Sunday, 8 September 2013

AVFM, Doxxing, and Clean Up on Aisle 3 of the MRM

Over the past month and a half Joe Mendez, Murray Pearson, and myself have been publicly vilified and cast as criminals by AVFM's Dean Esmay, Paul Elam, and some of their more ardent followers. They have put forth many accusations based on zero evidence and have instructed their minions to file false criminal reports against me in particular in an attempt to manipulate us into handing over control of the money we raised for the Earl Silverman Center earlier in the year.

I personally know how AVFM works, and Paul Elam has publicly said he has no interest in helping anyone he cannot exploit. When I was part of AVFM it was all well and good for them to support my project for the creation of the Earl Silverman Center (ESC) because they could claim partial credit for all the hard work that Joe, Murray and myself were doing for male victims of domestic violence. But once I completely separated from AVFM and publicly came out to say I no longer wanted anything to do with the MRM because of people like those involved at AVFM, they decided I was no longer of any value to them, or men in general, nor was the ESC, which is why they have done what they have done which is nothing short of a literal witch hunt.

Their lies and false accusations worked on some of you. The ESC is now in a position where it may not be able to move forward because of what they have done. They have systematically tried to destroy the very idea of the ESC by casting me, and the others involved in the ESC, as criminals. There is little chance the ESC can move forward now and we have been pushed into a position where we now have to decide in which direction to proceed so that men can still benefit from what is left of our efforts to do something good for the men in our community. We have decided that one feasible solution would be to take the money we raised for the ESC and donate it to Maison Oxygene in Earl Silverman's memory. We are still not fully decided if this is what we will do, but moving forward with the ESC at this point is most likely no longer a possibility thanks to AVFM.

AVFM has asked for 'accountability' of the funds we raised on several occasions, and wrote two articles casting us as criminals in an attempt to force us to reveal information to them about our finances for the ESC. We refused to play their game because we know that AVFM has less than admirable reasons for wanting this information. They have a history of screwing people over for their own personal gain, and we do not trust them in any way. This is why no information was ever given to them. They are not, nor ever were, part of the ESC and therefore they have no right to any of that information. Their sense of entitlement goes far beyond anything reasonable, and just as governments refuse to deal with terrorists and hostage takers, we refused to provide them with anything because they simply do not have the right to anything above and beyond what the law requires us to divulge. However, we did agree to mediation, but AVFM has refused to discuss anything - because claiming we refused to a mediated discussion is something their loyal supporters would believe - since evidence is not an issue for these true believers. Moreover, we offered to discuss the issue with them, but that offer was ignored.

It's time people stood up to these self-appointed 'leaders' of the MRM and said 'no' to them when they demand information they have no legal right to. It's time you, as MRA's, demand to know why you were led to believe something sinister was afoot, without any evidence. It's time MRA's of good conscience to demand accountability from people who level false accusations and besmirch the reputation of those of you who deal in good faith and of those who are willing to actually put themselves out there in order to help men in real life.

The simple fact is that AVFM never wanted the ESC to succeed. They do not want people outside AVFM to help men and the proof is obvious when you look at Earl Silverman and how AVFM did nothing to help him when he worked tirelessly for years. If they can raise 6k in 3 days after the man died, how much were they able to raise while he was alive? Hint: it's a round number, less than 1. The reason, they claim? Earl did not know how to use Skype and Paul said that he will only use SKYPE to contact people. The fault for Earl's failure lies with Earl according to Paul, and once again not with AVFM - par for the course in their refusal to accept any responsibility.

Earl was in dire need of financial support, and AVFM never ran a donation drive for him. They never supported Earl except in paltry words sprinkled here and there. It was only when he killed himself that AVFM sat up and began talking about him and casting blame on all kinds of people and the government, but never did they blame themselves for not stepping up to the plate and helping him - that is, until one of Earl's personal friends pwned them and the MRM on their own podcast. As far as AVFM is concerned, they were never part of the reason Earl became as hopeless as he did. It was everyone else's fault as far as AVFM was concerned - does that sound familiar?

The truth is, if someone is trying to help men without being somehow connected to AVFM, so that they can claim some of the glory, then they want nothing to do with you. That is the sad truth. They have no interest in helping men in any real way. If they did they would stop complaining about the lack of men's shelters and do something about it. They would be raising money in order to build their own shelters if they truly cared. AVFM is big enough to actually accomplish some real world change for men, yet they refuse to do so. Why is that? Why is it that AVFM can easily raise over 100K a year and yet nothing has ever been built or put in place for men in the real world? It's simple. Paul Elam does not want to help men. His only concerns are his own publicity, pockets and profit. He has zero compassion for men, or anyone in general, and his actions and words clearly demonstrate that fact - to anyone looking at the evidence that is.

When a movement claims to be about human rights, as AVFM has by putting the 'H' in the MHRM, they are saying they are concerned with all men regardless of gender, age, color, sexual orientation, etc... furthermore, a human rights movement cannot exist if that movement is against the rights of certain groups of people or individuals, as AVFM clearly is.

The most recent disregard for someone's rights has been with the doxxing of the Femetheist and AVfM's rationale that she poses a "real life threat" to men by having advocated for a reduction in the male population to 10% globally, even though she has never harmed a single person in real life and is only guilty of being young and a bit stupid and making outrageous blog posts and videos. If such concern were legitimate, the solution would hardly be to doxx her, would it?

While I do not approve of the Femetheist's views, and think that she is probably in need of some serious therapy, this does not mean that I approve of the vigilante 'justice' that AVfM promotes by sharing some of her personal information on their site, regardless of how 'easy' it was for them to find it.

The fact that it is all now in one place which is easily accessible is the problem. This now makes it possible for her to be found in real life by some crazy person, or people, who wish to do her serious harm. And she also has a child which AVFM has callously disregarded as a reason not to do what they did. Not only have they put the Femetheist in danger, but they have also put her child in danger. 

Is it illegal to doxx someone? The jury is out on that subject as far as the law is currently concerned, but whether it is illegal or not is not the question. The question is, is it morally or ethically right to take it upon oneself to expose someone they 'feel' is a threat to others? Is it right to disregard the safety of others around that person and possibly expose them to real harm just because one feels that person should be accountable for something? Should it not be up to the authorities to decide if that person poses any real threat to the public, or if they have committed any crime? Should the correct course of action not be to call the proper authorities and let them handle it instead of promoting vigilante justice where people can get hurt? This is, after all, the claim that Dean Esmay has made regarding the public lynching of myself, Joe Mendez, and Murray Pearson - he felt a responsibility to AVFMs readers and donors and that we were criminals based on zero evidence:

If there is a serious risk to the public the correct action is to call the authorities. Anyone with half a brain cell could tell you that is what responsible people do. They do not go onto their blog and give out any personal information on that person, hand their readers pitchforks and torches, and then expect any real justice to be served. The only thing that will come out of that course of action is the very real risk that someone will get hurt, or worse.

Could it be that AVFM never reported the Femetheist to the authorities because they know the authorities would not see her as any sort of risk to the public? Of course they did, and that is why they doxxed her so that their form of 'justice' can be exacted since the real world would never take their concerns seriously - because the cornerstone of western jurisprudence is that a person is innocent until proven guilty - in a court of law - not on the internets.

AVFM has appointed itself judge, jury, and executioner. They feel they are above, and even better than the law and that is a very dangerous mindset/position for anyone to have. Think this is just us? Ask Danny Boy how he feels about AVFM:

Dean Esmay did the same thing to me, in regards to doxxing, in his article on AVFM where he calls for his readers to criminalize me, even though there never was any evidence to support his false claims (which he later admitted to).

He put personal information out there for people to easily locate me - the name of the small town in which I live was put out there for all to see, which I had been very careful to never reveal on-line. His claim is that I did put that information out there, but putting the name of the nearest city to me is not the same thing in any way as naming the small suburban town I live in. The town in which I live is not in or close to Montreal, and he knew that, yet did not care that by naming the town I live in, he has now put me and my family, at real risk of harm. How did he know that my home town is not in or near Montreal? Ask him about the Christmas present he sent to our home via parcel post last year.

Since Dean Esmay's article I have had 3 real threats to myself and my family. Two of those threats came from men in Montreal. I have reported all of them to the proper authorities and now have to live with the very real concern that someone could harm me or my children at any time.

I have had to stop running the Men's Rights Montreal Meetup Group I had started in the beginning of this year because it is no longer safe for me to do so. I have also had to locate a new place for us to live and a new school for my children. They will lose their friends, their proximity to their father and their grandmother. These are the real victims of Dean Esmay's and AVFM's irresponsible actions, and do they care? No. To them anyone caught in the crossfire is a justified casualty if they can exact revenge on the one they 'feel' should be punished.Vigilante justice at its finest and a complete disregard for anyone's safety. Is this how a supposed human rights movement acts?

The deplorable actions taken by AVFM should be a wake-up call to the rest of the MRM worldwide. The fact that AVFM is the self-proclaimed 'head' of the MRM, and that they are using tactics similar to the feminists they purport to fight against is not only hypocritical, but quite telling on where AVFM's ethical and moral standards are. It is also quite obvious that AVFM will not hesitate to stoop to any level for their own sick amusement and financial benefit, and lest we forget, they claim to represent the whole of the MRM. Is this the face that the MRM wants to promote to the world?

The MRM needs to clean up its own backyard if it wants to do any real good for men and men's rights. There are good, decent people in the MRM who do great work and who are genuinely interested in helping men. But when the so-called 'head' of the MRM is as dangerous and detrimental to the movement as a whole as Paul Elam, Dean Esmay, and the rest of AVFM is, then people need to stand up and start condemning them publicly. The only way for there to be any real change for men is to get rid of the garbage within its own ranks. AVFM is not helping the MRM in any way. It is only an anchor that will drag everyone down with it if they are allowed to do so while they happily pay John Hembling and Paul Elam a full salary from AVFM donors to do it.

So where will the MRM go from here? Only those within the MRM will be able to decide whether it is genuinely concerned with men's rights or if it is only concerned with being a mirror image of the radical feminists that it purports to fight against.

It's time men stood up for themselves and demanded better, especially within their own ranks. The only ones harming men now are men themselves. Are you ready for a change, or will you continue to sit by and allow AVFM and their like to maul you just a little bit more? The choice is yours.

Monday, 26 August 2013

Karen Admits There is no Evidence Either

Just a quick update to my previous article where Dean Esmay and Suzanne McCarley admit they have embarked on a libelous witch hunt based on zero evidence.

Now Karen Straughan, (AKA: Girl Writes What) has also said that there never was any evidence for the libelous claims that have been levied against Joe Mendez, Murray Pearson, or myself on a mirrored copy by St37One of the video Joe had recently put up on YouTube.

My response to Karen:

So thank you Karen for also coming forth and admitting there is no evidence for the lies that AVFM, mainly Dean Esmay, Paul Elam, and Suzanne McCarley and their cheerleaders have been spreading about us is nothing but a bunch of lies. Thank you for admitting that this is just a witch hunt based on false allegations and accusations.

Now perhaps you could also admit that your bullshit accusations on your blog are also not based on any evidence whatsoever and that you are also guilty of false accusations? How about putting on your big girl panties and owning your shit Karen?

*Edited to add links in second paragraph.

Sunday, 25 August 2013

AVFMs Dean Esmay and Suzanne McCarley Admit They Have No Evidence For Their Libelous Claims

After Dean Esmay and Paul Elam began going on a hysterical rampage accusing myself, Joe Mendez, and Murray Pearson of absconding with a little over 6K in donations for the Earl Silverman Center, Dean and others at AVFM such as Suzanne McCarley, who also jumped on the accusatory bandwagon which was bereft of any evidence, have now come out to say that their libelous claims are based on nothing but their own delusional paranoia.

 "I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that she has broken no laws..."

Really? Thanks for finally saying that Suzanne, after accusing me of being a thief and other nasty shit in previous comments on both articles that falsely accuse me of being a thief. Perhaps you should have shut you gob and thought of that before making libelous statements? See what happens when you react like a child based on raw emotion with no ability to think rationally? You end up looking like a lying fuck.

 "At least that's how we feel..."

Really Dean? You mean your feelz are justification for levying false accusations of theft on me? Isn't it you who has said, numerous times, that feminists base everything on irrational feelings and that it is not proof or evidence of anything?

I think we can safely say you are no better than those feminists you like to bash for their bullshit feelz. I think we can also safely say that your feelings are not evidence of a fucking thing, since you have agreed that is the case in the past about the nasty feminists feelz being used as 'evidence' for something Dean.

"We have no knowledge of Murray's guilt. In fact we have no knowledge of Kristina being guilty of anything..."

So you admit you have no evidence, but that it's ok to falsely accuse Murray and myself and to rally the troops to file false allegations to the authorities regardless?

Oh Dean... The word stupid just does not suffice here. You just could not help yourself could you? Your desire to vilify me in any way possible, because I didn't tow the AVFM line when I was there, is too overpowering for you isn't it? And look where your hate has gotten you? You have become a false accuser and potentially guilty of libel.

Bravo Dean. I am sure your kids will be proud to know their father is a lying fucking idiot because the beauty of the internet is that it doesn't forget, and that it's a great place where your kids will be able to see all this when they search their father's name one day and realize what a lying and vindictive person their father really is.

Friday, 23 August 2013

Kevin Anderson lied for AVFM - Can he admit he lied?

Kevin Anderson (AKA: kevinwaynesongs) is a commenter at AVFM and has jumped on their little bandwagon of lies in order to perpetuate the false claims by AVFM that I am a thief and scammer.

In the comments section of their most recent libelous article about me at AVFM he says:

Yes Dean, it was an old Paypal account that I had used years ago when I was making and selling soap as Hansen Soap Co., and you knew that from the start, so your point is what? That I have somehow made all the money into soap? That this is somehow proof that I stole all the millions in donations?

Oh wait, but you knew about the Paypal account before the donation drive was even finished, and even before you yourself made a donation. Hmmm...

If it were that suspicious then why did you tell me not to worry about using that account and then put your own donation into it? Am I missing something here Dean? Or could it be that you are now just trying to rake me over the coals for your own sick and twisted amusement? I wonder...

Kevin then goes on later in the comments with the following:

Ok, Kevin, let's see if we can possibly get you to tell the truth about this bullshit you are talking on AVFM in a sad attempt to join the witch hunt with the boys.

You made a $25.00 donation to the ESC on May fourth, 2013. Then on July 9th, 2013 you decided to file a claim with your bank to have the funds returned. On July 17th I received the notification from Paypal and agreed to reverse the transaction. The money was instantly returned and the case was closed.

But here you are, a month after the closure of that Paypal claim saying that you have no clue what is going on? Are you seriously that stupid to think that there is no evidence on my end that would prove you are lying?

Well here is the evidence Kevin:

Sorry to burst your little lying bubble, but I did not steal anything did I? I did not abscond with your millions... er... $25.00. In fact I refunded it without issue didn't I?

So ya, I'd appreciate a nice little apology from you Kevin Anderson, admitting you acted like an ass just to perpetuate the bullshit narrative that AVFM has concocted against me. Can you be man enough to admit you lied?

I have put up the proof that you lied, so I'll wait for your kind and swift response to this little matter like any honest and upstanding adult would do when caught out in the open with actual proof, unless you prefer to permanently join the ranks of the village idiots and continue on this witch hunt with your little rusty pitchfork.

AVFM's web of lies

A young man in his late 20's wakes up one morning to find the police on his doorstep. They arrest him and charge him for rape. The man is confused and bewildered as he has no idea what they are talking about.

He finds out that a girl he met 3 weeks ago at a bar has filed rape charges against him, even though he knows he was never in any type of sexual contact with her at all. In fact she had come on to him and he politely refused her advances. He remembers her being quite upset at his refusal to have sex with her, let alone even kiss her, but he brushed it off as a non issue in the end. Now he has found himself locked up in a jail cell being accused of rape by this woman.

Everyone believes her, even some of his own friends, even though she has no evidence to support her claim. People have come to believe her story even without any evidence. Her story is persuasive and seductive to others. It's an easy and believable story that she has concocted, and she has fooled most people into the typical mob mentality of screaming for justice, of presuming he is guilty based only on her story and her ability to prey on their raw emotions. He is regarded now as the scum of the earth, a vile rapist, and is facing the real possibility of being convicted of a crime he never committed because he has no way of proving her claim of rape is indeed a lie, even though he knows it is. What little evidence he may have is brushed aside because the majority of the people are already completely convinced that he is guilty beyond any doubt. And even if he is not convicted of rape he will always be seen as a rapist to many just because she said he is one regardless of the absence of evidence. The mob has decided his fate even before he gets to plead in front of a judge for his innocence.

Of course this is just a story, but sadly, these types of scenarios happen all too often in real life, and innocent people are burnt at the stake based on nothing but someone else's hatred for them. This is how the Salem Witch Trials went.

These sick individuals have no evidence, let alone proof of a crime having been committed, but they are able to whip the community up into a mad frenzy because they know exactly how to manipulate the masses into believing their story: by preying on their raw emotion and the human tendency to love a good drama. Distrust is easy to sow.

These are people who do not regard others as being human, but rather pawns in some sick game to garner them attention, admiration, and sympathy. They don't care about others and how their actions can lead to real life consequences for the person, and people close to that person, that they are raking over the coals. Their ability for empathy and introspection, as well as morality is basically non-existent and they don't care who they hurt in their mission to be seen as the innocent victim.

People who create witch hunts are sociopaths with no regard for anyone else but themselves. They are extremely dangerous individuals and tend to attract like-minded individuals, or weak-minded individuals who are willing to believe anything they say which makes it even more scary and futile for any who gets caught in their trap.

These types of people are happiest when they destroy lives, disregard logic, rationality, empathy, morality and basic human decency for their own ends. Nothing else matters to these narcissistic sociopaths. They will condemn anyone who disagrees with them and viciously attack anyone who questions their story or motivation. This is why many are afraid to speak out around these people: they fear being the next victim.

Imagine how horrific it would be if you were an innocent victim like the man in the story. Imagine how you would feel if you became the target of a campaign of hate based on nothing but hearsay and mob mentality. Imagine knowing that no matter what you say or do that nothing will convince those people that you are innocent, never mind that you are supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. These people do not think like that. They have already convicted you in the court of public opinion, and no matter what, you will likely be seen as a criminal by many of them for the rest of your life, regardless of the truth or evidence. Imagine that no matter what evidence you put forth you will still be called a criminal - the bearer of a scarlet letter for all time.

I want you to seriously imagine how that would feel if it were you. The reality is that none of us are immune to these evil types of people. There is always the real possibility that it could happen to you one day. What would you do if it did? What would your family and friends do if it happened to you? What would the consequences on their lives be as a result of your being falsely accused? How would your every day life be affected by a false accusation of a serious crime where you had no way to convince those that had already deemed you as guilty that it truly did not happen?

And now you may be asking what the point of this article is. Well it's quite simple really.

A Voice for Men (AVFM), which is the self-proclaimed head of the Men's rights movement, has always held the position that they believe in someone's innocence until they are proven guilty, especially men who are accused of serious crimes like rape. They claim to support these male victims of false rape accusations and they often challenge the public not to deem someone guilty based on only a woman's claim that she was raped without any evidence that she was. They like to pride themselves on being rational, critical thinkers who pursue the truth. They claim they are compassionate and unbiased.

Sadly, they are not any of those things. Recently AVFM has embarked on their own false accusation crusade, headed by Dean Esmay and Paul Elam, against myself (Kristina Hansen), Joe Mendez, and Murray Pearson, claiming that we have stolen over $6K from a donation drive we did in the spring of this year for the Earl Silverman Center. (Here and here). The ESC is a project that we three are working on to build a shelter for male victims of domestic violence and have put many dedicated hours into so that this project can one day become a reality.

However, a few weeks ago I announced on Twitter that I was taking a break from the ESC and that things were on hold:

And for those who are not aware, "Agent Orange" is James Huff, the director for AVFM radio. Surprise!

The reason for that break was for very personal reasons on my end which I do not feel obliged to discuss with anyone other than my immediate family and friends. Another reason for the hold on the ESC project was because Murray Pearson, a close personal friend and the co-founder of the ESC, has a court case coming up in the next 2 weeks over, sadly and ironically over a false allegation- which I am not at liberty to discuss since it is not my place to disclose such information.

This one tweet became some sort of 'proof' to members at AVFM such as Dean Esmay, Paul Elam, Suzanne McCarley, Karen Straughan, Dr. Tara Palmatier, and many of their regular followers that I had stolen the donation money. I have no clue how anyone is able to link my one tweet saying I was taking a break from the ESC for a bit to something so serious as fraud and theft. How does one square that circle? How is taking a break for a short period of time equate to criminal activity? I fail to see how any logical person could even conceive of such stupidity, but we are talking about AVFM and so I should not be surprised at their overactive imaginations, especially when it comes to women since many at AVFM despise women and think they are all evil harpies out to get them.

So now there is a concerted effort, headed by Dean Esmay and Paul Elam, to grind me, Joe, and Murray into the mud with false accusations of theft and fraud based on nothing but one tweet. Yes, ONE TWEET. They are now grasping onto anything and everything to confirm their false and potentially libelous narrative to convince others that we are somehow guilty of a crime that never took place. Sound familiar to the story in the beginning of this article?

The truth is that the crime they are accusing us of, if it were to be investigated, would make them look like idiots because no one has stolen anything. And the audacity of these people to 'demand' any evidence from us is ridiculous since they are the ones accusing us of a crime, the onus is on them to support their claims with evidence, not the other way around.

We do not report to AVFM, nor do we have any obligation to provide them anything. if anything, they have now put themselves in the position of having to prove their allegations are true. Or did they not realize that's how this works? Oh, and that requires real proof and evidence, not just a bunch of out of context quotes, screen shots, and deluded personal opinions.

I would be wary of letting them get their nasty little lying hands on anything that they could twist into more lies and false accusations. They have not shown themselves to be trustworthy in the least, and only a fool would divulge any information to them.

The only people guilty of a crime are those over at AVFM who have, and keep on committing the very real crime of libel. And the more they talk, the deeper into the hole they get.

They are of the opinion that we are guilty based on zero evidence or proof of their false allegations towards us, and they will not stop accusing us and attempting to destroy us for their own amusement unless they wake-up and realize this is not a game, and that libel is a serious crime that can be proven here in a court of law.

We three (Joe, Murray, and myself) are the ones who have put all the work and time into trying to get the ESC up and running. This was and always has been our project, and AVFM decided to promote it of their own volition. No one held a gun to their head and demanded they have anything to do with it. We did not force anyone to donate to the ESC, nor did we ever say we could provide receipts for those donations because we had just begun the project and did not, nor do we to date, have NFP status. And nowhere is it guaranteed that we ever will. Earl Silverman was never granted NFP status, and we are under no illusion that the government will agree to our application for the same thing. Neither Murray Pearson, Joe Mendez or myself have ever claimed otherwise.

We are not like those delusional people at AVFM that expect some sort of results in less than 6 months with a whopping $6K. How is anyone supposed to accomplish anything in such little time with such little resources? The work we have put in, on our own time with no pay or compensation, if we were to add it up would amount to much more than the piddly amount we have been donated to work with. Not to mention we all do it on our own time in between all the other important things like work, family, etc... If they want faster results, perhaps they could give us the money to hire staff. No? Then quit bitching. Seriously, what do these people expect to have happened by now? A new building with furnished rooms for clients? And all in less than 6 months on less than 10K? Are you serious? Earl Silverman worked at it for 20 years and had to resort to housing clients in his own home. Something a single man can do, but not something a family with small children could which excludes all three of us from being able to do what Earl did. We need a building, and 6K sure as hell won't do it. Not even close.

And I have to ask, what do they think we did with the money? Have wild weekends in Vegas? Buy a villa in Tuscany? Really? What would a little over 6K get us split 3 ways? You have to be an idiot to think we'd have run a scam for so little. But then again, thieves think that everyone is out to steal their shit right? Just something to think about when considering the source of the accusations.

This witch hunt, orchestrated by those at AVFM is nothing short of a consorted attempt to garner more web hits for profit, and to vilify me because I refused to tow the line while I was at AVFM. They don't like me, and will do anything they can to destroy me, my family, and my reputation. Not to mention the reputations of Joe and Murray, and the ESC as well. They do not care who they hurt or what lies they tell. They are as evil as the women who falsely accuse men of rape - the women they purport to fight against.The hypocrisy of these individuals is amazing.

So be wary when dealing with anyone involved with AVFM. They do not support justice, honesty, integrity, rationality, compassion, or empathy. They only say they do in order to pull the wool over the eyes of their unsuspecting cash cows and weak-minded followers. The only thing that matters to them is how much they can profit from you in the end.

It's easy to say you stand for something, but in the end, your actions speak volumes for themselves.

Thursday, 22 August 2013

John Hembling is lying to suit the narrative... Again.

John Hembling, AKA John the Other, has put out a video that basically says skin cream is made from foreskins, and therefor we should all be up in arms about how horrific it is to use foreskins from innocent babies for a woman's vanity.

SIGH! Another bunch of bullshit to suit the narrative John? Forget the FACT that cream is not made with foreskins!! It "is made from CELLS derived from a single foreskin obtained twenty years ago". ONE FORESKIN THAT IS 20 YEARS OLD!!! It's called stem cells John. Don't believe me? Go look it up yourself. The truth is right there on Google if you care to read any credible information that is scientifically based.

I know... It fucks up your little narrative, but hey, like you love saying - Life is hard... Wear a helmet, right John?

Now, if you had done any research you would see that not only are these cells useful in beauty products, but they are useful for research into the following as well:

Foreskins obtained from circumcision procedures are frequently used by biochemical and micro-anatomical researchers to study the structure and proteins of human skin. In particular, foreskins obtained from newborns have been found to be useful in the manufacturing of more human skin.[54]
Human growth factors derived from newborns' foreskins are used to make a commercial anti-wrinkle skin cream, TNS Recovery Complex.[55](subscription required)
Foreskins of babies are also used for skin graft tissue,[56][57][58] and for β-interferon-based drugs.[59]
Foreskin fibroblasts have been used in biomedical research.[60]

So according to John's argument, we should not only ban skin cream which uses these stem cells, but also any and all other important medical research into possible life-saving drugs or procedures that use any stem cells derived from a foreskin. 

And what about stem cells derived from women's parts like placenta's, breasts, and even vaginal stem cells? Do those matter? Or is it only foreskins we give a shit about? And don't give me that old argument that a circumcision is never necessary crap. If you believe that, then I have to question your ability to understand that some emergency circumcisions truly are medically necessary, just as female vaginal surgery and tissue removal are sometimes necessary due to medical emergencies. People get body parts removed all the time for various medical emergencies, and the cells of those parts can be very useful for medical research. But hey, let's just toss all the foreskins and never use those cells because, God forbid, we upset those overly sensitive men out there. Best to just chuck them and never use them even though that foreskin had to be removed for the patient's own good and well-being anyhow. 

Is any of this sinking in yet?

Now, back to the ridiculous 'cream' debate... If we can even call it that, since there is nothing to debate here when you are actually informed about it, as opposed to ranting away like an ignorant idiot on the subject.

There are creams made from all kinds of other stem cells including, plant, animal, and even an aborted fetus. It's called SCIENCE, dumbass!! 

They are not cutting off foreskins, hacking up fetuses, slaughtering animals, or deforesting swaths of land for skin creams, they are using science to REPRODUCE THE CELLS! 

God! The fucking ignorance and perpetuation of this bullshit by people with personal agendas, like John, is truly pathetic to watch. 

How about just saying unnecessary infant circumcision is cruel, traumatic, and wrong, which is true, and leave it at that without trying to LIE about it by saying they still use foreskins in skin cream? 

Advocate against unnecessary infant circumcision all you want, I agree it is horrible. Just do it with actual FACTS and not some idiotic argument such as "foreskins are in da wiminz skin creamz" to try and make women look bad. But hey, that is really what your end goal isn't it John? It's not about advocating against unnecessary circumcision and fighting for those innocent baby boys, but rather about making all women look evil - because, well, MGTOWs like you don't like women do they John. You are becoming more and more predictable. It's quite sad actually.

All your 'argument' does is make you look more fucking ignorant than you already are, and lowers your credibility below the rockbottom level it reached when you lost that debate to that Manhood 101 child, with those of us who actually think and research things before believing such fucking twaddle.

Tuesday, 13 August 2013

Men are victims and women are evil - Feeding the factless narritive

Ah Facebook. A place you can chat with friends, post LOLCat pics, share a recipe, connect with like-minded groups, and play mundane little games to pass the time. It's also a place where ignorant opinions and uneducated assumptions run rampant and where people fall for all kinds of bullshit advice and stupid opinions that make me want to smack my head on the wall on an all too regular basis.

The latest stupidity has been this article by Fathers and Families from 2011 about Jon Cryer being forced to pay $8,000.00 in monthly child support to his ex. The article claims that he has 96% custody of their child and that it is completely unfair to force him to pay her since he basically has sole custody.

It's a story which has been circulating regularly in MRM circles as of late. It's appeared on my timeline countless times and today I had just about enough seeing this ridiculousness and decided that it was time to educate these people with a dose of reality. Sadly, I feel like I am back in a High School setting where the smart kid ends up doing others homework because they are either too lazy or stupid to do it themselves.

But I digress...

Here is the screenshot of the article in question that keeps popping up on my Facebook feed.

And the 10 additional comments to that article:

Look at the comments on the above post. They are all just knee-jerk reactions to something that none bothered to fact check beforehand. It's so fucking frustrating to see people blindly follow the MRM narrative that all men are victims, and all women are evil.

The article is biased heavily towards the mother, as it keeps mentioning how much of a "deadbeat" she is, and that the only reason the court awarded her the child support was to keep her comfortable and to support her, not her child. However, the link provided by Fathers and Families to the court's appeal PDF shows the real reasoning for the judges decision at the time. It was not to keep her comfortable, but was ruled that:

The trial court also faced the strong possibility that visitation and custody arrangements could change quickly, as they often do in dependency matters. Furthermore, while one parent enjoyed an extraordinarily high income and could easily afford to pay monthly child support of $8,000 or $10,000, the other parent had essentially no income, and would be unable to maintain a household of the sort to which child was accustomed absent substantial support. Given these unusual circumstances, and particularly because the trial court's ruling reflected a paramount concern of protecting child's best interest, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion.
 So in essence this fact, a huge part of why the court ruled in the manner it did, has been completely ignored by the Fathers and Families article where they try to spin it as:

According to both courts, that would be too traumatic for their son.  Keep in mind that 4% of a month is a little over a day.  So according to the court, asking the child to spend a day and a night with his mother in an apartment somewhere in Los Angeles would be so emotionally damaging to him that it warrants imposing child support on a custodial parent.
This is an example of poor and biased reporting. Yes her visitation had been temporarily reduced, but is was not permanent and subject to change at any time without prior notice as it was a dependency matter issued by child welfare authorities.

According to TMZ, the custody arrangement did in fact change:

If you check the dates of the appeal PDF, and the TMZ update, they are exactly one day apart from each other on August 29th and 30th 2011. The article by Fathers and Families was published two days after the TMZ update, on September 1st, 2011. What this tells me is that Fathers and Families either were too lazy to fact check before publishing their article, or they just didn't care because that would blow their biased narrative out of the water. I tend to think the latter was the most likely scenario.

Regardless of these facts, which Fathers and Families chose to ignore, the fact remains that this damned article is still circulating in MRM circles and people are too lazy and thick to take the time to fact check this 2 year old article to see if what was written at the time was indeed factual, and to see if the article is still relevant 2 years later, which it isn't.

In an article by Contact Music, dated July 11, 2013, we discover that the courts have ruled that Cryer is no longer required to pay his ex any child support:

Another article states:

And on and on when you do a Google search for "Jon Cryer court victory" or "Jon Cryer child support".

So there you have it folks. A 2 year old, biased article, which is being passed around as gospel truth by people in the MRM who believe it is still relevant, is not. How surprising! 

Look people. I know it's nice when things fit your narrative and confirm what you want or wish to be true, but life just doesn't give a fuck about what you want or wish to be true. You need to be a bit more skeptical before drinking the Kool-Aid and do a little research on your own to see if what you are swallowing is real. 

I know most people in the MRM want the men to be the victims and the women to be the villains, but the reality is that everyone gets screwed or has victories regardless of their gender. If you are going to blindly follow others, without asking any questions, then I have to question your intentions within the MRM. Are you part of it because you truly want equality and justice for all? Or is it that you just want to vilify women and victimize men to make yourself feel better?

Friday, 9 August 2013

Paul Elam's Love for Drama?

Paul Elam has recently posted an article on AVFM that is nothing short of a witch hunt.

The problem I have with his article is that he 'demands' answers to where the donations for the ESC have gone based on one tweet I put out that said the ESC was currently on hold due to personal reasons on both my and Murray Pearson's (ESCs co-founder) parts. But who the hell is Paul Elam to demand anything from anyone? And let's not forget, Paul Elam is the one who collects well over 100K per year from donors and has never offered any transparency about where that money goes, other than to pay for his and John Hembling's salaries. He claims it's to help boys and men, but I have yet to see AVFM set up anything that actively helps boy's or men in the real world. All Paul has ever done is create drama on his website, and that is hardly what I would call activism. The reality is that AVfM is just a way for Paul to profit off the backs of others, and the proof is in what he has actually said, publicly, on one of his own YouTube rants.

But I digress...

The reality is that I have no intention of running off with the donations raised for the ESC, nor does our co-founder, Murray Pearson. We are committed to this project and want to have the ESC up and running by the fall of 2014. That is our vision - our goal.

Transparency has been 'demanded' by Paul Elam, as well as all kinds of financial information etc... And I agree that donors should be assured that their money is indeed not being used for things other than what it was intended for. But to hand over sensitive information like bank account information to the likes of Paul Elam and his ilk are out of the question. These people have a less than stellar track record for not fucking people over when they get their hands on anything they can use to bully and abuse others for their own amusement.

So knowing that this is true, I will offer this to those of you who want to know why the ESC is on 'hold', and consider this matter closed as of this point forward.

The reason we (Murray and I) have decided to put things on hold in regards to the ESC at the present time is that Murray is currently getting ready to go to trial in September for a false accusation (details of which I am not a liberty to discuss), and all of our efforts are currently focused on getting him through this difficult period of uncertainty. He is currently stressed out to the max and fears the very real possibility of going to jail for a period of time if found guilty. He does not have legal representation, so he is working on getting his opening statement together for the trial, preparing himself for cross examination, and going through mountains of evidence and paperwork. This is the most important issue at the moment, and the reason we have decided to put the ESC on hold until the trial is over. We need to focus on this very important issue right now. Murray needs as much help and support as possible right now.

When the trial is over, and we know where Murray stands, we will know how to proceed with the ESC. Until then, we cannot move forward when we are unsure if our co-founder will still be able to perform his functions or represent the ESC.

Murray is not only the co-founder of the ESC, but also a close personal friend. I will not let him face this alone and I am committed to seeing him though this with all the support and help I can offer him. This means shifting focus for the time being. This means helping him get through one of the most difficult things he has ever faced. It means not letting him go through this alone, which so many men do because no one cares about them. This is what it means to fight for a man's rights when faced with false accusations and potential prison time.

But rest assured, I do not intend to let the ESC die. I will be continuing forward with the plans for the center as soon as the dust clears from the trial, which will hopefully last no longer than a few weeks at most.

The fact that Paul has written his piece without having asked either myself or Murray any questions about why we have decided to put the ESC on hold for a short time, and instead writes a post that is nothing more than biased misinformation designed to hurt myself, Murray, and the ESC is beyond disgusting, even for the likes of Paul Elam.

He is essentially out to kill the ESC and he should be more than ashamed. No one has ever said we are not proceeding with the plans to build the ESC, but now that Paul has written his bullshit piece, we have to now contend with all kinds of false accusations and his lies at a time when Murray needs the most support possible.

We have been fighting to build a center that will not only be difficult to do because of predictable feminist backlash, but also, now, because of Paul's stupidity which has probably done more damage than any feminist group could have. Bravo Paul! For someone who claims to want nothing more than to see the ESC succeed, you sure have a twisted way of showing it by leveling thinly veiled and false accusations and rallying your rabid dogs to attack us.

But we do not give up easily, and refuse to allow people like Paul to destroy something as important as the ESC.

The truth is that Paul and John have an axe to grind with me and will stop at nothing to bully me, and those I associate with, into oblivion. He is not concerned with anyone else but himself and his own inflated ego. No one else matters in Paul's world, and he has said just that publicly for anyone who cares to know the truth.

If he wanted answers, perhaps he should have contacted us first, like any honest and respectable reporter would. But instead he has unleashed his rabid dogs and is sitting back waiting for them to do his dirty work for him because he is incapable of doing what real reporters do, which is gather truthful information before running with a story. But then again, Paul is more like The Enquirer rag of the MRM. Nothing he says should be taken at face value, and what he does say is only good for one thing - drama.

Thursday, 1 August 2013

Deaf dad is mad his ex got their deaf son a cochlear implant?

I don't understand why this father is pissed off at his ex for getting his deaf son a cochlear implant.

The only thing I can think of, that may be pissing him off, is that since he, the father, is deaf, he feels that his son would be fine being deaf too for the rest of his life. But now that his ex has given his son the gift of hearing, he seems pissed that his son is no longer deaf like him.

This is the only conclusion I can come up with as to why this father feels so angry towards his ex for doing something so wonderful for his son. If I were this father I'd be overjoyed that my son could now hear and have the opportunity for a better and easier life than myself. But apparently this guy is too self absorbed and angry at his ex to be able to appreciate the wonderful opportunity she has given their son.

Wednesday, 24 July 2013

Child abusing Homophobes?

This is a group that i was part of on Facebook. I say was because of this nasty homophobic status update that it put out on it's timeline a few days ago:

This comment is just another disgusting example of the rampant homophobia that runs through quite a large portion of the Men's Rights Movement.

Let me be clear that not all Men's Rights Activists or supporters think like this, but many sadly do, and they need to be called out and exposed for the vile and hateful people they are. These people are not interested in equal rights or human rights. They only want a platform from which to spout their hateful message, and what better place than the M(h)RM which refuses to call out people like this and police their own movement. The 'laissez fair' attitude in the MRM will be their ultimate downfall because of their reluctance to be responsible and reject such hate from their movement.

The hateful and homophobic comment was deleted about 30 minutes after it had been posted on their time line. No apology, or explanation. It simply vanished. Amazing isn't it? If they feel so strongly about their gay bashing beliefs, why delete it? Shouldn't you stand up for what you believe in? Of course, when you are a coward and hide behind bigoted bullshit, it's hard to defend a position such as the one CAJ put out isn't it?

As for me, I left that group as soon as I commented on their nasty status and posted the screenshot to my timeline. Sadly many people who I follow, and who follow me are still part of the group, including the (in)famous CAFE group from Toronto who prides itself on being all about equality and human rights etc...

Why anyone would want to be a part of this group if they truly stand for human rights and equality is beyond me. I guess a little trimming of those I follow is in order.

Tuesday, 2 July 2013

On the Matter (and Myth) of Self-Learning

Oh, MRAs, my dear MRAs... I feel like I'm becoming a mommy to some of you, or a wise old oracle of sorts, because I apparently can't shake loose the notion that you need my guidance.  Maybe I'm just one of those people who has to involve herself in a problem even when her advice isn't wanted, but I'm just going to continue being myself because it's what our heroes always taught us in those after school specials and children's programs.

I know I've already addressed the issue of MRAs like GirlWritesWhat presenting scientific research that she either doesn't understand or willfully misrepresents, which by the way is a huge no-no in the scientific community if that wasn't obvious to you.  That's the kind of thing that gets you fired from a research position or compels your thesis committee to reject your paper and your degree, maybe even kick you out of a doctoral program (or master's program... or hell, even an undergraduate program), but I digress.  What I'd like to address is the myth of the modern day Renaissance Man (or Woman).

During our little spat, if it can even be called that, GWW and her fans constantly accused me of appealing to authority by making the horrible and radical suggestion that they should look things up themselves, demand rigorous evidence from GWW before taking anything she says seriously, and, if they simply must take the side of someone, it would be wise to choose an actual expert.  Ironically, I wasn't appealing to authority, I was telling them that if THEY were going to appeal to an authority that GWW probably isn't the best authority to whom one should appeal.

Things got weird though when GWW compared herself to Galileo and feminism to the Catholic Church.  First of all, by making this analogy it only further gives credence to my constant contention that MRAs are conspiracy theorists.  Does this mean to imply that feminism, like the Catholic Church in 16th century Italy, is some powerful force that has the ability to put GWW and others like her under house arrest for heresy against... well, I don't know, heresy against feminism?  Is she really an iconoclast, presenting the TRUTH while the scientific and "feminist" establishment is trying to subvert it for the sake of some kind of "feminist orthodoxy", or just a conspiracy nut rambling on a soap box whose theories aren't compatible with established science for the simple fact that they are patently wrong?  That's something of a rhetorical question, but there's only one correct answer.  Here's a hint: it's the second case.

Secondly, it is the height of arrogance for GWW to compare herself to Galileo the Iconoclast.  I think any reasonable person should raise an eyebrow when a vlogger affiliated with a known hate site is comparing herself to an astronomer who stood up to religious dogma for the sake of scientific fact.  Since when is the factuality of GWW's theories a foregone conclusion anyway?  Do you begin to understand why I'm asking you to fact-check and look into it since GWW is too inept to be able to present her research honestly and rigorously?  Remember, the different between Galileo and GirlWritesWhat is that Galileo had incontrovertible evidence because, get this... he actual did the scientific observations and collected the data himself.

I also find it pretty ironic when MRAs compare feminism to a religion while essentially idolizing GirlWritesWhat as their popess, spinning the dogma from up on high in the MRA hierarchy.  Meanwhile, feminists are hanging out in universities discussing their research with scientists and humanities scholars, and many feminists are themselves scientists and humanities scholars.  YouTube is the Church of the MRM, and GWW is its High Priestess.

But to get back on point, a lot of people seem to have no problem with GWW as Galileo, that is, as Renaissance Woman.  I was treated to such platitudes as, "You don't NEED a degree to read books and papers (indeed... which is why I tell you MRAs to read books and papers yourself, did you miss that part?)," or, "It's possible to be self-educated in these things," and similar sentences, which I will equate essentially with the statement: One can become a modern day "Renaissance Person", a self-taught expert in any number of fields of scholarship.

Now, as quaint and comforting this assertion sounds, especially for those of us who do not have the means or the ability to acquire a formal education, it's simply dead wrong.  While I will grant that it's possible to be well-read in a topic without receiving a formal education in it, I'd like to point out that the very, very, VERY few instances where this happens usually involves a trained academic teaching himself another field.  For example, I once read a musicology text by a man who received in Ph.D. in Russian Literature, and he became a musicology authority by essentially spending 20 years reading every single musicology book and article in the library of the university he worked at.  It also didn't hurt that he was a trained classical pianist, even though he never studied music at the university level, and therefore had a strong fundamental knowledge of music in general, most importantly having already acquired the necessary skill of being able to read music notation and use musical vocabulary before even beginning his self-guided quest in becoming a musicology authority.  So can one be self-taught?  Yes, but as you can see with the above example, you're a completely deluded fool to think that any old person can do it.  Keep in mind that, assuming you have to work 40 hours a week to support yourself, that most academics have almost a ten year head start in researching these things because they spent most of their 20s in school, often exclusively by the time they're at the graduate level.  They have infinitely more time and professional resources to self-teach themselves these things than you do.  I've known grad students who spend 40 hours a week reading and researching because while your job might be manning a cash register, their job is knowing what the fuck they're talking about.

One needs to take into consideration how much material is out there when one proposes to be a self-taught modern day Renaissance (Wo)Man.  As one of my professors once joked with me, "Sure, it was EASY to be a self-taught expert in the 16th century.  You could read 50 books and truthfully assert that you've written all of the relevant literature to a topic that is in print, perhaps in several topics, perhaps even in ALL scholarly topics, because in that time there really weren't a lot of things that were known.  Nowadays I have 50 books on my shelf at home that are just on modern algebra.  With the same effort you can't even be a self-taught expert in a sub-branch of a branch of a single field of discourse, so how the hell can anyone but the most extraordinarily intellectual person with copious amounts of spare time become a legitimate self-taught expert in anything?"

So I have to ask: is GWW an extraordinary intellectual with copious amounts of spare time?  I'd be curious to view her complete reading list in evo psych or anthropology or whatever so we could quantitatively make that judgment, and that's assuming she actually understands what she's reading, which is the fatal flaw of declaring oneself self-taught.

Being self-taught is essentially no more than a libertarian pipe dream, and idealist view that someone with the drive and tenacity can become self-made.  As I said to one of her fans, it's like thinking that reading automobile manuals can put you on par with trained mechanics, or even the engineers who designed the actual cars.  Everyone should have serious doubts that someone like GWW is able to even understand most academic literature, which can be notoriously inaccessible to people who haven't literally spent years of their lives learning about the topics.  I have a degree in mathematics and yet I have a physics book that I literally can't understand after the first chapter because the mathematics become too complex and specialized for me to easily follow.  Anything that GWW understands is likely the kind of "pop science" distillations that anyone could read without using her as a middleman, or I would imagine she'd be forced to restrict herself only to that which she can understand.  And given that most real science articles are full of statistical analysis, you practically have to be a statistician to understand some of them and be able to interpret the data accurately.  This is why we leave it to the trained experts to do, and tend to take their word for it, because sometimes appealing to authority is the only way we will ever receive the knowledge that they acquire through complicated and esoteric research.

Really, I could go on, but if you're still not convinced then I invite you to go to a university library and have a librarian help you access a journal database and just casually browse through some scientific papers.  Or, if you're a university student already, go to the library and access a database, assuming you know how to use it and you're not one of those students trying to glide through and waste an over-priced education.  Consider it a challenge to yourself.  Look up something you know little about and try to see how much you can figure out on your own.  If you aren't more confused after trying to read that stuff instead of less, then I'll mail you a dollar.

I think trying to become educated is noble, even if you don't have the means to pursue a formal education.  I wish you would actually do it and not pretend that whatever shit you can find in small quantities will ever make you even remotely close to being a self-taught expert.  Demand more from your MRA propaganda mouthpieces and stop taking the shit of non-experts as gospel, especially when you can prove to yourself just how suspicious it is to try and learn these things on your own and see how far you can actually get without the help of someone to guide you and explain it all to you in an organized, graduated (i.e., increasing in difficulty and scope) way.

In the very least if you're going to eschew a formal education and professional training for whatever reason, have some fucking humility and don't tirelessly defend someone when it's so staggeringly clear that if she ever even gets anything right it's probably a fucking accident.  LOL!

*Thank you to for allowing me to re-post her article here on Menticulture.

Sunday, 30 June 2013

The abortion debate - Why it matters for mens rights

I recently had a debate with someone who claims to fight for men's rights on Facebook about this photo that he put up in his feed:

Of course he gave the usual bullshit arguments that it's a baby as soon as conception happens, and that abortion is murder, yadda yadda...

But what he, a supposed MRA, failed to realize that, not only was he advocating for the removal of a woman's right to choose, but that he was also advocating for men never to be able to have legal paper abortions at the same time. He is advocating that men should always be on the hook for children they never wanted and do not wish to be fathers to. He is imposing his beliefs on others, and that is where trouble begins when one allows their religious and personal beliefs to poison the well.

He could not get his head around the simple fact that if you take away a woman's right to choose, you can not then advocate for men to have a right to choose either. You would have to accept the fact that men would be forever forced into fatherhood whether they wanted it or not, which is one of the main issues that MRA's are seeking to legally change. But seeking that right for men would have to stop if we take away a woman's right to have an abortion.

When you are advocating for the rights of one group, you cannot advocate taking away rights from another. It does not work that way and, as you can see from this example, has the real danger of backfiring on what you are advocating for.

If men want things like reproductive rights then men need to stop trying to take away women's reproductive rights. Siding with the Republicans and the religious nuts in the USA is one sure fire way to ensure that men never get any reproductive rights because they (Republicans and religious nuts) are hell bent on taking away women's reproductive rights. These people want to stop legal abortion and take away birth control access. If you think that these things are somehow a good thing, then you need to put down your MRA label and just admit that you are not fighting for equal rights or the rights of men. If you were you would be able to understand that taking away women's reproductive rights will only serve to further cement forced fatherhood on men and permanently remove any possibility for a man's right to choose. You are condemning men to a lifetime commitment they may not want, just as you are trying to do to women by advocating for the removal of their choice.

So here's a tip to all those so-called MRA's out there that think abortion is wrong and should be abolished - Please stop fooling yourself into thinking you are somehow advocating for men's rights. You are not helping men in any way by trying to impose your ridiculous, ill-informed, and ignorant beliefs on women. If you can't understand the simple logic behind this then there really is no hope for you. 

Just admit you are not really fighting for anyone's rights, let alone men's rights. Insisting you are just makes you look more foolish than you already are.

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

MGTOW vs The Toxic MGTOW

There seems to be another rift in the MGTOW/MRM sphere(s) between Paul Elam and Stardusk who both seem to think that they can define what it means to be a MGTOW and how MGTOWs should act/behave, which is what has prompted me to write this article on MGTOW and how I see it in terms of this latest divide.

Over the course of the last year I have been reading, researching, and examining the MGTOW way of life. I am of course not finished delving into the world of MGTOW, and I doubt I ever will since it is mostly a personal choice that men make based on their own experiences, perceptions, and preferences. At least that is what a MGTOW is supposed to be - someone who decides what is right for him, and him alone.

What I find odd within the MGTOW world is that many MGTOWs feel the need to dictate or define what a MGTOW ultimately is, and when a MGTOW has chosen a different personal path than another there seems to be a long drawn out dispute as to who really is a MGTOW and what defines a MGTOW. It's quite bizarre that something defined as going one's own way would have to adhere to a set of rules or standards.

If someone comes to the conclusion, based on careful consideration and introspection, that one wants to label one's self as a MGTOW and go their own way, then there should ultimately be no discussion or debate to have with that individual. That individual should also not be on a crusade to convince others that his way of life is the best or right way because, again, it is all based on a personal choice and no two people are alike.

But when MGTOWs begin to force their personal ideas and beliefs about what a MGTOW is, or should be, that is where problems begin because there is not supposed to be any set standard for a MGTOW other than for him to go his own way as he sees fit.

Putting men who choose to got their own way in a box and trying to define them by a set standards is not going to work. Dictating why and how they should be MGTOWs defeats the whole purpose of that personal choice.

When people try to convince others of what is right for them, or to dictate how they should be, then they are no longer allowing someone to make a personal choice based on what would ultimately be right for them according to their personal experiences. And when someone decides to become a MGTOW based solely on the assessment of others personal experiences or biased information, then it becomes a recipe for disaster.

No one should have to convince someone to become a MGTOW. That should be a personal decision based on one's personal experiences and motivations, nothing more. It should not have to do with being told what a MGTOW is and that by only doing XYZ can you truly be one.

The bottom line is this. If you decide to choose the MGTOW way of life based on personal reflection, careful consideration, and the knowledge that your choice will ultimately lead you to a more fulfilled and happy life, then I say go for it. Your happiness and contentment are what matter, but if you choose to be a MGTOW based on outside opinions, biased information, a hasty knee-jerk reaction after a bad experience with a woman, or by being coerced by other MGOTWs who feel the need to have others in their 'club', then I would caution you that you may be headed down a path that is not really right for you. A path that will most likely lead you to feel alone, angry, and abandoned.

This leads to what I term the toxic MGTOWs. These are the one's who are not actually content to be MGTOWs and who made their decision to be a MGTOW based on negative reasons outside of careful personal reflection and consideration. The toxic MGTOWs seem to have chosen their way of life based on information they were fed by biased individuals who want to dictate what a MGTOW actually is. They may also be those individuals who have had bad luck with women and feel there is no other alternative out of frustration or the idea that they will never find the right woman. These individuals would tend to be the ones who feel more alone, angry and abandoned, and they need others around them that feel like them to be able to feel justified in having made a bad decision. It's that old adage - misery loves company.

The toxic MGTOWs were the ones I had discussed in a video I made a while back called 'MGTOWs gone wrong'. And there are, unfortunately, quite a few toxic MGTOWs out there that give the sensible, well adjusted, and happy MGTOWs a bad name.

Of course these are purely my own observations which are based on my knowledge of basic psychology, experience with interpersonal behavior and group dynamics. But from what I have seen within the MGTOW 'community', it is not something that requires a rocket scientist to see or understand.

Being a MGTOW is supposed to lead one to a better, happier, and more fulfilled life. If you call yourself a MGTOW then it should not matter what other MGTOWs do or don't do. There are no set rules to apply to any personal way of life. The only 'criteria', if there is one to be had, for being a MGTOW would be your own personal happiness and fulfillment regardless of what others think, say, or do, but if you feel the need to convince men that there is only one correct way to be a MGTOW, or that it is the only sane option for a man to take, then you need to reflect and ask yourself why those things are so important to you if you are truly going your own way.

*Edited to add the first paragraph which did not get saved in the original draft.