as some sort of survivor.”

When victimhood is rewarded there will be no incentive for people to heal. While victims do exist and victimizers should be punished, the definition of what constitutes a crime expands exponentially to keep up with the number of self-identified victims. We now measure our status by how oppressed we are and can take a test to find out if our “privilege” is low enough to give us a voice.

The reason people only hear men’s anger and not their pain is that men’s pain competes with the pain of women. It’s harder to be taken seriously as a victim when your supposed victimizer is crying. Meanwhile, anger sounds oppressive and violent which lends to the promise of reinforcing the victim status of women as long as people only listen to the “tone” and not the content. That’s why A Voice For Men is constantly being criticized for tone instead of content.

As Zur says, “To understand better the dynamics of violent systems, we must first free ourselves from the binds of politically correct thinking.” Violence exists in both male and female form and as long as women continue their role in the cycle immune from criticism the entire system will endure. It’s not the tone that is the problem.

The MHRM is not engaged in a battle for victimhood champion, we are fighting to eliminate that victimhood mentality which is blocking true, positive social change. The MHRM is seeking to end the proliferation of false victimhood so that people can go about living truly empowered and healthy lives.

“An individual or group can win the battle, become the victim of the year, yet lose the war.”

Men have traditionally fought all the wars and taken on the main burdens of survival. They have built structured societies and put the very systems of government and justice in place to which feminists have turned to play their victim cards. Men have shouldered the responsibility of doing all those things and been so gracious about their possible mistakes they’ve allowed themselves to be turned into the enemy. Until now.

Feminism made a mistake when they picked a war with men. If someone saves you from a burning building you don’t accuse him of grabbing your ass while he carried you over his shoulder. What you might do is to hope you can save him right back if he ever needs your assistance.

But the victims of the world are all too busy feeling sorry for themselves to have thought of that.

Source: Rethinking ‘Don’t Blame the Victim’: The Psychology of Victimhood, by Ofer Zur, Ph.D.

Also posted on A Voice For Men