Letter from the Editor:

Since the inception of the Mens Movement, one struggle continues to be the greatest barrier to effecting positive change. And that barrier is the social unwillingness to regard men as equal human beings. Merely asserting that some issues affect men and boys disproportionately will elicit cries of "Prove it" and "That's not MY brand of Feminism" from all corners of the globe. Of course, the fact that this energy is poured into denial and minimization of the problems, along with the attendant focus on the reputation of Feminism as opposed to the actual problems, is not lost on us. As evidence mounts (daily) that men are being deliberately disadvantaged in every sphere of life, incredibly enough, to 'correct an imbalance' only Feminists themselves believe to exist, Governments the world over kowtow to Feminist demands for even more subjugation of men. And Governments, being what they are, are only too happy to oblige. However, these days men are increasingly strained by the demands placed on them. They are viewing the laws and practices of our society, and they're saying "no thanks" in ever-increasing numbers. Marriage as an institution has collapsed (realizing a major Feminist goal), the reproductive rate in western countries has declined below replacement levels, thus mandating increased Immigration, all while men are experiencing unprecedented unemployment. To keep men from looking up, the use of shaming language is on the rise once again - one need look no further than the recent US election, where calls to "Man Up" defined the race. Thankfully, usually those uttering this sexist epthet lost their respective races. Maybe there's hope for us yet. This issue is dedicated to those men and women who are giving the Established interests of Feminist Government the proverbial finger. It is, after all, the first step to emancipation.

-Factory

Editorial:
Caveat Amator
by: Ken Kupstis

4 10 18 20 26

The Catalog of Anti Male Shaming Tactics A Totalitarian Streak A Mile Wide
by: Elusive Wapiti by: Chateau

Editor: Cont. Editor: Creative Director: Contr. Writers:

Elusive Wapiti

Factory Paul Elam Factory Ken Kupstis Chateau B.R. Merrick Thomas Golden TDOM

The Duke Rejection List

Post-Modern American Honor.
by: B.R. Merrick by: Pierce Harlan

Lead Designer:

Factory

The Prevalence of False Rape Claims

The Damned Olde Man

Contact:

menzmagazine@gmail.com

This magazine exists as a collection of blog posts considered compelling enough for publication here. The articles contained in this magazine are solely the views held by the author, and are written as opinion pieces only. Every effort is made to cite the original source, as all of the articles included in this collection are available in their original form online. All contributions, including the design and editing of this magazine, are provided on a volunteer basis. If you, or someone you know, would like to contribute their talents, please, let us know. MenZ Magazine is edited in Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Am a tor
-by Ken Kupstis
(DISCLAIMER: The Author is not a lawyer and the following information is not given as legal ADVICE, but to give readers ideas of possible legal avenues to research and pursue to redress their own grievances. The author assumes no responsibility for the results of the strategies hereinand is in fact ashamed hes the only one whos thought of themK.K.) Its October 25, 2008. In the preceding days, the Nevada Review-Journal published a human interest story entitled A Mothers Struggle. The story documented a local divorcees attempts to gain custody of her daughter, as she was convinced that her ex-husband was sexually abusing the child (Names withheld). To her credit, the writer did list the facts in the case: that the divorcee had left the marriage while pregnant, and initiated the divorce; that her husband had passed a polygraph test; that she herself failed a polygraph test; that her husband had been investigated three times by the police, twice by court-ordered psychologists, and once by a private investigatornone of whom could discover any evidence of sexual abuse by the husband. The divorcee had also denied the husbands court-ordered visitation rights and served 48 hours in jail for contempt of court. With only arguments, allegations and accusations, the divorcee continued to petition the courts. Finally her ex-husband gave up his paternal rights altogether by leaving the United States for his country of origin. The divorcee now has sole custody of her daughter, lives in her parents house, and is seemingly content. The conclusion of the writer infers that justice, although delayed, as apparently been served. Still, the article remains titled A Mothers Struggle.(1 ) While every actual fact exonerates the ex-husband, the specter of sexual abuse looms large in any readers mind, defeating the notion that the article could just as easily been entitled A Fathers Struggle. Bear in mind, this is just one article. Some months earlier, in the Osceola County Corrections Facility, a man in an orange jumpsuit confided to me that his wife had come home drunk at four in the morning. He said Enough of this, and immediately began packing his childrens clothes to take them to his parents house. His wifes mother, who was on the premises, called the police and reported that he was hitting his wife. The police came and summarily arrested him. Since the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the United States, a majority of states have created Mandatory Arrest Laws dealing with domestic disputes. These laws oblige the investigating officers to make an arrest, and in the overwhelming majority of cases it is the man who is arrested. Beyond domestic disputes, we have seen that in

Caveat

allegations of rape, the alleged rapists name quickly becomes a matter of public record, whereas Rape Shield laws guarantee anonymity to the accuser. Incredibly, the assistant Dean of student life at Vassar College has said that Men who have been falsely accused of rape can benefit from the experience. Meanwhile, investigations of rape cases within the United States Air Force revealed that 55% of rape charges were falsified. Reasons that were given for making the false rape charges ranged from covering up a pregnancy, to testing a husbands love, to a reason for being late to work. The Innocence Project, which uses DNA testing to free the wrongly imprisoned, has given 205 unjustly accused convicts their lives and freedom back. 204 of them were men. If there is indeed still a battle of the sexes, then false accusations are its secret weapons. They pierce Constitutional Rights and freedoms, mangle due process, and shatter reputations, relationships and families. No witnesses are required, nor is physical evidence of a crime. As previously demonstrated, a mere phone call is enough to serve as probable cause for search, seizure and arrest. The effectiveness of the false accusation lays in the perception of the heinousness of the accused crime: assault, battery, rape and/or sexual molestation of women and children almost universally brings emotion to tread roughshod over logic. (The reader comments of the Nevada Review-Journal story all vilified the accused father.) While both sexes are able to use false accusations, victims in the overwhelming majority of cases are male. Men have even been victims of domestic abuse by their female partners, and have either been denied police protection or arrested themselves. It therefore behooves men to imagine worst-case scenarios, research legal precedents, and know their rights while they last. Not enough men are standing up for themselves. Far too many are shocked and cowed by false allegations, and the legal system is far too willing to take a womans word over a mans (the prevailing logic being that the man is bigger and therefore capable of more damage, even though he may have never harmed a fly). Truly law-abiding men remain ignorant of the legal process, thinking It cant happen to me. When it does, policemen and court officials are more interested in telling a man what he cant or shouldnt do than what he can or should. BEFORE A FALSE ACCUSATION:

Perhaps the best defense against false accusations would not to be giving anyone a reason to make one against you. In a just and perfect world, that would suffice. The phrase Love Is Blind has a good deal of truth in it; when youre in love, you may very well be blind to behaviors that could prove harmful to you in the future. At Vassar College, a male student may have consensual sex with a female student that night and the next day, she can say she felt bad about it, in retrospect, and the male student can be charged with rape. John Dias, creator of the website www.DontMakeHerMad.com, suggests using surveillance as proof of ones innocence. There is a valid danger of legal collateral damagesurveillance of another person without their knowledge may constitute a crime in itself, but when used solely as a means of legal defense, it should be less Prosecutable. There are hidden closed-circuit cameras and recording devices that can be placed throughout ones home, or worn on ones person (in the form of pens, watches, lapel pins and more). BEFORE ALLOWING A WOMAN TO ENTER YOUR HOME actually before allowing anyone to enter your homehopefully you can answer one or more of these questions: Do you know her FULL NAME? (Thousands of men have only needed to hear Hi, Im Bambi, and its good enough for them.) Have you seen her car, and its license plate number? Is she employed? Do you know where she works? Is she wearing a wedding ring? (Married women who indulge in extramarital affairs may seek to contact other men as patsies for false rape charges in the event of a pregnancy or venereal disease.) BEFORE HAVING SEX WITH A WOMAN: Is she SOBER? Very inebriated women may claim to want or even demand sex, but it may be wise to see if that was the alcohol talking. Are you sober? Did you leave any of your drinks unattended, or consume any drinks that she bought for you that you didnt see being made? (The origin of the term Mickey Finn comes from a bartender who enabled female thieves at his tavern to drug mens drinks.) Are you using Birth Control? Note that while she may

claim to be using birth control, it does not automatically mean that she isshe may normally be on birth control but has forgotten to take it, or is experiencing a false period, or is using a form of birth control with a lower rate of effectiveness. Most of these factors have not legally excused men for having to pay child support, although they should. Has she verbally consented to sex? It is better to ask Do you want to make love? and receive a positive response then to merely assume shes consenting to sex via body language. Some colleges insist that males must receive verbal consent prior to intercourse, and any sex without it is non-consensual. Does she display or claim enthusiasm for BDSM (bondage and sadomasochism) activities? As exciting as it may seem, do not permit a barely-known woman to handcuff you to anything (that you cant break loose from on your own)! Does she claim to like it rough? Even if so, that claim does not obligate you to play rough. No matter how insistent she may be, you should not bruise or break the skin. During foreplay, or before or during coitus, does she tense up, act frightened or apprehensive? Does she cry? If so, she may have been previously raped or molested. Her sex drive still exists, but she may psychologically equate sex with pain, servitude or dishonor. In any event, you should get to know a woman as well as you can, and think very hard, before A) giving her a key to your home, B) signing a lease with her, C) merging any financial assets into joint accounts. BEFORE MOVING IN WITH A WOMAN: Even if a woman has a place that puts the Taj Mahal to shame, and invites you to move in with her, remember that you are moving in with her. She can tell you to leave whenever she wants, so it is in your best interests to prove that you live there. When you contribute to the rent, ensure it is in the form of a check, and request your bank to furnish you with receipts. Signing a lease makes you legally liable for all rent payments through out the rental contract. You may wish to offer to cover all utilities (And/or groceries) instead, which can provide proof of residence without making you liable for the rent. Realize that once a woman has moved in with you, and made some contribution to the household anything from rent payments to utilities or groceries, she may be able to legally claim I live here. As such, you may encounter difficulty having her legally removed from your domicile. You should also ask her if she has any serious

allergies, debilitating health issues, and how to contact her closest next of kin. DURING A FALSE ACCUSATION: Some women will often use the threat of a false accusation to achieve some desired goalanything from changing your behavior to having you removed from your house. Note that if she does threaten you in this manner: Ill tell the police you did such and such you will probably want to take steps to sever all ties with her. It may have been a heat-of-the-moment threat, but she cant un-make it, and shell realize that option will always remain open to her. Calmly reply to her threat with If you do that, you leave me no choice but to charge you with Wanton Endangerment*, making a false police report, and sue you for defamation of character. (*You may wish to substitute Assault or Criminal Mischief for Wanton Endangerment. Assault is the threat of harm. Being taken from ones home under threat of force, incarcerated, and forced to pay a bond should legally constitute harm. Wanton Endangerment is placing someone in harms way by proxyi.e., someone whos HIV positive is guilty of Wanton Endangerment when they dont inform their sexual partners of their status.) If your woman fights with you verbally, that can be grounds for Nuisance, especially if shes loud enough to be overheard by neighbors. If shes verbally goading or provoking you towards violence, tape it if possible, but walk away as soon as possible. Verbal provocation to fightin conjunction with fighting words, insults with no redeeming Free Speech defenseis a form of disorderly conduct known as a fighting ruckus. As unpalatable as it may be, imagine yourself accused of misdemeanor domestic battery, and the police have been summoned. The phone call alerting them serves as probable cause to enter any establishment. Note that in many areas, interference with such a phone calldisabling the phone, for instancecan constitute a felony in itself. If the woman in the situation has in fact not been harmed, try to get a photograph of her (many cellular phones are equipped with cameras ideal for this situation). You may wish to hold up the days newspaper within part of the photo to prove the date, unless the camera time-stamps its images. See if any neighbors are nearby and within earshot. If so, you may wish to open the door and tell her she can leave, in a voice loud enough to be heard. Not that she must leave, but she can leave. If she does leave, you can make a good case for refusing to let the police enter your home without a warrant. However, if she does live at the place in question, she can give police

her consent to enter or search the premises. The police can and probably will still try to gain entrance to your home to make an arrest, but you have a much better case for Unreasonable Search and Seizure. If she refuses to leave, it may be in your best interest to leave the area, even if its your own domicile, before the police arrive. Take whatever you can with you; your wallet, house and car keys at the very least. Before leaving, inform your accuser that telling a police officer that you abused her when you didnt warrants a criminal charge of making a false police report and will be grounds for a separate lawsuit of Slander. If she or the officers in question make a written statement accusing you of battery, there will be an additional lawsuit for Libel. This warning in itself may be enough to convince her to withdraw the accusation, but if the police are en route they will probably follow through with an investigation anyway. Leaving the area, especially if its your own domicile, may be a nuisance, but it can give you time to take steps you would not be able to take if you were arrested: contacting employers, loved ones, attorneys, setting up alternate phone service or a post office box, transferring or securing bank accounts, getting a credit line increase, et cetera. If the police have an arrest warrant for you, the warrant must be fresh, or between three and ten days old. Misdemeanor warrants normally have to be served during the daytimebetween 6 am and 1 0 pm. Its probably better not to call your home from a land line, as police technology can often triangulate your physical location from them. If you do call, assume the police are listening. If the police do arrive before you can leave, be on your best behavior, although it normally goes without saying. Police need a warrant to arrest you at your home, but they do not need a warrant if they believe A) you have committed or are about to commit a crime, B) other people are about to get hurt, C) youre about to destroy evidence or property, or D) theres already a warrant out for your arrest. This obviously gives the police a lot of leeway. Once the police begin asking questions, it is in fact an interrogation. Keep your voice audible, but calm and low. Memorize the time, the location, and the names and badge numbers of the officers. Police are looking for any evidence that a crime is committed, so even sarcasm will work against you (Oh yeah, just look at her, I beat her to a pulp, thats why she doesnt have a hair out of place.). There is a possibility that, by communicating calmly and reasonably with the officers, you can convince them that the dispute is not or should not be treated as a domestic situation. This possibility is unfortunately slight. Flattery and bribery generally dont work and

should not be attempted. Apologies, however, have been known to work. Im sorry you were put to all this trouble, I know youre just doing your jobs, but I really would rather not answer any questions without a lawyer present. Police will use a variety of techniques to gather evidence for a case. They can lie, and say they have evidence they actually dont. One policeman may seem to be gunning for your arrest, while their partner may seem friendly and say we just want to hear your side of it. A policeman may say This happens all the time, and the judge will go easier on you if you confess. (However, the policeman is most definitely not the judge.) They may threaten you with obstruction of justice if you dont confess, but only the DA can charge you. If you are arrestedand police do not have to use the term arrestdo not panic or resist arrest. You can ask the officer if he can simply issue you a citation. Regardless, remain as polite as possible; say only Im remaining silent, I want a lawyer. If you are in custody, and interrogated by police or a different law enforcement official, and have been not been informed of your Miranda Rights (Right to remain silent), the police have acted improperly and your case can be thrown out. This only applies if the police take you into custody (a situation you feel not free to leave) and interrogate you, not either/or. You should consider the idea of Malicious Arrest, where police know you are innocent and arrest you anyway. This may be difficult to prove, but if you have evidence of her false accusation (on audio or video), whereas she has no evidence to back up her accusation, it could have the foundations for a case. Consult your attorney. Note that you are not legally entitled to one phone call. You are entitled to speak with a lawyer, and if you need a phone to contact one, youll be provided with access to a phone. If you dont have a lawyer or know a lawyers phone number, call a friend or family member and ask them to contact a lawyer for you. Never assume that your phone call is private! Some states will have an officer of the court called a pretrial officer that can enable you to pay a bond fee and be released on your own recognizance. If you can qualify for the bond and afford it, youll agree to appear in court, then be released. While you are being processed, the police assisting your significant other will strongly suggest that she get an Injunction, or Temporary Restraining Order against you. The TRO can be processed immediately, and you will be notified in jail that a TRO has been issued against you. It succinctly states that you are not allowed to come within a certain distanceanywhere

from 500 yards or moreof your significant others place of residence (even if its yours as well) or her workplace. Most TROs will also have a no contact clause which considers any attempt at communication phone calls, letters, e-mails, etc., a violation of the TRO. Communications through another person are considered contact through a third party and may also represent a violation. Defense lawyers in your area routinely check daily arrest records, and will offer their services via mailings as soon as your name appears. Ironically, the TRO may in most cases prevent you from receiving your mail. This in itself may provide a grievance in your favor: in the case of a live-in girlfriend not a wife if you are restrained from accessing your own mail, and if she takes your mail from the mailbox, even just to save it for you, that may legally constitute Theft Of Mail, a Federal offense. Also, if a restraining order bans you from collecting your mail, you clearly cannot be served court papers through the mail. You will be given a hearing before a judge, hopefully within 48 hours. A public defender told this writer The less you say to the judge, the better. The judges in initial hearings may not even address you, but only hear statements from the attorney and prosecutor (sometimes over a closed-circuit TV system). The judge will set a bond (bail) amount and any other conditions for release. If you have a credit card among your personal effects, you can use it to bond yourself out if you have enough to cover the bond. In cases where you cant afford the entire bond, you may call a bail bondsman who will cover 90% of the bond if you can pay 1 0% of it. If you have been served with a TRO while in custody, do not attempt to return home on your own. If so, you can be charged with violation of the TRO and arrested all over again. With a police escort, you should be able to return home to get certain necessities. The TRO is temporary; generally lasting two weeks or until a court hearing to determine if the TRO should be permanent. Note that some women have been known to use TROs offensively that is, they will shop at stores they know you also shop at, in the interest of reporting that you violated the TRO. If you see this occurring, immediately leave the area. Contact the venues management and ask if they have their premises under video surveillance (a great many businesses do). You may need to subpoena their tapes later. You should also consider filing a Stalking charge or Criminal Mischief charge. Also, an Injunction or TRO does not give her the right to change the locks on your home (generally both the permission of all lease-holders is

necessary to change the locks), nor can she destroy or dispose of any of your property. Wrongfully interfering with anothers personal property is one definition of Criminal Trespass. As for lawyers, it is better to have one than not have one, although you can use a public defender, or represent yourself. If you do choose to represent yourself, you owe it to yourself to do as much research as you can beforehand. Judges will not accept ignorance of the law as an excuse. Once you have been released, it may be extremely tempting to leave the state, or even the country. The father in the Review-Journal case ultimately did leave the country. While you may remain technically free by doing so perhaps indefinitely refusal to appear in court will result in a bench warrant against you, and a simple traffic stop thousands of miles away would result in your arrest. Leaving the area also smacks of guilt. Its probably better to remain in the area, with friends or family, until your court date(s) are finalized. You will probably be better served by preparing and researching your own case, as well as filing whatever civil suits you can. AFTER A FALSE ALLEGATION If you retain counsel even a public defender you should work closely with him or her to present the best defense you can. Give your attorney all the facts you can: date and time of the arrest, any witnesses, the approach and behavior of the police, your work history, anything you can think of. Dont hold anything back from your attorney. If the allegation is flagrantly false, add your willingness to take a polygraph test and ask if your accuser could be given one as well. Some very harried or underconfident public defenders may suggest that you plea bargain. The deal may be tempting, but you should not ever plead guilty to something you didnt do. As mentioned previously, some criminal charges may apply to your accuser: Wanton Endangerment, Assault, Criminal Mischief, Disorderly Conduct, Making a False Police Report. These charges may seem retaliatory, but turnabout is fair play, and criminal charges should let your accuser know that A) there are consequences for her actions, B) youre fighting mad, and C) youre fighting mad within the boundaries of the law. Its best if youre able to provide evidence, of course. You may be able to use a photocopy of your own arrest record. If the police demand that you provide evidence or witnesses, politely ask them why, since they did not require evidence or witnesses to arrest you. If the Watch Commander tells you to forget it, note his name and badge number and politely ask when the next Watch Commander comes on duty.

You can bring a civil suit for Defamation of Character (Libel or Slander) in small claims court without a lawyer, but the maximum amount you would be able to sue for would be $5,000.00. Beyond small claims court, civil trails become very lengthy and expensive. Libel should be proven through the police report itself. It is or should be an unproven accusation or a criminal offense. You should sue for the amount of your release bond, court costs, attorneys fees, any time lost from work and any expenses incurred from being restricted from your residence (hotels, meals, etc.). If this amount totals more than a small claims court can award, consider filing a claim in a higher court. You should also ask for your record to be expunged. You will need to subpoena the responding and arresting officer(s) as witnesses. Since the allegation was fabricated, they will actually be anti-witnesses to all the events they were told occurred but did not actually see. If you are representing yourself, here are some sample questions you might consider asking. Only ask questions that you are certain will be answered to your satisfaction!
Did you check for priors through your NCIS database? Did I have any previous arrests? Had you ever been summoned to the residence before on a similar complaint? Had any of the neighbors complained previously? When you arrived, did you see a struggle taking place? Did you see any signs of a struggle? Was I acting in a violent manner?

It may be possible to sue the police (or sheriffs) for Malicious Arrest, or the Prosecutors for Malicious Prosecution. Malicious arrest occurs when police arrest you knowing you were innocent. You ARE innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, Malicious arrest is notoriously hard to prove, as is Malicious Prosecution. Malicious Prosecution occurs when the prosecution came after you with malice and without probable cause. In the case of someone with no previous criminal record especially a case without evidence or witnesses a good attorney could argue that Arrest and/or Prosecution are malicious, since the ordeal and trial will seriously malign your reputation. Using the letter of the law itself, it may be possible to bring additional charges against your accuser, and/or the law enforcement officers in question. For example, Kidnapping is simply detaining, or taking someone to another area against their will. Conspiracy, and Aiding and Abetting the same may technically apply to the police, along with Unreasonable Search and Seizure. These may seem like extreme measures, and may require a very aggressive and creative attorney. However, if the victims of false accusations continue to remain on the defensive, merely leaving their fate to an attorney or public defender, and do not research, explore and demand their rights, then the wheels of injustice will continue to grind our lives with impunity. It is only if we consistently challenge and punish false allegations and hold the judicial system accountable that we can hope for any true justice and change.
SOURCES AND SUGGESTED READING:
Esq. Bloomsbury Books

The Street Law Handbook: Surviving Sex, Drugs and Petty Crime. Neeraja Viswanathan,
(bloomsburybooks.com, streetlawhandbook.com)

Did you notice any injuries to the accuser? Did she ask for medical attention? How many domestic disputes have you responded to previously? Among those disputes, how many resulted in your arresting the man?

SCAMPROOF YOUR LIFE by Sid Kirchheimer,

AARP Books/Sterling Publishing. by Martin M. Shenkman

6Hour Guide To Protecting Your Assets WEBSITES:

If your accuser cross-examines the officer(s), remember that anything not witnessed or corroborated is hearsay. If you win in court, ask that the case be either sealed or expunged (erased from your record).

www.falseallegations.com www.falseabuse.com www.standyourground.com www.RADAR.org www.dontmakehermad.com

The Catalog of Anti Male Shaming Tactics

Every once in a while something like the recent US election comes along to remind me of the many ways it's acceptable to shame men for speaking 'out of place'. In this Politically Correct world, it seems there is no end to the Sacred Cows one cannot criticize, nor are there many ways 'acceptable' to these folks in which to protest. Attempts to control thoughts by controlling language is the very basis of Political Correctness, and these are some of the most common ways in which shame is used to control language, as well as behaviour. We bring them to you now to illustrate the many ways shame is used to manipulate, as well as give suggestions for response.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable. Examples: "You're bitter!" "You need to get over your anger at women." "You are so negative!"

Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)

the 'Man Up' Charge Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women. Examples: "You need to get over your fear." "Man Up!" "You're afraid of a strong woman!"

Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a costbenefit analysis.

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue)

Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing "Chicken Little"). Examples: "Stop whining!" "Get over it!" "Man Up!" "You guys don't have it as nearly as bad as us women!" "You're just afraid of losing your male privileges." "Your fragile male ego ..." "Wow! You need to get a grip!"

Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Peurility (Code Green)

the Peter Pan Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male. Examples: "Grow up!" "You are so immature!" "Do you live with your mother?" "I'm not interested in boys. I'm interested in real men."

Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange)

the Elevated Threat Charge Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target. Examples: "You're scary." "We need safe spaces."

Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man's legitimate freedom of expression.

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple)

the Sour Grapes Charge Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example: "You're just mad 'cause you don't measure up." "It's not up to women to look out for men." "You're just trying to hang on to male privelege."

Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown)

the Brown Shirts Charge Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint. Examples: "You're one of those rightwing wackos." "You're an extremist" "You sound like the KKK." Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is beside the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)

Examples: "Are you gay?" "I need a real man, not a sissy." "You're such a wimp."

Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.

Response: Sexual orientation does not determine the validity of a viewpoint, nor does the sexual desireability of the person holding the viewpoint.

ot All Women Are Like That! Not All Women re Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not ll Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are ike That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All Women Are Like hat! Not All Women Are Like That! Not All
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Grey)
the NAWALT Charge Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women. Examples: "I'm not like that!" "Stop generalizing!" "That's a sexist stereotype!" Response: Pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.

Charge of Instability (Code White)

Examples: "You're unstable." "You have issues." "You need therapy." "You're creepy!"

Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.

Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peerreviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.

Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold)

Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences. Examples: "If you didn't go after bimbos, then ..." "How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?"

Response: Averagelooking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, "highmaintanence" women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)

Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples: "You misogynist creep!" "Why do you hate women?" "Do you love your mother?" "You are insensitive to the plight of women." "You are meanspirited." "You view women as doormats." "You want to roll back the rights of women!!"

Response: One may ask the accuser how does a promale stance become inherently antifemale (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zerosum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of "argumentum ad misericordiam" (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or "argumentum in terrorem" (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code T an)

Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.

Examples: "I bet you are fat and ugly." "You can't get laid!" "Loser!" "Have you thought about the problem being you?"

Response: This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his viewpoints.

Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink)

The Pussy Whip Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate. Examples: "No woman will marry you with that attitude." "Creeps like you will never get laid!"

Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Pink Whip" is to realize that a man's happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).

While shame is a healthy way to control behaviour on society-wide scales, it is also important to have balance as well. As many politicians found out this last US election, shame these days is pretty much a one-way street. With that in mind, I hope you have found some help in sorting out the daily mess over the last few pages, and if so, here's hoping you pass it on.

A Reading from the Book of Zed:

Things will only get worse
"And the women my age good God maybe GDaddy and ZP can back me up here, the ones who were OK back in 1972 have shot through two or three good men and a half dozen bad ones, and they think that the pinnacle of feminine desirability is to be as demanding, as histrionic, as psychotic, and as selfobsessed as their daughters." mulechewingbriars

Yeah, I'll back you up on that one, MCB. Being a part of the counterculture, I got exposed to radical feminism early. I have a brother 10 years older than I am, and by the time I graduated from HS his wife was already using his kids to jerk him around, so I wasn't all that hot on marriage from the getgo. After encountering radical feminism with all its hatred, distortions, and anger in my freshman year of college, I copped an attitude and basically made the decision that I was going to force the fish to live without this bicycle. I met many women over the years who would have loved to be supported to stay at home, but my brother's wife was so useless and helpless and suffered from a perpetual broken wing, that I really did react to marriage like a jail sentence "none for me, thanks." But, as I have said before, I think that men and women had a chance of sorting things out but for the poisonous influence of Susan Faludi and Naomi Wolf. Right after their books came out was when things turned really ugly. The 90s were a nightmare. There was a period of several years when every day I got several manbashing supposedly "funny" emails that were making the rounds "what do you call a man with half a brain? Gifted." What makes me have no hope at all for the future is the way that little girls and boys are being programmed to hate each other now. Young women when they get older will pay a terrible price for their stupid bitches of mothers buying them "boys are stupid, be violent toward them" Tshirts, jammies, and the like. Boys today are forming the opinion of girls which will be with them the rest of their lives, and that opinion is largely that girls are violent, hateful, and vicious. Twenty years from now, young women will look back on today and think of it as "the good old days."

A Tota l i ta ri a n S tre a k a M i l e Wi d e
by: Elusive Wapiti
elusivewapiti.blogspot.com

Women believe their benefit is the ultimate moral good. Imagine living with a male roommate who believed that. Was supported by government and society in believing that. And believed it at your expense.
-Typhonblue
While Vox Day already beat me to this punch, I thought it useful to join him in piling on this august example of the toxic combination of feminine solipsism and tendency toward totalitarianism: " Whistles, catcalls and lewd come-ons from strangers are all too familiar to New York City women, who say they are harassed multiple times a day as they walk down the street. Now lawmakers are examining whether to do something to discourage it. A City Council committee heard testimony Thursday from women who said men regularly follow them, yell at them and make them feel unsafe and uncomfortable. Advocates told stories of preteens and teenagers being hounded by adult men outside city schools and pleaded for government to address the problem." ["NYC Considers a No Catcall Zone" -Associated Press] The problem here of course, is not the behavior itself, it is that this troublesome conduct is committed by nonalpha men, and the women admit as such: " Soon, the group Hollaback, an organization formed five years ago to stand up to street harassment, will release a smart phone app allowing women everywhere to do the same. Hollaback told councilmembers that women have left jobs, broken leases and skipped school all just to avoid incessant unwelcome advances from strange men they pass on their commutes. Holly Kearl, author of Stop Street Harassment: Making Public Places Safe and Welcoming for Women, said she informally surveyed more than 800 women from 23 countries and 43 states, and 99 percent of them had been harassed by strangers." Sexual harassment is commonly defined as Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that tends to create a hostile or offensive work environment. Note the operative word here, unwelcome, which moves this behavior from the objective to the subjective, from merely obnoxious into the domain of a crime punishable by the state. A crime defined not by objective criteria, but by the feelings of an individual woman, feelings that vary from time and place and from woman to womanand man to man. In other words, should the very same behavior be committed by men these women find attractive, not only would it be not a problem, it would be welcomed. Which brings us to the crux of this matter: I can come to one and only one inescapable conclusion: the liberated woman hates hates hates non-alpha men with a passion, a zeal, a chip that, as a non-alpha male, I admit I cannot fully fathom. Moreover, such a liberated woman will use every tool at her disposal to restrain the behavior of undesirable (read: non-alpha) men so as to ensure she receives only welcome attention from men she finds desirable. Usually the default tool sought by these women is the law enforcement power of the State. Which is what we see here on the NYC council, a move to take these noxious behaviors, turn them into subjective crimes a la workplace sexual harassment laws, and hang that albatross around the necks of all non-alpha men who live in the city. Missing from all of this discussion, of course, is any mention of the behavior or mode of dress of the women involved. Thus I found the photo placed atop MSNBCs treatment of this event to be more than a bit

ironic, for it would seem to me that if one dresses in such a manner as to spam the whole social environment with your sexual signals, one then has little right to object when a fellow who is not within ones erotic field of regard happens to respond. That is not to say that the women who attended the council meeting, who in this NY Post article look rather average, dress in such an obviously sexual manner as depicted by the comehither-shoes depicted here when out on the town. Rather, it is to note that the customary female role in human behavior, consistent over millennia, remains unchanged in these libertine timesthe hard-wired pattern of feminine sexual display and male response to such displays. Of course, the women in this story wish to restrict and punish the male response to their displays, conveniently forgetting that it is they who initiate the process in the first place. Instead, we (read: society) are supposed to focus on their feelings of insecurity, and are supposed to rush to provide it for them. Thus, having wildly succeeding in controlling the behavior of undesirable men in the workplace, these women are moving to restrain the behavior, to attack the freedom of speech and of movement of undesirable men in the public space. Of course, this attack isnt couched in those terms; instead, the stalking horse used here to execute a sneak-attack the liberties of non-dominant men isyou guessed itwomens safety, a concern that is sure to garner support from white knights and the sisterhood all over town: Because of street harassment, from a young age women learn that public spaces are male territory, Kearl said. They learn to limit the places they go, they try not to be in public alone especially at night and when they are alone, they stay on guard. Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras, chair of the womens issues committee that held the hearing Thursday, recalled learning as a young teen how to speedwalk to dodge certain men, and which corner stores she should always avoid. Kat Pope, 28, of Manhattan, said she quit going to her gym in the mornings because she was harassed so badly on her way there and back. Men at a construction site would whistle, stare and yell at her as she passed, every single day. She still gets harassed in other locations, but it happens maybe once a week instead of daily. It feels disgusting, she said. In the moment, I feel helpless and I never know what to do to make it stop. Carrie Goodman, 27, a student who lives in Manhattan, said she hears a whistle or comment once or twice a day. Hollaback is pushing the city to commission a study, a public awareness campaign and perhaps even legislation, including no-harassment zones around

schools to protect young women. Too commonly, street harassment is believed to be the price women pay for living in New York City, said its executive director, Emily May. But were not buying it. This is not our way of not being able to take a compliment, said Nefertiti Martin, who testified at the hearing. This is an issue of safety. Street harassment of women is as old as cities themselves and is common around the world, but the pushback against it is a more recent movement. Volunteer activists in Cairo are planning to launch a website, Harrasmap, where women can instantly report cases of leering, groping and other sexual threats.""""" Going beyond the sexism implicit in a set-aside committee for womens issuesas if womens issues are any different from mensand going beyond the blatant emotional manipulation inherent in lumping some behavior some women find obnoxious when committed by some men in some settings with the crime of sexual battery, it is obvious to me the toxic effect the female need for security, when empowered, has on the freedoms of society as a whole. For it is a short distance between the sort of power the State would require to provide women their desired safety, and the sort of power the state would then possess to control the lives of all its subjects. The freedom of othersor the property rights, right to self defense, right to free association, etc, etc. of others, especially when the holder of those rights are mendoes not appear to matter much to women concerned with making their lives more comfy at the expense of others. This incident is merely consistent with that well-established pattern, a pattern that demonstrates that women as a sex are particularly prone to the temptation of trading the liberty of themselves and others for a little more personal security. Of course we know that they (and we) will receive neither over the long run, but that requires a twin concern for (a) the abstract concept of freedom and liberty and (b) a focus that considers the past and the futurein addition to the here and nowthat seems to be missing in the average female. Or at least the ones that inhabit NYC, that populate NOW, and who vote in elections. The personal is political is a very apt mantra for these gals, who take their feelings and solipsism right into the voting booth. And liberty suffers for it.

The Duke Rejection List

Ive gotten more emails to write about this Duke slut Karen Owen than I have on any other topic. I wasnt interested at first, having scanned the notorious Powerpoint (also at this link in case first doesnt work) and concluded that it was just another story of a whore riding the (alpha) cock carousel who happened to forego discretion and publicize her sluttery, nothing to see here move along dystopia down the hall and to your left. But a closer inspection of Owens tell-all reveals a river of scorned subconsciousness that the mainstream feminist bloggers have predictably failed to notice this chick was rejected by each and every one of these high status men she banged. But how can that be?, some of the duller among you will ask. None of the men turned her down for sex. Dont you know its different for women? Failing to get laid is not how women are rejected; they are rejected when they dont receive romance, love, and long term commitment from the men who fuck them. Most women under 25 with a slim and healthy 1 7-23 BMI profile have no trouble getting laid from the men they find attractive. Given that most young women can get sex fairly easily, falling into bed with a man, even high status men such as the Duke athletes targeted by Owen, is not much of an accomplishment. Its like giving a trophy to a dog for being able to lick its own balls. Now convincing these fly-by-nighter men to date, romance, introduce to their friends, spend money on, and marry the women they screw thats the real trick. And it is the measuring stick we should be applying to skank hos like Karen Owen. For by that metric, she and many others like her fail miserably. For example, here is her write-up of the man (a tennis star) she rated the worst:

roissy.wordpress.com

-by Chateau

Note this mans utter dismissal of her as a potential long term prospect. Did not bother to kiss more than a few seconds. after which he simply walked out. did not return. I will leave them outside of the building for you. And Owens reaction? 1 /1 0. Seriously. That is the tersely bitter send-off of one pissed and deeply wounded woman. Dont let the whimsical snarkiness and slut empowerment pose fool you even the raunchiest cockgobblers have a heart inside that beats for a man to love and cherish them above all others. The love of a man, true and loyal, is the sluts white whale. But what about the men she rated highly? Did

they stay with her? Heres her write-up of the man she rated the highest: What did the first place man do differently than

the last place man? H e catered to her female need for signs of romance and commitment (which, in the end, werent forthcoming. And that kid went H A H AW): intense level of eye contact. if I get lucky youll wake me up with a kiss in the morning. H im refusing to allow me to leave before noon. how important it was to him that I got off as well. So when PU As talk about leaving women better than you found them, this is what they mean treat your pump and dumps like girlfriends and in the ego-assuaged haze of their pleasure they

will forget that you havent actually committed to them beyond offering the half-eaten burrito in your fridge. U nfortunately for Miss Owen, this story with berMan #1 does not have a happy ending. After that amazing night together, this is how the following rendezvous meetings went down: I saw him out briefly at Devines the Tuesday after, but since we had only just seen each other [ed: "seen" = "fuck" in chickspeak. GSS Fail! ] I did not even approach him, only making sure that he saw me in passing. [. . . ] I would have liked to have hooked up many more times than two, but he was tired and I needed

to graduate the next day. Long term romance fail. When a girl is careful not to talk to a lover in public for fear of creating an awkward moment that might kill the budding romance, you know you are dealing with a slut shooting way out of her league and, in the big picture, a dating market beautifully arranged to the maximum advantage of alpha males. This truly is the golden era for single men with game who have wisely avoided the trap of marriage. Conversely, it is the hell matrix for betas who now have nothing to offer but the pitiful consolation prize of being willing to wear This is what a feminist looks like tshirts in hopes of copping a pity fuck from a short-haired hippie chick on a five hour bender. The whole Powerslut Powerpoint reads like the above. Owen snags another Duke alpha athlete (implicitly she has studiously avoiding snagging any computer science students on campus), has her sex, and then never sees the guy again except at beer pong parties where they exchange knowing glances if shes lucky, or unacknowledged quick exits if shes unlucky. Then she writes about it with a dash of humor and self-awareness to exorcise the demons tormenting her broken heart and chafed vulva, and sends it to a couple of girlfriends, her male-oriented brain assuming the girlfriends would be loyal to her and not pass it on to the wider public. Big mistake. Probably the stupidest commentary on this affair was by that cougartown fembot Penelope Trunk, who in her infinite perspicacity managed to turn it into a treatise on, color me surprised! , sexual harassment and female empowerment via the magical art of spreading your legs for chaste men who only have sex once every thousand years when Jupiter and Saturn are aligned. So what makes these slides so fascinating? I think its her spunk and self-knowledge and enthralling sense of her own power. I wish I had had that when I was her age. I am twenty years older than Owen, but she inspires me to be brave, takes risks, and let my creativity get the best of me. So whats stopping you? Oh, thats right. Twenty additional years (forty in female years) isnt good for the bangathon business. Jesus, what a buffoon. H eres some real insight for ya, Penelope and assorted Jizzabelers Karen Owen has royally fucked up her chances to extract

marriage from a good man thanks to her intemperate decision to write about, share and, consequently, archive for the masses for all eternity her insatiable hunger for a variety of lacrosse cock. Try to turn down the knobs on your psychologically-cemented female projection modules for a moment and put yourself in an alpha males shoes. What man worth his yarbles in character, money, career, looks, charm and/or social status is going to use Karen Owen for anything more than a hole in which to dump a perfunctory fuck? What high status man would marry a slut with a tap sheet a mile long, her every clitoral flutter registered in loving detail in ASCI I , jpeg and png for his friends to read and laugh at? Rhetorical. N aturally, the double standards crowd will pipe up that Owen was just doing what men do all the time. Congratulations! You just figured out double standards exist and life isnt fair. First prize, a group hug from fellow knobbobbers. Second prize, a beta with few options. Third prize, youre still a rancid slut. The impolite fact is that a man who wrote an Owen-esque fuck list would not suffer much, if any, penalty in the dating market *or* in the more tightly regulated social market for his promiscuity. Sure, a few femtards would wail at the objectifying of women and the unfairness that ugly but SMRT broads are passed over for alpha bimbo sorostitutes, but in the crucible of real life most normal heterosexual women would be uncomfortably drawn to such a man, and would work for his affections. I m sure the athletes who are a part of Owens fuck list are high-fiving their pounding of Owens sperm cavern when theyre not fucking a hundred other groupies scrambling for their attentions. Bottom line: a male Karen Owen would actually see his sexual market value *rise*, while Owens value as a girlfriend and potential wife has undoubtedly fallen. This plus the raw hypergamy on display by her choice of sexual partners and her ability to effortlessly fulfill that limbic impulse is the underlying message of Owens cutesy confessional. And its the message that the legacy media, the middleaged vicars of vicariousness, and the feminists are trying hard to miss.

You hear it all the time from people who are getting shafted by reality. Its so UNFAIR that guys get to do X with impunity while girls doing X suffer social stigma. They think by bitching like this and attempting to shame those who would live in harmony with double standards they can alter peoples behavior into something more to their liking (i.e., a nonstatus driven, nonmaterialistic, noncraven utopia of perfect loving LTRs where no one is left out and no one gets dumped and everyone has a soulmate and enough positive lifeaffirming experiences to share with their yenta friends in recipeswapping blogs devoted to covering the fascinating minutiae of their funny, exciting, sexy, touching, poignant, growthoriented lives.) Then there are those who, when called out on their inconsistencies, deploy a swarm of sophistry intended to obfuscate and deny the existence of double standards because they are beneficiaries of them. Acknowledging these truths would mean coming to terms with the fact that they, like everyone else, have at their core an animal nature. Fuck that noize. The truth of the matter is that double standards are necessary if you want to be halfway competent in your dealings with men and women. As the author of Looking Out for #1 and Winning Through Intimidation wrote: If you deny reality it will automatically work against you.* Double standards are fixed features of life as a sexually reproducing social organism. The modern career woman is miserable because she is constantly locking horns with men who wont value her for her career achievement as much as for her hourglass figure and bedroom skills, while these same men admire and respect career dominance by other men. Her refusal to come to grips with this essential double standard explains why so many hardcharging women have turned their backs on their own femininity and lost the art of female coquettishness and submissiveness. Alpha men have responded by fucking and leaving these domineering gender impostors for cute waitresses. Betas have responded in their own way by assuming the doormat position and giving these feminists *exactly* what they claim they want. The same goes for sluts. A man who sleeps with many women gets high fives from his buddies and sexual interest from girls who cant help their burning loins. But girls who sleep around are socially ostracized, used by men and shunned by women. It has always been and it will always be as long as a woman has 400 eggs to a mans nearly infinite number of sperm. Parents will treat their sons and daughters differently when dispensing advice on how to deal with the opposite sex and all the harpies with their multiple humanities degrees shrieking equalist platitudes to the high heavens will never change this. Its one thing to bloviate from a comfy tenured perch while your lesbian lover sucks ben wa balls out of your cooch from under the desk its quite another to entrust the welfare of your children to the twisted lies of the Bitterati. *pretty girls have some leeway with this rule. (at least for a while. heh.)

Illustration from actual list, Karen Owen is pictured at left.

Her Diary
Tonight, I thought my husband was acting weird. We had made plans to meet at a bar to have a drink. I was shopping with my friends all day long, so I thought he was upset at the fact that I was a bit late, but he made no comment on it. Conversation wasn't flowing, so I suggested that we go somewhere quiet so we could talk. He agreed, but he didn't say much. I asked him what was wrong. He said, 'Nothing.' I asked him if it was my fault that he was upset. He said he wasn't upset, that it had nothing to do with me, and not to worry about it. On the way home, I told him that I loved him. He smiled slightly, and kept driving. I can't explain his behavior. I don't know why he didn't say, 'I love you, too.' When we got home, I felt as if I had lost him completely, as if he wanted nothing to do with me anymore. He just sat there quietly, and watched T.V. He continued to seem distant and absent. Finally, with silence all around us, I decided to go to bed. About 1 5 minutes later, he came to bed. To my surprise, he responded to my caress, and we made love. But I still felt that he was distracted, and his thoughts were somewhere else. He fell asleep -I cried. I don't know what to do. I'm almost sure that his thoughts are with someone else. My life is a disaster.

His Diary

My motorcycle wouldn't start today, can't figure out why, but at least I got laid.

Post-Modern American honor

by: B.R. Merrick

James Bowman is a stereotypical modernday conservative. The only exception is that he's not only very smart, but his take on mass media and presentday culture is thought provoking and poignant. I very much enjoy reading his movie reviews. He's definitely a throwback to a previous era. One of the main ideas with which he is concerned is the loss in today's culture of what is generally referred to as "honor." If I understand the essence of his argument, the loss of an ancient phenomenon such as honor corresponds to the degradation of modern living, and the emasculation of men. Furthermore, honor is not defined in purely righteous terms, but is instead oftentimes, and most certainly in "postmodern" times, associated with attitude, reputation, or what could be considered a faade. Therefore, this phenomenon can be exhibited by both Godfearing Christians and street thugs. He even goes so far as to say, "Honor is not one among the other virtues," and that it has the tendency to be "hypocritical." In fact, there is so much of this in his many other articles on honor, that the reader begins to wonder whether such a phenomenon is good, right, or necessary any longer. Until I encountered Bowman's writings on the subject, I had always thought that honor, having the same Latin root as "honesty," was about something more than just saving face among the clan to which one belongs. I've always seen it the way it is portrayed in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, where at the end of the first film, Samwise tells Frodo that he made a promise to look after him, and he intends to keep it. Honor was as simple as that. It is because of the influence of this phenomenon in the story

that Bowman reluctantly gave the movie a higher rating (one star out of a possible two) than he originally did (no stars). The best part of the film, in my opinion, has to do with unquestioning loyalty and trust, aspects of honor for which Bowman grieves. After Sam and Frodo encounter Merry and Pippin, they are sought after by one of the Ringwraiths. As they make a quick escape, Frodo tells Merry, "I have to leave the Shire. Sam and I must get to Bree." It is in this moment that the viewer learns everything he needs to know about Merry, and about whatever inherent virtue there is in honor. With hardly a thought about the strangeness of what has just transpired, about Frodo's cryptic plea, or about any future dangers that might follow from providing Frodo and Sam with assistance, the camera closes in on Merry's thoughtful face as he calmly replies, "Right. Bucklebury Ferry. Follow me." This is a moment of pure gold, and I'm glad to see that it forces an old codger like Bowman to admit there's more to the film than outstanding visual sweep and technical brilliance. But Bowman is also correct that we live in a culture that no longer understands this phenomenon, nor celebrates it. He also points out that much of the rest of the world persists in ancient honor cultures. It is one of these cultures of lost honor against which the government of the United States initiated aggression eight years ago. This is where I have to part company with Bowman, the old ideas of conservatism to which I subscribed, and perhaps with the true meaning of honor. I don't know much about postmodernism, other than that it is mostly used these days to describe the "unprincipled" Left:

feminism, nihilism, hippies, black supremacy, queer theory, etc. in other words, everything Bowman despises about his own generation. Having come from a conservative background like Bowman, I understand to a much greater degree the significance and importance placed upon tradition and heritage. To Bowman and other conservatives, honor would appear to be something we ought not to lose, for no other reason than that we've always had it, in one form or another. It may also be his belief that we can't actually dispense with this phenomenon, as it is perhaps ingrained in our physiology somehow, that honor is something that separates us from all else in the animal kingdom. Therefore, if we ignore it, or refuse to recognize our innate possession of it, we will be unable to direct it in the proper fashion, and at some point in American history, we may see families slaughtering women for minor sexual offences, something that still happens to this day in other parts of the world. Postmodernism, in the nihilist sense of the term, doesn't recognize honor as having any value, because nothing, including postmodernism, has any value either. There is indeed danger in nihilist thought. There is also danger, and a considerable amount at that, in Bowman's views of honor, however. Just read "The Worth of National Honor" to understand what I mean. At some point, to Bowman anyway, we owe so much to honor that "we" should have stopped the debate on the morality of the killing "we" were about to do (in the First Gulf War) to focus on the honor of what "we" were doing. If his argument is taken to its extreme, it is as if he is saying that "we" need to follow through on "our" word, for the sake

of "our" word. Of course, when he says "our," he means "the government," which, naturally, he expects us all to support. Reflect for a while on the nature of what transpired in those few months in the Middle East in 1991, and what it has now led to. When truth, critical thinking, and bravery (and I'm thinking here of standing up for truth and critical thinking, not the bravery of running into an exchange of gunfire for whatever honorable reason) are swept aside so that a pampered elitist like George H.W. Bush can do the bidding of his pampered elitist friends, perhaps it's time to go back on "our" word and reconsider what it is that "we" are giving "our" word to, rather than continue the bloodletting. We do not need to follow through on bad decisions. We need the humility to understand what Captain Robert Lewis at least briefly understood in the cockpit of the Enola Gay over Hiroshima , after he did his part in incinerating thousands of people at once: "My God, what have we done?" This is what honor, be it socially invented or biologically induced, routinely does. (Think of the absurdity of a duel, usually brought about by nothing more than an insult.) If Captain Lewis had had the capacity to think more critically beforehand if he had displayed that ability early in life if his mother and father had encouraged that, along with the importance of being honest and cultivating a love of truth if all the men who were assigned to fly that day had honored their abilities to question authority and challenge information given to them, to apply their innate abilities for rational thought then perhaps the war would have ended sooner, or never involved the United States at all. Instead, the more pathetic conception of honor, tied to old

traditions of meritorious advancement, romanticization of violence, a strange, AmericanChristian God who frequently gives sanction to war, and unquestioning socially dictated behavior, produced men who could listen intently to another man who informed them, "We think [the bomb you'll drop] will knock out almost everything within a threemile area," and continue with their plans to do just that. The Japs had it coming, you see. Besides, our honor was at stake. Ten paces, gentlemen. In the balance of such bloody nonsense, regurgitated for future generations to digest, is the future of the human race. Lewis's complicit behavior in dropping that bomb did more than "knock out almost everything within a threemile area." It altered human history, and mostly for the worse. The only bright spot is that it forced much of humanity out of part of its stupor of conventional honor. It made them question, in a way so many did after the First World War, what the hell they were doing. That question is a good ten times more important in my mind than any question of honor. When writers and thinkers like Bowman ruminate on The Great War, they merely lament the unfortunate effect it had on the idea of honor in Western culture. Perhaps the final meaning of World War I is that man's technological ability to wage war has finally outstripped man's ability to honorably wage it at all. In much the same way that mass, instant, global, digital communication has shrunk the world and aided us in seeing the essential humanity in every human face and the fact that this humanity existed long before to our ability to grasp it, technology in its most horrendous forms has shown us what we ought not to do to one another and what we always ought not to have done. The one who for centuries kept telling millions in the Western World not to do it was ignored, right up until the moment that it became impossible to follow the admonition, in the advance of a hideous yellow cloud that turned men's bodies into torture chambers: "Love one another." Bowman himself admits that Jesus was challenging the honor culture built up in ancient Judaism. Since this is the guy Bowman worships, you would think our shared knowledge of the increasingly

torturous and shockingly instantaneous instruments of war, coupled with God's word, would be enough to reassess the need for honor, or what honor should have been about all along. If honor cannot contend with the truth we are learning about our obsession with using force and violence on our enemies, the only way for it to save face is to bow out gracefully, forever. If we as a culture do not learn to honor love, freedom, peace, and truth above all else, then I doubt it will matter very much what we do honor, if we honor anything at all. I would urge Bowman to go back and watch "The Lord of the Rings," only this time, sit through the entire trilogy. He would see that the only truly honorable actions were performed by those who did their part in helping to destroy The Ring, the symbol of power, or the desire and ability to use force and violence to control the outcome. Perhaps there's hope when an intellectual like Bowman, who normally despises such Hollywood flummery, can see through it to find the hidden jewel of honor, and perhaps in the future he'll see the inherent good in putting away any further ideas of honorably waging war. Perhaps someday there will be another Captain Robert Lewis who has the courage to eliminate the "we," and ask himself, "My God, what have I done?", and to do so before the atrocity is committed. Perhaps that day is sooner than we think. B.R. Merrick writes for "Strike The Root" and "A Voice for Men," lives in the Northeast, is proud to be a classical music reviewer at Amazon.com and iTunes, and in spite of the poisonous nature of television, God Himself will have to pry his DVDs of Monty Pythons Flying Circus out of his cold, dead hands, under threat of eternal damnation. This article was originally published at "Strike The Root" on August 27, 2009. It has been reprinted here with permission.

Th e

P re va l e n ce of fa l se ra p e cl a i m s
falserapesociety.blogspot.com
Joseph (of coatofmanycolors fame) of rape. The overriding evidence shows that false rape claims are a significant problem, and that the victims of false claims are not rarities. It is disingenuous to insist that false rape claims are a "myth" because no one knows for certain the percentage of false rape claims. A leading feminist legal scholar has acknowledged this irrefutable fact: ". . . the statistics on false rape accusation widely vary and 'as a scientific matter, the frequency of false rape complaints to police or other legal authorities remains unknown.'" A. Gruber, Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime, 84 Wash. L. Rev. 581, 595600 (November 2009) (citation omitted). An authoritative law review article debunked the canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false. The author traced this number to its baseless source. See http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33issue3/greer.pdf. The FBI has compiled statistics to show that women lie far more often about rape than other crimes. The Politics of Sexuality, Barry M. Dank, Editor in Chief, Vol. 3 at 36, n. 8. It is, therefore, erroneous to assert that only a small or insignificant percentage of rape claims are false because no one can make that assertion with any degree of certainty, and all the available evidence suggests it is wrong. That the exact prevalence of false rape claims is neither known nor knowable is easily demonstrated. Only a relatively small percentage of rape claims can be definitively called "rape." This is beyond dispute. Rougly fifteen percent end in conviction in the U.S. and of those we know that some innocent men and boys are convicted. We also know that some claims reported (the numbers vary depending on the study) are outright false. But in between the claims we are reasonably certain were actual rapes, and the ones we are reasonably certain were false claims, is a vast gray area consisting of a group of claims that cannot properly be classified as "rapes" because we just don't know. That's the nature of a rape claim. The claims in this vast gray middle area often suffer from evidentiary infirmities. For example, for some such claims, while the claimant herself might think a rape occurred, her outward manifestations of assent did not match her subjective disinclination to engage in Perhaps the single most prominent reason cited by members of what can aptly be called the sexual grievance industry for inisting that the needs of those who are falsely accused of sex crimes should not be addressed is that false rape claims are rare or even a "myth." While eveyone agrees that people lie about everything under the sun for all manner of reasons, good, bad and indifferent, members of the sexual grievance industry assert that in the singular instance of rape, mirabile dictu, one gender is incapable of telling a lie while the other is comprised of pathological liars. The very discussion of rape becomes a sort of truth serum for women, a magic elixir that forces anyone not possessing a Ychromosome to utter incontrovertible truth. Is this in any sense plausible to a fairminded person? The question scarcely survives its statement. The assertion is, of course, is an assault on our common sense. That women lie about rape shouldn't be surprising because rape is easy to lie about. The very physical act that constitutes the alleged crime is precisely the same act that has been performed countless times every minute of every day of every year since the beginning of time the world over as an act of love, an act of procreation. To transmogrify this most fundamental human act into a claim of rape, all a woman needs to do is recharacterize it as nonconsensual. No dobut, many men would also lie about rape if their lies would be deemed plausible. Since they aren't, men rarely tell such lies. Clearly false accusations of rape happen, but how prevalent are they? The crime has become so embroiled in the gender politicized sexual assault milieu, where serious dialogue grounded in fact is displaced by vituperative rants and politically motivated assertions, that most reports about the prevalence of such false claims are inherently untrustworthy. In advocating for rape reforms, some feminist legal scholars engaged in a sort of disingenuous scholarly overkill by sprinkling their rationales with shibboleths about how women dont or hardly ever lie about rape. As a result, the legal literature is replete with references to the fact that only two percent of all rape clams are false, consistent with the purported average for other crimes. It is not uncommon in this literature for mens fears about false accusations to be dismissed with almost derisive references to Potiphars wife, who, according to the Bibles Book of Genesis, wrongly accused

by: Pierce Harlan

Y'all are dangerous, lifetime dangerous, permanently dangerous. No one can change that but men. How 'bout it?
Nancy P . Daley, Ph.D. Adjunct Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology The University of Texas at Austin
(http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/ReaderComments/?ContainerID=1081968)

sex, so it wasn't rape. And that's just one of a countless number of examples. Regardless of what the actual number might be, every impartial, objective study ever conducted on the subject shows false rape claims are a serious problem. As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanins major study of a mid size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs. (Kanin, incidentally, was a feminist icon whose work was cited and relied on without question by feminists, including the infamous Koss Report. He suddenly became a nitwit who forgot how to do research when his studies upset the narrative of the persons who dominate the public discourse about rape.) In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. False Allegations. Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64. See also, "Until Proven Innocent," the widely praised (praised even by the New York Times, which the book skewers as well as by most other major U.S. news sources) and painstaking study of the Duke Lacrosse nonrape case. Authors Stuart Taylor and Professor K.C. Johnson explain that the exact number of false claims is elusive but "[t]he standard assertion by feminists that only 2 percent" or sexual assault claims "are false, which traces to Susan Brownmiller's 1975 book 'Against Our Will,' is without empirical foundation and belied by a wealth of empirical data. These data suggest that at least 9 percent and probably closer to half" of all sexual assault claims "are false . . . ." (Page 374.) Have you ever noticed that every time a feminist discusses false rape claims, she becomes an actuarial? False rape claims, she posits, are an acceptable risk because there are so few of them and because there are so many actual rapes especially of the unreported variety. "I'll start to become concerned about false rape claims," she gushes, "when false rape claims become half the problem rape is." Then she'll support her rant by trotting

out statistics that are, again, wholly untrustworthy. The sexual grievance industry posits stats for the prevalence of rape that are wildly, fantastically, inconsistent. Many feminist organizations posit stats that are inconsistent with their own stats for alleged underreporting of rape. Moreover, they typically rely on polls where the questions are skewed to yield more "rapes," and where pollsters don't bother to check the male's side of the story. While no one can say whether most rape claims reported to police were actual rapes, feminist organizations insist that a young woman's offhand and unchallenged boast to a pollster that she was raped is incontrovertible fact, and public policy is set accordingly.

You have to remember the relativity at play here.

When an American white female feminist says to a man "check your privilege", what she is really saying is "don't ask me to check my own"

It is basically a way of trying to claim to be right, because of being the underdog in some way. So while a poor nonwhite trans person living in Iran might realistically be able to say "I'm not sure an american straight white male understands they have an advantage", it is just as easily used by a spoiled rich girl in college to try to silence criticism too. "Check your privilege!" is just another feminist linguistic trick an ad hominem attack a way to try to discredit a person rather than their points. The fact that it is so often used by incredibly privileged people against others is just simple hypocrisy.

That said, it is also important to see clearly where we do have advantages and do have disadvantages. Certainly I think men enjoy certain privileges, but overall I do not think we enjoy more privileges than women either. Being able to look at that honestly is important too... but when used as a weapon against you, it isn't someone trying to open your mind it is a debate technique to try and discredit you as a person and deflect criticism from them.

aetheralloy

The Damned Olde Man Putting Faces on Victims:

When the Political Becomes Personal

thedamnedoldeman.com
For 13 years I worked as a case manager and investigator handling child abuse cases for one of the largest child welfare agencies in the U.S.. During that time I saw the results of some of the most horrific violence and abuse imaginable. I saw the striped scars from shoulder to heel on the back and legs of a 9 year old boy who had been beaten by his mother with an extension cord on multiple occasions. I listened to his mother after she had undergone parent training and counseling tell me in no uncertain terms that if he needed it, she would do it again. I sat with my jaw dropped in horror as I hung up the phone after learning that the judge in the case had sent the boy home to live with her against my recommendations. I often wonder what became of him. I saw the bruising around the lips of a 10 year old girl. It had been caused by her own tongue as she incessantly licked them, unable to stop due to emotional problems after suffering physical and sexual abuse from her father and grandmother who also made her, her older brothers, and younger sister compete with the dog for food by throwing leftovers onto the back porch. The children werent permitted in the house. They were kept in the garage and given a 5 gallon plastic bucket to use for a toilet. I saw the tears on the face of a 12 year old boy who had been cowering in the corner, curled into a little ball crying from the fear that his new social worker would be a woman and the tentative smile on his face when he saw that I was a man. The boy wouldnt speak. His father told me that he had requested the case be reassigned to a male because his son was afraid of women after having been molested by his mother and her girlfriend who had also forced him to have sex with his younger sister and had videotaped everything. The sister was institutionalized. I sat and listened while a 6 year old girl told me she hated her father for what he had done to her, all the while calling him horrible names. Then, when asked about what her father had done, she described playing with him in the park, being taken to Disneyland , and going to movies. When asked whether he had ever hurt her, she said no. She eventually said that she hated him because her mother had told her to hate him. Her mother wasnt nearly as shy about it. In between a string of expletives that would have made any sailor proud, I gathered that this guy was a cross between Ed Gein, Jeffery Dahmer, and Charles Manson. I can go on. I can tell you about the couple whose 5 children were up for adoption because they wouldnt stop fighting each other. I can tell you that the childrens father showed me two scars, one on his back, the other on his thigh, both the result of being stabbed by his wife. The two of them joked about it as though it were no big deal. He deserved it. He

provoked it. He would flirt with other women until she would beat him senseless. He did it because the makeup sex was incredible. Meanwhile, it cost them their children who they claimed to love more than anything. I can tell you about the two little girls who witnessed their mother shoot their father as he slept, once in the groin and once in the head. It was shortly after the Lorena Bobbitt case and she claimed that the father had been sexually abusing the children. There was no evidence of it. The girls denied it. There were no reports to law enforcement or childrens services. She couldnt even produce a single witness to testify that she had told anyone prior to killing the man. At her trial, she plead guilty to some lesser charge and got off with time served, a year in the county jail. And the mother who shot and killed her husband while her daughters looked on? Her case was back in the system several years later.This time she had been sentenced to 25 years to life for the murder of her mother over money and having her new husband dispose of the body. He's serving 1225 while the two girls and a new halfbrother are in foster care. What does each of these cases have in common aside from being some of the most horrific cases I had to deal with during my years of service? In two words: domestic violence. Domestic violence is frequently categorized as man beating woman. Only men commit this atrocity, only women are its victims. If women are violent, it must be because she is defending herself or her children. Thats what many in the industry will tell you. What I will tell you is that not one of these cases was like that. I handled some that were, but most were not. In most cases that I handled that involved DV, the DV was mutual. In some it was the woman abusing the man. In the first case of the boy beaten with the extension cord the boys father was in jail, having been convicted of hitting the mother. I read the police report. I read the court testimony. I might as well have been reading an Orwellian novel. The mother was beating the boy, again. She was high on methamphetamines. The father intervened to try and stop it. She then hit him, with the cord. He finally punched, knocking her out. He called the police who then arrested him, not her. The boy was striped from head to tow and removed from her care. She was never charged. The case of the girl with the bruised lips is the worst case I have ever seen. The two parents had eight children. The first four grew to adulthood before they had the second four. They

had abused all eight. According to one of the adult daughters, her mother would beat them and their father. The sexual abuse happened on nights when their mother would kick their father out of the bedroom, usually after being quite violent. The girls would try to take care of him, often having to stop some bleeding. To quote her Things would get romantic after that. The father once told me that he had been molested by his own mother beginning at the age of twelve. In fact, he fathered his own sister at the age of fifteen. In the case of the boy who was afraid of women, he was in his fathers custody at the time I received the case as a result of the sexual abuse. But prior to that, custody had been awarded to his mother in the divorce. In family court the parents had each accused the other of DV, the judge chose to believe her in spite of the childs testimony that it was his mother who was violent. The father was awarded monitored visitation to take place at his expense in a therapists office. He wasnt permitted to even ask about the mothers treatment of the children. The girl who hated her father hated him so badly that during one of my visits to his home while she was present, she curled up in his lap and went to sleep. Her mother was the violent one. She used to throw things at the father and destroy his property, once having intentionally burned his stamp collection worth several thousand dollars. All of which was verified by the girl before she went to sleep and away from the presence of either parent. Although she did, I didn't need the girl to tell me this. Her actions spoke much louder than her words. When I interviewed her at her mother's house, she refused to allow her mother to hold her and, during my interview when we were supposed to be alone, she kept checking to make sure her mother couldn't hear what she was telling me. Each and every one of the abusive parents in these cases had been abused as a child, whether it was physical, sexual, emotional, or neglect. This isnt to say that all abuse victims grow up to become abusers. In fact, research suggests that its only a small percentage. But it is to say that a high percentage of abusers have been victims of abuse themselves. This includes both domestic violence and child abuse. It also demonstrates that women can be just as abusive as men and points to flaws in our current system that neglect this fact, allowing and even perpetuating this other abuse that is said not to exist. We will not end (or even begin to address) the problems of domestic violence and child abuse until we learn to recognize that these are not gender specific problems and we address all perpetrators and treat all victims regardless of whether they are male or female.

Lone Nut Comics

Recommended Reading:
Fathers Rights- Hard Hitting and Fair Advice for Every Father Involved in a Custody Dispute
Jeffery M. Leving Christina Hoff Sommers

Professing Feminism: Education Indoctrination in Womens Studies

Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge Bernard Chapin

and

Spreading Misandry- The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Women: Theory and Practice Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused
Dean Tong

Legalizing Misandry- From Public Shame to Systematic Discrimination Against Men

Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young

Taken into Custody - The War Against Fatherhood, Marriage, and the Family
Stephen Baskerville

The Mating Mind

Geoffrey Miller

The Disposable Male: Sex, Love and MoneyYour World Through Darwins Eyes
Michael Gilbert

The Evolution of Desire

David M Buss

The Myth of Male Power- Why Men are the Disposable Sex
Warren Farrell

The War Against Boys- How Misguided Feminism is Harming our Young Men

Men's Issues Websites:

www.mensnewsdaily.com www.glennsacks.com www.standyourground.com www.mensactivism.org www.angryharry.com www.the-spearhead.com www.avoiceformen.com www.mediaradar.org falserapesociety.blogspot.com counterfem.blogspot.com antimisandry.com

Terms and Definitions:

PUA: Pick Up Artist good with women, usually a practictioner of Game in one form or another. Game: Practical understanding of the base natures of women, and what they respond to. MGTOW: Men Going Their Own Way men who have decided women aren't worth the trouble. MRM: Mens Rights Movement MRA: Mens Rights Activist

Men today face more obstacles and barriers than ever before. Men face diminished employment prospects, barriers to obtaining a quality education, even demonization of their very masculinity. Socially, men as a group occupy increasingly devalued positions. The destruction of the 'Traditional' male role, along with the removal of the Father from the family, has led to generations of men with little guidance, save the voices of those who hate them. The ever-present media neither represents their views, nor does it even accurately portray them. Rather than being seen as half of society, men are increasingly portrayed as occupations, or archetypes, their humanity carefully hidden from view. For decades, men were forced to keep quiet. For decades, men thought they, and they alone, 'felt that way'. But no more. With MenZ Magazine, you will be exposed to ideas and arguments you will assuredly never hear on your television, or read in your local paper. These are the views of men, and women, who are tired of being spoon fed misinformation. People who want YOU to know that you, as a man, matter. So please, join us.
menzmagazine.blogspot.com