Friday, 5 December 2014

Yes I Will Blame the Victim - Kelly Savage Deserves no Sympathy

Kelly Savage has been behind bars in California's Valley State Prison for Women. This year marks her 19th year in prison after she was convicted under the failure to protect laws in California for the death of her 3 year old son who was beaten to death by her husband Mark Savage.

Kelly had a history of being abused by Mark Savage, and had never tried to leave the abusive relationship until 15 hours before she allegedly says she was going to leave Mark Savage with her children. At her trial, the prosecutor argued that, because she had not fled, she was equally at fault for her son's death. Both she and Mark were convicted of torture and first-degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

Kelly Savage has said that she was beaten and raped by many people in her life since the age of 3, including her father, her uncle, her stepmother's stepfather, and a trusted friend of her father. The police had allegedly been called several times, they did nothing to stop the abuse or remove Kelly from her abusers when she was young. At 18 she got married, but her husband also turned out to be physically and sexually abusive. She became pregnant with him and two months before her son Justin was born in December 1991 she left.

A year later she met Mark Savage who also quickly became both physically and sexually abusive. Kelly offered an explanation as to why she did not leave the abusive relationship with Mark:

"I was about to leave him when I found out I was pregnant with my daughter - I made a stupid choice. I didn't want to have two kids without a father, so I stayed." 

Their daughter Krystal was born on November 25, 1993. The couple married the following month.

So She admits she left a previously abusive relationship while pregnant with Justin, but decided to stay with another abusive partner because she didn't want to have another child without a father? To me this hardly makes any sense at all. She knew abusive relationships were toxic which is why she left the first one, but ignored that fact because she was having another kid? First of all, why was she being so careless so as to get pregnant again in another abusive relationship she herself admits she wanted to leave from? There are many ways to prevent pregnancy, and he did not keep her tied down at home so that she could not access any of those options if she had wanted to. If she wanted to she could have had an abortion and not had to worry about having another child without a father, and then  leave him like she said she was planning to do, if that is in fact true, which I am not very sure it is.

I suspect she is lying and actually thought a child would change Mark and stop the abuse. Many women think having a child will fix all kinds of relationship problems, especially abuse, but they rarely do, and many times exasperate problems in the relationship. I doubt she was ever truly planning on leaving Mark, but rather was trying anything she thought might work in the desperate hopes that he would change.

The re-occurring theme in Kelly's relationship with Mark seems to be that she was always "just about to leave him", but she never seems to be able to follow though in time. Coincidence? I don't think so. I think she never intended to leave Mark and just kept hoping he would change at some point and stop the abuse. She never did anything to stop it herself - in fact she did things that only served to make her, and Justin's, situation worse.

The night before Justin's death, Kelly woke to her son screaming and her husband yelling. When she tried to enter Justin's room, she reported that Mark pushed her out before tossing the boy onto the bed. It was the first - and only - time she says had ever seen Mark hit Justin. Usually, she recalled, the boy seemed attached to his stepfather. In court later, she learned that this was traumatic bonding, in which an abuse victim, in an attempt to deflect further harm, forms an emotional attachment to the abuser.

The next day, Kelly put her children to bed for a nap before running some last-minute errands. When she returned home, Justin was no longer breathing. She called 911, but Justin was already dead.

Regardless of how many times she may or may not have seen Mark abuse Justin, did it never occur to her to call the police that one time she admits to witnessing it? And I am truly not buying that she thought that Mark was not abusing Justin in any way. She is either lying, covering up for knowingly putting her child in harm's way, or a complete moron.

Call me crazy, but as a mother myself I can tell you that if I had been in her shoes, watching and hearing my child being beaten and abused, I would have either called the police in a heartbeat and not have cared what that scum bag might do to me if I did, or I would have fought tooth and nail to get in that room and protect my child, consequences to me be damned. Our role as parents is to protect our children at all costs, and that means that if we, as parents, have to put our lives on the line to do so, we should damned well do it. There is not any excuse in the world that Kelly could give to justify her inaction and complete failure as a parent to protect her child.

As a mother myself, who left an abusive partner who not only beat on me, but my children, I can tell you it's not impossible to do when the choice is between an abuser and the well-being of your kids. Yes it's hard to physically get up and leave, and yes you have to pull yourself up by your big girl undies to get by when you leave, but you do it because you are the adult and your duty as a parent to your kids is to keep them safe. You do anything, go anywhere, and get the hell out. It's not rocket science ladies. You don't wait for days while you pack your kids stuff up like Kelly did. You go, right then and there, as soon as you have the chance with or without anything but your kids and the clothes on your back.

It's almost like this is some foreign concept to these feminist dolts that will try any excuse in the world to justify a mother staying in an abusive relationship and deliberately endangering the welfare of their children. Because that is exactly what it is. When you stay with an abuser for any reason, you are equally as guilty in any abuse your child may suffer at the hands of the abuser.

And please stop calling yourself a victim, because the harsh reality is that you are also an abuser. You stood by and did nothing while your child was being harmed. Sorry sister, you don't get the right to have any sympathy here. You just want it so you can feel better about being an accomplice to a horrible crime, and to assuage your guilty conscious. You want people to tell you that you are somehow a good person, even though deep down you know you are just as guilty for the abuse of your child by having done nothing to help them. You may have well have abused them by your own hand if all you did was do nothing and then cry victim after the fact. Your tears are not impressive.

In court, the prosecutor used her history of abuse to argue that Kelly enjoyed being beaten and that she allowed her husband to beat Justin in order to please him.

This I can believe, even if feminists would prefer to fall all over themselves in shock and horror that anyone could say such a thing about a female abuse victim - But I'll be that 'anyone' for you, ok?

I bet you a million dollars that she in fact did enjoy the abuse because she has only ever known abuse to be a type of expression of love, as sick as that may be. She was abused for so long by her family that she picked abusive men to have relationships with. It does not take a genius or a Psychologist with a PhD to tell you that this type of thing is common for people who were abused at a young age. The proof is right in front of anyone who cares to look. Her son Justin was said to have had traumatic bonding with Mark, so it should come as no surprise that Kelly probably did too, and that she probably enjoyed it, and most likely allowed Justin to be abused by Mark as well, because to Kelly that is how love is expressed - through abuse.

She most definitely deserves to be behind bars for failing to protect her son. She is indeed just as guilty as Mark for Justin's death. We should not be falling all over ourselves to free Kelly from prison because the reality is she is not an innocent victim. She knew the risks and she knew her son was in danger, yet did nothing. She is the one who completely failed her son, and I would even dare to say that she deserves more blame than Mark because she is still so heavily in denial about any of the responsibility she had towards her son. It was not Marks biological son, and he had no ultimate responsibility towards Justin. He was known to be abusive and yet she would leave Justin in his care, so who is really to blame here? You do not put a loaded gun in a child's hand and hope he does not pull the trigger. Children are hard to deal with most days, and even as a biological parent you can get easily frustrated or exasperated. Now imagine leaving your child who can test the patience of a saint with a known abuser who has no real relationship to the child. I wonder if that would be a good idea? On what planet?

So yes, Kelly, and other women like her, deserve to rot in jail for allowing their children to be horribly abused, and in this case killed. Being a failure as a parent does not earn you any points here, and your failure as a parent, as an adult, and as a decent human being to protect your child should be exposed.

You are not a victim - The child who was being abused over and over because of you and your inaction is.

Source material:

Tuesday, 2 December 2014

Defining MGTOW - Taking Freedom of Choice Away From Men

There have been recent rumblings between Paul Elam, AVFM, John The Other, and many in the online MGTOW community. Again. The whole thing seems to have started about a year ago when I apparently opened a can of worms by speaking my mind about some MGTOWs and MRAs, and basically said that the angry, woman-hating ones should be left on the sidelines because they had nothing of value to add to the MRM. Shortly after that, Paul Elam attempted to cash in on the MGTOW "community" by dictating what his version of MGTOW was, and attempted to brand AVFM as some sort of MGTOW friendly place to boost his readership and profit.

He has now released a new video saying any man can be MGTOW regardless of one's relationship status. The online MGTOW community of course reacted in a less than positive manner (surprise surprise) in response to Paul's proclaimed expertise and authority on the matter, as was to be expected.

John the Other has also added his two cents into the mix with his own limiting definition of MGTOW, with the main emphasis being that if you are not "XYZ" (according to JtO), then you are not a MGTOW. He repeatedly used the words "self-actualization" alongside his definition of MGTOW which made his statements more than a little contradictory since you cannot define an individual's self-actualization by placing constraints on their development.

As I said, over a year ago I myself had expressed issues with some MGTOWs and MRAs, and basically said that the angry, woman-hating ones should be left on the sidelines because they had nothing of value to add to the MRM. Ironically (and amusingly), Paul Elam is now saying the same thing in response to criticism of his all encompassing new position. It is laughable that he has now chosen to adopt the same stance I took over a year ago, which he characterized as me "shaming" men. It seems he was either lying through his teeth a year ago, or that he now sees it as acceptable to "shame" men

After taking a long break from the constant online dramas, I have had time to reflect on many things, and I have come to the conclusion that it ultimately doesn't matter what MGTOW is, and that my previous statements of over a year ago regarding "angry" MGTOWS (or MRAs) were somewhat premature, given the nature of the internet and trolling - I should have waited for it to be "fashionable", I suppose.

Every man should be given a voice to express himself, regardless of what it is he is expressing - with the obvious exceptions regarding violence, etc., and irrespective of it either being a temporary or permanent part of who they are. Who am I, or Paul Elam, to say they shouldn't? I now get the anger, and I get the frustration many men feel, and I do not want to deny anyone the right to vent. To sideline men because of their need to vent is treading on the edge of a very slippery slope indeed.

Also, If people choose to adopt the MGTOW label and are happy and fulfilled, whether through being celibate or single, or by being in some form of male/female relationship, or something else, then that, in my opinion, is great too. You can call yourself a MGTOW while wearing a clown suit and riding a tiny tricycle for all I care. If it makes you happy, and gives your life meaning, and as long as it's legal, do it. Life is too short for anyone to tell you what should or shouldn't make you happy, or how to enjoy your life.

Now, I know that statement may not sit well with many MGTOWs who define MGTOW to mean that one cannot be in any relationship with a woman - the most contentious of those "relationships" being that of marriage, but I've been told by some MGTOWs that there is no one definition, no one central philosophy. It is an individual choice that a man makes for his own well-being and ultimate happiness in life. If that is true, then no one can dictate or define what MGTOW is, except for the individual who defines himself as such, and solely based on his own terms. If so, one cannot then claim that MGTOW has certain restrictions or caveats to it.

If you try to define and package something that is so personal and individual, such as MGTOW is supposed to be, you begin to venture into murky waters where others get to define you and remove your individual freedom to do, say, and be what you feel or know is right for you. It turns into a "you are either with us or against us" type of argument, where no one is truly afforded any personal freedom because the definition of it has become pre-packaged and defined with it's own special set of rules and boundaries - it becomes a type of religion.

Now, I am no expert on MGTOW, nor do I wish to define it for anyone. This article only expresses my thoughts and observations regarding MGTOW. What I do know is that the acronym MGTOW and the words these letters represent mean something (even if that meaning is subjective). Trying to define the words by stuffing them into a universal package with ridged definitions or rules is just as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any true believer of a religion or cult.

Now if what you want is to define it so it can then have limitations and a set definition with principles or values, like "MGTOWs cannot be married", then you need to re-brand it to represent the core of what MGTOW is then supposed to be. Moreover, you cannot use words like self-actualization, self-awareness, or any other personally defined or constraining language to explain or define it. You would need to accept that what you want is indeed a form of religion where principles, values, rules, and definitions are adhered to universally, and that the individuals within it are indeed constrained by those things. There is no room here for having your cake and eating it too.

I understand the MGTOWs who say that anyone who is married, or who approves of marriage, cannot be a MGTOW. They want the MGTOW label to mean something universal - something that defines a group as a whole, not individually. To say you're "going your own way" is just not consistently possible for those MGTOWs because of the group dynamic they desire and the inherent structured limitations within it that such a group per force brings with it.

Those who currently use the label of MGTOW, and who want it to mean more than an individual choice - a free choice for men to make all on their own, with definitions and rules put in place to define who is or isn't a MGTOW, should probably re-brand themselves. As it currently stands, MGTOW, by virtue of it's own label, is not something that can be dictated, defined, or limited by anyone but by each individual. As Elam sort of says, it is a broad and all encompassing label that basically can be applied to any man, anywhere, who has found happiness and contentment with the choices he has made. If you want any more than that, you should find another way to label yourself and the group you want to belong to.

And believe me, to admit that Elam and I are sort of on the same page about this one issue makes me cringe quite a bit, but I have to admit that even people who I vehemently disagree with 99% of the time still have the capacity to say something that makes actual sense once in a while.

But in the end does it really matter? If you insist MGTOW is a personal choice and an individually determined way of life, then who cares what it means or how anyone else interprets it, right? It should not matter one bit what anyone else says, be it Paul Elam, JtO, myself, or anyone else. It should be a non-issue with no discussion or debate ever required or needed. In fact, the entirety of MGTOW would fade quietly into the background as each man goes his own way, and respects the right of every other man to do the same - which includes not dictating how they should live their lives. It would just become the new normal.

If you are one who feels so strongly that MGTOW needs to be qualified in some way, then you also have to admit that, in it's current state, MGTOW is no longer about a man going his own way - it is about men who have elected to join a group with limitations and boundaries placed upon it by the members of that group, where complete freedom of choice for the individual is no longer possible, even if one wishes it were not so.

But I digress....

OK, sometimes I lose track of time. And what I'm thinking at any given moment. A hazard of spending so much time thinking, also a problem exacerbated by narcolepsy. So....apropos of my last post about hating cops, here's the reason I went off on that particular tangent:

I get "it", whatever SJWs are referring to, when they say that women who have been raped don't want to talk to cops. I have had the living shit beat out of me by NYPD stormtroopers on three separate occasions--and I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they probably would not have taken my report of their brother officers assaulting me if I had been stupid enough to bother. so I get it that there is little to no confidence that the cops will take you seriously, let alone take a report. I once had cops show up at my door (before I knew about CCRB complaints being a rite of passage for them), to get my statement, and they then proceeded to handle me. That is to say, they copslained why the cop that used me to test his collapseable baton was not that bad a guy, and how he'd been having problems with his family and on and on and on.

Ultimately, I didn't file because, well, I'm not an idiot. I'm not going to waste my time, knowing full well that the cops aren't going to police themselves at all, so why would I go to great lengths to get the cops in question to spend a few days on vacation, and maybe have to sit through a two hour "class" on "Not Hating Those Dirty Niggers 101"?. So yeah, I get the not wanting to report a crime to the cops. However, for a report against cops for police brutality, my one report isn't going to do shit, especially if I manage to survive it-it's not the first, it won't be the last, and my beatings didn't have the noteworthy broomstick anal rape, or bullet wounds to the face with hands up like Mike Brown. This is manifestly not the case with rape accusations.

The cops aren't going to take my report of other cops showing me the bottoms of their boots. Not only that, but they aren't about to arrest their fellow officers, so maybe, if I'm lucky, a suspension w/o pay awaits the cops who attacked me. Not so with rapists--rapists can sometimes be prosecuted successfully, especially since cops tend to hate criminals anyway. Which means that if you don't report your rape, well, the next rape committed by that rapist, is partly, though not fully, your fault--not legally, of course, but morally, your inaction is an enabling factor. You have no idea whether or not that person would or could have been successfully prosecuted, and on the off chance that such a thing is possible, it seems pretty clear that your decision not to report could have an effect on that.

Now, if you're familiar with SJWs, this is the point in the conversation where I'm called a rape apologist, which, of course, I'm not. Quite the opposite. Given some evidence, even if it isn't conclusive, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that someone was raped, I just hold them to the same standards that are supposed to be in effect for everyone else. I'm not ready to ruin someone's life because you feel you should be believed, or because women don't lie about rape, ever. Here's where the SJW tells me that the "official" number, which is really nothing more than speculative fantasy, is that only between 2% to 8% of reported rapes are false. To which I respond: even if that were true, so fucking what? How many innocent people should go to prison so that you have a 'safe space' to complain about how horrible men are? how many innocent people should go to prison before we decide that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent person spend a day in jail? I'm all for [edit: being horrified at, and doing something about] the practical reality of possibly letting at worst, 98 rapists go free for every single reported rape, after all, I do have daughters. And a wife. And a mother. 

I also have a son. I don't want him going to jail because some overwrought teenager or college student, in all her wisdom, with the addition of some femitheist rape "counselor" wisdom, decides that my son raped her because she had a freaking beer before having sex with him (which she should probably not have had in the first fucking place because it's usually against the freaking law if you're under 21).

What does one DO? Ooh...ooh... I know: I "blame the victim": I've already told my little daughters about "stranger danger"

[as an aside, why is it that we expect children to understand 'stranger danger', but we call it 'blaming the victim' if we tell college age women to be careful who they hang out with?; and also, aren't all those college freshman lectures for women on how to avoid being raped on campus also "blaming the victim"?].

Anyway, I teach my daughters how to fight and how to protect themselves. I teach them to wear context appropriate clothing- more conservative attire for work and school, less so for partying with friends. And there's the rub: with friends. I teach them that friends are special people who we didn't just meet at some frat house party. Friends are people we've usually known our whole lives, and who've demonstrated their willingness to treat my daughters like people first, women second. Not jackasses who spend their entire day playing Halo 4or Gears of War 3, to the point where they are world class "gamers" who are "feared" in the online videogame chats, or something similarly childlike, and whose idea of flirting is throwing 'negs' at them until they succumb to their "game"-- the neckbeard alternative to actually being an alpha male. I tell them to steer away from the pretend "alpha males" who are so alpha they have to study their pick up lines and manners from a book, novel or $3000 a head seminar led by a scumbag like Julien Blanc.

So no, perhaps it's pie-in-the-sky dreaming, but yeah, I'd rather ten guilty men go free than one innocent person spend a day in jail. Too many brown people have gone to prison for decades (see also) b/c of their skin color, and not the severity of their crime. In fact, it's more than common knowledge that blacks and Hispanics go to prison for lengthy stays for crimes that garner whites a few hours of community service, or even suspended sentences. Hired contract assassins have gone to jail for less time than a great many non-white & non-violent "offenders" under the Rockefeller Drug Laws. This last, btw, is something SJWs can't deny--the notion that non-whites have it worse in the judicial systems of Western democracies is fundamental to the social justice paradigm. And non-whites do. I do 'get' the issues involved-however much SJWs would like to deny that. I just refuse to add the crime of walking while male to those things that us non-whites are going to be disproportionately subjected to. That is anathema to justice, and racist. Sorry femitheists, that's just the way it is. The "justice" system, often called the "just-us" system, is totally fucked up, it's totally sexist and racist. But we can't replace it with vigilante justice or the authoritarian and byzantine "justice" of a latter day (the) Trial (the novel by Kafka), where people can go to jail on the mere say-so of someone whose anonymity might also be protected due to so called 'rape shield' laws.

Another objection I hear quite often is that "it's too traumatizing to have to "relive" the rape". I get that, too. I can still feel the dull thump of collapsable batons on my back and legs, and the only thoughts in my head, playing on a loop, are "I hope he smokes...b/c that might mean he'll tire out faster", and "it's almost over.". There is no fighting back-that will get you hospitalized with life threatening injuries or maybe severe head trauma. It might mean I won't go home to my kids tonight. It might mean I won't be able to wipe my ass ever again. I might live the rest of my life in a wheelchair, or with a colostomy bag attached. Fighting back can also get you killed for "resisting arrest" or "disorderly conduct" or "public inebriation/lewdness".

Actually, another aside: right now, today, it's way more dangerous, and the risks a hell of a lot higher, being male and black/Hispanic anywhere the NYPD's jurisdiction extends. I'm sorry to say, but given that cops have no qualms nowadays about killing some of us, it's way more dangerous than rape. Rape victims usually have the dubious distinction of 'living' after the attack (if you can call it living, that is), for colored men, it's a crapshoot). Problem is, Cop perpetrated violence against "colored folk" doesn't sell as well as a good rape he said/she said, because, after all, men are asking for it, what with already being so violent, and being complicit in the patriarchy, and anyway, it's usually male on male violence since most cops are still men, so it's men's fault anyway, AMIRITE?

My response to this: well, you lived through a rape. You're a survivor. That means something, ladies. A predator targeted you, and you survived. Lots of well trained, bad ass men, cannot boast that claim. You were attacked in a most vicious and cruel way, unlike what most people have ever experienced. Goddamnit, cross your t's and dot your fucking i's. Get a rape kit done. Give testimony. Ride those son-of-a-bitch prosecutors to prosecute even if the chances of a conviction are vanishingly small-they love to keep their numbers up because high conviction rates look good on CV's. You've already been victimized. For fuck's sake, don't make yourself a victim a second time. Protect the other women who that son of a bitch might target later. Avenge the ones he might already have attacked. Help protect our daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts, and friends. Don't give up the fight because it's hard. That's when you're supposed to fight hardest.

It's not the size of the dog in the fight. It's the size of the fight in the dog.

Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

If you want to learn about the quotes above or books I refer to in any blog post, or if you'd just like to help Menticulture out a bit (without actually having to give us anything), you can use the links below to  purchase some of the materials I reference above- Amazon sends some love our way, and you get good books to read. Win/win.


Wednesday, 19 November 2014

Why You Should Hate Cops

Some of you won't like this post because, well, reasons. That's fine. If your head holds some utopian ideal of who and what I am that doesn't conform with a little thing I like to call "Truth", or the other little thing I like to call "Reality", stop reading now if you wish to preserve that idea you have of me as whatever the hell I'm supposed to be. If, on the other hand, you don't mind examining unpleasant truths or living in RealityLand™, read on...

I HATE cops. I despise them. They, along with Glenn Beck, Wars-For-Profit™, "3rd Wave Feminism"™, and organized religion, are easily the top 4 spots on the "Top 10 Worst Inventions of Humanity" list. I prefer the Mafia to cops. Whether it be the NYPD-the "gold standard" for thugs-, or the Podunk County Sheriff, I HATE cops. Cops are the worst humanity has to offer--at least criminals tend to be up front about who they are and what they're doing. Cops on the other hand, on top of being criminals, to the last man and woman on the beat, are cowards who wouldn't confront a little old lady without a taser handy. Cops are so bad that each and every single person who's been a cop more than six months or so (OK, maybe a year), is literally a criminal. I understand what makes them criminals, and I don't necessarily fault them for it, but in reality, being a cop should be much like flipping burgers at a fast food joint used to be- a way station job on the way to becoming a grown up, and not a career (and in terms of quality of people that's a bit insulting to McDonald's employees, frankly). No one should EVER have to be a cop for more than six months, and really, it should be a punishment for DUI or something.

A person who is a cop witnesses crimes daily. A great many of the crimes they see committed are committed by fellow cops. And they say nothing. That is to say, by not reporting the criminal activities of their fellow cops that they know to be, or believe to be, criminal, they become accessories to all sorts of crimes from letting off a fellow cop with a 'warning' after pulling them over for speeding (yeah, they call it 'discretion' sometimes, I know. I call it a cop out--see what I did there? Who says I'm not funny?), to raping someone, or beating someone who has done nothing, or killing an unarmed black or Hispanic kid. They do these things, and other cops cover them up. ALL cops do it. Which makes them all criminals. Covering up a crime is itself a crime, see how that works? You can now go back to pretending your excuse of choice makes any sense at all (although you pretending what I said isn't true renders it no less true):

  1. The "Job" is Hard™-- Then don't fucking do it.
  2. Cops have 'discretion' in deciding to give/not give a speeding ticket--and in reporting graft, tasing an old lady, putting a teenager through a plate glass window, corruption, rape, murder, and extortion, too?
  3. Criminals Outgun cops--Then don't fucking do the job. Become a meter reader.
  4. Criminals do it-- So?
  5. The pay is too low--THEN DON'T DO THE FUCKING JOB.
Now, does that mean I don't understand cops? No. I "Get It"™. It IS tough sometimes. You DO deal with motherfuckers who would just as soon kill you as look at you. It IS scary to have someone come at you with a knife or gun. You DON'T know what's waiting behind that door. You also swore an oath. You are PAID to encounter these dangers. You are also not supposed to be above the law. So...don't come crying to me for sympathy.

One of Hemingway's characters, in A Farewell To Arms, said that "all thinking men are atheists", which means that a rational mind, unimpeded by any outside considerations, will come to the rational conclusion that because there is no evidence to support the idea of a deity, the only intellectually honest position to hold vis-a-vis the existence of such a being, is that it doesn't exist (however emotionally unsatisfying that may be for any given individual). In the same vein, every thinking man should detest the power of life and death in the hands of any government thug, especially those bereft of accountability (as so many cops are), bereft of compassion (ditto), and bereft of the higher faculties of learned people (ditto again). It isn't who they are that's disgusting and reprehensible, it's what they are.


  A Final Word On "Discretion":

You're given discretion, damn you, because you're supposed to arrest or ticket that friend of yours on the day shift for driving drunk, or at least get them out of the fucking car so they can sleep it off safely, NOT so you can tase a pregnant woman in the belly for sitting on the subway steps because her back hurts, or any of the umpteen bazillion things you assholes have been caught on video doing. You're given discretion because you are supposed to exercise the power of good judgment, not so you can indulge your petty hatreds, feed your ego, or take revenge on the high school bully. The 21 foot rule is not carte fucking blanche for shooting anyone you damn well please. Oh, and your safety?

"Yeah, I said it. It had to be said." - Chris Rock

If you want to help a brother out, you can purchase "A Farewell to Arms", the Hemingway novel I referenced above, at Amazon--it doesn't cost you anything extra, and Amazon sends some love my way:

Monday, 17 November 2014

The Hiatus is Over, and Two Manboobz Memes For the Price of One!!!!

The Housekeeping:

I'd like to thank all of you  patient souls for sticking around. I'd also like to tell you why I've been gone for so long, and just after the launch of Menticulture: You all probably know by now that K. Hansen and I have a son now. I took the time I did to care for him. My son is the single best thing I've ever done, and I could not, and would not, leave him in that first year (his Bday is happening in a couple of weeks).

Now that he's a year old (almost), I can return to this thing. Now I've got significant skin in the game. Of course, I have 4 beautiful stepdaughters and they are reason enough to destroy feminism and other crazy ideologies, but with girls, one can always teach them to mouth the right words when telling the truth becomes an actual crime. With a boy however, now I have to worry that he'll get the shit beat out of him or worse by overzealous copthugs, thrown in jail for raising his voice to his boyfriend or girlfriend, and everything else that comes with being male in today's Western society, not to mention the stigma of being an atheist. So dismantling religion generally, and gender religion specifically, has become my life's work.

By now, everyone should know that there's no love lost between the MRAs and me, but in the spirit of the 'season', and because this is too delicious not to mention, I leave you with this little vignette from the gender wars:

Some person involved in gamergate decided to tweet this to dev Brianna Wu:

to which Brianna Wu responded by requesting someone create a meme using the "respects is earn" misspelling.

Bravo. I'm something of a stormtrooper about spelling and such when it suits me, though less so nowadays because I just don't care about the niceties much anymore. Substance I find, is more compelling, but whatevs. So, long story short, David Futrelle picked it up and wrote a post about it, inviting his readers to do the same vis-a-vis the meme idea. Which you can read here. But really, the crux of all this background is twofold. I'd first like to point out that Futrelle, in deriding @viscountripper for his lack of spelling prowess, gives us an article about same, with this beautiful little snippet at the end:

So, though like I said, after the accusations of malfeasance and the like levied against me and K. by not an insubstantial MRA mob, for those of you who kept your heads about you, and refused to engage the blatant lies spewed by those people,  I offer you this small token of my appreciation, the David Futrelle meme:

Look David. Can I call you David? I don't really give two shits about your site, or you. The fact is that you're an apologist for a hate group. Also, I don't give two shits about whether you can spell or not, see I've made spelling errors, even in graduate school. The thing is, if you're gonna bitch that MRAs are stupid-because that's the subtext of so many of your posts--because they can't spell, maybe you shouldn't make spelling errors IN THE SAME BLOG POST. (type in the word 'deliberaly' in your browser's search window if you think the above was photoshopped). I'm just saying, some consistency is probably a good thing.

 Oh, for the record:
Dear Ms. Wu: I don't hate you, I wish you a long, happy and fruitful life, quite sincerely. I don't hate women, have NEVER threatened a woman with rape or death or anything else. I'm not a "gamergate" nutjob, or a "gamer". In fact, I'm as disgusted by those clowns as I am with MRAs of a certain kind, and feminists of a certain kind. All religions are pernicious, gender religions no less so than traditional deity-centered religions. I'm just here pointing out how silly and/or stupid people can be when their sacred cows are dinged up a bit.

Monday, 25 August 2014

My Thoughts on MGTOW

Over a year ago I talked about Men Going Their Own Way and lots of people got their undies in a bunch over what I said. I said that some, SOME, MGTOWs were only MGTOWs because they hated women, and I still hold that opinion. 

Of course some men choose to go their own way because they truly have hatred towards women for various reasons, and that’s their prerogative. I tried to point out how those guys were toxic to the whole MGTOW  ‘movement’ or idea, but of course it became completely blown out of proportion, with people insisting I hated all MGTOWs, which is simply not the case. 

In truth, I could care less how someone chooses to live out their lives. If someone feels that being single is their best option, then go for it. What I didn’t like was the constant hatred being spewed from SOME, again SOME, of them. But you also get that from SOME MRAs and PUAs, etc… In summary, you will always have crazies that basically try to fuck it up for the whole bunch. That was what I was ultimately saying, and there is nothing wrong with stating that obvious point.

But, the reason for this article is because someone asked me how I feel about MGTOWs, and I would like to respond here.

MGTOW is a personal choice that a man makes for his own personal reasons, of which there can be many. If a man has decided that being single, or a confirmed bachelor,  is the best option for him, then more power to him. I think it’s great that some men do not feel compelled to fit in with the ‘norm’ which basically says you can only be happy when you are in a long-term, monogamous relationship. Challenging that antiquated narrative is a good thing. 

If someone with self-confidence, and who knows who they are and what they want chooses that type of lifestyle, and does not attempt to impose their choices on others, then good for them. If you choose to go your own way, do it! Be happy and live your life as you see fit. 

The only issue I have is, again, with SOME MGTOWs, those who tend to try and push their choice of a single lifestyle on others by preaching that it is the only logical route for all men to take. It may be great for you, but it may not be what someone else chooses to do with their lives. What makes one person fulfilled does not make all people fulfilled.

We humans are all different, and if the core of being MGTOW truly means men going their own way and doing what is best for them, then some men will of course choose a different route in their lives. And we should all be ok with that because it is not up to anyone individual, or a group of individuals, to dictate what MGTOW truly is or how someone ultimately finds joy and happiness in life. 

The idea of men going their own way should be just that. Men ultimately deciding what is best for them, whether it’s being celibate, a confirmed bachelor, in a serious relationship, married, or tons of other lifestyle options in-between. 

MGTOW should not be solely defined as being a confirmed bachelor for life, as some say it is. MGTOW should be the freedom for men to make their own choices in regards to how they live their lives. It should be a response to antiquated assumptions, but not a rigid belief system. It is ultimately an umbrella term with many different meanings and options attached to it, and not just one rigid rule.

In essence, all men who make their own lifestyle choices without any outside pressures are MGTOWs. When a man says, this is how I choose to live my life and I am happy with my choice, they are a man going their own way, and isn’t that the ultimate goal? To allow men to make their own choices without dictating to them what is acceptable, and what is not? To me, that seems to be what a MGTOW should truly mean.

Saturday, 23 August 2014

Is the Mens Rights Movement Being Irresponsible?

There is a video that was done recently on TYT about War Machine, who is an ex MMA fighter and currently in police custody for the alleged brutal beating and attempted murder of his ex-girlfriend Christy Mack. 

In the TYT video they tie War Machine to the MRM because of things he wrote on his jail blogs. These were blogs he kept while he spent a total of 2 years behind bars for previous assault charges. 

Dean Esmay from A Voice for Men has recently chimed in after the TYT video was put up and said the following:

"So it’s happened again: Some violent psychotic does something violent and psychotic, and Men’s Rights Activists are supposedly to blame. Because potato."

No Dean, it is not because 'potato'. Let me explain it to you so your tiny little brain can comprehend why people keep equating people like War Machine to MRAs and the MRM.

I read both his blogs, (season 1 and season 2), and some of the things he wrote were eerily similar to the rhetoric peddled by the MRM, in particular, A Voice for Men (AVFM).

War Machine, yes that is his legal name, considers himself and men in general, to be more oppressed than the black slaves or the Jews in Nazi Germany were. He also writes about how men are also oppressed because they are not allowed to hit a woman if they feel, in any way, threatened or mistreated. Where have I heard that before? Oh ya, Paul Elam of AVFM wrote about how it was ok to beat a woman if you felt threatened. In that article he specifically stressed that what he was saying was NOT parody, and that he truly believes that it is perfectly fine for a man to beat a woman half his size if he thinks he is in any way being threatened. 

So what did War Machine clam on Twitter after the beating of Christy Mack? He claimed he felt threatened by Christy Mack and that his beating of her was justified because he was defending himself. 

Now call me paranoid, suspicious, or crazy, but isn’t it convenient how War Machine came out with that insane leap of logic 9 day after Paul Elam put that article out there basically encouraging men to do exactly what War Machine did. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I am not convinced it really is.

War Machine parrots a lot of the same insane and insulting sentiments that are held within the MRM, primarily those over at AVFM. Do a search on AVFM for Oppression, or Racisim and you will get tons of articles about how men in the western world are oppressed and treated like slaves by women, feminism, the government, and so-on. It’s a full on oppression Olympics pity party over there. 

For a place like AVFM, which likes to pretend it’s a human rights movement, to even consider or compare white middle class men in western society to being either oppressed or a slave is truly disgusting and insulting to anyone who has ever truly suffered those kinds of atrocities. Appropriating others real suffering for one’s own twisted agenda is not what any human rights movement worth its salt does.

But the real issue is, was War Machine an MRA? I highly doubt War Machine was an activist for anything, other than his own self-pity, but he did most certainly buy into the toxic idea that he, as a man, was seriously oppressed and a helpless victim. 

There is only one place that loudly proclaims these twisted ideas - where he could have gotten that insane message – The MRM. 

After seeing what War Machine wrote, I can’t help but see the eerie similarity and assume that he got those messages from places like AVFM, where they push the idiotic comparison of white middle class men to real oppression and slavery. It’s a common theme over there.

Now MRAs will most definitely protest to what I have said. They will try to claim that I am making shit up and that what people like Paul Elam writes is satire etc… But I am sorry guys, that shit don’t fly with me. You need to wake up and realize that what War Machine said is exactly the same bullshit that the MRM, and AVFM, peddles to its audience. 

If the MRM, or AVFM, doesn’t want any fingers pointed at them, then maybe they should have had much better sense and used some serious discretion when writing the kinds of articles they write. 

When you send a message to vulnerable men that they are as oppressed as real slaves were, or that they are under serious attack, as if they were in a real war, then you get blowback when something like this happens and your rhetoric is used. 

When you try and mask your true agenda or colors under the guise of ‘parody’, that is just plain irresponsible, especially when you know that it’s not really parody, and that your primary audience is comprised of vulnerable, angry, desperate men who are searching for any excuse or sense of permission to act as a victim and place all the blame for their problems on others. 

That is exactly what War Machine did, and I can guarantee you he is not the first, nor the last to think like that, especially when you now have a community of men that basically tells each other that it’s ok to blame women and the government for everything, that bashing a violent bitch is ok, or that beating a womanhalf your size is perfectly ok if you ‘feel’ in any way threatened, even if it is being touted as supposed parody.

Pro Tip: You are not The Onion.

It’s completely irresponsible on the part of people like Paul Elam and the other writers at AVFM , as well as those within the MRM as a whole, to put these bullshit ideas into the heads of vulnerable men, only to watch them self-destruct without any offer of real help, or possible solutions to their immediate problems. 

They exasperate things and fuel the anger and frustration within these men to the point that it eventually boils over and you get people like War Machine. And when that happens people will, and do, get hurt, but what you won’t see is Paul Elam, or anyone else at AVFM, or in the MRM, come out and try to help the monster they helped create. 

They will not offer to help those men who have taken their bullshit verbatim, ignored the parody claims, and then go out and self-destruct. They will not own their words or take responsibility for their part in these tragic events, even though they love to tell others to own their shit. They won’t ever apologize for putting all this shit into men’s heads, or even attempt to learn from something like this. 

No, they will not say a word, well except for 'potato'. They will continue to spew their dangerous, irresponsible rhetoric knowing full well that their words have real life consequences, and that the ultimate victims of their bullshit are exactly those that they purport to care about – Men. 

*edited some parts to add the potato response from Dean Esmay.

Playing the Victim

In Psychological Defenses in Everyday Life, (1989), Robert Firestone, Ph.D described a female patient who complained that her husband was habitually late for dinner. He explains - dinner was ready at 6:30, but he often came in as late as 8:30 without calling to let her know that he would be late.She asked Firestone, "Is that right?" in a tone that implied that she was the victim of wrongdoing.Firestone tried to explain to her that the key question wasn't whether it was right or not. Firestone wanted her to see that she was viewing the situation as a passive victim, which was neither productive nor adaptive.

From the example that Firestone gave, one can see that she was indeed seeking validation from him to confirm her perceived victimhood, and therefor validate her inaction in confronting her husband about the issue so she could continue playing the victim to his unaddressed actions. 

Many people go around thinking they are entitled to constant good treatment and fairness just because. The truth is that no one is entitled to either. The issues are what is going on around them and how they feel about it. 

According to Firestone, the woman would have been better off actively facing the facts of the situation and acknowledging her emotional reactions rather than personally judging it and feeling victimized by it.

Firestone also states that victim mentality prevents people from making objective decisions and evaluations of everyday life. People who have a victim mentality have not necessarily been victimized through a crime, but they are individuals who have adopted this behavior and attitude from years—usually during childhood—where core emotional or physical needs were not met. 

He states: If you are being robbed, you don't sit around thinking, "This shouldn't be happening to me. It isn't right." Instead, you react. You may defend yourself, call the police or try to run away. Constructive action is the opposite of victimized brooding.

The woman whose husband was late for dinner had every right to feel angry and to consider practical action if she wished, but to try to justify feeling victimized was maladaptive and ultimately fruitless.
Firestone explains that even in the most extreme situation, such as a concentration camp, feeling victimized is not adaptive: Feeling your anger, planning an escape, attempting to survive any and all of these courses of action are preferable to indulging powerless, victimized feelings. Your attitude is a vital factor in determining whether you will survive or perish, succeed or fail in life. 

Viktor Frankl stated that many of the survivors of German concentration camps were able to endure because they refused to give in to feeling victimized. Instead, although stripped of all their rights and possessions, they used one remaining freedom to sustain their spirit; the freedom to choose what attitude or position they would take in relation to the horror they faced. "It was the freedom to bear oneself ‘this way or that,' and there was a ‘this or that.'" (Frankl, 1954/1967, p. 94)

Firestone also states that maintaining a child victim role leads to chronic passivity. Victimized feelings are very often appropriate to the child's situation. Children are without power, are helpless and are at the mercy of their parents. Later as an adult, things happen that are sometimes beyond your control and understanding. However, the adult who is still playing the child victim role responds like the deer that sees a mountain lion approaching and instead of fleeing the danger becomes paralyzed. This person just keeps noticing over and over that the situation is unreasonable, unfair or threatening but doesn't make the appropriate adaptive responses. 

As a child there is a feeling of inadequacy/insecurity which teaches children to rely on others for happiness and reaffirmation – a healthy part of growing up, and one that, if the child is taught properly as they grow, disappears as their self-esteem and confidence increases in a healthy and positive way. 

For those adults with a victim mentality, it is often a sign of emotional immaturity, poor self-esteem, insecurity, and a lack of confidence which serves to keep the adult in a perpetual state of adolescence – a perpetual state of victimhood.

In the case of the woman mentioned above, Firestone explains that the tip off to the fact that she really preferred the child victim role was that she never made any substantial attempt to change her circumstances. Like so many of us, she would rather feel justified in complaining endlessly about her unfortunate circumstances while passively registering her dissatisfaction than actively changing her situation.

In regards to one's feelings, it is important to note that feelings are individually subjective and do not require any real justification. They are automatic responses to an individual’s perception of positive or negative events they have experienced, and people's feelings cannot be judged as right or wrong. 

Normal healthy anger is merely a proportional individual response to a frustrating or negative experience regardless of any rational considerations. It is more advantageous for us to experience feelings than to deny them, repress them or cut them off. 

However, our actions, unlike feelings, have consequences and must be considered in relation to both moral issues and rational reality concerns. Therefore "acting out" emotions, particularly angry emotions, must remain under a person's control. For example, a FEELING of murderous rage can be considered innocent, but to act on those feelings and commit murder has very real consequences.

"Victims" deal in judgments and "shoulds" when interacting with others. They operate on the basic assumption that the world should always be fair to them: "I should have been loved by my parents." "My children should call me or write to me." "After all that I've done for her, the least she could do ..." 

This unhealthy preoccupation with "rights" and "shoulds" and seeking constant fairness is irrelevant to real problems that we are all faced with; it leads to brooding, righteous indignation and vengeful feelings.

Characteristics of individuals with a victim mentality include:
  • Negative self-image
  • Demanding
  • Entitlement
  • Blaming
  • Complaining
  • Underlying feelings of being powerless
  • Frequent use of the phrase, “Yes, but…”

In many situations, people are unaware they are displaying a victim mentality; it is simply a way to shift the blame from themselves to another person.
People who chronically suffer from victim mentality, however, are stuck in a pattern of blaming and negativity, even over inconsequential events.

According to Dr. Nicola Davies:

 people who are stuck in the victim mentality role, tend to verbally and physically abuse others and then blame it on being provoked, constantly try to control other people’s sympathy by “needing” support or compassion, try to prove they are indeed the victim of others by staying in conflicted relationships (personal or business), and also complain of other people taking advantage of their kindness.

Recognizing when someone is suffering from victim mentality versus just being manipulative can be difficult. The main difference is chronic presence of negativity rather than just a fleeting moment of manipulation.
But not all “victims” are the same.

According to Dr. Kim Shirin, a psychotherapist, there are different victim mentality profiles. They include:
  • Passive victim: Always beating themselves up in a self-defeat attitude.
  • Sickness tyrant: Use their health to manipulate other people’s attentions. They willingly dwell on their pains and aches and expect to be taken care of.
  • Martyr: People pleasers but they always expect something in return. They are givers but they play the “you owe me” card all the time.
  • Angry victim: Always mad about something, they feel that whatever they do it is never enough for others. They fear being abandoned but express it in anger.
  • Bullies: They are emotionally immature and express frustration and hurt by attacking those who they feel did not supply [sic] their needs.
Having a victim mentality can lead to a whole host of mental illnesses due to angry, victimized feelings which get bottled up inside. Such mental illnesses can present as; depression, anxiety, co-dependence disorders, personality disorders, psychosomatic disorders, and so-on.

People with victim mentality can be extremely frustrating to deal with.
Dr. Orloff, M.D. explains there are ways to deal with these individuals without feeling irritated or emotionally drained.

For friends and relatives:

Kindly tell your friend or relative that it isn’t healthy for them to feel sorry for themselves all the time, and that you’re only willing to listen for 5 minutes unless the individual is willing to discuss possible solutions for their problems. Friends and family, because they often have close relationships, may become combative, but by telling them you love them and care for them you can usually defuse the situation. Focus mainly on solutions when dealing with them, and if they resist, remove yourself from the conversation.

For coworkers:

You must be careful not to offend coworkers as they do not have the close relationship family and friends do where blunt tactics can be appreciated. 

For these individuals, the key is to limit the conversation by not encouraging the topic at hand; tell them you hope things will turn around for them but you have to get back to work.

Victim mentality in yourself:

Perhaps the most difficult places to spot and handle victim mentality is within your own personality.

During those moments where you feel down and looking for a scape goat, Dr. Orloff recommends taking a second to remind yourself of all the positives you have in your life. Try to remind yourself that others are suffering horribly from hunger, disease, war, and other serious hardships. That is not to say that your problems are not real or serious to YOU, but in contrast to the millions of people around the world who suffer in extreme situations every day can usually put your problems in perspective. A reality check is the best way to snap yourself out of a victim mentality, especially if your problems are like those that we call ‘first world problems’.

Having a victim mentality is extremely maladaptive. Even though some passive manipulations may sometimes work for you, taking this position is never in one's best interests. In the long run, it will do more harm than good. 

Once someone is made aware that they have a victim mentality they can control their destructive behavior by acknowledging that their personal world and the external world contain many inequities and social injustices that are discriminatory and unfair to individuals or groups of people, yet they CAN take power over their lives. 

There are steps one can take to make a positive change if one wants to stop being the victim and start being more responsible and pro-active in their own lives.