A network of misandric, biased, criminal  ‘Shelters’ has covered the land with a new and vicious corruption at grass-roots level, purportedly to ‘assist’ women but in fact act as a conduit for corruption and criminality.

I only have to mention Professor  Stephen Baskerville’s ‘Taken into Custody’  work for many at MND to understand. Or Professor Carey Roberts’ exposes.

 But little gets written about other Anglophile countries. How much is known in MRM circles and outside in the MSM about the corruption in the UK, for instance.

 I would like to set some facts down about another, Australia, a huge, continental nation with a very modest population where leftist governments have dominated the various States and now are in control Federally.  This wonderful land has been infected with the virus of feminist corruption to the detriment of government, law, Institutions and families, men and women.

 The rationale for all of the pertinent Law, the hysteria, the draconian legislations is Domestic Violence.

 The most horrendous lies are told about DV. And people seem to believe them. They have been persuaded.

Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia.

I am indebted to a Senior Australian Public Servant who must remain anonymous, for some crucial parts of this long and detailed blog entry.

Pick up almost any newspaper on any given day and you will most likely find a by-line claiming: “Statistics show …”;   “new survey finds …”; or, “new study proves …”. Often accompanied by embellishments such as “shocking”, “appalling”, and so on.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than on the subject of gender relations and in particular the emotionally charged subject of domestic violence, or it’s substitute “family violence”.

It is about neither of course.

It is all about women.

Hysteria is carefully stage-managed.

Only lip service is paid to the idea that males might be victims, and then, we are told, they deserve it anyway.

Let me be clear from the start. I do not like domestic violence, just as I do not like muggings, murders, rapes, armed robberies, cats and dogs lying together etc.  But rarely is there any need for muggings to be blown out of proportion by including in their statistics the asking for an ice-cream, even when a tantrum follows a ‘no’.

The panic and hysteria generated by falsified and invented Domestic Violence statistics does far more damage to society and to men and women’s relations, than the very small amount of Domestic violence that exists and which is blown completely out of proportion.

Australia does not collect unified data on Domestic Violence. Not directly. Figures get lifted out of context from a variety of ‘official’ documents.

Where do you think they come from?

The most widely cited statistics on the subject in Australia is the Women’s Safety Survey, published in 1996 , that repeats American claims, “One in four women experience domestic violence, within their lifetime”.

There was no Men’s Safety Survey.

The bias was there even before the survey was designed.

It was another ten years, 2006, before a further more inclusive Safety survey was conducted.

This article looks at this biased, anti-male 1996 Survey and other sources which have driven Public Policy in Australia.

I will also show the 2006 survey in some depth and reveal the government’s response.

One in Four Women Abused.

This American claim of  ‘One in Four’ ubiquitously applied to most female claims of outrage, first surfaced in the left-wing Feminist Ms Magazine in the 1970’s after a deliberately doctored survey about rape using a self-selected sample of its anti-male readers.

One in Four is a ‘super-term’. It is akin to an hypnotic chant that robs people of control over their thoughts. It is applied to almost anything to do with women.

Being given a glass of wine before sex constituted rape according to that travesty of a survey, commissioned by Ms and conducted by a misandric feminazi ‘Professor’, Mary Koss.

A considerable broadening of what constitutes domestic violence and sexual assault was demanded by feminists in America to access the gravy train of the Violence Against Women Act, (VAWA) and the left-wing President Clinton, the well known sexual assaulter of young women employees, complied.

Clinton sought to make reparation to his feminist harridan of a wife for his own sexual incontinence by punishing every man in America.

He was assisted in this by the then Senator Joe Biden, now the Vice President, an aptly named position for such a twisted mind  – who explained how he used to be beaten-up by his sister when he was young, and was making his own Kow-Tow to her continued ‘advice’.  Which no doubt was ‘Do it MY way, or ELSE’. 

Biden was an architect of VAWA. He cared not for violence against men and may well be a masochist by nature.

VAWA opened the door to a widespread and mendacious catalogue of innocuous behaviours being classified as ‘assault’ and DV in a flood of Advocacy Research.

People in other western countries will recognise the same dirty fingers in the pie-charts of their own bogus and mendacious advocacy research underpinning their own Government Policies.

The “Women’s Safety Survey” (WSS) findings, which uses this sleight of hand, underpins Australian Government policy and legislation in every Australian state jurisdiction – with the exception of Victoria, which now evidently claims that “one in five women are victims of domestic violence”.

This apparently suggests that women would be much safer if they all moved to Victoria. Maybe it is something in the Victorian air.

No “study” is of much value until it has been subjected to peer review. This hasn’t occurred in relation to the Women’s Safety Survey. For a number of reasons, there is an urgent need for independent and thorough research and review.

The WSS study was released under the imprimatur of the Australian Bureau of Statistics  but was in fact a creature of the  bureaucratically powerful Office of Status of Women which commissioned and directed the survey.

There was significant consternation reported at that time in relation to complaints,  by ABS officers – that they were being “bullied” into undertaking unprofessional, and methodologically flawed “advocacy research” – research which is designed to prove the existence of something, whether it exists or not.

Several Executive level officers of the ABS were later ‘re-located’ to ‘re-education’ roles

The notion that one in four women are suffering from domestic violence is alarming  and conjures images, at the very least, of black eyes and bruises occurring on an appalling scale.

But it is a lie.

How many Australian’s would know that the survey included such largely irrelevant questions as “Have you ever received an obscene phone call?”  .

A phone rings and no one is there. Bogus fear is  conveniently generated from a neurotic mind.

Tick the box.

Another sexual assault.

Yeh. Pig’s arse !

It beggars belief that questions like this formed the bulk of the survey.

It has barley any relevance to domestic violence at all.

But…. It’s another male-damning statistic.

But the Office for the Status of Women did not stop there. The determined harridans were intent on spin to beat all spin.

How many would know that the survey report blurred the fact that some 27 per cent of respondents were actually reporting violence caused by other women?

Heck, that’s just over One in Four !

It must have been men that made them do it.

Believe me, you can be convinced.

In fact, you have been.

There were many other seriously disturbing aspects to this survey. For example, it also involved only voluntary participation, which is a key source of survey bias – just as in the Ms magazine survey – as it attracts participants who may have a vested interest the subject matter, a factor that can dramatically skew the results.

In the desired direction, of course.

And, it was a “life incidence” survey, thus inviting the recitation of some event far off in both time and in memory.

The failings of human memory with the passage of time is well recognised by our legal system, which, with very few exceptions, refuses to admit evidence that has been muddied by time and with no corroboration.

Forty years and a bitter divorce can change a memory from someone merely “pushing away” into “he threw me down the stairs”.

Who is there to contradict?

No evidence was even sought.

The law recognises the frailty of old memories but our ever -increasing victim culture does not.

Society would not entertain the concept that someone is currently considered to be a “road accident victim” based on a minor bruise they had incurred in a vehicle accident 20 years ago.

Nor would we necessarily put much faith in a 20-year-old version of how the accident occurred.

Yet this is precisely what such surveys on domestic violence increasingly attempt to encourage for society to accept as reality, current and relevant for domestic violence and assault.

When citing the “one in four” statistic, some domestic violence literature conveniently leaves out the phrase “within their lifetime”, giving a false impression of immediacy; that one in four women are victims, right now, on this very day.

Think about that.

Every shout-at, telling-off, even smack on the legs when we were five years old being counted so that everyone has been the ‘victim’ of abuse.

Moreover, the Women’s Safety Survey did not overtly and clearly say that one in four women were victims of “physical” domestic violence, but included a range of other non-physical and both potentially and actually non-violent behaviours that were then re-classified as “domestic violence”.

It covertly implies it is all physical violence.

A man not handing over his pay-packet to his wife is ‘economic DV’.

No mention that it demanding his wages is extortion.

Him answering that ‘Yes’ her bum does look fat in those jeans, is ‘verbal DV’.

It ‘demeans” and is therefore ‘violent’.

An argument between a couple with both shouting is HIM being violent.

She is simply defending herself by ‘communicating’.

Advocacy research has taken over much of what passes for academic and ‘official’ date collection.

It sets out to provide ‘proof’ for a conclusion already held. It supports a Prejudice.

Why do you think that anyone would want to go to the time and effort to do that?

 Show me the Money.

Domestic violence literature, when citing such advocacy research survey findings characterise the one in four statistic as referring to physical violence.

The leaflets handed out by the self-declared socially-conscious commercial retail chain, “The Body Shop”, being a case in point.

 It manipulates. It attracts. It drew wannabee socially conscious women customers in to buy fragrant soaps and candles, to ‘support victims of domestic violence’.

Domestic Violence lies sells women’s products.

“After you have been beaten by an unappreciative man, you poor victimized woman, you need to pamper yourself. You deserve it.”

“Oooh, let me have some of those candles, you poor thing, I am a victim, too. Honest.”

“Is that right. Could you take a minute to fill out this survey while I wrap these for you”.

Such ‘women’s goods’ shop chains have no shame in ripping off women by appealing to ‘support for victims’.

Even refugees from Torture and Trauma are roped in. The Refugee resettlement organisations in Australia get Government funds which are then siphoned off to run ‘joint’ appeals with such women’s goodies retail outlets for ‘raising consciousness’. And getting women to fill in surveys.

 They only mention women refugees of course. The maimed men do not get to take part. It makes for a fine week’s boost to turnover and the private company ‘bottom line’.

It gets women’s votes too.

Domestic violence literature across the board not only blurs the past with the present but blends quite different and sometimes relatively innocuous behaviours with the abjectly violent, in order to incite a widespread impression that physical domestic violence against women is currently running rampant and unchecked in our community.

The survey gives an Australian flavour to the increasingly Internationalised American charade of a law, the Violence Against Women Act, brought in by the American Cultural-Marxist group, the National Organisation of Women, and pushed through by the efforts of the current American Vice President, Joe Biden.

Such a gender biased law has gobbled up Billions of dollars of American taxpayers money funneled to women’s groups; with nothing at all to male ‘victims’.

Australia is behind with the Dollars but then it is a much smaller tax-base. It is just Hundreds of Millions. With the Global Economic Crisis upon us, it will catch up with some Stimulus Packages for the girls, be sure. Kevin Rudd’s ‘working families’ have had their day and the non-working, single-mother families are on the increase.

No prizes for guessing why.

Right now in 2009 our Great leader, Chairman Mousey Kev is announcing a massive increase in Grants to women. More to the Violence against Women mantra. Our Equality Chairwoman (!) was doing the Press round appearing on TV in July 2009 to rally the media at the weekly Press Club broadcast.

Here we are in the middle of the worst recession, supposedly, since the demise of the Mickey Mouse Club and the girls want what is left of the money.

But, no worry. Chairman Kev will sell the children’s future to pay today’s women.

It buys votes.

 Women’s votes.

The Office for the Status of Women is a vast black hole into which taxpayer’s money is poured. It exists soley to benefit Government and the powerful female bureaucrats that run the show, none of which has ever seen a glass ceiling.

 The Office channels Policy like Shirley MacLain channels 5000 year old Egyptian Gurus.

A beneficiary has been the Health Departments both Federal and State that have had billions of dollars funneled into ‘Women’s Health’ while dregs are given to men.

 But I digress.

 The mendacious nature of the now ubiquitous term domestic violence, which brings under its one heading a range of non-physical behaviours is of primary concern. The nuances of context and intensity are increasingly lost in a determined re-interpretation of any kind of marital disagreement, into a paradigm of male “perpetrator” and a female “victim”.

 It breaks traditional families apart.

 We see a lot of street behaviour that we might regard as offensive or verbally aggressive but in the absence of a physical assault (whether major or minor) we don’t classify it as violence per se.

 Yet domestic violence researchers seem to almost salivate over a positive response to, “Has your partner ever yelled at you?”

 Tick!

 Another female domestic violence victim.

 Another man-damning statistic.

 Although, “Did you yell back?”, is conveniently never asked.

 No one asks the chap of course.

 Do you feel like yelling yet?

 The WSS surveyed 6000 odd carefully selected women and no men at all.

 Gross, dishonest, Gender-biased sampling marks this survey.

 Ambiguous and irrelevant questions litter it.

 Subterfuge and bribery marks its collection.

 Bias runs throughout the findings.

 It drives a biased, anti-male Un-Australian Industry that expropriates Public Monies and supports commercial interests.

It drives prejudiced and bigoted Government Policy.

 The survey does not like to stand out like a sore thumb as the only data. Let’s look at the other common sources of dodgy data misrepresented by our feminist-driven Government, to convince the Australian public that we have an epidemic of Family Violence which is attributed solely to evil Australian men.

Lies build upon lies.

More lies convince better than just one.

Let us take a look at intervention orders issued by the lower courts as a source of  bogus “statistical evidence” of the “magnitude” of domestic  or ‘family’ violence.

Let us also will look at Police records of DV ‘Incidents’ and how they are not at all what they seem. Or what the general public is told.

Let us look at the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program which is also misrepresented to the detriment of men and the advantage of the DV Industry.

Wrong and often bogus statistics are deployed, with an apparent intention to deliberately mislead.

Add Wing of Bat and Eye of Lizard  to the Pot

Having looked at the uncorroborated, biased and manipulated Women’s Safety Survey let us look now at Intervention Orders and how they are manipulated too.

Most “finalised” intervention orders are finalised simply because they are uncontested. That is, the male “respondent” is persuaded (often bullied) by court officials, such as Deputy Court Registrars, into signing up for a “final” or “permanent” order rather than contest the allegations in court.

The lower courts don’t want any more congestion if it can be avoided.

Men are manipulated. The Bat’s-wing.

Convincing a bewildered “respondent” to sign up for the permanent order on the basis of a “By Consent, Without Admissions“, is not particularly difficult, especially if a solicitor  has already advised him that it could cost up to $10,000 if he goes to court.

And further, that he will most likely lose.

The Burden of Proof is laid on the defendant, not the accuser. Proving a negative is plain impossible. 

The legal test is not “beyond reasonable doubt” but merely the “balance of probabilities”. This is a very weak civil law test in the context of penalties that could ultimately imprison a respondent, and certainly dispossess him of his assets.

This happens in Tasmania where the ironically misnamed ‘Safe at Home Act’ ensures that male arrest is automatic with no bail on simple female accusation.

He loses access to his home and children and even loses his job because he cannot prove he didn’t do what he didn’t do.  Magistrates are badgered by the Safe at Home Act and are increasingly fearful of bad publicity if a violent act should possibly subsequently occur.

As it is quite possible. The catalyst for possible subsequent violence, ironically, is often the faked restraining order allegations in the first place and the trauma of being hauled into court often for the first time in his life. The magistrates are as aware as anyone of the adage, “Might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb’.

In this instance is ‘hang him just in case he has his eye on a lamb’.

When you are convicted of something you didn’t do, on a false allegation you cannot disprove, you may well want to earn your punishment.

So much for “justice” and the fading jurisprudential notion of the “presumption of innocence”.

Whether a female complainant was ever genuinely fearful or merely a perjurer and liar is more often than not un-explored. And if it is questioned at all, with due compassion and concern for the ‘victim’, the diluted “balance of probabilities” test still renders such findings questionable.

Domestic violence literature increasingly proclaims that domestic violence is a crime. Quite so. Therefore, in any legal action, the criminal law test of “beyond reasonable doubt” should be applied.

It never is.

Given the growing understanding that intervention orders are regularly used as a tactical weapon in achieving favourable custody and property outcomes in subsequent Family Court proceedings, a count of intervention orders as a measure of “violence against women” is virtually meaningless.

Yet such statistics are used for precisely that.

I sat in the Hobart, Tasmania, Family Court and listened as a ‘fearful’ 27 y/o ex-wife of four years marriage accused her poor sod of a ex-husband of  62 from whom she had taken three quarters of his lifetime’s assets, of murdering her previous boyfriend – who in fact had been deported as an illegal immigrant – and of being an International Terrorist. He had been in the Israeli army on National Service 30 years before.

The Judge said she was being ‘fanciful’. No charges of perjury were laid and no investigations ordered for such heinous crimes, And she was awarded the children. Of course. ‘Just in case’.

Over the course of the following three years that man was arrested seven times and spent four nights in jail. He was hospitalized twice. He was arrested on one occasion after she accused him of assault. He had leaned on her car.

Another domestic violence statistic.

Always added, never subtracted when disproven. No one tries to seek truth. It was disregarded at his Court case that he has been run over by a horse and buggy and has a damaged back. He leaned because he was in pain.

Tough.

Which brings us onto the Eye of Lizard.

Another statistic commonly cited by an increasingly frenzied domestic violence Industry is the number of POLICE CALL-OUTS to domestic or family violence ‘Incidents’. 

Whether the “incident” involved verbal disagreement between husband and wife or an act of actual violence, we would never know. It is merely noted as an “incident”.

In fact, if the protagonists were two 14 year old brothers arguing on the front lawn that too, would be noted on the official records as a domestic or family violence incident.

These records of “incidents” are then inevitably fed into the ever-swelling “conduit” of statistics that ultimately produces headlines that purport, “alarming new data shows domestic violence against women running out of control”.

The police in any region know who the violent families are. They attend the same people time and time again. The vast majority of citizens are not violent and do not have ‘domestic violence’ in their homes and families.

But when one family chalks up 25 ‘Incidents’ in three months, and 200 families account for 2000 Incidents, it is made to appear that ten times as many men are guilty than are.

The women never are guilty of course. They are made out to be 2000 victims.

The end result is then ever-increasing public funding to combat the ever burgeoning horror of violence against women. Nobody ever delves deep enough to examine how many of these police reported “incidents” actually involved a physical violence or threat of violence or indeed whether a woman was even present at the time.

Leg of Cane-Toad too.

Few if any newspapers or TV ‘expose’ shows ever investigate the amount of public funding to any organisation that puts itself under the “domestic violence umbrella” or else you will instantly understand why this has become a publicly funded “industry” of vast size.

The Supported Accommodation Assistance Program  (SAAP) is yet another supportive source of statistics on so-called “family violence”.

The SAAP gives priority to ‘battered women’.

Love that phrase.

What the SAAP data does not show however, is how many women were encouraged to falsely claim that they were fleeing family violence, or indeed what the nature of the “violence” was, so that they could receive the priority treatment gravy train.

A recent Canberra Times article, lamenting the lack of affordable low cost public housing for poor families, featured a couple with young children who were forced to live in a caravan. A “housing worker” was quoted as suggesting to the mother, “If there was family violence, you could get a house straight away”: i.e. claim you are a female victim and the “world is your oyster”.

Male victims need not apply.

He would not be allowed in her ‘priority’ house.

Using SAAP data as a measure of violence against women is badly flawed because it can be and is misconstrued – again with an apparent deliberate intent – to reflect a statistic illustrating the number of women and children fleeing family violence.

In fact, at this point you might care to watch a short video on just where so much ‘family violence’ actually originates -

Everyday Family Terrorism

http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/everyday-family-terrorism

And while you are in the mood to consider if woman are perfect and blameless and do not ‘do’ anything that could be called domestic violence, try this, from just days ago -

From the Associated Press’ Official: Wedding Fire Was Criminal Act–Kuwaiti Newspaper Says Groom’s Angry Ex-Wife Started Deadly Blaze:

Kuwaiti authorities have apprehended the person suspected of setting fire to a wedding tent and killing 41 people and said Monday the motive was personal. Local newspapers reported the groom’s ex-wife was the arsonist.

Whoops, sorry. Not an Australian statistic there. Unless she seeks refugee status and pops into the Body Shop for some scented candles. Back to Aussie homeless.

SAAP data, in fact, often reflects the large number of homeless men who being so frequently dispossessed by individual chicanery, destructive, psychotic women and Family Court excoriation, are seeking emergency accommodation. They do not get priority of course.

By both omission and commission, Australia is being sold a very gross and socially dangerous statistical lie -  one that is serving only the interests of its creators, and those legions who have so readily signed up to the fictional notion that every fourth female face we see each day is secretly living in stark terror and fear of “family violence”.

So, What is the Truth.

Some women unfortunately are victims of ‘family violence’, let’s admit as evidence and acknowledge the fact.

1.2% are according to a rare example of independent University research by Bruce Headly and Dorothy Scott of Melbourne University and David De Vaus of La Trobe.

But that was a non-self-selected, random sample.

1.2%. This tiny percentage, well below the oft cited 25%, needed first aid, so bad was the violence they had experienced at the hands of a domestic partner.

And so did some men.

The same research shows 1.8%  for men needing first aid.

 A full 50% higher.

Even smaller percentages of both needed a doctor’s attention. But again more men than women. 1.5% men vs 1.1% women.

Moreover, the Headly, Scott and De Vaus  summary measure of experiencing a range of forms of assault fails to reveal any preponderance of assaults on women:

4.7% of the sample reported being assaulted ‘in some way’ during the last 12 months; 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women. Not needing any attention to damage though.

They had had a shouting match and called each other naughty names.

Again, that is over half as many men more than women. And so far below the mythical 25%, the 1:4, terribly, awfully suffering women, as to make a total rejection of feminist lies.

What must be untangled – so that effective measures can be put into place – is the real incidence of such violence from the bogus statistical misrepresentations that are serving an entirely different agenda.

The critical issue about DV is all too often overlooked completely; it’s low experience in the community.

• · 94.4% of people reported in Headly et al, being neither perpetrators nor victims of violence.

• · 2.5% report both assaulting and being assaulted.

• · 2.1% report being assaulted but not committing assault.

• · 1.0% report assaulting their partner but not being assaulted.

 No signs at all of  1:4 or 25% anywhere.

This Independent research showed clearly that DV affects a miniscule proportion of the population, and on every measure but one men suffered greater domestic violence from women than women did from men and in greater percentage numbers.

The one measure?

She calls the police far more often.

The mantle of mass victimhood casts a long and very dark shadow that too often conceals the very location of the destruction of truth and where propaganda is given the oxygen for its blowtorch.

The Federal Government spent $73 million on television adverts showing only male perpetrators and only female victims.

Sheer AgitProp.

THAT is domestic violence.

You paid for it with expropriated taxes.

The  advertising camapign was labeled  “propaganda against men” with many men criticising its negative and blatantly false “stereotypical portrayals”.

One notable Australian commentator described it as ‘the worst piece of deliberate Government black propaganda against a biologically distinguishable group ever seen outside of Nazi Germany”.

Almost all political tyrannies have their origin in segregating societies into the conceptual equivalent of “good and evil”, “angels and demons”, “victims and perpetrators”. “Four legs good, two legs bad”. There is never a middle ground

“Male equals perpetrator”, “female equals victim”.

When liars are afoot in society, in power, their first weapon of choice is statistical “proof” to provide convincing lies.

One has to wonder why intelligent, moral men and women in Australia put up with this. Men are demonized but say little to protect their Reputations and their legitimate interests.

Women’s legitimate interests have been hi-jacked by a clique of destructive, Marxist-Feminist women who spread blatant lies on their behalf, expropriate public monies and claim a bogus high moral ground.

It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.

It is statistical corruption; fiscal corruption; political corruption.

As a result of that bogus 1996 survey, and with the ongoing manipulation and misrepresentation of the three other ‘Official’ statistics discussed above, women fear walking in the street, especially at night. Every husband is regarded as a potential wife-beater. Funds flow to women’s groups. 

Domestic Violence advocacy was the fastest growing Industry of the decade following, employing thousands in ‘jobs for the girls, paid from  taxpayer expropriations

 The Truth is out there  -  somewhere.

I mentioned before that an Official but Independent and reliable survey needs to be done to establish valid figures for Policy determination.

Following the row between the Women’s Office and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, over Feminist manipulation and bullying, the ABS conducted it’s own survey.

It took ten years to get around to it, mind you.

The results were very different to the bogus ones of the Office for the Status of Women, despite their continued attempts to interfere and manipulate.

The Australian Government has ignored the more relevant ABS findings  under pressure from those same feminists who continue to exercise undemocratic control.

 The ABS to manage to do a more reliable examination in 2006 which tried to show the truth. At least it didn’t leave out an entire gender this time.

Once again, however, the Feminists managed to interfere and manipulate, and I will show you how. I also show how you can delve into the data collected to bring the Truth into the light of day.

The ABS Personal Safety Survey finally emerged in 2006 and sampled BOTH genders – for a change.

Have a good look at it.

And along with its appearance, the statistical myths and fabrications of feminist’s victimhood, and women’s class oppression , and claims of an epidemic of violence against women -  were able to be  immediately exposed and contradicted

But the silence was deafening.

Have you heard of the Personal Safety Survey or its findings?

No?

What a surprise. !

Have you heard of 1 in 4 women are victims of domestic violence?

Of course you have.

The silence didn’t last of course as it was soon replaced with a $73 million Government advertising campaign based on the old false results appearing on TV sets nation-wide.

It was like sticking fingers in women’s ears and having them chant “lalalalalala; Men, bad; Women, victims”.

The survey reveals a picture of what any rational person should have assumed about life simply by observation of the world around them and their day to day existence in it.

The survey reveals what most people should have known or should have suspected about the facts of social violence -

it is men rather than women who have the most to fear regarding their personal safety.

It further reveals that the perpetrators of violence, in all their ugly forms and diversity, are not just men, and that the domain of perpetrators includes a significant percentage of women.

There are few surprises in this survey other than it seems to have been conducted with appropriate propriety and adherence to statistical principles.

Almost. 

A refreshing breath of almost-fresh air given the lies and spin of so many preceding studies and surveys conducted on this subject.

But before delving into some its facts and figures, there are a couple of points that should be clarified about the survey itself.

As surveys go, it seems to have been done fairly responsibly but with some clear prior interference. It encompassed a sizeable sample of the population – 16,300 adults in total, about 0.1% of the Australian adult population – so its findings could be seen to be a reasonable reflection of what’s really going on in Australia today.

That’s 2 and a ½ times the sample size of the feminist’s survey.

However, for some reason you will instantly recognise, nearly three times as many women were surveyed than men – 11,800 women compared to only 4,500 men.

What a surprise !

The feminists just cannot help themselves, can they?

Ask yourselves; there are 50% women and 50% men in our society. There are usually one man and one woman in a domestic couple.

OK. There are sometimes two men together, and two women together, but rare.

So why a sample that is 75% women and 25% men?

It is better than 100% women and 0% men, as in the 1996 survey, but still only a little better. Half a loaf.

Men’s experiences of personal safety are not deemed as valid as those of women. Did they expect that women’s experiences of violence would be more valid, diverse or significant?

Or was it simply a matter of funding as is implied in the survey’s notes?

Funding controlled by feminists in the bureaucracy?

You get the Report; read it carefully and make your own mind up. Read the notes.

Whatever the reason for it, and there is no fair or justifiable stance that could possibly be taken for this glaring discrepancy, the question remains, why were men relegated to being less than second class respondents?

No one has provided an answer.

You can go figure it for yourself, but perhaps we can hope this imbalance will be addressed in any further surveys where the sex of the respondents is relevant.

For now though, when digesting the results, it must be understood that sample distribution bias still exists .

In fact, in some cases, reflected in the ABS tables, annotations have been made by the statisticians indicating that the data may be of questionable reliability.

Why would that be?

Why would the ABS warn about its own data?

I will tell you in a moment.

Given the importance and far reaching social implications of this survey, this restriction of men’s experiences is a travesty of their rights as taxpayers and citizens of the nation.

Especially as it turns out from the survey results that men are the most severely affected members of society where personal safety and violence are concerned.

This treatment of men is a clear statement by the Government that they see Australian men as being second class and less important than the women of the nation.

Yet, in the Liberal’s defense, – they had achieved Government by then – it must be argued that they are the first and so far only government in Australia to include men in such a survey at all.

Previous Labor governments, which had presided over the totally bogus Women’s Safety Survey, simply didn’t care about the safety of men and only ever conducted safety surveys for women.

This development in itself is at least some consolation for Australian men and was a positive step forward.

Now, the reason for the annotated questioning of the reliability of the data, especially about the men.

You see, the other glaring concern about the production of this ABS survey was the sexist exclusion of men as interviewers.

100% of the interviews were conducted by women.

Only women were employed as interviewers.

No men.

By order of the Feminist bureaucracy.

It is important to realise that by using ONLY female interviewers, it is likely to have led to an underreporting of spousal and partner violence against men by females and an over-reporting of men’s violence against women.

In a national survey of this significance, one could have at least expected squeaky-clean adherence to equal-sex political correctness. 

Hah!

Pig’s Arse !

Despite these sexist anomalies the survey reveals for the first time, much important information about personal safety, and the victims and perpetrators of personal violence. 

It is a subject, which has long been obscured by the murky fog of feminist  advocacy. Prejudice and proving prior expectations have ruled such research. 

But against the odds, this survey has revealed and has exposed the feminist lies.

The following statements, derived directly from the ABS survey, are just the initial findings and a fuller investigation by YOU, yourself, of the finer detail is encouraged.

Do not simply take my word.

I will compare the freshly published data to the often-quoted rhetorical statistics of feminist propaganda – and remember this, these are official Australian government research figures and not some trumped up, biased, ideologically prejudiced University Women’s Studies data or those of some politically or gender- biased NGO.

Those rhetorical stats use the 1:4 comparison device, or the ‘per second’ and per day and per week device to hide the real numbers which would look as small as they actually are.

It sounds so much better to say that two women a week are killed by husbands – as the Deputy Prime Minister of the UK is fond of spouting – than to say that 102 women out of a population of 30 million are killed annually by nutters.

Two per week generates more hysteria than 0.00034%

And of course the feminists never tell you that 94 UK men per annum, nearly but not quite two men per week are killed by female spouses.

Facts - the ABS survey has revealed that -

In Australia, men are more than twice as likely as women to be the victims of violence and are being physically or sexually assaulted or threatened, at the rate of up to 2 incidents per second

Women are not the victims of family (domestic) violence  anywhere near as often as the quoted  25%, 1 in 4, – nor even 1 in 10, – nor even 1 in 20, but actually 1 in 50

That is to say, 2%

2%

Women are not being raped and sexually assaulted every 26 seconds, as claimed by the Feminists of the Office for the Status of Women, nor even every 90 seconds, as other feminists frequently claim, but are in fact experiencing rape hardly at all. 

And even when combined with the lesser sexual assaults, it is at a rate 91% less than that which feminists have previously claimed.

Look at that another way. Feminist claims are exaggerated by at least 10 times.

And this includes both reported and all unreported incidents ‘discovered’ by the survey interviewers.

The ratio of female vs male family (domestic) violence victims in a home is not 99:1, with men very rarely assaulted and women bashed daily, nor 95:5,  nor 75:1, nor even 50:1, but is actually ……   2:1

And some of the women are being assaulted in the ‘domestic’ sphere by other women.

These statements above are all calculated from the ABS survey data without corruption. Look at the figures.

Of course there will be some deviation from the survey compared to real life figures, just as in all studies  – always read the fine print of surveys – but, remember, nearly three women were interviewed for every one man.

The data for men may have been tainted by the use of only female interviewers, some of whom may even have been staunch feminists, – show me a woman who claims she isn’t and I will show you a lonely one -  and together with the sample number bias, resulting in underreporting of men’s experience of family violence as victims.

Let us look closely at some other interesting statistics -

During the previous 12 months in Australia, that is, in 2005,

6.5% of males were physically assaulted.

And 3.1% of females

That is 1 in 15 men compared to 1 in 32 women.

Conclusion: Women are safer.

Attempted or threatened physical assaults were against 5.3% of males and just 2.1% of females.

Conclusion: Women are 2.5 times safer from threats and attempts than men are.

Women can expect greater safety than men can.

There isn’’t a bogeyman down every dark street looking for a woman to assault.

The bogeyman is too busy assaulting men.

In the sexual assault area beloved of feminists and the source of fright, alarm and horror – and endless expropriated taxes for agitprop -  the survey indeed finds the figures swing to women being more likely to be sexually assaulted than men are.

But the figures are lower still.

Not 1 in 4 women. 

Not 25%, as reported in the bogus Women’s Safety Survey.

It is just 1.6%

1 – point – 6 – per cent reported being sexually assaulted.

Did you hear that? 1.6 %

That’s 1 in 62. Not 1 in 4.

And MEN are sexually assaulted too. 0.6 %.

Threats and attempts at sexual assault are even lower.

0.5% for women and 0.1% for men.

98% of women are perfectly safe and not even under threat of sexual assault.

Sexual assault on women, and even on men, is very low.

Not that such a  F.A.C.T. fact makes headlines in the newspapers.

It doesn’t sell.

It doesn’t sell ‘stuff’ like scented candles and soap in the Body Shop.

Why are women being deliberately frightened by the Government?

YOU have to ask your MP.

Deliberately Frightening Women: Neglecting Men.

In conclusion, what does all this mean?

It means that Australia as a nation is the first in the Western world to undertake a survey of adult personal safety and violence based on the sex of the community.

It has both massive and broad implications for social scrutiny and the politics of sex and violence. It stands as a precedent for further world development and application.

It also has immediate application to other Western societies. Australia, being a contemporary Western nation has been subjected, more or less, to the same political influences over the last half century that have been experienced by the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand and arguably most other European nations.

The data recorded would be directly applicable to other Western societies, more or less and may be quoted as a being from a highly reputable source.

The results of this survey should be seen as the first authoritative sample of non-advocacy research on the issues of Western social violence and in particular, inter-gender personal violence.

The results are both revealing and deeply informative.

Revealing about the incorrectness of previously published feminist advocacy research – and subsequent government information too – and informative about the dire state of violence perpetrated against men in modern civilised Western societies.

The data also provide the basis for a requirement for Western governments to become focused on the safety standards of its men as a top priority and to begin to recognise that there are serious deficiencies in its treatment of men in society.

The survey also amplifies the ludicrous state of Western government’s pursuit of highly expensive anti-violence campaigns and legislation for the least affected victims of personal violence – women – whilst a much more serious problem of violence exists and is being waged against its men.

It also establishes facts that require governments and anti-male NGOs in Australia to immediately rewrite their literature and websites which state false and misleading statistics about personal violence, and in particular, men as overwhelmingly family violence perpetrators. They are not.

The data shows clearly that in the home, in the family, 98.5% of men are safe, law abiding, indeed loving, protective and caring husbands and fathers.

It should also lead to an immediate nation-wide reassessment of family relationship management and Family Law values.

But don’t hold your breath.

It’s no wonder that feminists, the government and the mainstream media in Australia have been so quiet about the release of this new survey.

It exposes a huge raft of feminist baloney, lies and deceptions.

The silence also shows that the Government is deliberately frightening women.

The Government wants women to be frightened of men.

And the media is in the Government’s pocket.

Yes, the truth is out – and out there -  somewhere.

But have YOU seen it? Have YOU heard it?

You have now.

This is amfortas.

Ask, Who does the Grail Serve.

This is a written adaptation of three podcasts that I made recently with my colleague, Christian J. Perhaps you might listen to them and send them to others.

Do not waste this long post.

Copy it. Send it on.

Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.1.

http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-lying-about-domestic-violence-part-1

 The ‘women’s Safety Survey’  was “uncorroborated, biased and manipulated”  ‘Advocacy research’ orchestrated by the Office for the Status of Women and passed off as Bureau of Statistics report. It caused an enormous row, says MRA  Amfortas. Manipulated definitions and hysterical claims copied from America made innocuous behaviour criminal. DV sells commercial products to women and expropriates public funds for the fastest growing ‘Industry in Australia.

 Deliberately Lying about Domestic Violence in Australia. Pt.2.

http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-lying-about-domestic-violence-part-2

 Three other sources of ‘official’ data which  are routinely manipulated and presented to support DV lies are analysed by Amfortas and compared to Independent University research which completely contradicts the ‘official message’.” It would be generous to think that this manipulation and bias was just the result of incompetence. But as we can see there is something far darker behind it. It is corruption. It is deliberate.”

Deliberately Lying about DV in Australia. Pt.3. The Truth is out there – Somewhere.

http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-the-truth-is-out-there-somewhere

Christian J narrates how the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey completely contradicted the Government’s 1996 survey. He also points to the attempts by feminist bureaucrats to manipulate by having ONLY female interviewers  to bias the results. Results show women twice as safe as men. The Government has thrown a blanket of silence over it. Feminists maintain an undemocratic stranglehold, expropriating public monies for their anti-male ‘Industry’.

Try also.-

Everyday Family Terrorism

http://soundcloud.com/christian-j/everyday-family-terrorism

“When Momma ain’t Happy, Nobody’s Happy”. Amfortas and Paul Elam show how domestic violence and a lot worse are often caused by ‘controlling’ women who are willing to destroy their families to have their own way. Dr Eric Berne’s ‘Games’ are described including the major cause of broken families, the “Let’s you and Him Fight” strategy which uses the Police and Family Courts.

Notes

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13y.htm

http://www.australian-news.com.au/domestic_violence_statistics.htm

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN AUSTRALIA:  ARE WOMEN AND MEN EQUALLY VIOLENT?

Headly, Scott and De Vaus 

 http://www.kittennews.com/mag/2006/maxponti_06_01_abs_personal_safety_study.htm

Australian safety survey kills feminist distortions
Max Ponti

The song begins by telling of a rather commonplace activity: a couple who meet in secret, in a hotel or motel room, to engage in sexual activity. Both of them are secretive because both are married to someone else.

The narrator speaks of himself and his lover as being “like thieves and beggars when we meet.” These stigmatized terms are appropriate. Each is stealing the comfort and pleasure that has been sworn to another and stealing from their own spouse’s. They feel like beggars because their relationship has the “low,” embarrassing quality attached to begging.

Despite their guilt and sense of shame, they continue the affair because their feelings together are so very “sweet.”

However, the narrator ends by singing, “If he should want your love tonight, don’t turn away, don’t hurt his pride. Close your eyes and think of me in some room above a street.”

What is striking in the above passage is the narrator’s concern and empathy for the man he is cuckolding. This might not be as strange as it seems. Both the narrator and his lover take care to keep their illicit activities secret and probably believe – or at least hope – that what his wife and her husband don’t know won’t hurt them.

The narrator knows that his lover may be tempted to turn away from her husband out of a feeling, however irrational, that she should be faithful to the man whom she really loves or at least really desires. But the man singing also knows that while the husband may not be hurt by an affair he doesn’t know about, he will inevitably be wounded by a wife’s rejection. The narrator does not want their affair to cause another man such a psychic injury. Our singer feels for the husband as a human being, since humans of both sexes are hurt by rejection, and specifically as a man since men are usually the ones making advances and therefore the ones disproportionately apt to be rejected.

Does the man’s lover no longer desire her husband because he has lost the physical characteristics that once attracted her? That is a possibility. Another is that the passage of time and the familiarity of a long marriage have caused her passion for her husband to dull. However, her lover urges her to do something that a person of either sex can do: use an illicit passion to rekindle the fires of a marital one. It neither condones nor excuses adultery but it is an odd irony of life that extra-marital erotic stimulation can be brought home to the marriage bed. In Some Room Above the Street is a song that displays a sense of wisdom and caring even as it tells of a situation that is fundamentally sordid.

This is not just a scenario endemic to divorce. It is not just the best we can do with a system that means well. It is a bad system that does bad things for all the wrong reasons, with, of course, money at the root.

The family law system has evolved, or devolved, depending on how you look at it, into an adversarial theater of the damned, where turpitude and mendaciousness are considered good breeding; where children, fathers and families are exploited as a matter of routine.

Court officials are quick to tell anyone interested that they act in “the best interest of the children.” They even practice saying it in a haughty, sanctimonious tone.

Don’t buy it. The courts are about only two things. Money and winning, in that order. They even have it rigged so that we usually know who the winner is before the gavel ever hits the wood. The only real mystery is the final tab.

And children? Their best interest is the first thing to go, disposable as Kleenex. That’s what happens when you turn them into property and use them as bargaining chips along with houses, cars and bank accounts, and when you put them at the mercy of judges and lawyers that see them not as children being traumatized by the unraveling of their families, but as marks in a carnival side show.

The money game goes much deeper than the bottom of the average pocket. Carol Rhodes, author of the highly recommended “Friend of the Court, Enemy of the Family,” was involved in the family courts for 20 years. She is a former enforcement officer and investigator for the 37th circuit family court in Michigan.

Her considerable experience in a system touted to be in the best interest of the child, was quite actually the opposite.

“It was all about money,” she says.

“How to get the federal and state dollars that were allotted each case for enforcement. In fact,” she continues, “our director would say regularly, ‘we are not the friend of the family, we are the friend of the court.’”

In her book she goes on to describe how caseworkers were instructed to push through increases in child support, with rubber stamping from the judge, because it meant increases in revenue to the court. She details how her offices were managed with a philosophy of deception and a focus on increased revenue rather than the interests of families.

It was a system, she maintains, that regularly buried complaints over visitation because there was no money in enforcing the rights of the visiting parent, or in acting in the interest of the children from which those parents were severed.

“In the years I worked in the system,” she says, “I witnessed regular deception to clients that was mandated by office policy. I saw gender bias and discrimination. I saw records destroyed.”

Ultimately the 37th Circuit became such a success at generating revenue for the court that they became a model of training for other counties and states that were only too happy to emulate their practices.

Gathering up the cash from broken families isn’t limited to the courtrooms and the lawyers.

Dr. Stephen Baskerville, in his enlightening book, “Taken into Custody,” also exposes the rampant corruption in the entire system. Baskerville points out that psychotherapists, social workers and various social agencies are also in the game; all cogs in a great machine that demolishes what is left of broken marriages and sorts the remains, separating cash from the broken dreams.

He cautions us to remember and consider, and I quote, that “Involuntary divorce involves government agents forcibly removing innocent people from their homes, seizing their property, and separating them from their children. It requires long term supervision over private life by state functionaries, including police and jails.”

It is evident, both from sound research and common sense, that it would be in the best interest of the child to maintain a close, loving relationship with both parents regardless of the marriages collapse; to let the parenting continue, to insist on it, even as the marriage ends. Courts could make that the objective if they were interested in childrens welfare. Instead what usually happens early in the process is the first strike by the court on the core of the family, the restraining order, almost always on the father. They issue them without proof or corroboration, not to protect children, but to take the family down the road to child support orders and the money the courts make from enforcing them.

Read Roades and Baskerville. It’s all there.

Fighting the process is treacherous. Rhodes informs us that when men who knew their rights or fathers rights activists came to the court, the word was passed around beforehand and they were targeted for all the punitive wrath at the judges considerable disposal.

It’s all part of protecting the game; in the best interest of the court, as it were; perhaps violating Rico Statutes as much as it does the lives of children.

And the bias toward women as better guardians of children from earlier days fits in quite well with the schemes of modern courts. All the better and easier for the fixed fight to have a designated winner. No one has to take a dive when the judges hold the scoring cards and have them marked before the opening round.

Best interest of the child? Indeed.

If it stopped there, at the money, it would still be bad enough. But that is the problem. The courts set up Mom and Dad as lifetime adversaries. They system instigates continued battles long after the final decree, sending them back to court repeatedly, like addicts to a crack house. Their children (remember them?) ever caught in the crossfire.

Let’s be really clear about what child custody means. It translates quite literally to ownership. It isn’t just the ability to control when and where Dad and children see each other and how much he will pay Mom and the courts for the privilege of doing so. Managing conservators have the unilateral power to undermine visitation and the father-child bond with impunity. The courts give it to them.

They have the daily opportunity, and quite frequently the desire, to assassinate the character of the absent parent, aka, the father; to twist the child’s memory and perceptions to fit with those of the embittered mother.

Over time, fathers go from being Daddy to being a visitor to being estranged to being a memory, and probably not a good one. It’s not uncommon. You know people to which this, or something like it, has happened. And likely as not you have witnessed their children deteriorate socially, academically and otherwise in the process.

And the next time you hear someone bemoan that Dad doesn’t even try to spend time with the kids since the divorce, consider what he might be dealing with when he does.

Sara Jane: “Daddy, did you beat mommy up?”

Dad: “No, sweetie, I never did anything like that!”

Sara Jane: “Mommy said you did and that is why you had to leave.”

Dad: “Well, honey, I never did.”

Sara Jane: “Daddy?”

Dad: “Yes, sweetie?”

Sara Jane: “Are you going to beat me up, too?”

He can’t fight this. He doesn’t have enough parenting time to give the needed, corrective balance to his daughters life. The courts have made sure of it. The ex knows it and uses it.

It is easy to tell Dad that he just needs to man up and rough it through seeing the minds of his children poisoned with lies and hatred against him. But of course, if we do that then we are no more really concerned with the best interest of the child than the courts or some of the mothers. For in the conversation you just read, it is the child who suffers most. She is being condemned to a worldview of men and fathers that will stain each and every relationship she has for the rest of her life.

Restructuring a family is a delicate and difficult matter. But it will remain much more difficult than is necessary until we restructure or eliminate the corrupt, arrogant and destructive family courts that currently have the responsibility for doing so.

There is no panacea, though getting government out of marriage and divorce would be a good idea. In the absence of that, removing incentives for courts to exploit broken families would be a start. False allegations in family court to obtain restraining orders should result in prison terms. And judges should be removed from the bench and prosecuted themselves for severing a parent-child relationship without a proven reason.

It’s child abuse, pure and simple, and sadly illustrates that while what we need desperately are judges with integrity and a passion for justice, what we have in reality are legions of Tony Soprano’s in black robes.

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men

Earlier I explained that young Parzival – that is, YOU – set out on a Quest to find the Holy Grail. It was at the behest of the King.

Why?

This was asked of me by several people.  Well, I also had told of Percy’s mum, Herzeloyde being ‘heartbroken’. She was not the only one.

The King, Arthur, was also heartbroken. His beloved Guinevere had ran off with one of his best Knights. She had rejected him; betrayed him. She had withdrawn her love from him.

Arthur was mightily pissed off with this but that was just a fleeting anger. He fell into despondency and his entire Kingdom was let to waste. Only the Grail could cure him and restore the Kingdom. The Grail is a ‘soul’ food.

Can you see the relevance of this? The ‘mirror’ of what is happening to the civilization we live in right now?

Men’s hearts are broken by modern women who have rejected us and betrayed us.

Arthur adored Guinevere. His Kingdom was to house her, provide for her and honour her.  She, above all wealth and conquest, all achievement and effort, was his life.

Really? Some asked.

The result of her betrayal was clearly shown in the depth of his grief and pain and the decline of the world around him. The search for the Grail is a ‘soul’ search to find a ‘soul’ treasure. A cure for the ailment of modern man.

Guinevere had ‘followed her heart’, fickle as it was, and abandoned morality. I left you with that morality issue at the end of my last post. We can choose to be ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Time to continue.

Morals are Navigator Skills and Knowledge.

Well folks, Reality just doesn’t work the way of the bad people, despite their imaginary, fantasy success. Nor does it work for the innocent ignorant ones like young Percy with his armour stealing success. Parzival had to be ‘schooled’ by life, by his mentor and by confronting his own weaknesses and hubris. He had to become a ‘moral man’.

The mediocre Navigator who does not chart and know the tides soon hits the rocks that he has also ignored.

He never finds his port because he doesn’t ‘feel’ like being constrained by latitude and longitude and the mathematical calculating and other such ‘male’, ‘patriarchal’ rules for finding his way around.

He never looks at the stars let alone sights them.

He has no sextant and if one appears he scoffs at it. It is too difficult for his mediocre brain.

The crew suffers. Our society is on the rocks.

Men – even those ‘going their own way’ – need to navigate.

Morals are the navigator tools of the soul.

Young Percy had no idea where his steed took him. But he had to learn or get lost.

Our society is disappointing to me in this ‘morals’ aspect far more than any other. We have, as nations as well as individuals, capitulated to a childishness, a demand for ‘my way or the highway’. Our Rules.

 Gurus exhort woman to ‘follow your heart’ but where to and how? Some MRAs tell us to ‘follow our own individual rules’.

We could be road-builders of the soul, navigators of the spirit, discoverers of riches in ourselves – some quite gender-specific – and creators of wonderful trading relationship between adult men and women.

Instead what we have – just one current problem among others – is raiding armies of women who invade ‘men’sland’ to pillage. It is an army of ‘ordinary women’, who steal (moral issue), Lie (moral issue) and excuse themselves (intellectually dishonest – another friggin’ moral issue).

Even Hera taught Psyche how to access masculine power without destroying herself. Modern women do not heed even their own old lessons. I expect more of adult women. It is a reasonable and reasoned, adult expectation.

I expect as much from men, too. More so. I am a man.

My disappointment is not a feeling that I have lost out. It isn’t related to what I could have had but didn’t get. It isn’t because what I want has been blocked. My disappointment is FOR women. And FOR men. I have unmet expectations of MRAs that await too.

I am sad to the soul – a real emotion – for my preferred companions, for the fact that they have lost their way.

Our Fleet is separated and I fear for them. I have a sinking feeling.

Arthur was Sad to the Soul. Are we as MRAs still wallowing in the anger and sinking into a sadness of the soul? I believe we are. And our civil world is dying from neglect.

Most of the chaps in the MRM are somewhere along the path that Percy takes. Some are right at the start. They are young with hot blood and a huge chip on the shoulder and a load of hubris on their backs. This is not useful armour.

Many young men have been cruelly served. Some have had that moment of Total Insight in their late teen years, felt the Power of manhood and fulfillment of child-promise only to have it snatched away by their own innocent ignorance and lack of male models and male guidance.

Some men, I see them all around, are deep in the forest, bleeding and bruised, their bones broken. I would that all men had a wise old hermit to bring them back to health or an old, tired King with a healing draft.

Men are increasingly ‘leaving home’. It used to be to explore the world and discover. We have satellites for that now.

For ten thousand years we have been making homes for women. Because we Love women. Men and women need to make homes for one another. They belong in each others world.

But modern woman is not interested in making a home for men anymore and men are not coming back until women learn some home-making skills.

So, sometimes I write as that foolish boy who Aspires, Percy, the younger man and the middle-aged man, who found it all and lost it all and struggles on, angry and tired, searching.

From the feedback, so many men are like this, out there. They ‘had it’ and ‘lost it’. They aspire, like Percy, and are wounded, like Amfortas.

Percy became a Warrior. His sword is part of his arm. He used it until he, too, was quite old. People – men – can identify with Percy as I do with them. He learned from life, living it poorly and ignorantly, as I have.

And sometimes I write as Old Amfortas, knowing what it is that I have charge over – that Insight and Consciousness and Morality. A glimpse of it at any rate.

I see it paraded before me, going to the even greater Man in the back rooms. Few have that. Very few.

I teach. People call me a Fool. They would do better to ask the questions.

Few do. Amfortas was so frustrated by his constant pain, from a wound that would not heal – until a ‘pure fool’ would come by to touch him and relieve him of it and the Grail – that he begged his Knights to kill him.

I know how he feels.

We have lost such a lot that grief is to be expected. For most men there has been a loss of Trust in society in general and women in particular. This provides a base level of pain upon which many different personal losses are caused and built.

For some men it is their children; others their careers; others their marriages. For some the devastation of their meager treasuries has been most painful. For most men, the loss of any sort of stable future is the major loss.

But from a ‘gender’ perspective, the Law has been THE major loss. It used to be equal for all but have been stolen by Feminists and Marxists. Along with the law has gone Truth, Justice, Equality, innocence until proven guilty, habeas corpus et al.

Our education Institutions are a wasteland. Workplaces have become mired in hysterical Women-only laws. Much of our Western Culture has been buggered with a hot poker.

There are things which we rely upon that we take little notice of – until it is missing or taken away. Solid ground; gravity; air. Who takes any notice of them. Our family legal systems are generally not the subject of discussion in the pub. S

ocietal fairness has all but disappeared but doesn’t get noticed when we are busy on an X-box or wiping babies bums or dealing with hot wires and cold cement at work.

To me, personally, the most painful loss is Trust in women. I have always loved women. I fell in love first when I was five, with an older woman. She was six. They were always strange beasts but one could usually find one that was trustworthy; one that you could love; one that you could forgive weaknesses and foibles in. One in whom you could explore difference.

But they have all but died out. Those women that one could, possibly, trust, nevertheless have a sawn-down shotgun in their handbags. It is hard and stupid to trust someone with such a weapon that she could use at any time and against you as the primary target.

There is an Industry of rent-seeking scum that convinces women to use that shot-gun. They are the only ones that gain. Men don’t; women don’t; our children don’t.

The Kingdom is mired in Corruption. Greed. And Power. I see Feminism as just one of many roads to perdition, and currently the most pressing for men and boys. It is also a curse on women although they do not realize it.

Our Western Civilisation is at phase-end and I doubt very much that we can do anything about it , but survive as Individuals with Integrity. Unfortunately Integrity is lacking in most people. It is something to gain quickly, early on and hold onto. It is the Parzival problem that I spoke of earlier.

So we as men, as MRAs should be seeking that Integrity, that Holy Grail. Along with it is Truth, Clarity, Understanding, Transcendance of our Human limitations. And freedom from corruption, greed and power urges that can only be achieved from a sound and pure base.

Can men and Women find a Common Place.

A truly masculine man is almost identical to a truly feminine woman in the issues that matter. They differ in behaviours and approaches to biological limitations and attributes that are determined by their bodies – and they fit together very well – but both have equal ability to reach mature adult status living in Truth, Reality and Integrity, as Fully Conscious human beings.

Mature adults are rare beasts though and life is a journey, hopefully toward becoming mature.

For ‘Authentic Masculinity’ to assert itself we would need to understand why the one-dimensional didn’t work at anytime in the past and stop doing it, and stop it doing so much damage in the future.

To do that a man must understand where his journey’s milestones are and where he is intending to go. He needs to know what he can expect as he stumbles forward as a masculine creature, incomplete, and what completeness is when he finds it.

We don’t teach our boys that.

He would have to realize at some stage that he has to integrate a lot more than unidimensional masculinity if he has any hope of gaining Integrity.

Fathers must ensure that the next generation of sons are masculine men who chart their own path but with fundamental Character traits in firm place.

Or Mentors must.

Teach him to seek, Truth and Reason, Emotional & Spiritual integration, Integrity, authenticity; above, and not just, personal ’honour’.

 In many ‘Men’s Rights’ circles, ‘honour’ is seen as being a man’s worth, instead of a tool, like a sword, that he uses to serve his King.

Parzival ‘took’ honour’ from another. That other man was an honourable man too. T

each him to ask the question “Who does the Grail serve’. Teach him to ask “What ails thee, Uncle”. Teach him to ask himself these questions and seek the answers in his life.

MGTOW has been a traditional men’s pathway. It is a well trod path. It has pitfalls.

Our daughters need to be taught to honour all that is best in people; men and women. Otherwise they will be bereft in turn. At present we are overlooking the pain that our daughters are suffering. It is masked by our own pain.

When the story was written, Wolfram’s society was struggling its way out of the dark ages and civil life was starting to bloom. It was actively seeking ‘Life’, Meaning. It was almost as if by simply acknowledging that the Soul needs special, divine food, the Grail, that it was enlivened enough to drag it from deep despondency.

But we are at an opposite juncture.

Having lost our morality our society has become de-coupled from life. It has crept up with a roar.

Two world wars; a fascist slaughering of innocents, east and west; a communistic slaughtering on a world-wide scale; several generations of Good, sound men removed from the gene pool; women moved from home to work, to replace men away – or dead.

The wars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw mass murder at an unprecedented scale. Men died in the hundreds of thousands. The millions.

Are we seeing women suiciding in sorrow?

The ‘miracle’ of the pill; the encouragement and advocacy of wide-spread abortion;

the wholesale destruction of family;

the abject failure to protect and nurture our children and the casting of our young people into drugs and promiscuity, crime, selfishness, ignorance and narcissism.

Is this not suicide?

At street level we live lives without the Authenticity of Love.

We abort babies.

We no longer ‘make love’; we ‘have sex’ with no intention or possibility of making children and when one ‘happens’ we kill it.

We have vasectomies; we tie tubes; we destroy potentiality and maim with hysterectomies; we have contraceptives.

A man and a woman, two human animals, do not permit themselves to authentically experience their natures. Or each other’s.

We meet, we ‘hook-up’, we ‘fuck’, but it is not authentic.

It is false.

We are busy creating a world of unfeeling faux-humans. We even look forward to machine people. Robots. Some MRAs wax lyrical about robots. I am astonished and dismayed.

Women, those who profess to lerve ‘nature’, orgasm on millions of plastic penises.

We are disrespecting anyone but our individual selves, falling down a hole of Hubris.

When a man and a woman ‘Love’ as in the act of Love, they ‘know’ if the other is ‘there’ or not. Fully there in all their humanity, warts and all. We Sense it.

We know when the one we are with isn’t real, Isn’t there.

Women are turning away from men. They sense the deficit of authenticity in so many men. They have been busy insisting that men change into something a whole lot less than men instead of more than men currently.

Men are turning away from women. There are hardly any adult women who love life to be found. We MRAs see – and talk incessantly about – our sensing of the inauthentic women. The hate-filled women. Women who are destroying all that was brilliant about women.

We sense the decline in Integrity; we see the lack of our own Integrity. We don’t want to see it though. We deny. We revel far too much in our power to deny life and deny the Integrity and authenticity of people as though it were smart.

We are ceasing even to love ourselves, preferring to have ’self-esteem’. An image. A fantasy that replaces the authentic.

We see the armour and not the man inside it.

Feminism is a bad dream; a nightmare result of our lack of authenticity. And we men, mostly, are inside the same nightmare. We must become Conscious, before we lose ourselves altogether.

Wake up. Our world, Humanity, is at a critical phase in the development of a fully human consciousness that has been in evolution for 5 million years. It is the phase-transition of human development at which we have arrived. Just as the old Greeks were at that other transition when man gained ‘Mind’ and needed ‘Heart’ too We, though, are failing.

The Fully human being may be still-born.

Or aborted.

We need to know Parzival’s life and journey because we are setting out into deep and dangerous human psychic landscapes just as he did with the same past-its-use-by date lessons.

We need to find Old Amfortas and the Holy Grail. We need to honour Parzival’s aspiration and cure the Wound of Amfortas, so that the whole man is integrated.

So that the Kingdom blooms again.

Otherwise, we face further decline, decay and doom.

This is amfortas.

Ask, Wo does the Grail Serve.

*see also 

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/10/the-ascent-of-men/

 http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/13/men-going-their-own-way/

“We need to stop this from happening,” they say. “Marriage is one man and one woman. God-almighty Hisself said so.” And then there is the obligatory, nauseatingly redundant, “We need to protect the sanctity of the institution.”

Excuse me? The sanctity of the institution?

It makes me wonder if they have a rehab for this type of thinking.

Modern marriage, in case these Einsteins haven’t noticed, has all the sanctity of a ten dollar hooker. Matrimony has devolved into just another throwaway institution in a throwaway culture and it wasn‘t homosexuals that got us here. Nor will it be them that drives the final nail in the coffin.

As usual, we are not facilitating any real understanding with sound bites from talking heads. “One man and one woman,” no more illuminates the problems of modern marriage than nonsense like “my body, my choice,” illuminates the issue of abortion.

Worse yet, as any men’s rights advocate knows, marriage hasn’t been “one man and one woman” for a long time. The reality of the times is that men marry the state they live in. The woman just comes with the deal for a few years. When it’s fini with the woman, things really heat up with the state, shearing the man of his assets and adding a new, bizarre dimension to “till death do us part.”

And allowing gays into this fiasco is going to hurt the institution?

I wish I could corner a couple of these pundits and make them answer some questions. Maybe Hannity, or the anorexic looking chick with stringy bleached hair.

The questions would be simple. Where were you? And what are you doing about it now?

When the feminists pushed for and got no fault divorce, and the divorce rate consequently hit the stratosphere creating legions of dysfunctional, fatherless children, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When feminist ideology spread like a malicious rumor though the media, academia, government and the culture, demonizing all things masculine and creating the fundamental rift between the sexes that plagues marriage to this day, where were you? What are you doing about it now?

When the family courts started taking Title IV-D money, turning benches into private fiefdoms, profit centers whose stock-in-trade became eviscerating the father-child bond, where were you? What are you doing about it now? And add to that another question. Do you even know what Title IV-D money is and how it makes it’s way from the federal government into family court coffers? Or would that take more information than you can squeeze in between Cialis commercials on Fox News?

Of course, the point is that we already know where these people were and where they are now. They’re in the place they have always been, crawling like roaches over every media news outlet that will call on them to say something profoundly meaningless about profoundly meaningless topics, in the name of plugging profoundly meaningless books.

These vultures want to protect the sanctity of marriage in the same way Courtney Love wants to protect chastity.

And those that caterwaul the loudest about the supposedly sinister prospect of gay marriage are the same ones that can’t stop wagging their tongues about the virtues of constitutional conservatism.

I’m fascinated by people that call themselves limited government conservatives, but sit by complacently like grinning, plastic bobble-heads, as long as the government is enforcing their religious and moral beliefs on the rest of the population.

News flash, that is not conservatism, it’s not even a cheap imitation. It’s theocracy. Ayatollah style. And it’s about as conducive to men’s rights as feminism.

I wouldn’t be bothered by this all that much if it were contained to media pinheads. I expect them to say a lot and understand little. It’s what they get rich doing.

But when I see MRA’s espousing this cause célèbre, it puts a spike in my “shoot-yourself-in-the-foot” detector.

Why, for the love of Pete, would men’s rights activists seek to protect the sanctity of an institution that is currently the most prolific source of oppressive discrimination against them?

But I see it all the time, from MRA’s, rather from patriarchs who think they are MRA’s.

Just as theocratic zealots shouldn’t confuse themselves with constitutional conservatives, patriarchs shouldn’t confuse themselves with MRA’s. In this writers opinion, our agendas are diametrically opposed.

Patriarchs want to return to the imagined days of chivalry and glory for men, when they were the heads of their homes and women did the dishes and pretty much anything else they were told. I’m sure it was a nice world for the control obsessive, but that toothpaste is out of the tube and is not going to be squeezed back in. And chivalry, in that it hinges on putting women first, has much more in common with feminism than it does with men’s rights.

MRA’s just want to escape the sexism and bias and treachery involved in marriage and every other institution that affects men. And that puts us, again in this writers opinion, in the ironic place of finishing what feminists started; an all out assault on marriage itself.

The feminists won this one. Game over. A shutout. What remains of marriage is not salvageable. It’s water that can’t be decontaminated; a cripple that can’t be healed. And the best thing to do is to put it out of its misery and start the whole shebang over from scratch. Hopefully that would be sometime after the culture has recovered from the damage of feminist doctrine and placed some sanity back on the table.

So if gay marriage erodes the sanctity of the institution, I say fine, let’s print them licenses by the truckload. I’ll spring for some rice.

There are plenty of real issues, the ones the pundits ignore, that need plenty of real attention. I won’t be bothered to invest in anything else, especially something that ultimately undermines men even more.

It was no doubt feminists that put marriage on life support. We should mourn that and look to the future for renewed hope that some day men and women will share life again with love and dignity. But today, MRA’s should do the decent thing with marriage and pull the plug.

Paul Elam is the editor of A Voice for Men.

Is it enough that a man and a woman be the comfort and purpose to one another? That is what many seem to want and what out modern civil world was supposed to be about before feminism.

Wasn’t it?

I continue looking at men and continue to update my podcast. We need to take a good look at ourselves if we are to survive, let alone prevail in the modern matriarchy that has been thrust upon us like 21C  orphans. Revisions and deeper thought are needed. I hope these essays help.

For a while it was Percy’s father’s path and we saw what happened there. His first comfort and purpose was Belcane, the foreign Princess, his Queen. He was a Man who adventured out, found his woman and married her. He had a Kingdom and treasure. But he was drawn away by Hertzeloyde, ultimately to her own sorrow.

Draw what modern conclusions you may from that.

Certainly some of the feedback from women has been that Gamhuret was a philanderer. He certainly was not a perfect man but neither was she, taking some other woman’s husband. We get a lot of that these days.

Are we meant to be perfect or is ‘Perfect Fool’ the best we can achieve?

That is what ‘Parzival’ means in the sub-text of his name. Only the fool who lacks sophistication (falseness) can access the Hoy Grail.

Pure. Authentic. It wasn’t Gamhuret’s destiny. It was his son, Parzival’s.

Young Percy, now a Knight, is sent out on the Quest to find the Holy Grail. It is at the Command of the King and so he goes, along with all the other Knights, of course.  They, like him, travel alone, independent, to all the corners of the world. Men, Going Their Own Way, but with a common Duty. They are United in a Brotherhood. It is the beginning of a Philosophy for him. A purpose in life.

It is Divinely ordered. Not much like today.

Maybe we are going backwards. We do not even give honour to the father let alone to the Father of us all.

The Grail he is searching for is the same one we search for; the Meaning and Power and Purpose of Life. It is the Light of the Spirit. It affords us Full Consciousness. It can cure all the ills of the world and restore the Kingdom. That is to be the Task of Men. Their task is to find it.

It is our task. But we become diverted by comfort. It is a journey into ourselves. A discovery of who we are as men. We have to seek out that treasure that lies deep within us. It is a bigger task than defeating Feminism or even Marxism, and defeating those can only be done by fully conscious men.

Finding and Losing.

Now here is where I come in.

On the first evening out on the Quest he meets his Uncle Amfortas, who he has never met before, and who is the Keeper of the Grail. He is the Old Man inside all of us who has the key to how to be a man. But he is  not a particularly good example. He had ‘failed’ in a life shaping task. A moral challenge.

Parzival had not a clue about this or anything else about Amfortas.

Amfortas is an old man, wise now, slow, careful, dignified, after a long career as a Knight and King, and he is severely wounded.

He has the Male Wound; the same wound all men have. Few men even recognise that they are wounded.

He is ambulatory, with difficulty, and rarely leaves his rooms except to go fishing. He had been ‘morallychallenged’  in mid-life, at the height of his pwers and had made an unwise choice. Interestingly, it has not held him back from greatness.

Many of us are not destined to be the Keeper of the Grail. It actually adds to his torment. He cannot partake of it.

At dinner that evening Percy sees the Grail paraded through the Hall. It can cure all ills. It is not for the throng in the great Hall and is taken past Amfortas to the room behind the old King’s throne.

It is for one Greater than him.

He also sees and takes benefit from the Cornucopia that can feed and sustain the World. Everyone feasts on it’s inexhaustible gifts;  Percy too. He almost forgets about the Grail.

All we have is the ‘gift’ that Men provide from their own meager resources. But were we to discover our real manhood, our deep humanity, we could restore the world.

But young Percy fails to ask two fundamental questions.

The first was about his Uncle’s obvious distress (remembering his mothers ‘politeness’ rules) and this is the first ‘fault’ that prevents the Grail passing into his possession. “What ails the Uncle” was all he needed to say. He didn’t though.

Men still do not ask other men the decent question, the compassionate question.

The second, which is what the vast majority of men and particularly for us, what MRAs fail to ask was “Who does the Grail serve”. It was vital.

Next day everything is gone.

As he leaves the empty Castle the drawbridge snaps shut, clipping his foot. How many young men shoot themselves in the foot with their own angry certainties and ignorance. So many young men have their attention captured by the ‘goods’ of the world and lose that brief sight of the real purpose of a man.

Our society is obsessed with ‘goods’; material goods which we consider as essential to our wel-being as food and drink. The young, particularly are seduced by them, away from a sound path of developing their own Authentic and far more vauable ‘Good’.

Young Percy has set out just the day before to find the Holy Grail. He caught a glimpse of it so quickly and just as quickly lost it. The Teenage Boy is right at that point where his spiritual nature suddenly lights him up, only to be drawn away by the ‘goods’ of the world.

We as MRAs while providing space for ourselves in small internet crevices, rarely ask the fundamental questions. We are only starting to make the space for understanding other men’s pain. It is our own. And we let the chance for a tremendous power to slip by leaving us bereft and confused.

 We still have not approached the question of  Who does the Grail serve. Is it just YOU?

Young Percy carried his Mother’s lessons with him into the world, discovered a manly purpose but was untutored in manliness. He was under the delusion that wearing armour, an outer shell, made him a man.

 What is worn on the outside is very different from the man inside. He needs a quite different sort of  clothing in there.

It may be that Hertzeloyde gave him what he really needed. Her silk shift. It was for the inner chap.

BTW. In answer to some feedback comments, very little is said about Amfortas by Wolfram. He is a rather sad figure and does not feature strongly in the tale. He is the current Keeper of the Grail and Parzival is destined to be the next.

Wagner, who was a composer, took a lot of liberties with the character. !!

A New Purpose – Finding the Men we Can Become.

Parzival spends the rest of his life trying to find the Castle again with it’s old man and its Holy Treaure. A long and arduous life, with its ups and downs, successes and failures, material gains and losses.

He discovers the three things that this post is all about and what we men need just as much as he did.  Our Emotion; Morality; And Character.

He is given some solace within a short time by another man.  A ‘mentor’. This one takes his time with the young fellow, teaching him manly skills and manly attitudes. He is patient and firm.

Many teen boys, even when they have fathers, distance themselves too early. A fortunate boy makes a friend of his dad as he comes of age. Throughout history young men have needed a mentor at this stage. Another man he can look up to; one who will give his time and wisdom.

Again, our society does not treat boys – or girls for that matter – at all well. Our feminised pseudo-empathetic and pseudo-’understanding’ world encourages childishness and drives children from their parents. ‘Mentors’ are far more likely to be precocious other children who have developed ’spiv’ characteristics early on. Our ‘Entertainment’ Industry is a seductive  paedophile Whore that holds out  sweeties.

As Parents and Adults we must defeat this multi-headed monster and reclaim our children.

But, let us go on. – Parzival meets many other men on his travels – and fights them.

Women’s rules.

Chivalry rules.

He defeats most, but instead of killing them, he sends them to serve his King. He has learned part of the Holy lesson from his Adult mentor, but he has to practice it. An understanding is starting to arise in him. Just as manhood did. He is starting to modify his mother’s rules; going against even the  conventional ‘men’s rules’ of the day as should befit his Station. He is starting to question his actions and learn what is the purpose of his manhood gifts.

Now, some people have asked me about this. I have had emails from confused folk. It is about this –what I called ‘intuitive’ idea – of defeating without killing.

Parzival becomes well known and loved, even revered, for not just ‘sparing’ his combat opponents, but restoring their dignity and honour. He has that ‘Moses’ quality that changes all around him as he ushers in a new era, a new ‘Law’.

He respects his ‘enemy du jour’. He ‘converts’. He doesn’t keep them as a private army – which he could – but sends them to serve a King far greater than himself.

As Men’s Rights Activists we often demonise our opponents. We hack them down instead of engaging them, overcoming them and turning them to Good purpose. I would say that there is a lesson for MRAs to learn from this.

I see MRAs such as Glenn Sacks get scorned for being patient and engaging women correspondents who oppose his views. And I see a ‘Triuwe’ Knight in him. He knows that there is much that is good and useful in most people. Even self-described feminist women. 

I see David Usher being scorned for trying hard to engage people who object to marriage; even amongst MRAs. He is an educator-knight. A fine mentor.

I see fine, strong women like Wendy MacElroy being dismissed and villified simply for having a mild sort of equality – feminism as a trade-mark. She converts more Feminists than you can sheke a stick at.

But onward. 

Parzival meets his half-brother, his Father’s and Belcane’s son – the piebald Fierefiz, the half-cast.; the man who is ‘different’. A man as Good and as Honourable as himself and carrying the same Father’s genes.

 He fights him. Of course.

We do that too.

All men are our brothers and we automatically fight them. Women’s rules. “Let’s you and him fight.

It is something we must stop doing. We must VALUE men. Even as we oppose them. Yes, we must overcome them, as reflected in their ideologies and perspectives. Yes we must play the cards that are dealt us and often in circumstances that are bloody and cruel. But we do not need to succumb to the circumstances.

How many men are Manginas, not because they want to support women’s rights, but to Lord it over other men and steal their armour. Their ‘High Moral Ground’ is just a hillock of quicksand they stand on.

Manginas play a main role in the women’s game of ‘Let’s you and him fight’. We can fight them. We have little choice. But how we fight is our choice. The purpose of the fight is in our purview.

But we must defeat them to recruit our fellow men and put them to good use. Serving the King.

How many women are really nice people who want to fulfil their potential but have been sold a pack of AgitProp? They speak in slogans because that is what they have been taught. Defeating them will take a lot of whacks from morn to dusk, but when their mendacities are defeated we must resore their dignity and honour.

We have recruited at least half of the women who come to men’s rights forums to see what we are about. The patient, older men do that work, even against the efforts of young farm-boys who rant in their anger and ignorance. Women and manginas come with challenges and mouth, but we use masculine power of argument and reason and facts, and we CAN overcome.

Many women fight just as well as many men – and on different battle-grounds – and far better than some.

Percy fails to defeat Fierefiz but they part as equals. It is an equality of failure to overcome their own hubris. We must do better. We must change the rules of game in order to win the Manhood prizes. We must play a different game with good men’s rules for different prizes, conscious of what effect we have.

Our consciousness of self is barely better than the old Greeks. We as men, must become more conscious, so that we greet our brother and ride alongside him, despite our mother’s baggage. We must settle our differences by respecting those which are beneficial to us all.

We are a disappointed male generation. Young Parzival suffered profound disappointment all of his life. He travelled widely but he struggled with a ‘native’ immorality largely inherited from women but constantly and deleteriously re-inforced by most of the men he encountered.

He progressively overcomes his own crude nature, refining a spiritual self that one day will change his world.

He tries hard to be a man and serve his King. It is his Duty. His Purpose. But he has to find his true self first.

He had started with ‘expectations’, but no internal moral ‘map’. He lived in a world in turmoil and decline, as we do, that had no maps. The human heart is the landscape he travelled through which was, and still is beset by war. It is the same war that goes on inside us all.

He journeyed painfully. As all men seem to do. And he rarely had another man to trust enough to teach him the right paths to travel.

Or a good woman, who rises above simple gender.

‘Good’, Integrity, Morality, Purpose, aren’t ‘gender-specific’ concepts.

They are transcendent.

I chose the word ‘disappointment’ for Percy deliberately. There is a moral judgement aspect to it but I meant it mostly as a feeling. It is an internal ‘warning’ expression we need to take note of.

That dissatisfaction and disappointment are as easily projected onto others as female guilt is projected onto men. We men MUST be careful to own our own feelings and not cast them onto others.

Simply ‘blaming’ women will not serve us well let alone serve a higher Purpose.

Blaming men happens a lot in our modern psychobabble era. We have broad shoulders but even camels crack with just one more straw. Men too.

It is all very well saying that I have expectations and therefore open myself to disappointment but that smacks too much of a pseudo-guru-speak to me. We all have expectations and most are perfectly reasonable.

If we ‘tweak’ them just a little.

I generally expect no more of others than I expect of myself, and most often a little less. I expect a little more, too, from people I look up to and those who claim a position that impacts upon me. That is a man’s way.

I get disappointed, as Parzival was, because I am an emotional being. All men are. We get angry and we love. It is our anger and our love. Men’s emotions are real, and an integral part of us. Not the ersatz ‘sentimentality’ so often seen in immature women.

Just look at the real sorrow of a firefighter who carries out a dead child from a building. It is genuine tears he sheds. Men’s tears from the heart. Look at the soldier who repels an attack and cuddles a bereft child on his knee. He cries with her.

Men do their job by controlling their emotions, deploying that emotional power usefully.

But we are encouraged, mainly by other, lesser, men to deny our emotions altogether. Be ‘Hard’.

Denying our emotions, a youthful MRA ‘mode’, is to cut off our sword-arm. It takes away a fundamental humanity which we need to gain the Grail.

Who does the Grail serve?

An emotionless man is a psychopath serving a darkness.

I am a man and I have emotions too. I laugh and cry; I can be affected by a sunset and a song. Men cry when their children are stolen by the family Courts. Our tears are not seen because we hide them. We feel the total waste of our life’s efforts when we are dispossessed.

We see men cry but only when we allow them to.

Women are emotional creatures and that we have to adapt to them is also a demand that women try to force us to wear – for their own purpose. It has to have a higher purpose. But for most women, casting that responsibility to adapt onto men only  allows women licence.

Of course we have to adapt to one another’s emotional states. Of course we have to recognise emotion. But it is neither a one way street   (how many times do you hear women talk about men’s emotions or try to adapt to them?)  nor is it the sole highway to happiness.

The issue is not the demanded adaptation by men that damages us but the use of emotion – by modern women – to blackmail, manipulate and coerce, instead of enliven one another or comfort another or empathise with another.

Men must not follow these “women’s rules’.

And men must not allow the downgrading of emotion by armoured Knights wielding swords and not wanting to cry at the futility.

Parzival learned the hard way. So many men today not only learn the hard way but get hacked to pieces by emotionally-driven forces unleashed upon them by feminist-controlled Institutions.

Men’s emotion can colour our world lively with exacting brush-strokes, finely discriminating shades of detail and a pallette of hue. But modern women – and quite a few men too – use emotion like Jackson Pollock used buckets of shit. It isn’t adult.

Too many men reject emotion altogether and don armour to hide within. MRAs must harness their emotion; train it, deploy it.

Who does the Grail serve?

We MRAs vent to one another but the public does not see our righteous anger. It does not see it as valid, because we don’t show it; and when we do we do not harness it and use it well.

 It is women’s rules are that men’s adult anger is not to be expressed. It HAS to be.

 I say ‘adult’. I have a model, fuzzy albeit, in my mind of what an adult is. Parzival only had his mother. Who are your models of ‘Adult’?

I ask a question here. If you were to give a teenage boy 10 men to model himself on, adult men, who would you choose?

What are the qualities you would want to show to a teen boy?

I expect people of a particular age to behave as adults. I expect them to guide children and contribute to society. I do not expect adults to act like children  -  although some child-like aspects can be endearing – and react strongly (with emotion as well) when adults are childish.

A Major aspect of adulthood which is a significant ‘missing in action’ factor is this issue of Morality.

It was an aspect in Percy’s life that he found only by being beaten near unto death and being cared for in the forest by an old Hermit. Another Old Man. A compassionate old man.

How many of our younger MRAs, raised through Institutionalised Feminism, listen to old men? Old men have healing power.

How many women have rejected their father, their own personal older man?

How many of our young MRAs, while ranting against feminism, accept feminism’s rejection of morality?

Is it wise to  ‘Go Your Own Way’ without a moral compass?

Over his life, Percy developed ‘Character’. Is it only through such hardships that we gain Character?

I haven’t found another way.  But by crikey, I would like to save so many young men the  unecessary pain and anguish.

Today people are lauded for ‘being characters’, like wise-guys and spivs and celebrities. I am making a judgement here. A moral judgment. I am told that I do that.

Feminists  and the majority of women tell me that I have no right to judge and morality is just a patriarchal means to oppress women.  Cant. Slogan-thinking. AgitProp. More women’s rules to hamper men.

Note how Feminists and Women in General are very, very quick to judge a man.

And far, far too many men say the same thing, but with a variety of other self-serving rationales.

Characterless people. Immoral spivs.

I – and you – have EVERY right to judge. It is a higher-order adult skill and ability and necessity.

You have a DUTY as an MRA to understand what morality is and abide by moral standards upon which Judgment depends. It is a significant part of an adults ‘journey’, a Man’s journey, to explore with morality like a navigator of old and through its substance, understand the world.

And we must judge ourselves if we are to develop ourselves. The total rejection of morality by society in general, led by this ‘adaptation’ to childish non-adult self-centred emotiveness based on pseudo-women’s demands, manipulations and coercions is the ground in which feminism and attendant/other evils grow.

It is laying waste to the souls of men.

By rejecting – even denying the existence of – morality, we give ourselves licence.

Who does the Grail Serve?

It is a ‘free-pass’ to make our own rules and damn the consequences.

MGTOW can only go so far before they run into reality.

We can become ‘characters’ instead of developing Character. Like Britney Spears with or without dicks. Non-ebrities.

It is the rejection of morality that plays men into the hands of feminism.

 Good people love freedom. Bad people love licence.

Morals produce Character. License destroys it.

These lessons are not ‘Women’s Rules’.

This is amfortas.

If you have been challenged reading this, good.  Think about it. Talk back.

Ask, Who Does the Grail Serve.

* see also 

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/08/10/the-ascent-of-men/

Conservative black American commentator has compared the injustice suffered by the Scottsboro Boys to the Duke Lacrosse players case. In the former instance, black men accused of raping white women were assumed guilty by much of the public despite scanty evidence of guilt and actual evidence to the contrary. In the second case, white men were assumed guilty by much of the public of raping a black despite a similar lack of evidence. Sowell sees both cases as reflecting racial perceptions of our different time periods.

As I researched the Scottsboro case, I became very emotionally wrenched by it, in part because of the sheer amount of suffering and waste of life that these false accusations – and the willingness of so many people to believe them – caused. The accused were mostly teenagers when the accusations were first hurled at them. These innocent men grew up in the purgatory of prison, their lives inevitably warped by the horrors they endured.

My story on this horror is up at http://www.crimemagazine.com/scottsboro_boys.htm
I would appreciate knowing what readers of this blog think of both the case itself and how I handled it.