You have been convicted of a serious crime. You are guilty. Your career prospects are gone. Your social standing, whatever it once was, is gone. Your future plans, you desire for a family, that’s all gone too.

You will not be informed of your conviction. You will not be informed of your accusation. You will not know what your crime was. But you’re guilty, and your name has been published on a list of offenders. You wont be told about that list either. Good luck to you.

Forget about the police and courts. Forget about lawyers. Actual laws have nothing to do with your crimes which may be imaginary, or your conviction, which is definitely real. Your judges are vigilantes. They are also invisible to you, but I’m here to help. That girl your taking out for lunch is one of them. Your boss’s admin assistant is one. The girls sitting beside you in your university lecture are vigilantes. Your wife is one of them. The waitress pouring your coffee is your prosecutor. The Human Resources girl at your work is your prison guard. There will be no parole, in fact, there is no such thing.

The preceding statements read like a dystopian, paranoid nightmare.

In an article at NowToronto.com Antonia Zerbisias outlines the vigilante un-personing of an inconvenient man. The convict in this case is you, in case you’ve lost track.

Some people may claim that a man condemned by a semi-secret whispering slander campaign is not a convict. Those people are fools.

A women’s public washroom is a place where a list of “offenders” is scrawled and glued up for others to read and reproduce. Your name, your city of residence, and your employer are all listed alongside your crime. Maybe rape, maybe stalking, maybe assault of a woman. The details of your offence are less important than the fact that it’s some transgression with serious negative stigma attached. Also your name and your employer.

While Zerbisias’s posting at NowToronto.com may be shocking to many readers, the practice of women using anonymous accusation against men is not new at all. What appears to be new is that mainstream media is now promoting such unverifiable and secret criminal accusations. This is a positive practice, apparently. Zerbisias, the author seems to recognize the corrupt nature of her proposition. She even acknowledges the repulsion her readers will feel at her endorsement of vigilantism. Her goal appears to be re-painting indecent practice in attractive colours. Somewhere a woman was hurt, and did not find justice in a court of law. There you go, justification.

But women have always had the social power of control over men’s public images. And they have always used such power. This is rarely admitted in public because it debunks the feminist myth of women’s powerlessness and oppression. To be sure, women have always known of such tactics. Also, even when not using anonymous slander, no women’s movement has ever opposed such vigilante character assassination. Women appear content to keep that weapon, even when not using it.

The publication and attempt at justification of this tradition among women, by a female author at nowtoronto.com serves several purposes. The first is to directly threaten men. Know your place, mind your manners, and recognize who owns your life, boys. Also, NowToronto’s public justification of anonymous criminal accusation is a call for women to network through social media. We should spread the reach, the permanence and the search-ability of the de-personhood of a man. One irresponsible accuser should make a man unemployable in every state, city and province he may live in, for the rest of his life.

If there is not already an online searchable database of back-room, whispered criminal accusations against men there will be one soon. You might once have offended your date by insisting she pay for half the drinks. And, some young eager male feminist with a couple college web programming courses under his belt is sure to step up any day now. There won’t be any payment, but he’ll get an approving pat on his head.

The site nowtoronto.com currently has Alexa rank of 41,320 and a Canadian rank of 934. But it has only 2 comments, both negative. A site in the top 1000 within the country of Canada should have at least dozens of comments per article. The negative character of the current two comments may suggest an attempt at spin by NowToronto’s editors.

“This is a disgusting article and shame on anyone and everyone that applauds this. How the fuck do we know these guys on the list actually raped or sexually assaulted someone?”

Returning to the article’s message to male readers, it is no surprise that so many young and insecure men fall prey to feminist indoctrination. When you’re trained from childhood to recognize female ownership of your identity, college style feminism is not a substantive change. It is only an escalation with added guilt and blame.

But NowToronto’s public message to men, that you will condemned by women you know as they smile to your face may have an effect other than frightened male compliance.

Most young men grown up believing in the natural benevolence and innocence of women. But articles like Zerbisias’ cultivate and fertilize an informed and growing distrust and hostility toward women. As smooth faced, innocent and pleasant as women may each seem, the ugly truth is increasingly visible.

Women are spiritually superior to men. That’s the idea we are all, as boys and girls, and men and women, raised to believe. But it’s crap. The concept of spiritual superiority, or innate goodness denies the humanity of women. It makes them instead into imaginary mystical creatures. In reality, food goes in one end, and faeces come of the other. And just like every man and animate animal slab of meat with a mouth and a but-hole, women are scumbags, with a socially provided excuse that male scumbags lack.

If we train people to see themselves superior, spiritual and sublime, they will practice their violent and antisocial behaviours with a satisfied smile. But, at least they’re talking about it openly. And intelligent men can begin to see past the illusions, and protect themselves from the secret government of their female friends.

Elliot is the Toronto man who in 2012 answered an ad for volunteers to produce art work and posters for the group; Women in Toronto Politics. The group founded by Stephanie Guthrie. Elliot volunteered to produce those posters for her. But the volunteer found himself in disagreement with Guthrie over her alleged plan to slander and blacklisted a software developer over her offence at satirical video game.

The game in question featured an image of feminist Anita Sarkesian, and included punching the face of Sarkesian’s digital image. Guthrie took to the internet, tweeting potential employers in Sault Ste. Marie, and contacted a local newspaper about the offending video game developer.

Mr Elliot disagreed with the planned harassment of a young game developer, and argued with Guthrie over the ethicacy of her plan via twitter. That argument extended to an ongoing disagreement over her politics lasting more than a year. Guthrie charged Mr Elliot him with criminal harassment. It’s the first case of it’s kind in Canada.

During Mr Elliot’s trial, Guthrie was asked about vigilante violence against another man, Hunter Moore. Moore had created a revenge porn website, which while not illegal, crossed boundaries of good taste and positive ethics.

In the example of Mr Moore, Guthrie was asked by lawyer Chris Murphy if she supported actions putting Mr Moore in physical danger.

“In this specific situation…in light of the actions he [Moore] took and in light the law’s inability [to deal with it], yes … depending on the case, yes.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-complainant-willing-to-be-self-appointed-sheriff-of-wild-west-twitterverse

Murphy later questioned Guthrie about her vigilante actions against game developer Bendilin Spurr.

“I put it to you that you wanted to ruin Bendilin Spurr’s life?” he asked.
Ms. Guthrie replied “I was simply making people aware”.

Mr. Murphy asked, if those she made aware took action that ruined Mr. Spurr’s life?
“I would not feel sorry about that.” Ms. Guthrie said. “It would be because” he had brought it on himself.

It would obviously not be because she campaigned to vilify him. Gregory Allan Elliot’s lawyer asked Guthrie if the end result was ruin, “that’s okay with you, yes or no?”

“Yes,” Ms. Guthrie said, untroubled by the admission.

Gregory Alan Elliott had been a supporter of Stephanie Guthrie. Mr Elliot ran afoul of the political activist when he objected to her plan to conspire against the video game developer. Elliot characterized Guthrie’s intentions as “every bit as vicious as the face-punch game”.

As a personal observation from me, this appears a rather mild critique. A face-punch video game featuring a person’s image is far less harmful than an organized campaign to ruin a person’s employment prospects and life.

In March 2014, Judge Brent Knazan halted Elliot’s trial after receipt of a letter alleging a criminal conspiracy by Guthrie and two others.

Knazan announced on March 20 that the content of the letter left “police and Crown counsel no option but to investigate,” and adjourned the case.

At the time of this commentary, Gregory Allan Elliot’s trial for allegedly harassing Stephanie Guthrie is over. A decision is expected on October 6th.

For many people, the summary provided above will be nothing new. Canada’s national post has covered the story extensively, and critically of Guthrie’s conduct.

In fact, many people have wondered why a political activist’s claim that disagreement with her would be entertained by the Canadian courts. A political activist’s pursuit of vigilante justice, and claimed victimhood appears a perversion of justice. That the case was not thrown out as a frivolous nuisance lawsuit remains a source of amazement. I know I will be accused of naiveté.

Court documents state: “Ms. Guthrie confirmed that, as far as she was aware, Mr. Elliott never sent her a tweet that was libellous, threatening, or sexual in nature.”

But waiting for the decision of Judge Brent Knazan, many followers of the precedent setting trial believe that of course Mr Elliot will be exonerated.

This is a possibility, certainly. But, given that at no was this case thrown out based on it’s seeming frivolity Mr Elliot might be on his way to jail. Dissagreeing with a feminist in her hot pursuit of mob justice against a face-punch video game developer might now be defined in law as criminal harassment. But the decision of the Canadian court, waiting for the pronouncement of Judge Knazan doesn’t matter. Public, verbal or written opposition to social justice vigilantism is now effectively a criminal act. The possible ratification by the court is a formality. Stephanie Guthrie already has her justice, because Gregory Allan Elliot’s career is finished. He was fired from his job and publicly defamed long before stepping into a Canadian criminal court. Elliot is not a responsible adult opposing social justice vigilantes, no. He’s the criminal harasser of a “truly great young woman”. Those words being the characterization of Guthrie by Christie Blatchford, one of her critics writing for Canada’s National Post.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/christie-blatchford-complainant-willing-to-be-self-appointed-sheriff-of-wild-west-twitterverse

Mr Elliot must go to jail.
Miss Guthrie must not be inconvenienced with charges of criminal conspiracy, fraud, public mischief or criminal contempt. She is an experienced and accomplished political activist, and a feminist. She is female, and therefore the victim.

Why, in Canada do we even bother ourselves to pursue resolution of grievances by the costly and tedious criminal courts?
Social Justice is clearly faster, more efficient, and it is what people want.

That’s the article. What follows below is unimportant personal rambling.

Years ago, commenting on mainstream feminism’s opposition to due process, I made the following speculation. I guessed that that the public would come to regard the courts as incapable of redressing criminal grievance. I also guessed that removal of Habeas Corpus would drive people towards ad-hoc solutions to personal grievance. I guessed people, being adaptable would abandon law and would seek extra-legal alternatives. I though those solutions would include violent vendetta.

Vigilante violence appeared a probable outcome of removing due process and presumptive innocence from the western practice of law.

Although I predicted vigilante justice as an emerging social norm, I got it almost completely backwards.

I did not guess that the social justice ethic in centres of higher learning would be the active source of vigilante practice. Rather, I guessed it would be an exhausted public who lost faith in rule of law and sought their various cave-man alternatives. Silly me.

It is now clear in Canada that whether the courts have been perverted so that that opposing vigilantism will land you in jail is not even a relevant question. The non-feminist public doesn’t need to lose faith in the rule of law. Non social-justice-warriors and will have no opportunity to adopt extra-legal alternatives for dispute resolution.

The feminist and social justice mainstream has already done it, not reactively, but proactively. The vigilante, social justice of the mob is already normal. And Stephanie Guthrie is a truly great young woman.

“‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.” ~Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

I’ve been asked many times to explain why I say “what we don’t want to do is go back to a traditionalist world” and I’ve made a few attempts to explain, but the problem has been that traditionalism as is referred to in men’s rights and in the MGTOW community (Men Going Their Own Way) has been limited to a discussion of traditional marriage.

There are many reasons why traditional gender-role marriages are bad for men, not least of which is that they traditionally bear the burden of being the protectors and providers for women and children. They do this at the sacrifice of their own lives and dreams. In compensation, this act of sacrifice has been given heroic qualities. He is the “good” man and the social rewards are many. This is the justification given by those who support traditionalism and marriage. Even in MGTOW, known primarily for rejecting the institution of marriage, there are some who are merely holding out until feminism loses ground and men are given their traditional respect in their role as husbands.

So the surface discussion rejecting traditionalism doesn’t go very far because the tradition has not been exposed for the fraud that it is. That is what I hope to do today. And, because I’m ambitious, I’m also going to discuss the reason why no political system involving a state will bring about equality. It is not the institution that is set up incorrectly, it is something inside of man himself that I will call “the will to unfreedom.”

Most people would agree that it is desirable for men to live in a state of freedom and prosperity. Our culture and all of our rituals are designed with that pursuit in mind. Yet, time and again, we fail miserably.

“Nobody was very happy with the way history and civilization had turned out, and many thinkers of that time supposed that if the first steps in the process of the oppression of man by man could be pinpointed, then the decay of civilization might be arrested and even reversed.”
~Becker, Escape from Evil. (1975)

To anthropologists, primitive society was largely seen as an egalitarian system lost in the annals of history, and some believed that property was a key element in the origin of inequality. As Jean-Jacques Rousseau noted in his famous essays, stirring revolutionaries for centuries:

“The first person who, having fenced off a plot of ground, took it into his head to say this is mine and found people simple enough to believe him, was the true founder of civil society.”
~Rousseau, First and Second Discourses (1754)

It was assumed that social inequality and the propensity for man’s inhumanity to man was rooted in social inequality caused by hoarding of resources by the powerful, and that if these resources were redistributed equally the inequality and suffering would disappear. But this theory failed. Miserably. Many times. There was something deeper in the psyche of men that created a will to unfreedom and Rousseau’s statement gives us a key.

It is not the declaration of ownership by one man but the agreement from others that brings about inequality.

Becker points out in Escape from Evil,

“Social imbalances occur because of differences in personal merit and the recognition of that merit by others.”

The deference of power to others is, at its roots, religious. It is a fear of mortality and the systems we devised to keep that fear at bay. An anxiety with the overwhelmingness of the world around us, our vulnerability to it and the knowledge of our inevitable death. Through the use of rituals and symbolic meaning, each man tried to alleviate his anxiety and survive his own death through the symbolic world of his creation.

In primitive societies men felt a connection to the life giving elements of nature. If a hunt went well, food was abundant, men believed that sacrifices needed to be made to return the gift of life to the creator or source. Prosperity was a sign of approval from the gods and men wished to stay in favour. As such, the bounty of the tribe was shared openly and the surplus given back to the Gods to renew the cycle of prosperity.

Awareness of the fragility of life was kept at bay through the symbolic world man created which would elevate the meaning of his life. He would survive his death by taking part in the rituals and reinforcing the symbols of the tribe. The survival of the tribe assured the immortality of its members.

Objects such as the tooth of a shark were invested with mana power because it was part of the life giving force of the creature. The scalps of slain enemies gave the life force of the previous owner to a man and he carried these trophies around as testaments to his ability to both deal out death and defy it. Symbols of death defiance were worn or displayed by men in order to strike fear into others who would challenge him.

But just being a good hunter isn’t enough. You need other people to see that you are a good hunter.

The accomplishments and symbols required to overcome fear of insignificance can’t be achieved in isolation. It is the acknowledgment of others towards your achievements that proves your worth. In other words, a man requires other men to assert his value and to alleviate his anxiety. Without a mirror man has no reflection or sense of self. So clever systems were put in place to facilitate this system and conveyance of meaning.

Rituals were invented in which every member of the tribe could participate as a life giving force, and rites of passage were created to alleviate anxiety over mortality.

Becker emphasizes:

“Let us not rush over these words: ritual is a technique for giving life.”

He goes on to say:

“… ritual could generate not only bears or yams, or the life of the whole universe, but the individual soul as well. This is the meaning of the “rites of passage” rituals which took place at birth, puberty, marriage, and death: by means of symbolically dying and being reborn via ritual the individual was elevated to new states of being.”

Of course these ideas seem silly to modern man. We no longer believe we can create brown kangaroos by making specific words and gestures over a fire. Yet the symbolic rituals remain the same, only in re-envisioned forms.

The worship of invisible deities was replaced by tribal leaders who were seen as the physical contact point of the Gods. Religious leaders, in older times often epileptics, would have religious fits from which they would come back with visions and the tribe believed they could communicate with the life giving force that caused food to grow and animals to be born. The bounty of the tribe was a reflection of the good relationship the chief had with the creator deity. And if the bounty did not come, if there was a drought, the chief would even offer his own life in sacrifice, or be killed.

How does this differ from the religious devotion current society holds for their leaders? We may not think of them as representatives of God, but we build grand houses for them to live in, we protect them with vast security forces, and we mourn their deaths with disproportionate grief.

Culture, as a death denying fixture, is so deeply rooted that men will die in droves to protect their nation. The survival of the state trumps men’s own self preservation. While many people believe that survival and procreation are the innate driving forces, we find many people throughout history who have taken vows of celibacy in devotion to a god. In a modern context, we find the current homosexual community fighting intensely for public legitimacy, not so they can procreate but so that they may join in the symbolic life of their culture.

As humans, we need to attach to something bigger than ourselves in order to survive our own deaths. We seek this in order to ensure our significance in a world of meaning.

And if you think we are still just talking about primitive society, look around you.

In the ritual of marriage, we can readily see the devastation visited upon “good” men after devoting themselves to family life only to have the family courts strip them financially and emotionally, treating them as cogs in a machine and cash dispensers for women. Yet men still want to get married. They defend the tradition as a life giving force. The symbolic meaning of the ritual is more pressing than the reality.

The MGTOW community is repeatedly asked how they can judge men who choose marriage because aren’t they in favour of men choosing their own paths? And if a man chooses marriage then he is somehow still free. The usual response is that slavery isn’t made okay because the slave gives up his freedom willingly. But why would a slave give up his freedom in the first place? Why do men, knowing the dangers, still choose to get married?

It is a fear based behaviour.

Those who believe marriage is necessary claim that the ritual of commitment somehow solidifies the relationship. They fear that their partner won’t stay unless that ritual is performed. You can see the irrationality of this thinking, given how easy it is to get divorced. Marriage is a commitment “forever”. As if a devotee to the institution can determine the future by performing that ritual. This is magical thinking perpetuated by a desire to organize the chaos of life. Marriage is an immortality project, to be accomplished by binding yourself to something bigger than you. You think you are no longer alone. No longer vulnerable.

In fact, we hear the rebuttals to the MGTOW rejection of marriage phrased thusly:
You’re all going to die alone.

Traditionalists invoke knowledge of mortality to coerce men back into the tradition of marriage.

But will these symbols (marriage, the state) bring about freedom and prosperity? History tells us they won’t. If we elect the right government will inequality disappear? If we marry the right person will our life be made significant? There are many people reading right now who want to answer “yes”.

But until we recognize the fear that makes us believe in these institutions, and reach a point where we don’t need them anymore, we will never be free. We’ll have our illusions, but we will continue to destroy each other out of fear. And the symbolic world will continue trump the needs of the mortal man.

So, we vote in elections, we slaughter others who threaten our way of life, and we make vows to one another based on fear of being alone. We do this, and worse, needing validation that our life has meaning.
And then we wonder why we are not free.

We mock or try to destroy those who threaten our symbols. And when our symbols fail us, we look for the nearest scapegoat to slaughter.

You might think you’re the ones doing the screwing. After all, this is the story repeated to you, and about you in almost all current mainstream discussions of male and female sexual interface. Rape culture is a fantasy about your sexuality. The so-called objectification of women is widely protested. And if you’re unclear about just what that is, it’s you, brother, turning women into non-person things for your gratification. It’s certainly not the conversion of you into a cash dispensing appliance, in which femininity is used to manipulate your spending and behaviour.

And when it get’s down to actual humping, who’s the gatekeeper there? Who is in charge of whether boy and girl get down on a saturday night. If you think men are calling the shots, you’re delusional. Men canvass, and beg, and maneuver and manipulate, and pay, and pander to get a leg over but it’s when she wants to screw that you’re going to get some. And when she doesn’t want any, you are going to be patient, and say that’s ok. And if you don’t like that, we have jail for guys who cant take a hint.

But women don’t just control sex. They also have the only legal voice in reproduction. After all, it’s her body, and therefore, her choice. That jargon is still widely used in the political argument over access to on demand abortion. Left out of the popular political rhetoric is that if it’s his wallet, it’s also her choice. It’s his semen, but also her choice, and his desire to not be a father against his will, that’s her legal choice too.

Did I mention, guys, that you’re screwed? And not in the fun way.

Because what if she uses your semen to get pregnant, whether she stole it from your condom, whether she lied about being on the pill, or whether it was actually just accidental. Why do we will still describe her choice to become pregnant and her choice to remain pregnant with the words “he got her pregnant”.

There is no self actualization in that for her, she’s a passive receptacle of your all powerful sexual organ. And that this bears no resemblance to the real power dynamic of sexual gatekeeping doesn’t matter at all. This is the unexamined myth. The story that you are the decider. Why else would we have myths like rape culture, patriarchy theory. Why do we have an idiotic concept that men sexually manipulated by pictures of perky boobs are turning women into objects, rather than those men being exploited?

But screwing and baby making are barely even the beginning. We also have the courts, the education system, entertainment industry, government and family courts all informed by female-centric ideology. This wouldn’t be a problem, except that this ideology includes an irrational malice towards men.

Based only on the accusation of a woman, our society will destroy the life and livelihood of any man of who it is whispered: rapist. Conviction in a court of law is not needed, accusation is guilt.

Domestic abuse in which the victim does not leave after one incident means it is two people, and not just one responsible for the continuation of a violent relationship. To presume that an adult woman in such situations are powerless is to cast for her the role of a child.
And intimate partner violence’s propaganda, in denial of equal commission by men and women, uses the misleading term violence against women.

Due to populist myth and scorn of male identity, women face little consequence for the use of lies about threats or violence to strip men of their freedom, property or children.

But, of course, in observing this obvious fact – we are told that of course women don’t lie about such things. Because, um, what they’re innately innocent or something. But this rebuttal denigrates women – denying them their full humanity, which includes the capability to be just as evil as the next villain you can name.

But to conclude that women are simply, or innately evil is to miss the point entirely. Women as a group are neither inherently “bad” or “good”, just as men too are also simply people. Some are malicious, some are good, but all are flawed to some degree regardless of their sex.

But, where advantage can be taken by individuals within a system, it will be. Because of this, and the climate vilifying of men elevating of women; the greater incentive for allowable exploitation lies with women. So while there are many women of amoral character, it is the socially and legally tilted playing field of social reality which invalidates men’s ability to trust women. Not the positive, negative, or the indifferent character of individual women.

As a relationship fails, each person exiting that relationship is going to evaluate and pursue new paths to meet their financial and emotional needs. The same needs which were formerly being fulfilled by that relationship. For women, casual theft of the man’s income is one of the easiest options, without a negative stigma, and with public institutions to enforce his compliance. That so many women take this path should surprise nobody. If men had the same options to exploit women with the cheerful participation of the courts and financial system, then men would earn a reputation equal to that of women. Where advantage can be taken, it will be.

The odds in this system are stacked against any outcome except betrayal and destruction. Certainly, many women are not unethical, nor are seeking to exploit men’s sub-person status in society. Unfortunately, many women are quite pleased to exploit male destructive outcomes on an opportunistic basis. There is no social or legal de-motivator for those who would exploit the system women now enjoy.
But worse than lack of disincentive for harmful behaviour is a social narrative which provides positive feedback for antisocial conduct. That narrative relies on on a maintained belief in the victim status of women. Attack rhetoric about toxic masculinity and the suffering of women justifies her retaliation against an endless male war against women.

The reality of no actual anti woman war is of no consequence, in social reality. The woman filing a false accusation is noble – standing up for her rights, and not simply a predatory criminal exploiting the credulity of the public and the courts.

In the system where all men are bad, and all women are good, she is a heroic. She becomes the brave victim who turned the tables on a predator when she stole your house, or had you jailed on a fraudulent charge.
A quirk of human behaviour is that people given positive social feedback for an action will believe that action is noble, even if it is objectively monstrous.

So why would she even feel guilty, when her social group lauds her heroism for what is arguably criminal, predatory, and amoral opportunism?

And men can’t reasonably trust women in this system.

But that social system, or the social reality contributing to this problem is built on a set of overlapping myths. The first of these is the idea of the innate goodness of women. This fairly simplistic conception rises out of the attitude of worship by small children of their mothers.

Where a child’s mother is the primary caregiver, the first source of nourishment, it’s easy to see how the female becomes a universal good.

This shows up in many ways, including the tender years doctrine, in female goddess rhetoric, and other idiotic but still popular ideas.

The idea that women are innately innocent and non-threatening helps tilt the playing field on which all fault is male, and all victimhood is female. And yes, I know it sounds stupid when expressed in simple terms. It sounds stupid because it is stupid.

For some men shedding their cultural programming replace myth of women’s innate victimhood with the idea of female innate evil. And departure from the naive belief in the fundamental good and innocence of women can inform a more self preserving behaviour in men. But it is not a step towards comprehension to replace one innate behaviour with simply another innate behaviour.

But the problem of trust in relations between men and women is still unanswered.

If men and women are going to carry on together (and they are) and end up in each other’s lives, beds and dwellings, (and they are) then an alternative model is needed. And this model must depart from the vision of female innate purity, and malevolent male aggression.

And it will not be women now in control of social reality who make this change. Why would they, when a myth of their own innate innocence and natural goodness serves them as a social caste so well?

The problem of trust in relationships is a problem for men, which men will have to solve.

One approach is to treat women as if they are men.

Whatever she is doing, whatever she is saying – here is the question for you to ask yourself.

That probably needs a bit more exposition, so this article will have to be longer than 8 words.

You’re not the Man of Steel. You aren’t more powerful than a locomotive, or faster than a speeding bullet. You don’t have super hearing, or super strength, and you’ve never leaped over a tall building in a single bound. You also can’t fly, except in a straight line towards the ground – once.

Nonetheless, you’re a hero and that’s why you’re screwed.

Your heroism isn’t the capital letter insignia of a cape wearing man in red and blue tights, your heroics are written lowercase. You might sit in a car in grid locked traffic for hours each day just to get to the job you work to pay for her house, groceries and lifestyle. And don’t let your name on the mortgage confuse you, that’s her house. This is part of what makes you a hero. And that commute of yours is heroic too, in case you wondered.

Despite your modest heroism, you have all the super qualities of that capital S emblazoned comic book myth. You weather abuse and indifference to your own pain with almost the noble silence of a Kryptonian. You routinely put your own needs after the needs of those you serve. And if you imagine that deal is reciprocal, you are in error. But your service and self sacrifice does have one benefit, you get the provisional public identity as a “real man”. So long as you don’t rock the boat. Superman doesn’t complain about the burdens of being a super man.

Of course, Superman is an imaginary character from a comic book. By contrast, you are a real person. The fact that you are an actual man living in the real world is of course why your day to day heroic qualities are small. A real man can’t compete with an imaginary fellow who flies and deflects bullets.

Superman doesn’t exist. He only exists as an imaginary heroic figure to put your small-H heroism into his shadow. And your sacrifices of comfort, of your health, of your own needs behind the needs of those you serve, comprise your real world modeling of the hero archetype.

Why are so many men driven from their own homes to a basement or a garage? If modern transportation still used horses you’d be sleeping in the stable, rather than the main house. It is not that you are banished, rather you have banished yourself in a bizarre gesture of self sacrifice. How stoic of you, it’s only too bad a cape is not in modern fashion. After your important bills are paid, what fraction of your disposable income do you spend on yourself, and what fraction on those you serve?

The sacrifices made daily by men on behalf of others, viewed only as “positive masculinity,” are small scale heroism. Compared to the idealized hero, your heroic character is small and unimpressive.

Next to Superman, or Hercules, or some other legendary figure, you will always be inadequate. You are not Friedrich Nietzsche’s Ubermench or a member of the DC comics Justice League.

He is the pure, idealized image of what you cannot be. You are not an indestructible strong man from outer space. He doesn’t need his basic humanity, his pain, or his fatigue recognized. He doesn’t feel fatigue, he doesn’t have human needs, and he will never fail in being a hero – because he is imaginary. You are not imaginary.

But you’ve been conned. You bought into the hero identity. You work hard to maintain your conferred identity as a good man which is small scale writing of the word hero. That’s what keeps you in your service role. It’s what keeps you working for somebody else’s dreams rather than your own. It’s what makes you believe somebody else’s goals are your own.

Superman lives a life of never ending errands. But they’re not for him, he runs from urgent task to urgent task for others. Imagine your own job and the tasks your boss puts on your desk. Now imagine each one comes with priority: urgent. All tasks are top priority urgent. You cant prioritize tasks because your just an employee taking orders.

To be superman is to be a slave.

So why do you still esteem the conferred identity of “good man” or “real man”? Are you so foolish and weak minded that you see no other possibility for yourself?

It’s obviously not quite so simple. Departure from the assigned role of hero comes at a great cost in pain.

When Dr. Warren Farrell spoke in Toronto in 2012 about problems facing boys in the education system, conformists and authoritarians chanted “Shame!” Dare you consider men or boys as anything except service automatons who have un-addressed needs? Shame! Shame!

When a crowd of sixty shouts that at you it is withering, even if you are following your conscience. No coherent reason is offered other than that you have deviated from your assigned service role.

The word shame is the revocation of your good-man dues-paid card. And it works to put you back into your harness because, in your life, you have unconsciously modeled the hero archetype.

But what are you going to do with this knowledge? The concept, possibly new to your consideration that you have modeled the hero archetype for your entire life? Heroism is a mental trap, making your human worth dependent on conformity to a destructive ethos of self abasement.

It is not enough to recognize our own modeling of the hero archetype and the blockage it creates for self determination. Human beings are social animals and we live in a world of created meaning. We don’t live in a world of concrete survival challenges on which to focus, we live in the context of a human created social reality. So how does a man exist without a model for himself in that world of symbolic meaning?

He doesn’t. Having value within a world of meaning, which is to say, having social value is a basic human need. The most obvious answer for men is to reject the hero archetype and to select an alternative. One possibility is to replace the super hero with the super villain. The super villain is not affected by a consensus of public opinion on his status as a good man. He is not controlled by disapproval. Whatever model we choose, it should be based on the recognition of heroism as a scam and a tool of control to be dumped by anyone who seeks self determination.

We’ve been repeatedly told both by name brand feminists, as well as non-feminists practicing modern chivalry that we’re all a part of a “rape culture”. The claim is also that “rape culture” whatever that might be – is a central feature of our society.

But what is rape culture?

It’s the name for a theory that we live in a culture that enables male rapists and shames female victims of rape.

According to conventional thinking, the term was coined by second wave feminists, to describe acceptance of the rape of women. This is a popular but incorrect belief. The term rape culture came from the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s to describe apathy toward the rape of American prison inmates.

The terminology was a powerful encapsulation of the indifference towards the civil rights of inmates within the prison system who were black men. Recognizing the power of that civil rights rhetoric, the women’s movement stole it to describe their claim of apathy towards female rape in civilian society.

And the feminist version of history is now the official version.

And according to them, we are all a part of what they call a rape culture. Susan Brownmiller’s 1975 book “Against our will” defined it as “nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

Did you catch that? All women living in a state of fear. Not most women, not some women, all of them. And all men, including you, are responsible for it because of a conscious process on your part.

This version of the feminist definition of rape culture may be the most relevant to our current understanding of the term. Despite the 1975 publication, it is still current because Brownmiller’s contributions to organs like Huffpo, salon and the Washington post still promote the book in her contributor’s byline.

It’s this version of that ideology, which now informs a social and legal climate on American college campuses. This version creates the climate in which an accusation of sexual misconduct made by a female becomes automatic guilt by accusation. Through sublimation of that fantasy into broader cultural assumptions, you don’t even need to be a feminist to bang that drum.

In 2011 The US department of education issued a directive framed as a dear colleague letter. This message to colleges was that if they wanted to keep receiving title IX funding, they’d better handle accusations of sexual misconduct with nonjudicial due-process abrogating star chambers. That directive, followed by others is what now informs official policy on college and university campuses.

We are told that college campuses are where the strongest manifestation of rape culture resides. The same colleges which now feature a 65% female population, as that number grows under female favouring affirmative action. And women continue to enroll, taking on massive debt to do so. But they’re taking on that debt so they can participate in what we keep hearing is a female victimizing rape culture.

Does this sound like a coherent view of reality to any of you?

The published data from the DOJ criminal victimization survey shows that rape is the lowest incidenced violent crime tracked by law enforcement.

Despite that fact we, as a society now operate on the default assumption that rape culture is real . The idea is that rape facilitated by cultural assumptions at the same time that rape is an egregious social and criminal offence. So is rape accepted? Or is it a major offence? It can’t be both.

The fact is, rape culture is a false belief nobody except a moron buys into. but due to social pressure to appease feminine sensitivity the mainstream of our culture continues to pretend it is real. We don’t actually live in a rape culture, but we live in a narrative of rape culture that we have to agree with or face severe censure.

What we actually have is a rape-culture-culture. That is not an accidentally repeated word

This is why for a man on a college campus, his standing as a viable person depends on the good behaviour of each female on campus who knows his name.

The slightest offense, whether real or imagined can result in an accusation of sexual misconduct. A sexual encounter which didn’t fulfill every expectation of the female can produce an accusation of sexual misconduct. A man who avoids a sexual encounter that a woman wanted can also result in an accusation of sexual misconduct against him. A girl who did something stupid, like missing an important exam because she slept in, or forgot to write down the date can also result in an accusation of sexual misconduct. That accusation made against a male student whose name she might have picked from a list of the other students in one of her classes.

In any of these accusations of sexual misconduct, there will be no judicial inquiry focusing on evidence. There will be no due process. There will be no presumption of innocence that underlies the western world’s concept of justice. There will be an accusation. There will be a star chamber staffed by college employees and not legal experts. And there will be the destruction of that male student’s academic life and future career.

This is what we now call a rape culture.

The man named in an accusation is the one who’s going to go through that no due process grinder. He is the one who will have his academic career terminated.

This is the part nobody seems to grasp.

The accusation made against him is an attack. It is an attack made on a student, using the elaborate and nearly unstoppable college administrative system. It is a weapon of destruction which is triggered by a few spoken words. I was raped.

In the current system I was sexually assaulted does not mean “I am a victim, help me”. It now means “I am the executioner, destroy him”. The female idea of “I am a victim”, now has an entirely new meaning. It means, “I am filled with wrath, and the enemy I point to shall be besieged to his doom”.

The accusation is really just an order for execution and that order will be carried out by the a school’s administrative staff.

If you are accused, you are assaulted.

Your privacy will be stripped away. Your reputation as a decent human being will be stolen, discarded, and burned. Your education will be taken from you. Your social connections will be destroyed. You will be isolated, and attacked, and smeared. Your job prospects will be closed off. Your accomplishments will be taken away from you.

And it will never stop. The assault on your person will go on for years, and years.

It is a tyrant saying – there is the enemy, destroy him. That boy, attack him, end his life, foreclose his future.

A woman on a college campus who pronounces herself a victim of sexual assault is not a victim, but in fact a sexual predator. She is the rapist. And she is using the system of the schools gender studies faculties and administration as her tool of rape.

An actual victim would have gone to the police.

A victim of a real crime would use the courts, not the administrative staff of a business whose products are massive debt and academic credentials.

This message is for young men on college campuses you are not at risk of being accused of a crime. Being accused of a crime is what happens when somebody makes a report to the police department, whether truthfully or falsely.

What you are actually at risk of is being sexually assaulted or raped through an elaborate college administrative system. This has almost nothing to with your behavior whether inappropriate or not. You are the target of a system designed to attack you from afar in secret, like a sniper shooting from behind concealment.

It is not my goal to dismantle this administrative machine. It is not my goal to drive reform. It is my goal to inform you that rape culture culture is real, and you are the target.

But you’re not the victim. You’d better not be the victim. If you become the victim, I’m going to blame you.

That’s right, I’m going to blame you for being the victim, and all the social justice warriors in the world – the same ones who cry victim-blaming like its a capital crime, they’re going to blame you too.

An accusation of sexual misconduct on a college campus is not an accusation, it’s an assault. More precisely, a sexual assault on you, using administrative proxy.

And it is a violent assault which will not stop until we stop treating it as an accusation, and begin correctly responding to it as violence.

Author’s Note : the following rant was delivered to a surging crowd of four sturdy individuals who got rained on in Grandview Park in Vancouver BC while I was ranting. Thank you.

The talk:

As men, whether we’re a Men’s Activist, or just Going you Own Way, or a man otherwise lacking self hatred, it’s easy to recognize social violence against ourselves when we look at feminism.

Even this simple observation will be met with shrieks that the definition of feminism is equality – and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a woman hating, evil, shrivelled penis, neck-bearded, rape apologist.

But we’re not using the dictionary as our guide, instead, we’re using our knowledge of the real world in which feminism is just one political camp’s extension of gynocentrism.

And although policies driven by feminism are noxious, and antithetical to civil rights, the feminist enterprise is a surface symptom of a deeper issue.
Did tens of millions of men die during the wars of the world due to feminism? No, they died because in human cultures, men have always been disposable. You, gentlemen, are utilities to be used to your own destruction and discarded when broken.

And the narrative, constructed in recent history of the endless victimization of women and their subjugation by men, is a narrative. It is a story. And the fact that, as a narrative, it does not match with our shared understanding of reality does not matter.

I was a men’s rights activist for many years, and a large part of what I did was to point out the difference between reality as I understood it, and the narrative feminist fantasy of every man being a rapist in potential and every woman an eternal, helpless, child-like victim.

Has anybody ever heard that 1 in 4 women on a university campus will be sexually assaulted? This is a statistic so deeply embedded in the public story of our culture that we can say the words “1 in 4” without saying “women,” or “rape,” almost everybody in earshot will know that we’re talking about the victimization of women. We’re not talking about how many people carry a genetic leaning to contract diabetes, we’re not talking about how many trees in BC are infested with pine beetles. You say 1 in 4, and people just know.

And all the actual statistics, and studies, and law enforcement publication of collected data, will not dislodge that so called fact from public consciousness. It’s false, but it wont go away, and those whose political narrative is bolstered by it have no hesitation to keep trotting it out – false as it is. The real number is closer to 1 in several thousand, for anybody who cares.

But I say don’t fight feminism. Don’t oppose it. Not because it’s not based on lies, it is. And not because it’s violent and hateful, because it’s those things too. Simply because you won’t stop it, and you will end up closer in spirit to the flingers of hate when you try to oppose them.

In fact – if you really are successful in taking the steam out of some feminist campaign or other – your primary impact will be to amplify the sense of victimization that feminists thrive on, and you will energize that sector of the feminist project to greater excesses than they would previously have entertained.

If you need an example of this, just think of Anita Sarkeesian. She’s a grifter and a con artist, and every time this is publicly pointed out, she is re-victimized – and walks away with another fat bag full of cash and a humanist of the year award for her troubles. Debunking is transmogrified to victimhood, and that is the fuel they run on.

There’s another reason to not fight feminism.

It helps men. I know that feminists like to claim this point, but they generally mean something different than what I am suggesting here.

There are a number of people who, in response to feminist driven social policies and laws, now advocate for traditionalism (or a “neo-traditional” model) for male-female relations and family dynamics. Some variation of a traditional family framework is what we generally assume to have been standard prior to what is now a largely feminist social structure.

And it is feminism we have to thank for the abandonment by men of that old social model. The model that put men’s self actualization last in line after the satisfaction of women’s safety, provision, comfort, shopping, and shoes.

But men wouldn’t have woken up to just what a crap deal they were getting if it had not been for the movement we now refer to as feminism. And it wasn’t first, or even second wave feminism that woke men up. It was the current gang of idiots. Being told that all men are rapists, and that’s all they are, wasn’t enough. Being told that in spite of history’s record of male creativity, that women are exactly as creative as men – in fact, they’re more creative. So if you’re a man with a lot of creativity, screw you, you’re a second rater because women are better at the thing you’re best at. The only reason women didn’t invent almost all of civilization is because you and your male ancestors held them down like the tyrant you are.

Being told that when you do things to benefit women, you’re being a sexist, in fact, just as much of a sexist as a guy who actively disparages women. Being told that the way you sit down on public transit is an act of aggression that harms women. Being told if you’re a male feminist that no matter how much you do you’ll never have the esteem granted to female feminists – nothing will ever be enough.

But I still say don’t fight feminism. And the reason is that the stone cold hatred and weapons grade crazy is what men apparently need to break free. But not to break free from feminism, that’s just a symptom. To break free from the deeper problem of gynocentrism. The social force that leads men to die on the job for a wife’s shopping spree and shoes, or to die on a foreign battlefield to keep the price of gas down for soccer moms to fill up their minivans.

With feminism, you are a hated subhuman, still chained to traditional gender role of protect and provide, and die when it’s convenient for others. But without feminism, what we would have is traditionalism – which is where you were a mule chained to a cart, and once in a while you get a carrot.

I don’t think you’re a mule, and I don’t think a carrot is good enough. But it took the excesses of modern feminism to properly wake men up. To wake some men up. It’s going to take more stone cold crazy and weaponized hate to wake the rest up. And that’s why I say don’t fight feminism, don’t oppose it.

In fact, I want to thank modern current wave feminists. They’re the wake up call for men.

I have been studying feminism as an outsider to that ideology for many years – and the following has become clear to me, as I’m sure it is obvious to many of you.

If you are not a misogynist, it is the goal of modern feminism to turn you into one. And they are not fucking around. This is where the feminists put on their A game.

You might not hate women. You certainly weren’t born with hatred in your heart, and if you’ve managed to reach adulthood without a towering contempt for the female sex, feminists will change that. They will not rest until you hate women.

In contrast to men, women, of course cannot be sexist. The argument is that sexism is not simply prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, on the basis of sex. According to feminists sexism is prejudice combined with power.

Because women apparently lack the institutional power that men have, they can’t be sexist.

To accept the feminist definition of sexism we must accept that women lack institutional power, secondly we must also accept the claim that sexism doesn’t exist without the added ingredient of power to compliment the bigotry of prejudice and negative stereotyping. Unfortunately this redefinition is nonsense based on a factually false claim.

What’s false? The idea that women lack institutional power. They’re 55 to 65 percent of registered voters. Women control most of the spending of disposable income, regardless of who earns that money. Women control almost all of children’s early development – shaping the minds of everyone in each generation of our society. Women dominate elementary school education, dominating children during their formative years. Women control the family courts. Women are catered to by modern entertainment media, and the post secondary educational climate. Women dominate the HR departments of most medium and large corporations.Women are enshrined as a protected class in national and international human rights law, and have an entire department of the United Nations devoted to their interests. But, apparently, women lack political, social, financial, and institutional power.

And the claim, the one that women lack institutional power – and that sexism doesn’t exist without the added power component is used to justify rampant, blatant, overt, over the top sexism against men of such naked character that it is impossible to distinguish from parody by outsiders.

If that definition doesn’t insult your intelligence and sicken you, then being told you’re a sexist pig because you smiled while being male is sure to have you reaching for your in-flight puke bag.

The project to cultivate your hatred of women is where Feminists really roll out their A game.

But of course, the dictionary says that feminism is nothing more and nothing less than the movement seeking equality for women. Not equality between men and women, no, just equality for women. They’ve so far not been clever enough to cover up that little reveal either.

Pay no attention to the legal activists working their ovaries to the bone to legalize the murder of men by women. Pay no attention to the lies of the domestic violence campaigners pretending that DV is not reciprocal, and hammering the public with endless reiterations of the slogan violence against women.

The guy with defensive slash marks on his hands must have said something to make her attack him, he probably deserved it. Deserved it. Deserved it. Those wounds on his hands and forearms, he deserved that. Fuck him. He has no right to live without fear of somebody smaller than him, who he’s afraid to even defend himself from. He deserved it.

Do you hate women yet? This is all on their behalf, and so far, they’re not opposing it. I hear Katy Perry and Kaley Cuoco have both said they’re not feminists. At least, as public figures they’ve made it clear that the big F brand name isn’t going to increase their take home pay. feminists for their part have executed public shaming campaigns against these cultivated entertainer-personas.

On the other hand, celebrity millionaire actress and United Nations Feminist Ambassador Emma Watson has now reiterated the call for men to put women above themselves, and has cited the multiply debunked wage gap as reason for men’s participation in the gender ideology that hates men. Because of a contrived difference in women’s income, from the mouth of a millionaire actress. Get on your knees and serve your betters boys, because Hermione said so.

Are you insulted yet? Even after the UN Women’s Goodwill Ambassador admitted that feminism was synonymous with the hatred of men, she, in the same speech before the UN called on men to put themselves last and women first.

And apparently, if you do put women first, by holding open doors, practicing chivalry, or even just smiling, you’re as much of a sexist as somebody who actively denigrates and disparages women.
This is a conclusion published in Canada’s National Post, in the UK Telegraph, in the Daily Mail, in several social science publications, as well as in the online satire website, the Onion – all in the same week. So, if you’re male and a sexist bigot, you’re a sexist bigot. Also, if you’re male and not a sexist bigot, you’re still a sexist bigot. Even if you’re so emotionally well balanced that you are truly indifferent to women, if you’re male, you’re probably also a sexist bigot.

Of course, there is nothing quite like an open ended and non-stop public narrative of accusation to drive a climate of dislike for those espousing it. And if you disagree with feminism, then you certainly must hate women. Right?

I told you they’re not fucking around, didn’t I? – the goal of feminism is to cultivate your hatred of women. And they’ll do it while telling you, it’s just about equality, stupid. Can’t you read what it says right in the dictionary, stupid?

How about sex, you know, one of the basic needs all human beings share – well, if you’re male, you’re not just doing it wrong – you’re likely doing it so badly wrong that your physical expression of affection and intimacy is being redefined as a violent crime and you are a criminal offender. Affirmative consent is a legal standard being adopted all over North America which decrees that sex without ongoing, repeated and unambiguous statements of consent, and consent seeking is not consensual sex at all, but rape. In the real world, adults having mutually consensual sex – and who are not mentally deranged by social justice programming, use body language, nonverbal cues and indirect communication in sexual encounters. This means that without a ridiculous mood-killing pantomime of dora-the-explorer style mother-may-I consent kabuki dancing – everybody in the history of the world who bumped their fluffy bits together was either raping or being raped. If you’re not sure which one you are, rapist or rape victim, just check in your pants to see if you have a penis. Rapist!

This isn’t just a fucktarded social standard being adopted by the mental defectives calling themselves social justice warriors, this is manifesting in law. According to one political proponent of this legal fuckery, one of the best features of the legal standard of affirmative consent is that there is no way to actually establish that consent exists in a sexual encounter. Yes, that’s apparently on the plus side. If you’re going to plug and play, you’re going to do it under threat of imprisonment, your life’s destruction and possibly death, based on the whimof whoever you may or may not hook up with. But only if you’re male – obviously, because although women can and occasionally do force, threaten and coerce sex from men, that’s not rape, because men cant be raped.

Oh yeah, and if you’re aware of all this, and decide rationally to just not get involved with women, because it’s a minefield of vicious mind-fuckery – then you’re a pussy. You’re not a rational self possessed man, nope. You’re just a little bitch, according to the few women who’ve even bothered to comment on any of this.

Do you hate women yet, because they’re not done with you you unless, or until you do.
And I’m not even opposed to it. In fact, I encourage this to continue, and I support feminists in their program. I wish them great success in their ongoing effort to cultivate and to amplify your hatred of women. They want you to hate women, and I want them to succeed in cultivating that hatred in you.

Rationality is clearly not going to work. There is a social movement which has, for more than a century – been repeatedly pointing out a pattern of systematic injustice, marginalization and purposeful dehumanization of men. That is to say, dehumanization of you. This social movement has used logic, evidence, carefully sourced statistics and appeals to higher reason and compassion as it’s principal strategies.

So far it has succeeded only in cultivating public contempt for it’s campaigners. Almost nobody is waking up to a rational rejection of social and legal standards that dehumanize men. Although everybody knows about realities like the destruction of males in family court, or the male suicide rate which quadruples that of females – they don’t give a fuck. Not even men care, as long as it’s not themselves on the chopping block.

The 19th century philosopher and historian Ernest Belfort Bax wrote extensively on what he called the legal subjugation of men. Bax was both an entertaining and popular author, who while he was widely read, effected no significant change. The most widely read modern organ addressing the same issues now re-runs many of this author’s articles, demonstrating, they believe the historical validity of the problems still unsolved. Canadian Senator Anne Cools – the longest serving Canadian senator, and the founder of the country’s first women’s shelter speaks frequently on issues affecting men in the Canadian senate. When she does, she is applauded by her colleagues in the senate, and then they vote against her.

Just like the readership of Belfort Bax, 100 years ago, it’s all very interesting – but nobody is actually moved to lift a finger to change anything. Women who benefit from the use of men will not be inconvenienced.

Nobody is unaware that men die earlier. Nobody is unaware that men lack basic civil rights such as reproductive self determination, the right to not finance a woman’s unilateral decision to use his sperm and wallet. Nobody is unaware of the 4 to 1 suicide rate. Nobody is unaware that infant boys are routinely mutilated – a trauma resulting in life long damage to their cognitive function.

Nobody is unaware that law increasingly degrades the civil rights of men, pushing them further into status of a social underclass. But neither men nor women will respond to any of this knowledge with rational rejection of the destructive cultural and legal conventions comprising what we call “society”.
How stupid do we have to be to republish Ernest Belfort Bax a century later, or watch a senior senator applauded and then casually voted down, and learn nothing from the lesson.

Reason can occasionally move an individual. It will have no impact on a society. A person may be rational – people, in plural are not.

So, I support feminism in their real but unacknowledged project. It’s the goal that the feminist ideology and movement is actually serious about, and making real progress towards.

The goal of feminism is to drive men towards hatred of women. When men hate women they have previously always served, then men might finally act to protect themselves from them.

Those of you MRAs, MGTOWs and others who actively hate women, you are feminism’s success stories.

I thank you all for your very kind attention, and please have a lovely day.

On March 4th I received an email from a subscriber, and this is what he had to say:

“Hi John I’m a new subscriber. I’m conducting an experiment that is related to your video ‘MGTOW With Benefits’ and I wanted to get your opinion on the matter. I’m involved in an interesting personal experiment. My Ex girlfriend was the final nail in the coffin that lead me to MGTOW, after she dumped me for the cock carousel. She is pursuing me again because I am a hell of a catch. I engage in sex with her for a few reasons, the first the obvious, that she is hot and does what I like, but most importantly my sex relationship with her strengthens my MGTOW resolve. It is a reminder of why I go my own way, but this time around I put myself in the position of control. I never pursue her or ask for sex, when she peruses me I take advantage. It puts me in the dominant polarity because I am fulfilling her needs.”

This is a novel point of view, that this correspondent is in a dominant polarity because he is fulfilling his ex-girlfriend’s needs. His comment continues:

“I also know how she manipulates and lies, and I know all her tricks now that I don’t believe in the mystical NAWALT (not all women are like that). I figure it’s better the scorpion you know than the one you don’t know.”

I think there are more options than just those two. For example, I don’t let people into my bedroom or my life who I know to be manipulating schemers. Better to have no scorpions at all. But our correspondent continues:

“To her I’m just the happy no stress fun loving guy that she has to now chase.”

I’m going to have to interject again. He does not know how she perceives him. This is important and, for his own sake, I hope the gentleman who emailed me is able to realize this. His email continues:

“Sometimes she will want me twice a week, other times we go 3 weeks without a word and that’s fine because my way, my goals for me are number 1 in my life. She is now separate from that and has no link to my goals, every time she chases me I get sex, power, and a reinforcement of why I went my own way. I also make sure to control all the condoms. What are your thoughts on this idea? I’m not saying I’m the first guy to have sex with his ex but most guys fall right back into the game and I look at it as a strategy to strengthen my resolve away from the game.”

I responded to him by email with the following message:

I think the situation you’ve described, that you have an ex girl friend who now pursues you for sex, sounds like it might be a pretty good arrangement. But I say that with a few reservations.

Without the history of having formerly been in an intimate relationship with this woman, it would fit nearly into what I would call a friend with benefits. The point of caution in your particular case is that while this woman was your girlfriend, she dumped you for the “cock carousel” as you describe it. You did not say what the circumstances of this dumping were, so I will not make assumptions about cheating or it being a clean break-up.

However, you did mention that you “know how she manipulates and lies [and] know all her tricks”. I will suggest to you that you know many, and possibly most of her tricks. It is almost certain you don’t know all of them. I’m not saying this to belittle you or your perceptive powers, simply that men are almost always less skilled in social manipulation than women. You have also mentioned that you control the disposal of condoms from your sexual encounters with her. But here are a few other things to consider. You have pointed out that she is manipulative. This suggests that while you both have a mutual benefit in your ongoing periodic sexual hook ups, she is still a game player. If she decides it is to her advantage to manipulate you into some negative outcome, she will do so with no compunction. By your own description, the hook-up arrangement you have is not based on trust. In addition, in believing you are a step ahead in her game of manipulation you are almost certainly wrong. This might chafe the ego a bit, but compared to women, men are less skilled players in manipulation.

I would suggest adding a few behavioural protections, beyond simply controlling condom disposal. The suggestions below are samples. If you implement this practice, you will have to apply your own creativity specific to your personal situation.

1. Once in a while, say no to sex.
You might already be doing this, but if not, start now. If you always say yes, she is controlling you – and not just sexually.

This is a territory-marking behaviour. If she already has items at your place, bag them up and have her take them on her next visit. If she does not take them, garbage-can whatever she leaves behind.

3. Give her an opportunity to lie to you.

Do this so that you can observe the lie. When it happens, cut her off for at least a month. I would immediately dump any woman or man who lied to me, even a non-sexual friend, but most men are much much less careful.

These are just a few examples. I suggest them because you have described your ongoing sexual encounters with a known manipulator. The sex might be a significant perk, but you are playing a form of Russian roulette by continuing to associate with somebody you admitted is a manipulative game player.

Be careful.

That was the content of my email response to the individual who contacted me. On some reflection, I thought I might have beneficially expanded on my own response with a bit of additional perspective from a friend who I contacted later. She is particularly adept at spotting female manipulation. I had a chance to talk to my friend on the phone, and read her the original message. Her response was immediate and direct.

She said “I am amazed by the stupidity of this man.”

What follows is a close transcription of her comments, as she related them to me in the call.

“She’s manipulative, we’ve established that.

She is entitled, she has the power and she’s getting what she wants each time.
Even if she’s not a sociopath and is just a typical woman, she’s working from a sense of being entitled. Now, he says that she’s pursuing him again because in his own description he is a hell of a catch. That, she wants him back because he’s a catch – what she would really be after is his utility, that he makes a lot of money or something like that. She may be trying to get back together with him because the business of her doing what he wants sexually is one of the main tactics for roping a guy in. She’s not in it for the sex, because she broke that relationship off to go ride the cock carousel. He said in his email that she’s chasing him for sex because he satisfies her needs. No, he doesn’t. If she was in it for the sex she wouldn’t have broken off the relationship – because before they officially broke up, she almost certainly had sex with other guys. She doesn’t want a romantic relationship with him, and she’s not in love with him, because she broke it off with him.

She’s after something else. The least hostile way to get what she actually is after is re-igniting that romantic relationship. When she learns that she won’t get that result, she will use another method to get it. And if that doesn’t work out for her, then she will hurt him. She will make him suffer. And because these two had an intimate relationship – she knows how to do that.

If he wants to know how she will hurt him, he needs only to think of the one thing he knows she would never do. The thing he believes she could never do. Because she knows that would destroy him. That is exactly why she will do it.”

In this transcription, I have left out each instance that my friend said “that idiot”. It was about a dozen times.

She added that he is playing Russian roulette. I also said this in my initial email back to him. But she said he is doing it with all the chambers loaded.

And if he takes this advice seriously, he now has the problem of getting himself out of the alligator’s jaws with the least amount of injury.

It would be nice if breaking contact with an ex was a simple and safe activity. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Because of the ongoing sexual contact, she is positioned to use a false accusation, should she become angry at his removal of himself from this arrangement.

He needs a record of her pursuit of him for sex. Recorded phone calls or text messages and so on, with sex seeking behaviour from her visible in those messages. Because, as my friend pointed out, right now he is in the perfect set up for a false accusation against himself. The accusation might be rape, it might be assault but it will be tailored to what is most personally devastating to him, based on her intimate knowledge of him. When she clues in that she wont be getting what she’s actually after, which is likely his financial utility, she’s going to get vindictive.

She also might decide that the best way to hurt him is socially, or through his employment and work contacts. To protect himself here, the female friend I consulted suggested he warn his friends and co-workers that he has a stalker he is dealing with. A consulting call to the police is also not a bad idea. This means calling the police non emergency number and notifying them that he is breaking up with somebody who he fears may react to the break up with violence or with accusations.

My friend also said that maybe she’s wrong and this woman just wants sex. But she was laughing hard enough that she couldn’t breathe when she said this.

It’s no news that men are increasingly abandoning marriage. The mainstream has recognized this as ‘men on strike’ or ‘the marriage strike’. For men themselves, the phenomenon of walking away is not a new idea, but has come sharply into focus with the rise of public discussion. Men now abandoning gynocentric social norms have their own name for themselves, Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW). Whether we call this a movement or a phenomenon, or just a fad, it is responsive to devaluation of men’s lives. Of course, the MGTOW phenomenon addresses many of the same issues that self declared men’s rights activist address. But the approach each camp takes to male marginalization differs. Rather than attempting to drive social and legal reform through rhetoric, awareness raising or protest, men on a MGTOW path are walking away.Continue reading Rebranding Your Servitude→