Open Letter to MGTOWs I’ve Offended

Ok. I’ve thought it over a bit more. I do see where I lost my cool and became hyperbolic and antagonistic right back.

If you’ll grant me a few more minutes of your time, I’d like to explain a few things. My original goal wasn’t to come in “policing tones.” No, and I think I’ve established that. I came in to ask what seems to me a relevant question, though apparently it makes very little sense to hardly anyone else. That’s likely partly my fault for not wording my thoughts more clearly, that being something I actively work on. But to me the question is relevant on a number of levels.

To restate the question posed: How can the MGTOW “movement” be defined as completely non-violent when it’s composed of individuals who ultimately decide how to navigate their own lives for themselves?

First off, I assume not all of us embrace 100% non-violence or the non-aggression principle in full. That’s not talking about violence between the sexes specifically, just violence in general. And part of the reason this quibble gnaws at me is due to how broadly “violence” is being defined today. Beyond that, we do not all know one another and oftentimes have to take one another’s word as to whether we live out our personal lives in a completely non-violent or non-aggressive way. I personally won’t claim to, but the push these days seems to be for everybody to jump on board with the logic that all violence is automatically bad and completely intolerable. I don’t entirely see it that way and imagine there are plenty of others who don’t truly either. And this could apply to interpersonal relations as much as people choosing to take an offensive stance against institutions or other aspects of the System they are being squeezed by. Undoubtedly some folks could rationalize nearly anything as justified in self-defense, but that’s another talk for another time.

Therefore, when one claims that the MGTOW “movement” is completely non-violent, that’s tough for me to fathom, considering it’s populated by disparate individuals who subscribe to or are informed by an untold number of other philosophies and/or ideologies. This need to pigeon-hole all MGTOWs as non-violent strikes me as unnecessary and beyond being provable. More than that, it strikes me as the first step in the process of organizing into an actual movement versus a loose collective of individuals deciding how to navigate for themselves. One of the things I happen to appreciate about the MGTOW logic is how open-ended it is, because it seems every time a true movement winds up being formed the individuals therein wind up being pressed to conform more and more, to toe the lines being established. I respected MGTOW logic in so far as it appeared to stand outside of such ambitions.

Furthermore, it does strike me as rather odd that one can claim the MGTOW philosophy is inherently about non-violence while at the same time some of those who aim to “lead” within it are actually spreading messages that can be taken as encouraging increased hostility and painting their “opposition” as untrustworthy “enemies” (as they claim is biologically determined and incapable of being altered or reasoned with). Because there are enough people out here uncritically accepting such rhetoric and who do appear whipped into a terrified frenzy I cannot help but wonder if such arguments won’t in some way contribute to however many individuals freaking out and rationalizing that the “enemy” needs to be either physically taken out or treated to “just desserts” or what have you. That’s a legitimate concern since all throughout history we see dehumanization of “opponents” as the first step in that sort of process. I do worry about that, and how could I not, as someone branded as belonging among “the enemies” and as someone who wishes to not see history keep repeating mindlessly?

I doubt most MGTOWs are aiming for that sort of outcome, so I don’t worry about most. But I do worry about the young, disenchanted, and impressionable as well as those apparently lacking critical faculties who’re growing exceedingly hostile. That concern extends far beyond MGTOW or the “manosphere” for me.

The future I see unfolding around us does concern me, and I don’t know what to do about it either. It’s extremely depressing seeing how much humans are going at one another and stepping on each other’s necks. My goal is not to censor myself or others, but I, for one, would like to see more of us be cognizant of the effect we’re having on one another. That may be my pipe dream, but so be it.

To me, it is cowardly to refuse to consider dissenting opinions and to try to obstruct others by strawmanning their stated positions right off the bat so as to protect one’s own outlook from critique. I don’t respect that in men or women.

We’re not all going to see eye to eye on everything, and that’s fine. I’m not here to convince everybody else that my opinions reign supreme, but I do expect to be treated with a modicum of respect when I come in good faith and am not categorically demonizing others. Yes, I’m a hot-head who lost my cool, but a year worth of listening to and reading women generally being referred to in the “manosphere” as “whores,” “cunts,” “holes,” “twats,” “the enemy,” “good for nothing,” “free-loaders,” etc., has turned my heart cold toward those speaking out of both sides of their mouths. How can one hold those views and still claim they’re for “equality”? Equal what? Equal mistreatment of one another? Equal degradation?

Whether people care to know it or not, I find that shit heart-breaking. And repeatedly reading and listening to reminders that some of these men don’t care at all what I or anyone else might think, that “outsider’s” feelings are irrelevant, that we can just go “fuck off” if we can’t take the heat—well, don’t expect that sort of strategy to bring around much sympathy for whatever pains and problems you’re suffering with. And that right there is unfortunate too, because I know lots of people out here really do need one another despite what they might say. They want to belong somewhere and feel like they’re a valuable member of this society whose thoughts, feelings, and personal experiences do matter. And they do. But so do others’ as well. When we lose sight of that and go into attack mode, we do more harm than good, that I do believe.

On another point, no, I personally don’t have a lot of use for statistics, especially when they do not appear to jibe with what I’m seeing out here. But my own view can’t help but be limited and subjectively influenced, I do grasp that. I’m not claiming my views are always right, and nobody has to agree with me, but I do actively practice skepticism in dealing with nearly everything. That’s just me, and perhaps it’s possible to take it too far. *shrugs* The benefit of skepticism is that it forces me to maintain an open mind in realizing there’s just a lot I cannot know for sure, regardless of how many statistics are pointed at in relation to any given subject. The downside (in some people’s view) is it leads to a non-committal position seen as “wishy-washy” and incapable of taking a concrete stance on much. I don’t mind this, though it can prove annoying to others at times. But c’est la vie — we all explore life from behind our own eyes and work with what we’ve got.

Do I think some guys are freaking out a bit too much on the marriage and child support matter? Yes and no. Yes when it comes to that being the talking point tossed around so incredibly much that it seems little else can be discussed in public forums. And yes when we recognize there are things within our power we can do to better ensure our safety (such as not marrying and taking serious measures to prevent conceiving children with people we very likely would not want to co-parent with, or choosing not having kids at all). While I recognize there are fewer birth control options available to men, we must work with what we currently have (that’s just being practical, folks) and/or become involved in creating new methods. That’s all anyone is capable of doing. Life comes with all sorts of risks and I do not think it benefits us much when we allow ourselves to become so consumed with fear that we wind up obstructing our own selves and fail to see what power we do actually possess. That’s what I said to feminists, it’s what I have to say to myself, so I see no reason for not saying it to men who are getting “up in arms” in a similar fashion.

Now, as for the No’s, I recognize that our criminal justice system and courts are generally stacked against men at this point in time, and I sympathize with this conundrum, acknowledging how easy it is to be falsely accused and how many people out here appear to have no qualms over doing others that way. That’s a travesty, no doubt. We all might not agree on how it all is shaking out in terms of laying blame here and there and whether this phenomenon impacts men more than women, etc., but I’m not cool with anyone being unfairly taken advantage of in these sorts of ways. It’s corrupt and it’s encouraging more pain to pay forward. That is no good.

Of what little activism I remain financially tied to anymore, one organization I support and promote is The Innocence Project, which raises funds for DNA testing to exonerate the innocent who were pegged as being guilty and sentenced to years (sometimes decades) behind bars, with the possibility of being executed. My background in studying the criminal justice field led me there and plays into my reasons for why I personally chose not to go to work in Corrections (as had been my gameplan in college). But anyway, I bring this up to demonstrate that while I can’t claim to know a heck of a lot about divorce court proceedings or child support issues since I don’t have kids and my own divorce was very simple and straightforward (plus most of those closest to me are either still married or never married or managed an equitable split), I do care about other matters that are disproportionately affecting men. We can’t all be completely well-rounded when it comes to keeping abreast with everything going on out here in society, and my areas of focus will differ from those of others. There are enough eyes on the child support/alimony/divorce issue, and I’m not the one to go to for a debate on all of that. Again, I mentioned it in that video because I was getting ticked and because it’s a popular talking point that I seem to have to confront no matter what topic I bring up. All I can say on those sorts of things is do what you can to protect yourself, but why go for overkill? Those are just my thoughts, and people will do whatever they deem as best in their own lives.

I have come to see people like Bar Bar and now Paul Elam as advocating what I consider unnecessary overkill and divisive animosity. And Barbarossa’s lax use of censorship strikes me as uncalled for. But whatever. I’ll aim to avoid people like that and their virtual spaces going forward.

So, in closing, I wish there were ways we could communicate with one another more effectively and openly without us “outsiders” having to hit a brick wall of suspicion the minute we open our mouths or type something someone else perceives as remotely critical. It tends to help to ask questions in order to draw out more on where a person is coming from, and it certainly does not help to knee-jerk into an unwarranted conclusion and then just dismiss them outright. Not only will that not win people allies, it’s likely to generate real enemies. I personally would prefer not to contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy of that nature and would like to communicate with and learn from others who share that aim (males or females, group affiliation being unimportant to me).

Take care.

Recording of that written above:

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Open Letter to MGTOWs I’ve Offended

  1. Byenia

    Someone I respected once told me that when all hell is breaking lose and everyone is talking over each others head one should “stay focused on the mission”. The only way to do that is to first have a mission and understand it. In this case knowing MGTOW and the MHRM mission is the key to your understanding and communicating with them.

    I am familiar with the MHRM and AVFM’s mission so I’ll speak to it. First: The specific issues we are working on (mission statement) are listed on the main AVfM sight for all to see, some you are already aware of so I won’t go over them here. The second mission we have and the most controversial is the untenable job to kick doors down if you will. Many if not all activist groups have had to do this in order to get attention to their concerns and effect change. Some of this is done on the streets with poster campaigns, hosting guest speakers, exposing hateful and bigoted Feminists who put out misinformation on issues like DV, and others are done through education; then there is rhetoric.

    I think your issue with Paul Elam and other leaders in the MHRM/AVFM has more to do with the rhetoric they have used to knock those doors down than the specific issues they are concerned with. This rhetoric has been effective in moving towards that goal and with the help of some Feminists in the Atheist and Gaming community the activists and members of our community are seeing the Seventh wave approaching closer over the past year or so. We can debate the rhetoric and mince ideas but ultimately its purpose comes down to the first mission; to have men and boy’s concerns addressed.

    I did not respond to this in your last two posts on your blog because things were fresh and tempers frayed but I will now. These men and women who stand on the front lines and use their skills to kick the doors down are in the heat of the battle, some have been there a long time and now that they have gotten everyone’s attention the opposition’s defense is a direct frontal assault on their motives, intent and character. We see this from ManBoobs, the Feminist and others who only see them in passing and don’t understand or refuse to give credence to our grievances.

    These leaders have taken hits for myself and other men and boys who are frustrated, disenfranchised or have had their families taken away and lives ruined. This last one is very close to me because through lack of enforcement I lost valuable time with my daughter over petty grievances. They have given us hope that we can affect the change we need and desire. With this said I think you see only the surface battles raging and miss the heart and soul…the character and concern these leaders have for men and boys who are falling by the wayside, in my opinion you miss judge them.

    Your focus on violence confuses me. First because neither the MGTOW nor MHRM have advocated or committed any violence and those who do enter our ranks that do advocate violence are booted out unceremoniously. I think the problem with your question is you have not defined your terms with the fidelity needed to understand the question. Your concern seems to be more about the potential of some being incited to violence as opposed to the stated position of non violence.

    I also think you conflate MGTOW with MHRAs and AVfM.

    • Byenia says:

      Dave, I’m not seeing clearly the “missions” the MRM/MGTOW/PUA/whatever else groups (I conflate them because there is a great deal of overlap) are aiming to promote because honestly they [these supposed missions] come across as quite schizoid. For all the talk about everything being about looking out for the welfare of boys and men, so much of what’s occurring in the blogosphere and on YT is gnashing of teeth against feminists primarily. Such an incredible amount of emphasis is being placed there. While of course women are responsible for our share of wrongdoing and that deserves to be noted, there’s all these segues into biological determinism narratives and nonstop chatter about women’s “hypergamous natures,” or grown men worrying that they might somehow be forcibly raped by women, or that women might be digging in garbage cans to retrieve used condoms so as to impregnate themselves without the man knowing, or drumming up fear that all women are capable of taking men to the cleaners financially-speaking and should therefore be avoided at all costs, etc. And then there’s the Pick-Up Artists and their seminars instructing men on how to manipulate women’s psychology so they can gain sexual access. And for all the men talking about divorce and family, the biggest gripe circulating tends to focus primarily on the expenses involved rather than the welfare of the kids in question.

      Heck, JohnTheOther has argued openly in videos that men being legally allowed to abandon unwanted children would be the equivalent of a woman’s right to an abortion. And I’ve tried awfully hard to wrap my brain around how that will in any way be in the best interest of the children brought into this life.

      That sort of thing doesn’t lend much credence to this all being about the health and well-being of boys and men. And this is what we members of the general public are seeing a lot of from those professing affiliation with these groups.

      Now, I do realize they also focus [however much attention] on false rape allegations and the unfair treatment by cops and courts in domestic violence situations, which I agree are important matters to address. And concern over abuse mothers can bestow on children needs to come to light as well. Then there’s concern for war veterans and the call to repeal selective service, which definitely are overdue on being addressed. And raising awareness about the dangers and cruelty of common male circumcising. I get all of that and can get behind these being issues seriously needing public attention.

      BUT, then there’s the AVfM forum and their wacky censorship policies for women and dissidents (I read that Diana chick’s warning message and was soured immediately — to be frank, that’s about as uninviting of a welcome message as I’ve ever seen on any type of forum ever). And in the time taken to peruse that forum I read a good many threads where men drew attention to sexist attitudes there and were jumped on right away. There’s no room for open discussions in a place like that, and at this rate it is destined to remain an echo chamber.

      Then there’s Paul Elam, a very public face for MRAs, going on record on the AVfM site saying things like:

      “I make the following pledge as an activist, and as an American that believes fully in the rule of law. Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.”

      “If you are sitting on a jury hearing a case of rape, the only way to serve justice is to acquit.”

      “Better a rapist would walk the streets than a system that merely mocks justice enslave another innocent man. And better a system that cannot be trusted as it is, be corrected from within by a single honest citizen in the name of real justice.”

      http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/jury-duty-at-a-rape-trial-acquit/

      There’s no reason to blame the Man Boobz guy for pointing out what Paul himself wrote and has chosen to make public since 2010. If that’s what activism for boys and men looks like for these folks, well, then they are Corrupt. No two ways about that.

      So while I appreciate you somehow see all of this totally differently than I do apparently and would like me and others to continue coming around and reading what these particular guys are ranting about, I’m bowing out of their sphere. Undoubtedly there are other men out here in the world who care about men’s rights (along with women’s rights and children’s needs) who don’t wish to tear human relations completely apart in the process.

      I say that without irritation, just being honest.

      And as for the violence issue — nevermind. I intend to explore the general topic of violence in greater detail at a later date.

      They’re conflated because it’s damn near impossible to keep them all separated. To catch up on everything these “movements” have been up to and all the possible ways they can be experienced and what everybody in them has ever said would take years, literally. My aim wasn’t to come in and spend multiple years observing another gender movement and all of its factions, especially not when it truly does appear to be gearing up to become a bizarro world mirror image of what it stands in opposition to. That’s not merely my bias talking, I assure you. But to each their own.

      • reyeko says:

        Out of thousands of articles all you can pull is one quote. Think about that for a moment, but I guess statistics don’t matter and that one quote hurt your feelings so it’s all that matters right? The thousands of other articles, the hundreds of videos, none of it matters. I could just as easily take Paul Elams video “a Prayer for JoeBob” and call it representative of how he is, or how about his article(used to be a video reading) “how we kill johnny”? Nope irrelevant next to your ALL POWERFUL ONE QUOTE. One Quote to rule them all, One Quote to find them, One Quote to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.
        Also research the origins and purpose of the jury process, jury nullification was created with the intent for the citizens to have the ability to do something about unjust law. Our legal system in the west was founded upon the idea that allowing 100 guilty to walk free is better than imprisoning one innocent. You can find quotes to that effect from dozens of great thinkers from centuries past.

      • If you look in the comments of the article you quoted you’ll see a diversity of opinions on the topic including mine. I won’t go tit for tat here but the system is being abused, one thing a judge said while I was on a jury is to consider the ways of the world. In that particular case it was clear a man was getting railroaded and the system was being abusive in that he did no more than what is happening in the broader society and normalized, the jury acquitted by a unanimous vote. According to the strict definition of the law he broke it. Did the jury nullify, maybe but they did follow the instructions of the judge.

        No one wants to undermine our rule of law, but I think some common sense needs to come into play and it is not unreasonable for citizens to understand their responsibilities and obligations to all in insuring it is not abused in a manner that railroads innocent people. The true tragedy in this discussion is that we have to have it…You may or may not agree with me on this but in some respects the system is broken, it is become a political war ground which puts the participants in a position in all fairness to the prosecutors, judges etc.

      • One comment of Paul… I’d do the same as him if I were a juror in a rape trial. . Ironic that you’re all for the innocence project? You aught to be all for his same stated position and willing to do the same yourself! The relevant reasons of why you know already. I don’t have to tell you that you have absolutely NO way of knowing if relevant evidence being withheld, that would never be withheld if the defendant were female. That IS reasonable doubt. You know you’d be the one being an irresponsible juror and citizen to not set the defendant free! That’s very neglectful to NOT take your responsibilities as a citizen seriously! It’s just a lack of character that you bother to find fault with Paul for what you know is the only right thing to do.

      • I was looking for the post/response I and in this topic and could not find it. As I recall Paul got allot of feedback and my position was not to endorse jury nullification. I think he changed his position on the subject as the members challenged and changed his article to remove this position you quoted. My point here is that the men and women at AVFM do not endorse Jury nullification as a course of action and this example you are pulling out does not reflect the communities thoughts on the matter.

        The example I gave above is actually miss stated the jury as I recall acquitted in a majority verdict and the discussion revolved around the judges instructions to consider the ways of the world. In this particular case the man was being charged with Adultery/disobeying an order to cease and desist seeing his girlfriend after being separated from his wife and papers were filed for divorce.

        In that example the wife had left him after having an affair and when she discovered his liaison made complaints to his commander and had put a monitoring program on his computer, which she used to recover pictures of the man and his girlfriend on a trip. She then provided those as evidence he did not cease and desist. The man lost rank and was previously fined for an incident but someone made the call to court martial him after he contacted his girlfriend a second time.

        I think the Judge gave the instructions to consider the ways of the world in that he was doing what many often do. This man was looking at a felony conviction for the rest of his life for basically having a girlfriend after a separation, which the wife also had a boyfriend and I think some/majority of jurors obviously decided to acquit.

        The reason I give this example is because the judge wanted the jury to make a consideration in their decision. Things are not as simple as they seem.

  2. Tarnished says:

    “Furthermore, it does strike me as rather odd that one can claim the MGTOW philosophy is inherently about non-violence while at the same time some of those who aim to “lead” within it are actually spreading messages that can be taken as encouraging increased hostility and painting their “opposition” as untrustworthy “enemies” (as they claim is biologically determined and incapable of being altered or reasoned with).”

    If I may, This quote sums up what I think is a big misunderstanding of the MGTOW movement. There are no true leaders of it…it is about going your OWN way and not letting anyone else dictate how your life should be. True, there are various loud voices in the manosphere, and yes, some of them spout off violent rhetoric (which is why I’m an Egalitarian, not an MRA or Feminist). If someone hates what JohntheOther says…they don’t have to listen to it. If someone likes what M3 writes about, they can adopt it into their own philosophy. But no single person has to do anything even remotely like anyone else, which is the entire point of living for yourself.

    I’m 29 years old, with no desire for children or marriage. I have lived alone since age 18 when I moved out of my parent’s house. I love my job, have a few very good friends, volunteer at my local animal shelter and food pantry, and enjoy playing D&D, videogames, and other nerdy hobbies. I pay my bills on time, do my taxes a week before they’re due, and give to the Wounded Warrior Project. Hell, I’ve never even gotten a speeding ticket, much less arrested for anything. There is nothing in a philosophy of deliberately and consciously staying single that is inherently violent. It seems like you’re confusing “going your own way” with “having a lack of respect for laws that keep men and women safe”, or at least, that’s what it sounds like.

    • Byenia says:

      In theory. It should be about men going their own way but instead they’re grouping into collectives that appear to shun individualism if it involves behaviors and activities some others don’t respect. We’re talking about the “manosphere” here, not all men out in society who just happen to actually go their own ways. No, and I think it’s becoming important to notice the separateness.

      A man who follows a quality, respect-worthy leader doesn’t bug me. The notion of a man going entirely in the way he feels he personally needs to is A-OK in my book. But then you do have these guys who are like sycophants to popular online personalities whom they subscribe to and clique up over. It looks like a lot of high school drama online, and I pray the activist branch that actually serves people and therefore is too busy to be rabbling with the rabble on echo-chamber forums and other publicly-viewable “man spaces” are the decent majority folks keep telling me about.

      “…which is why I’m an Egalitarian, not an MRA or Feminist).” Good for you.

      I gave JTO a fair listening over a few months and watched at least a dozen of his videos. Made a couple videos lamenting how disturbed it made me over the idea of both men and women abandoning their children into this life. Doesn’t matter whether others care or not, just sharing my own opinions. Not “hating” though I am harshly critiquing now. I took time trying to take in his point of view [portion removed]. It’s not about John himself but rather I can’t figure how his idea expressed will in any way prove beneficial to the offspring produced. This is men’s and women’s issue, and the courts can’t settle it all for us.

      But yeah, I gave it a shot and listened to a bunch of what people had to say in videos and in comment threads and read on message boards on AVfM and other forums. Glad it’s for all of you, but it’s not for me, and I’m just feeling like sharing my assessment in my own corner. It’s not about “hate”; it is about calling bullshit where I see it though. You’re all still free to carry on with your rabbling, no skin off my back.

      You say we all can go our own way, and while I agree, there’s this funny thing called society that keeps us all trapped together, stepping on one another’s necks and barking nonstop. We humans actually live interdependently, despite our fantasies about taking off and ditching all else. We’re struck in these grids and we’re tied to one another economically through jobs and politically through rules and taxation. Virtually no one in living in the West these days knows how to do anything for him/herself other than be somebody else’s slave and wave money around. So let’s not fool ourselves about our independence in our current predicament.

      Wow. A straight-liner, huh? Well, good luck with that. To each their own.

      “There is nothing in a philosophy of deliberately and consciously staying single that is inherently violent.”

      100% agreed. Never claimed there was. lol

      • reyeko says:

        “I gave JTO a fair listening over a few months and watched at least a dozen of his videos.”
        I think that says a lot.Out of almost 300 you watched… a dozen. And it took you a couple of months to watch a dozen videos. I listened to every episode of AVfM radio until about last spring in a couple of months. That was before I ever joined the forums on AVfM, or even read their front page more than a couple of time, and it was after watch every single video Paul Elam, JtO, GWW, Barbar, StarDusk, and a few others ever put out. Your lack of interest in learning more about the views actually espoused and the amount of unfounded assumptions you make make it seem like you’re watching and reading for the sole purpose of finding things to complain about. Like the AVfM forums which if you spend any real time on there and participate in more than 2 thread you would see people are constantly disagreeing and arguing(the opposite of an echo-chamber), you describe it as an echo chamber because people disagreed with you.
        “I could’ve quoted plenty” -- yet you didn’t.

      • Tarnished says:

        Hi Byenia.

        If you travel into the core of the manosphere, this is true. However, there are quite a few good sites that actively encourage real conversation and truly following a “going your own way” philosophy…whether that means casual hookups, marriage, or consciously avoiding relationships. Unfortunately, these sites don’t get near traffic of places like The Spearhead, MGTOWforums, or AVfM.

        I personally don’t care much for the aforementioned bigger sites. While there *are* some good posts and discussions, they also cater to a branch of men (and some women) who are still in the “rage” stage of coping with the bad parts of society. I’ve seen this with feminists and with mras, no one is really immune to it. What needs to happen is for people to move past this anger, and use it instead to work for tangible equality and justice.
        Only when this occurs will we see more domestic violence shelters for men, a lessening of double standards, better family court outcomes, etc.

  3. Byenia says:

    Reyeko, I could’ve quoted plenty, but that one quote proves my point quite well enough. Take notice of what he wrote:

    “…I vow publicly to vote not guilty, EVEN IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE CHARGES ARE TRUE.”

    That portion right there is so fucked up and untrue to founding principles and unjust NO MATTER WHO OF WHAT SEX HAPPENED TO BE FACING CHARGES IN THAT COURTROOM FOR WHATEVER CRIME. Fucking period. I lost all respect right there for Paul Elam.

    No society will survive people parasitically using the system in that fashion, and shit like that is what has allowed it to break down into the bullshit we all must contend with today. Bullshit like that is what corrupts us all.

    For someone like you if the situation were reversed and a woman said that about a man on trial, you’d lose your marbles in protest. Despicable bias. Go call yourself an advocate for equality somewhere else.

    • reyeko says:

      You seem to have skipped over the rest of the article where he describes how the police, prosecutors, etc… work in such a way that evidence is not only suppressed but invented and twisted. Skipped over the part that says due to police, prosecutorial and judicial misconduct corrupting evidence there is always reasonable doubt in the case of rape.
      And then you go on to use emotional wording for the sole purpose of building an argument:
      parasitically: there is no way in which this could accurately be called parasitical, either you don’t know what parasite means or you used the word to invoke emotional response.
      shit like this… break down… contend with today….: actually it’s the exact opposite, we have allowed for decades prosecutors and judges and police to get away with all kinds of misconduct and done nothing about it, you used all those words to invoke and emotional response because logically the opposite of what you are saying is true.
      If the situation were reversed? IT IS. Except in the opposite direction, rather than saying always not guilty if you get on a jury we have judges and prosecutors forced to go through ‘training’ where their given feminist rhetoric and told to apply it to law, we have feminist prosecutors pushing charges through which are so patently false it’s absurd AND GETTING CONVICTIONS. The presumption of innocence, due process, these rights don’t exist in rape trials and jury nullification is in response to that, you seem to think it’s out of spite or something as you refuse to acknowledge the reality of the system.
      How about this, what if it was your son on trial and you knew that cross examining the accusers testimony wasn’t allowed, you knew that the prosecutor suppressed evidence, you knew the police suppressed evidence, you knew that the judge and the prosecutor are given training which bias them against your son, would you think he got a fair trial?

      • Byenia says:

        Get paranoid much? While I understand our system is broken, that’s no reason to help continue further breaking it down by going against your duty to the person standing charged and his/her victim in favor of a political or personal bias.

        And if someone feels that way there is absolutely no reason to pretend they give a damn about the rule of law. While I don’t appreciate most laws on the books, protecting innocent people and sanctioning those who do undue harm to others is a fundamental principle that applies because you possess a fucking conscience.

        Argue around that all you want, but if that’s not corruption then what is? Because the system is broken you figure you’ll go ahead and cash in however you can? Be nothing but an opportunist if that’s what suits you, but don’t expect it to be a respectable position.

        The reason why half the people wind up on death row is due to biased juries and judges against particularly minorities in the U.S. The reason O.J. was let off for a double homicide was due to racial prejudice because people felt the system had been unfair to black men (and it is, but that didn’t make him innocent).

        Yeah, as much as I’m not a fan of convicting based on circumstantial evidence alone, the man explicitly stated “…EVEN IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE CHARGES ARE TRUE.” I take that to include physical evidence even. But he doesn’t give a fuck because he’s driven by an ideological mission to protect men and boys, nevermind if a rapist is actually guilty.

        The way the situation is improved is not by following other corrupt examples.

  4. reyeko says:

    yes accusations of paranoia, classic tactic of the illogical.
    You don’t seem to understand the purpose of the juries existence, a judge could just as easily work by word of law. A jury exists for the sole purpose of saying fuck you to the system if the system is broken.It’s a difference of opinion, you seem to think fixing the system is possible by simultaneously perpetuating it, I think the system need a kick to the ass to wake up and start working again. There are plenty of cases where physical evidence was fabricated. In the cases exonerated by the innocence project 11% had police fabricate evidence and 5% had prosecutors fabricate evidence.
    Do I even agree that you should always acquit? No I don’t I ‘m simply explaining the logic behind the statement which is sound logic. I think you should acquit with ANY doubt rather than reasonable doubt due to the fact that the system is so corrupt it is impossible to know what is true and what is false. It is not corrupting the system to go against the corruption of the system, that’s just a simply stupid argument.

    • Byenia says:

      The system is corrupt now, yes, and how might we lessen that? By adding to the corruption by bringing in our own biases and exploiting the system as well?

      Plenty of cases where physical evidence was fabricated? Please do show and tell. A man’s semen in a rape trial is likely to be fabricated?

      There’s no logic behind that bullshit besides opportunistic taking advantage of the system to further what some people think is a good cause. Though, newsflash, decent men with real problems aren’t interested in some of you behaving like charlatans aiming to rebalance the scale of justice through unjust and unfair means.Hell, none of us would truly be in favor of that shit if we were the ones facing prosecution.

      Corruption + corruption = more corruption. This isn’t about laws so much as principles and I’m a bit dumbfounded that you can’t realize the importance of impartiality when it comes to judging people in a court of law.

  5. Byenia says:

    “I gave JTO a fair listening over a few months and watched at least a dozen of his videos.”
    I think that says a lot.Out of almost 300 you watched… a dozen. And it took you a couple of months to watch a dozen videos. I listened to every episode of AVfM radio until about last spring in a couple of months. That was before I ever joined the forums on AVfM, or even read their front page more than a couple of time, and it was after watch every single video Paul Elam, JtO, GWW, Barbar, StarDusk, and a few others ever put out. Your lack of interest in learning more about the views actually espoused and the amount of unfounded assumptions you make make it seem like you’re watching and reading for the sole purpose of finding things to complain about. Like the AVfM forums which if you spend any real time on there and participate in more than 2 thread you would see people are constantly disagreeing and arguing(the opposite of an echo-chamber), you describe it as an echo chamber because people disagreed with you.
    “I could’ve quoted plenty” — yet you didn’t.

    ____________________________________________________

    Reyeko: After a dozen videos, averaging around a half-hour long, doesn’t convince me this is someone to keep listening to, then 100 more will?

    His weren’t the only ones I was watching. Found GWW’s videos first, the gateway that they are, and have watched nearly all of hers since.

    Which prompted me to watch Robert Sapolsky’s lectures, and that did take quite a bit of time and attention. Can’t rush through comprehending, especially when many people stake their new-age biological determinism argument off of his teachings (which, so far as I’m aware, he doesn’t endorse).

    Tried a few Stardusk videos. Found Barbarossa and watched at least as many of his most popular videos, aiming to grasp his appeal to so many loyal and protective followers. Watched quite a few Typhon Blue’s videos. Watched lectures and tv programs that involved Warren Farrell. Watched countless hours of Stefan Molyneux, including his interviews with Warren Farrell and Karen S./GWW (which I enjoyed for the most part). Watched a bit of Chapin, a good many of Rocking Mr. E’s (agreed with him on some things, not on others), ManWomanMyth. Caught a few of Critical G’s. Watched many of the Amazing Atheist’s videos (not closely related but at times overlapping with the “manosphere”). Watched many of Bill Clement’s videos (was a subscriber for several months there too — he can be compassionate; his heart does show). Let’s see…who else…? Oh, that Vention guy, watched a few of his.

    Watched a couple lengthy PUA seminar videos, plus a few personal videos from one of their paid speakers. Oh, and Loremaster8953’s budding MGTOW journey.

    Then I went in search of videos created by those who follow this “manosphere” to get their opinions as people on the ground.

    I came across the Good Men Project and took a couple months reading their forum and articles. Stumbled across AVfm back then too and read a few articles but moved away from it until fairly recently when I returned and read a good bit more. Checked out MGTOWFORUMS.com.

    Watched videos about protests in Canada and learned some about Edmonton MRAs. Oh, watched some of Justicar (overlap there too) and then a few of those random videos directed against internet feminists. Oh, and Snakepliskinist….watched most of his videos.

    Watched a few from Dean Esmay and fewer still from the WoolyBumbleBee. And I’m sure I’m leaving others out. Oh wait, Aurini — caught at least a dozen of his too.

    And then I sought our detractors like Friendough and HannbalVictor-what-have-you, UJamesForever and the videos of someone who looks and sounds eerily similar to him (handle forgotten). Etc.

    Had to watch some of Anita Sarkeesian’s videos to get up to date on what the “manosphere” was griping about there. Same for the Watson chick’s. And that SaelPalani woman. And countless others without big channels like myself.

    Wait. Where were we going with this? You wanted to know if I was watching and paying attention and the answer is yes. Not having kids provides me with all kinds of free time when not working.

  6. Byenia says:

    Hi Tarnished,

    I did like The Good Men Project’s discussions and found them most enlightening and productive to follow. Big difference between there and the AVFM bit.

    But yeah. I’m looking forward to coming across more men’s rights activists who aren’t frothing at the mouth and who care enough to be reasonable.

    • You do realize the good man project is a feminist run sight? I’m an activist and I’m not frothing at the mouth…It seems you are a feminist at heart here…I think the fundamental difference between you and I is I believe Feminists have tainted the waters and neglected men’s concerns.

      • Byenia says:

        Some claim that, others say not. But either way, plenty of men in the comment threads talked about real issues with one another and managed to do so in a respectful fashion for the most part. The parts I tracked didn’t have very many women weighing in, though a did see and read articles there that were written by female contributors.

        I didn’t say you were frothing at the mouth. In fact, online you appear(ed) to be one of the few who isn’t. And I’d like to find where there are others like that who seem(ed?) open to working toward transcending this gender-dividing “war” that’s hurting us all. Our society is sick, and I’m more interested in understanding why that is than hunting down another group of people to cast the blame onto.

        I am a woman and therefore can’t help but care about the fate of my sex as well. But I’m also a lover and a grand-daughter and a sister and a friend to men who mean the world to me. And I do feel the need to analyze all that I come into contact with in this life. That that strikes you as “feminist” is your own bias not letting you see straight.

      • Byenia says:

        These are largely human issues, Dave. There’s a bigger picture to be examined. I wish for you to understand that. Our entire society is sick, and that includes both men and women, even if more women appear to be benefiting from it right now than men. It’s an illusion, because at the end of the day, the System humans have created and set in motion is damaging all of our lives and is poised to do more extreme damage going forward.

  7. Well, I understand and agree. Maybe, just maybe folks should be listening to the men’s side of the equation a bit more. Certainly you can agree the prevailing wisdom and narrative out there for 30-40 years have been the feminist. How is that working out?

    • Byenia says:

      I do listen to men’s side of it very often. Not only those closest to me but men I meet out in society. And I intend to continue listening to them, though not to movements claiming to speak on their behalves when that isn’t really necessarily the case.

      I deal with individuals. That’s just who I am, ok? Most people I take up time with are men because I tend to prefer their company and always have.

  8. As far as your sex, I believe most men are very protective of the female half of the species. It seem they are perpetually unhappy and seem to be doing the most bitching and rabble rousing. To the point where men are saying time out here…I have a say in this.

    • Byenia says:

      Some men are protective, some merely *think* they’re being protective while they are actually being restrictive, some are exploitative — I’ve dealt with plenty on all sides.

      Yes, men absolutely do have a say in all of this, and I appreciate hearing it from thoughtful men, whether I necessarily agree with them or not.

  9. reyeko says:

    This will be my last comment here. You keep bringing up anger and individualism. Then you throw individualism to the wayside and label AVfM an echo chamber and say we are all “frothing at the mouth”. Let me explain why it seems that way to you. Most men in the “manosphere” have been directly effected by at least one of the major issue’s we talk about(false accusation, parental alienation, domestic abuse, etc) and in most of the issues we talk about the culture is indifferent, people are indifferent, and when a person comes along into one of the few places where we can talk freely and openly and does nothing but criticize we get a little angry.
    When we’re doing our thing without random newbies coming in and vitchnat us because we use swear words as if we’re in grade 1 we end up doing things like compiling lists of feminist books with links to their amazon page: http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=4033
    and compiling a list of books which deal with our issues: http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=2492
    and compiling a list of academic research and studies about our issues: http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=3469
    and analyzing statistics that are put out by major organizations:
    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=5075

    All you saw was the anger because all you were was another person coming along and saying our issues don’t matter, you will deny that but when you come in and do nothing but criticize tone, and generalizations(which you make constantly and seem to only not like it when other people do it) and outright try to tell us we’re not allowed to talk about our issues unless it has affected us directly well guess what you’ve been talking to men to have been falsely accused and spent time in jail, you’ve been talking to men who have been alienated from their children, men who were alienated from their father, etc… When you come into our space and tell us we can’t talk about issues that haven’t effected us we get angry because they have effected us and you’re just another asshole who when confronted with an issue skip right over the issue itself and ramble on about tone and the way in which we say things. Well fuck you, when faced with being told about high suicide rates and you wanna talk about how we can say it in a nicer way, fuck you.

    • Byenia says:

      Reyeko: I’m sure not all are frothing at the mouth, but as an outsider who wandered across all of this originally quite by accident and then stuck around to see what all was going on, the rage is quite apparent, the productive works are less so. Gotta go digging for the latter, which is odd when these groups and individuals consider themselves activists. It begs the question: active for what, primarily? The impression I’m taking away from most is they’re actively anti-feminist and aiming to paint themselves as victims as well.

      All humans become victims at times to circumstances or others, and it may be noteworthy to draw attention to when it’s due to an institutionalized form of sexism, but that’s not what most are focusing on really. They are merely lashing out and blaming womankind (or “Leftists/Marxists”). They’re whimpering over being “Friend Zoned” by women who won’t sleep with them, or complaining about what sluts we all are. A LOT of that goes on within ya’ll’s “manosphere,” at least in my outside perspective looking in.

      If it were just about the issues alone, there would be no need to censor women and nearly all dissenters, nor would so much of the talk require derogatory terms when speaking of women.

      One of the few places you guys talk openly and freely? It appears you’re all speaking quite openly and freely everywhere you go online. I told you of my sampling and in [nearly] all of those channels and sites this rage predominates.

      I observed this aggression geared at many others. Most of the time I remained pretty quiet while reading and watching and following along, so no, this isn’t just about you folks’ anger directed at me. And I never came into your spaces and told you what not to say. Never did. But someone like you is in such a combat-mode of looking at everything that you’re hypersensitive to anything someone else might say that isn’t patting you on the back. This tone fixation is yours, not mine. But you can do as you wish.

      I’m not angry, or at least am not most of the time; I was observing and sharing my thoughts along the way. That was all. That’s not an attack. But many of you guys are freaking out over everything and anything a woman might say, and I don’t get it. All women are not your enemies, not even on the internet.

    • Byenia says:

      A word about generalizations: The issue being taken isn’t with generalizations in and of themselves, it’s in taking them too seriously and losing sight of the diversity that does exist out here in the world.

  10. reyeko says:

    “I never came into your spaces and told you what not to say.” ya people can just go read the linked thread where you go into the whole thing about how we shouldn’t talk about things and that nonsense and then realize that you shift your positions to make yourself try to seem like a neitral sit on the fence reasonable type:
    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=6764
    (the neutral sit on the fence reasonable type is nothing but assholes who like to go around feeling superior btw)
    and now I’m done here because it’s become evident that your high opinion of yourself in more important than the truth.

    • Byenia says:

      Disagreement with you is not silencing you. You’re obviously free to say what you will in your own spaces, whether I like it or not.

  11. Byenia says:

    Andre-Louis Moreau says:
    October 29, 2013 at 4:51 AM

    One comment of Paul… I’d do the same as him if I were a juror in a rape trial. . Ironic that you’re all for the innocence project? You aught to be all for his same stated position and willing to do the same yourself! The relevant reasons of why you know already. I don’t have to tell you that you have absolutely NO way of knowing if relevant evidence being withheld, that would never be withheld if the defendant were female. That IS reasonable doubt. You know you’d be the one being an irresponsible juror and citizen to not set the defendant free! That’s very neglectful to NOT take your responsibilities as a citizen seriously! It’s just a lack of character that you bother to find fault with Paul for what you know is the only right thing to do.
    ________________________________________________

    Let me get this straight, YOU as an MRA believe that you’re doing the right thing in advocating that people SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY ACQUIT, EVEN IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT THE CHARGES WERE TRUE (as Paul Elam explicitly stated)? You somehow believe that is heroic activism, to further corrupt our courts of law by dragging your personal and political biases in, to ignore all evidence, and to destroy any possibility that justice will be served to guilty offenders just because you somehow think this will benefit men in general? Wow.

    You do realize that’s letting your activism eclipse the rights of others? This is why I fucking hate movements, because people let their political ambitions get in the way of being reasonable, rational, decent, responsible, and just in falsely thinking they’re fighting “the good fight.” What you’re really doing is throwing individual people under the bus and demonstrating this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with doing what’s right or creating a more fair and equal system — no, it’s just about a power-grab and trying to make others suffer in an effort to promote what now indeed appears to be nothing more than a twisted ideology.

    The entire purpose of a trial is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to convict, and you and Paul are saying that EVEN IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE you still think it’s better to play blind activist. That’s not allowing for reasonable doubt, that’s not protecting the potentially innocent, that’s not demonstrating principled character, and that’s not protecting society. All that is is complete and utter horseshit. That’s sick.

  12. Byenia says:

    In response to: Grumpy Old Man (October 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM):

    I created a separate post to address what Paul Elam has written pertaining to rape cases and jury nullification, though what I’m referring to doesn’t involve the example you just mentioned.

    http://waywardblogging.com/?p=1883

    • It’s pretty damn fortunate that many men including myself understand the judicial system and support it. But you want to go on this crusade over a comment Paul made as he is explaining that this system is being corrupted by a political agenda and men are being railroaded. I suggest you consider what makes someone like Paul feel this way, to this point you’ve challenged his proposed response and not the fucking issue which caused him to give it. What I see from a rational thinker (you) is dismiss the issue altogether, maybe you do not agree it is an issue and should just say so(declare your position). But instead you want to bypass it and fucking go after the guy who is bringing it oup. Cowards way out if you ask me.

      • Byenia says:

        It’s not a crusade, it’s one person’s reaction and stated stance in opposition to that. Free speech. Not many care what I think anyway, so you’re in luck.

        Ya’ll are FREAKING OUT and being irrational, aiming to undermine rape trials *exclusively* to make your political and ideological points.

        Maybe Paul feels that way because he’s insane, it’s still up in the air so far as I’m concerned. The man clearly appears to have a bone to pick with womankind based on MANY of the statements he has made. Affiliate with him and deal with being associated, that is your choice.We all decide what we’re going to support and what we won’t.

        The issue is that if the problem is with wrongful conviction facing men in general, there’s no reason for him to frame his activism strategy here specifically in relation to man-on-woman rape trials. You cannot see the bias in that? Just because it’s an easier avenue guaranteed to draw more public attention doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it fair. The message coming across is this is specifically about women, not protecting men across the board even where women don’t necessarily factor in.

        It’s not a flippant dismissal, but I cannot go along with that strategy. It will lead where? What do you honestly believe will come of it? How do you think ya’ll’s message will come across? And do you care not at all about the individuals involved in these cases? Do they not deserve to have their cases properly scrutinized by jurors to the best of our ability? We work with what we have, and one thing we were supposed to be about is giving one another a fair trial, not helping further undermine it. That’s the opposite direction of real progress.

        Go after the guy who is bringing it up? Paul’s not merely a messenger here, it is his message. And he worded it as he chose to, presumably to worry women in particular even though some of us possess no more political power than any of you. He’s opting for apathy and encouraging others to follow in suit. Like I said, the means will determine the end. It’s a fact of social life. But you will do as you will.

  13. You still have not addressed the issue. What is your position on the issue he adresses in his article?

    • Byenia says:

      My “position.” I’ve shared my thoughts in comments again and again. Personally, I think if we’re upset enough to undermine our legal system and attempt to destroy society (as some other comments on these related threads have mentioned wanting), then we might as well dissolve this entire nation-state and have various groups go their own way and figure out how to live with some sort of sanity. Because this shit’s just getting sicker and sicker. We keep repeating the same mistakes over and over, and there’s no way to get this vast and heterogeneous of a population to agree on jack diddly. So if people are so miserable, then by all means, go your own damn ways. Fighting the system in the manner suggested will merely wind up bolstering the status quo setup, and you’ll get reactionaries reacting to you guys. It will just escalate shit because it’s a completely uncooperative strategy.

      I know I’m wasting my breath. The society is sinking and perhaps it should, but we don’t have to turn on one another like this. It will do so much more harm than good if people keep escalating tensions in this tit-for-tat manner. Disengaging with women is a better strategy than this.

      But, again, you will do what you wish, and I cannot stop you. Probably wouldn’t if I could because then you’d just rebel again anyway. It’s a change that has to take place within each of us, that’s the only way anything will ever improve. But I’m such a minority voice on that point that I accept that I’m pretty well speaking to myself and maybe 4 other people who stumble along and also believe the legal system is broken and that there’s no point waging battles there anymore. You win. Enjoy the spoils when they someday arrive.

  14. Please try not to place intent or motivation to me. I’m addressing the issues in front of me…Feminism is a political movement and I see it as a corrupt and damaging movement to men, women and families.

    • Byenia says:

      Right. Then ditto. Show me the same respect to quit projecting your biases onto me. Makes communicating harder than need be.

  15. Byenia says:

    GOM: I thought about your question about what we as individuals can do, and I doubt I’ve come up with what you’ll consider a practical response. Some look at what can be done within this system to make things more equitable under the law, while I don’t think the ideal many envision there will wind up coming into fruition through aiming to apply pressure through the legislative route. So this inquiry takes me outside of this system entirely and toward pondering how we might be able to break free from of it so as to create smaller, more manageable communities that can serve as experiments in figuring out what forms of governance and social theories can work once rubber hits the pavement.

    BUT, before we can even get to such a stage, the ultimate concern becomes how to create alternative ways of providing for our basic needs so as to reduce dependency on this power grid and political setup. And I can see where this is just as abstract in a way as what’s envisioned by this movement or that one, the key difference boils down to trying to find a way out of what’s become the status quo and promises us a fascist future. Pandering to the legal sphere cannot accomplish that, because such strategies remain dependent on those corrupt institutions and whether their voices are heard within them. To negotiate within that is to concede to it being the supreme law of the land, not to find a way out or around it.

    The problem with this is that the individual him/herself has very little power in that big picture, at least in terms of cutting and running and creating something truly separate and workable that won’t be toppled by what’s currently in place. But if we boil it down to basics, one thing we can at least start acquainting ourselves with is the growing of food and working within the physical environment.Because most of my generation and younger are far removed from knowing even that, and so we’re rendered largely impotent and ineffective, which is why people feel they have no choice but to run toward movements that through collective action and political striving appear to have a better chance of getting something accomplished, even if that too winds up being a short-lived illusion. But anyway, in short, the first steps involved training oneself to think critically and to open up to ideas outside of the box, and to learn the practical skills many in the West have abandoned in favor of joining the economic rat race. Doesn’t sound like much, but just laying the groundwork there is where it must begin. There are no true shortcuts here, because as we’ve seen, the means do wind up determining the ends reached. I see no way around that truth in life.

    I’m sorry that there is no way for me to put this more concisely and will understand if you prefer not to engage me further on such topics. I recorded some thoughts while out working earlier today that pertain to this topic and hopefully can upload them soon enough. So many recordings have wound up abandoned in folders while I’ve been watching and reading so many of you out there. And maybe my $.02 means little to anyone else, that’s the way life goes too. It’s okay. We each work with what we’ve got though.

    Take care.

Leave a Reply