Feminists: more equal than others

swine3
Like a general assembly of Orwellian swine, feminists have gathered together to justify their creed that “some animals are more equal than others.” As in the tale of Animal Farm, the changes to the legal system happened incrementally and with only a few grumbled objections, which were dealt with swiftly in retribution. As a society, we now find ourselves staring with astonishment at the writing on the wall and wondering how the pigs have managed to get away with this blatant corruption of equality before the law.

The legal system for criminal court was founded on a few, basic principles or cornerstones:

1) the presumption of innocence;
2) the burden of proof is on the Crown;
3) proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; and
4) proof is made during a fair and public hearing.

Overall, these building blocks remain intact for most criminal proceedings with one exception: crimes against women.

Thanks to feminism, we have re-created a Star Chamber reserved only for men. In this chamber, accusers are anonymous, guilt is assumed, false confessions may be extracted, and those who escape are ostracized regardless of legal innocence. To find oneself in the star chamber requires one simple accident of birth: you have a penis.

Violent crimes have now been segregated into two types: violence, and violence against women. The explanation for this separation is that feminists feel women are more vulnerable than men and require a unique status in court that serves to ‘enhance’ their equality with men.

In 2000, feminist scholar Sara Hinchliffe, described her concerns with this demand for special treatment of women by the courts.

The debate about equality raises serious problems for conceptions of women as freely choosing, rational agents. If a different standard is required by which to judge women because they are unequal, then social inequality may be formalized in law. The fact that battered woman syndrome has become an acceptable defense to murder in the United States is one contemporary example. If women are not susceptible to the same assumption of equality and rationality as men then women may be excluded from the presumption that they are capable actors.

In cases of rape or sexual assault, the disturbing changes to the legal system are thus:

  1. The presumption of guilt;
  2. A shift of the burden of proof onto the accused;
  3. Removal of mens rea or “guilty intent” as a requirement for conviction;
  4. Rape shield laws that interfere with public hearings and defence rights.

You’ll note that these changes reduce to rubble all four cornerstones of criminal law.

Hinchliffe goes on to elucidate the dangers of allowing feminism to infantalize women in the eyes of the law. “Under the guise of a set of reforms presented as defending the interests of rape victims, we are seeing the undermining of hard-fought civil liberties.”

In an article for The Independent, Hinchliffe warns that “the radical British feminists Lorraine Kelly and Jill Radford claim that the law’s distinction between rape and sex is problematic since it ‘suggests that clear distinctions can be drawn between violence and non-violence and thereby between abusive and ‘normal’ men’.” The radicals were no longer fringe and their suspicion or criminalization of normal, heterosexual activities had gained influence with policy-makers.

The women founding these changes to how the law treats rape unabashedly declared all heterosexual sex to be rapey; an act to which no rational woman would consent when in her right mind.

As journalist, Nathalie Rothschild pointed out in a 2011 Spiked-online article, “It is curious that self-described feminists are propounding such a paternalistic view of women as unable to make their own minds up, as too weak and silly to say ‘no’ to men, and as putting themselves at risk by drinking and flirting and potentially knocking out their critical faculties, leading them to wake up in a strange bed without having first given their ‘active consent’.”

Not only have modern women been utterly stripped of their adulthood by feminists, we let it happen. We put on our ‘fuck me’ boots and proudly slutwalked the path to perpetual victimhood.

Like Animal Farm, after the revolution had been won and the rules of a just society were written on the wall for all to see, every time the animals looked up another rule had been altered which catered to the whims of the pigs, who became the ruling class. Feminists are now the ruling class, adding their brackets to the end of our civil liberties.

No animal shall sleep in a bed (with sheets)
No animal shall consume alcohol (to excess)
No animal shall kill another (without cause)

And now we’ve reached the day where we stare at the side of the barn and all the rules are gone, replaced simply with “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

Only women get special funding for shelters, schooling, and business ventures. Only women are deemed not responsible for their actions when drunk, or not guilty of murder when under emotional stress. Women are given lesser criminal sentences when found guilty of a crime, and special treatment when they claim victimization. We no longer seek to maintain a safe, productive community; we have mandated that the world be made safe “for women” and cater to demands that we elevate women to positions of power merely to prove our morality.

As Hinchliff points out,

Demands to increase the conviction rate in rape cases (in other words to lock more men up on less evidence) through a more inquisitorial approach to rape trials are becoming commonplace. New precedents are being set, which call into question the central idea of equality before the law for men and women.

Feminism has corrupted the law, but there are two courts we face in society: the legal system and the court of public opinion. As important as it is for society to restore equality to our civil rights, we must also deal with the vigilante mobs that back up the feminist ideology.

Cases in which men have been murdered or have committed suicide after false rape allegations were made do not even employ the court system in the accusations. Where feminists declare “rape myths” deflower the reputation of women who have been assaulted, the reality is much more gruesome. Men are at high risk because of feminist “rape myth myths”. In fact, despite the sob story they bleat in our faces every day, society is so keen to protect and defend women that the vigilante court of public opinion is not content to let the legal system deal with accusations at all. White knights abound, eager to do the bidding of their fair maidens.

The world is not a safe place for men.

As Warren Farrell so wisely noted, “Men’s greatest weakness is their façade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their façade of weakness.” Where women have used their feigned weakness to warp the justice system and manipulate men into proxy violence, men must now overcome their weakness and use what strength they have to fight for their own rights.

In Animal Farm, Boxer is the dedicated and loyal workhorse who represents the feminist vision of a “good man.” This is what women tell men they should aspire to and, like the pigs of Animal Farm, they enjoy the profits from the fruits of your labour. And when you collapse or become of no use to them they’ll sell you to the knacker’s yard for a case of whisky.

While lawyers and academics embolden themselves to take on the dominant swine who have corrupted our equality and justice, we need not sit by silently and wait to be rescued. Where Boxer adopted the motto “I will work harder” and “Napoleon is always right,” we can choose our own mantra.

Men’s rights are human rights.
Also posted on A Voice For Men

Gone with Jaclyn’s wind

gwtw
Preamble: In the midst of the stirring tornado of ABC’s pending 20/20 article on A Voice For Men, Paul Elam, and the Men’s Human Rights Movement (MHRM), feminist Jaclyn Friedman, who was also interviewed by the ABC show, blew in on the coat tails of a Daily Beast article to weigh in on the subject of how she has been digesting events.

In Jaclyn’s habitat, there is a foul and ominous odour beneath the sheets. Since, according to her, the MHRM are all dogs, it is easiest just to blame the stench on them.

There are many canards in the coal mine of Jaclyn’s article about the MHRM that quite quickly die of gas. She starts by declaring that “the rise of men’s rights activists is hurting women – and men.” The next trouser trumpet is her insistence that the MHRM is an attack of men against women, and she finishes with a melodramatic avowal to “make a peaceful human chain to blunt [our] hate and counter it with love.”

Above all else, Jaclyn emotes that the most “particularly insidious” thing the MHRM does is what she calls a “canny co-optation of social justice lingo.” Yes, there are scary men out there who are… gasp… using words! And, according to her, they’ve stolen these words from women.

Jaclyn’s difficulty in accepting that men are permitted to use a dictionary is meant to cause us concern. The MHRM’s terrifying ability to use words effectively even caused The Daily Beast to “[paint us] as a legitimate movement.” Oh, the horrors.

Jaclyn claims that the MHRM is hurting men because men in “real” need of help will be distracted by sites like A Voice for Men and google will somehow suddenly stop functioning normally. It would take an intellectual and philosophical behemoth cursed with a tragic deficiency of internet skills to reach this conclusion honestly. Jaclyn is none of the above.

In a stunning act of mental gymnastics, Jaclyn manages to admit that Men’s Human Rights Advocates (MHRAs) have a long list of grievances which “deserve a thoughtful response and the force of an organized movement to address them” acknowledging that the internet has provided a public square for MHRAs which functions as a “combination of locker room, group therapy, and organizing” while simultaneously maintaining that the MHRM is disorganized and not a legitimate movement. She notes that “there has been a worrying uptick in offline activity” while insisting that the movement isn’t actually doing any real activism. Jaclyn must find the postering campaigns disturbing because we use such “insidious” words. She’d likely faint on the spot if we put words on sign boards and actually marched down the street with them. Only terrorists do such violent things.

Jaclyn, and many others, claim that the MHRM is trying to silence women.

The best way to reinforce this lie is to silence the women in the MHRM. ABC and Jaclyn dutifully play their part in that ruse by insisting on calling the movement “the manosphere.” A producer from the 20/20 program was offered the chance to talk to four female MHRAs on a conference call and refused to engage with any of us so that they could retain the show title “Women Battle Online Anti-Women Hate From the ‘Manosphere'”

In Jaclyn’s article, she provides many links (via donotlink.com) but intentionally omits both a link to what was written about her on AVfM and the fact that it was written by a woman. Puff! and I’m gone with Jaclyn’s wind.

I feel so silenced.

Since Jaclyn chose to mention the article I wrote about her but not provide a link so people could verify her summary I’m going to address each of her concerns in this reply.

The article was called “Jaclyn Friedman: clit as big as the world” and it was based on a lecture she gave called “How feminist digital activism is like the clitoris” When I tried to point out to her on twitter that I wasn’t calling her a clit, I was quoting her own analogy used to describe herself and her friends, she blocked me so that she wouldn’t have to own her responsibility. Silenced again!

Jaclyn claims I called her “a bad feminist (for criticizing Naomi Wolf)”. How silly. I think all feminists are bad so if I’d said she was being a bad feminist badly it would be a compliment. What I actually said was that “Jaclyn’s seminar about the clitoris tries to explain why the resulting attack on Wolf is both hilarious and a result of not understand how the clit works.” I thanked her for the information.

Jaclyn says I accused her of “demonizing male sexuality”. Well, this is true. What I more specifically said was that “Friedman wants to brand male sexuality as evil” and should have provided a link to Jaclyn’s Prospect article “Toxic Masculinity“. I think that’s a fairly accurate summary of her words.

Jaclyn complains I “[suggested] that [her] bisexuality means [she hasn’t] slept with enough men to have a valid opinion about them.” I didn’t just suggest it, I gave a link to where she tells us that herself. Her attempt to make it sound like I, a bisexual woman, am judging her sexual choices is patently ridiculous. I’m merely stating the facts as she provided them for us.

It’s also interesting how Friedman whines that “Pick Up Artists are perfectly plain that all they care about is using women for sex” because Friedman’s article, “My sluthood, myself”, clearly shows that her involvement with men has been on the exact same level. Jaclyn is a female Pick Up Artist who defends her actions passionately claiming “it’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling.”

Jaclyn purports that I called her “fat and ugly.” What I actually did was to post a picture of her next to Andrea Dworkin remarking on how much they look alike. That Jaclyn finds Andrea Dworkin fat and ugly is a very unkind thing for her to say. Even I wouldn’t do such a thing.

I also didn’t say that Jaclyn is “a miserable slut”, I said “she eagerly announced herself a slut and begged women to support sluttiness and become slutty themselves whilst explaining how unhappy she is with her own life as a result.” That, again, is a pretty accurate summary of the article Jaclyn wrote for Feministe. It seems that Jaclyn isn’t upset with the article, she’s upset with reality.

She concludes her complaint about my article by mentioning some comments left by AVfM users suggesting that someone stand up at a lecture and say some words within the proximity of her hearing range. Jaclyn tells us “threats like this shake me almost physically.” The words that have her so terrified? “I think a dude raping you is the least of your fucking problems.” Apparently Jaclyn is even frightened by men who state clearly that they don’t want to rape her.

Jaclyn’s main focus in life is her belief in “rape culture” and the idea that rape is worse than murder. I’d pause to feel sorry for Jaclyn’s delusion but we just don’t have the time. Jaclyn’s problem (among the myriad other obvious issues) is that she doesn’t understand the level of violence that men face on a daily basis because she lives in a gynocentric world which supports her perspective: a woman’s pain is more important than a man’s.

While Jaclyn is crying “rapey, rapey, rape, rape!” all over the internet and television, men are voicing their concerns about “death, dead, not breathing anymore!” and she’s upset that anyone is listening to them.

We’ve heard her argument many times before. Her feminism is “fixing it.” Jaclyn claims that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reduced domestic violence incidents by 64% and that the reduction “is distributed evenly between male and female victims.” The fact is that men are incarcerated more often in domestic violence (DV) cases because the Gender Paradigm and the Duluth Model require that men be assumed guilty in domestic violence situations–yet this legal reality somehow leads her to believe that such anti-male policies reduced DV crimes against men. It didn’t. It only turned male victims into wrongly-labelled perpetrators.

Male victims have been taken off the grid and are no longer represented in any gathering of statistics. Feminists have shown that their idea of “fixing” men’s problems is by erasing them from the equation. The MHRM is putting men back into the picture and we plan on using many more words to do it.

Jaclyn ends her drama with a decree – She declares that feminists should show “love” towards MHRAs by “continuing to work to improve the lives of both men and women”. This is what happens when people are invested in their own perspective: They turn into raving lunatics.

We don’t want your kind of love, Jaclyn. As Rhett Butler said, “You’re so brutal to those who love you, Scarlett. You take their love and hold it over their heads like a whip.” The MHRM is done with feminist gaslighting. Our scary words are coming soon to a signboard near you, Jaclyn. She can complain, feign emotional distress, faint, and stomp her feet all she wants, but this movie always ends the same:

“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Also posted on A Voice For Men

My youtube channel

I have added a youtube channel to my media outlets.

Feminism LOL is my video chronicles of de-constructing the feminist narrative. Also: Rape jokes.


I was still recovering from a terrible flu when I recorded this but I’m really big on meeting personal deadlines and the time was “now.”


My alter ego, The Cock Fairy, is thus introduced to the world. If you think this is a joke, you’ll be laughing twice as hard when I get footage of her postering Vancouver with MHRM messages.

Community Organized Compassion and Kindness

Cock-Inn

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

It’s a woman problem

look_into_my_eyes

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

Spiritual Materialism, Ego, And Self-Deception

buddha

There is nothing in this world that the ego can not co-opt for its own glorification. Even the act of killing your ego can become ego fulfilling.

“Ego is constantly attempting to acquire and apply the teachings of spirituality for its own benefit.”
~Chogyam Trungpa

The Spiritual Materialist uses every conquest in meditation to feel more spiritual than those around them just as some MGTOWs brag that their method is the best form of Going Their Own Way. The only benefit to making such claims is to feed the “Three Lords of Materialism“: the “Lord of Form,” the “Lord of Speech,” and the “Lord of Mind.”

As master Kudi, The Mystical Rodent Activist, said “I’m aware that there is plenty of controversy within the Men’s Rights Movement, especially when it comes to minor details, but I’ve also noticed there is a modest consensus emerging at the heart of the Men’s Rights Movement.”

The consensus is the Middle Way.

Discussing MGTOW approaches to relationships, recent articles on AVfM have presented sex vs attachment, as Tawil’s study of basic human needs and the importance of understanding attachment, and “elective de-attachment”, as August Løvenskiolds’ rebuttal. What makes AVfM so great is that they encourage such debate.

Non attachment has a surface appeal that makes it sound easy. Some MGTOWs will advise you to “just say no” and your independence will become some sort of magicalBodhi tree under which you can sit until you become enlightened. Perhaps watching a few youtube videos while you wait.

A few years ago I emailed the office of the Dalai Llama with some questions about non attachment and why they can’t detach from the land of Tibet. The non reply that I got was a brief message saying I should read up on how mean the Chinese are. If the Dalai Lama can’t answer questions about non attachment honestly how can MGTOWs?

August calls his isolation prescription “elective de-attachment” but is that different from non attachment? He offers you religious figures as examples so I think he is just giving it a new name that means the same thing. Does August understand it better than the Dalai Lama? Probably not.

Freedom from attachment is not the veto power of saying “I reject this.” That path of suffering is called asceticism and it usually involves self mortification. It isn’t pretty and hasn’t produced a single icon. In spiritual terms, the only way to truly avoid attachment need is to stop seeing yourself as a separate entity. You become one with everything and everyone so there is no means of attaching because it is you. You give up your personality and all sense of self. You can’t separate yourself from that screaming feminist because she is also a part of you and you love her as you love yourself. Still sounding like a good idea?

MGTOWs are, generally, not doing this.

Most MGTOWs are separating themselves quite distinctly and focusing on setting boundaries between themselves and the world around them. They seek to assess other people skeptically based on lessons from their past and/or observations of their present environment. They increase the value placed on defining themselves in their own way and those definitions have strong boundaries. That MGTOWs are doing the opposite of spiritual non attachment doesn’t make it bad unless you’re also a Buddhist trying to become enlightened, but if you’re just a human being trying to create a sustainable environment it’s a perfectly acceptable and supportable step on the road.

Feeling safe is an important part of mental health and MGTOWs have recognized that traditional relationships are not safe.

Tawil’s article on sexuality and attachment raises a very important consideration for those of us who do not fashion ourselves to be religious icons ready to face a life of asceticism. He asks people to consider what their human emotional needs are so that they do not neglect those needs in the same way so many of us refuse to see a doctor when we are ill. Not all of us have the same social needs. There is no right way to be, but you can certainly do it wrong by neglecting yourself. Those are the folks that die young.

Do you need physical contact?

I am not big on hugging and kissing. I went for about two years without letting another human physically touch me in any way. I didn’t even know I was doing it until a friend put his hand on my arm to ask me a question and it literally shocked me. Human contact is powerful. It is an exchange.

That contact is important doesn’t mean I have to go around fucking everyone I meet. “All things in moderation” is the saying, and moderation is the key: self moderation. Maybe you don’t need to get laid, you just need a good massage, or a game of rugby, or a pet, but you do need physical contact or your body will suffer.

I sometimes look around and am awed by the reality that every single person surrounding me in a crowd woke up that morning filled with a completely different subjective world view that sometimes aligns us and sometimes pits us against each other. We share the same world with so many people yet rarely feel that anyone will ever truly know us but strive every day to express ourselves in a way that will attain that one thing we want so badly: to connect with someone else in a meaningful way.

Humans are social animals. The evidence that we need each other is in our cities and our inventions, like the internet, that let us reach out and connect with each other despite the fact that we are trained to be in direct competition with each other in every aspect of our lives. This competition both invigorates us and tears us apart. It inspires us to create and it inspires us to destroy.

While you don’t need someone to complete you, you do need someone to confirm that you have value. You can’t do that by yourself. Men don’t need women but they do need human contact and validation. When I read Tawil’s article about attachment it resonated with my own concerns that the amount of time it might take to fix the social injustices may be longer than some men can endure. Not everyone is cut out for isolation and men already have a high suicide rate. Those of you who can be happy in isolation shouldn’t assume that everyone can.

Admitting that most people have attachment needs isn’t an issue of shaming, it’s an issue of survival. You can lie to yourself all the way up to pulling the trigger.

Insinuations that MGTOW happens in levels of which all should strive for some apex is not only like a shady pyramid scheme, it is a destructive and dangerous form of Spiritual Materialism. There is no God of the MGTOWs and attempts for anyone to fashion themselves as such is sheer egotism that might liberate some but will drive others to suicide. All religious comparisons fall flat and should stir suspicion.

Buddha ate his own feces for a good many years. At the time, Buddha thought he was likely to be enlightened at any moment.

Moses never achieved enlightenment, he actually spent a lot of time complaining to God that he was a poor choice of spokesperson. Jesus let himself be crucified because he only lived to serve. In fact, all iconic religious figures weren’t “going their own way,” they always served God. They were willing to sacrifice their own needs to serve something more powerful than them and were never on their own because they believed they were the servants of God.

Then there are those of us that live in the real world. The one where, like it or not, you have feelings and needs.

You can fool your mind but you can’t fool your soul.

Honesty is a tricky thing. So many people are being honest with you but not with themselves. So it’s true with MGTOW as well. I’m not MGTOW, I’m a WGHOW who rejects lies. I’m tougher on myself than anyone else and I expect the same vigilance from others.

We count on our friends to tell us when we’re being self destructive or chasing some dragon down a rabbit hole and we owe it to each other to help keep each other on the Middle Path.

You can’t save the world but you can save yourself. If you do it well you can share your technique with others so they might benefit, but anyone claiming to know how to fix everyone else is a person who needs to assess whether or not they’ve got their ego under control.

Men don’t need to marry women and they don’t even need sex but they do have needs that should be taken seriously. It could be a long time before relationships are redefined in a way that makes attachment safe. Women have been taught to manipulate the human need for attachment like they’re holding a winning lottery ticket just by being female and most haven’t read the fine print that says “all winnings will be paid with your future happiness.”

While we wait for the rest of the world to catch up, the important thing is to survive going your own way long enough to see the day when feminism falls into its own fetid footprint. Men aren’t actually alone in this fight. You may need to stand alone in your battle position to keep your strength but you aren’t actually alone.

Also posted on A Voice For Men