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.