I’ve been involved actively in men’s rights since 2002 when I commenced work on a video project which extended to seven years of work to complete. I’ve been an online presence since 2009 when I started this site and have been on Youtube since early 2010.
Why the historical notes? Because I’ve long meant to write something to serve as a preface to the original video series and to support and explain issues and criticisms arising from it. In other words, this is the article where I say why I do this and why I’ve taken the approach that I have. Additionally, it aims to more completely explain the objective than the about section, the about the project page, the youtube description and even the introductory video to the project which only touches on the philosophy behind the work.
This is a long article and so here is a contents page to help navigate. Feel free to skip to the Q & A for the gist of the article if you must, but the whole thing counts as my response to criticism and my own criticism of some of my critics. It’s like the Terms and Conditions of reading this site and watching the films.
The joys of criticism
I’ve come in for a significant amount of criticism and vitriol here and there because of both the documentary and the content of this site. Some of the criticism has been valid, however, most of it has been misplaced because it is so obviously the result of wilful misunderstanding.
The work has been mis-characterised and misrepresented sometimes due to genuine mistakes, but most often, due to deliberate smearing and/or an inability by many to look beyond the first thing that might cause offence.
The root cause of most of the problem here, is my chosen approach in the presentation of the issues of men’s rights. The language is sometimes harsh and the phraseology is sometimes abrasive. It is a strongly presented series of films and this site is the same. This approach stem from the simple fact that the films were never meant to be public in the way they are today. For some reason, I always conceived of the films as being shown to friends and interested people as part of a dialogue, like a normal conversation or debate. I would be there talking about what’s on screen with viewers, clearing up any missteps or misunderstandings along the way.
Instead, the films are public for anybody to see and draw their independent conclusions. But with films on this volatile subject matter, presented in this in-your-face fashion, that’s trouble with a capital T.
Don’t hate the MRA, hate the game
I find it astonishing that many women who watch these films manage to come away feeling offended by the way certain women are described or the manner in which certain salient truths are presented. They tend to take it personally. The responses from women have shown clear over-sensitivity to turns of phrase and the tendency to shoot the messenger before even hearing the message.
The films are about men. If you watch them and become offended, it can only be because you are ignoring what the film is about and are too wrapped up in yourself to see the topic for what it is. If you come away thinking: “You know, in that segment where you talked about the men who committed suicide due to being falsely accused of rape, I was really offended by the way you described the women”, you need to seriously refocus your thinking.
If you want to be offended by these films you certainly will be. If you look for something to upset you, you’ll find it. But what you should be doing is looking at the topic.
If you keep in mind the subject matter of the film, and keep in mind that the film is not about you, then you might understand the purpose of it and both free yourself from needless upset, and free me from your misplaced vitriol: a win-win for me and you! Surely a no-brainer, right?
But alas, no. Generally, women watch, get offended in the first 60 seconds and classify it as ‘hateful’. Sigh.
These films need to be watched with an open mind. Several films need to be watched to even begin to understand the scope of the work. A woman wouldn’t read three pages of Pride and Prejudice for example, and believe she had the measure of the book and could deliver a worthwhile review. Yet that’s exactly what women have a tendency to do with these films.
Men are less sensitive about these things, because their sense of their own psychology is less well developed. Men can watch material demonising them all day long and not react (they watch television after all), but women are far more sensitive to any negativity – real or imagined – and it shows. It’s a deeply selfish phenomenon and I encounter it enough that I now ignore it and accept it as part of the female-condition, which is as prevalent as it’s male equivalent.
As an example, I had one piece of work contact me about the very last sentence of the film on rape. Now this is a 45 minute film and the woman said she was positive about all of it… except the last sentence. She then characterised the whole film as being hateful towards women despite it focusing overwhelmingly on issues to do with men. Now, yes, I suppose that you could watch 45 minutes of a documentary and then take the entirely wrong message from it based on the final few words… but only if you’re an idiot.
If people want to assume the worst about my motives, I can’t stop them. If they want to pretend to themselves that these films are about disparaging women, they can certainly support their misconceptions by wilfully misinterpreting the work. But when they do, it’s time for them to question their own motives.
Within this site and more importantly, within the documentary, I ask that people stack presentation against content. Use your brain. Don’t make the political personal. Take from them what is of value and ignore the rest.
What could lead a person to watch a film about some topic concerning the poor treatment of men and take from it only the perception of what the film says about women?
It’s the sort who have no regard for men or the male experience whatsoever.
For example, I focus on men being killed and injured disproportionately in the military and in the police due to being exposed to more danger and yet receiving the same pay as women who are protected from danger. And the result? Women get offended about the portrayal of women.
The issue – the deaths of men – is irrelevant to this sort. How she feels that women are portrayed is all that matters to her. What she takes from the film is a bad taste in her mouth and the feeling that this film hates women or the filmmaker hates women. The dead men the film focuses on is as nothing to her in the face of her hurt feelings. The lady thinks I’m offensive.
Well, I find women like that offensive. Women so wholly wrapped up in themselves that they are completely incapable of understanding the message because they are too busy getting upset that I was disparaging about certain women here, or did not give women sufficient praise there. It beggars belief that women can do this and not see that whilst they mud-sling and claim that hate lies within the films or this site, they utterly fail to see that this lives only within their own imaginations. The real hate (or at least failure to see the real hate that is under discussion – misandry) lies within them.
The ALL police
If you think I mean all women when I say something, you have to ask yourself if I’m the idiot for implying all women, or if you’re the idiot for thinking I could possibly mean all women.
For example, if I was to say that men are taller than women, what can this mean? Is it possible that this means that all men are taller than all women? Obviously not. I expect people to use their common sense to realise this. You know that I can only mean most men. Even a four-year-old would know that I meant most men.
So why would anyone make the claim that I was saying that all men are taller than all women? Because they choose to see it that way, that’s why.
Similarly, if I say (in context of false allegations of rape) that: we live in the age of the toxic female, what can this mean? Is it sensible to interpret this as all women are toxic? No. The only people who could take it that way are people who want to take the wrong message for their own reasons. They would let the men-are-taller assertion go because they know full well how to interpret it; but they choose not to interpret the toxic female remark in the same way because they are hateful and want to ascribe hatred to me
In the conclusion to the education films – I end by saying that well educated girls will do fine in life and achievement, but that well educated boys might change the world.
Is that disparaging of females? No, it’s reality. The next Google, the next leap in energy technology, the next [insert major scientific achievement here] will be made by men. It’s simply the way it is and the reasons for it are well understood both here and in the science of biology.
We can pretend it’s not true and that a future Susan is just as likely to change the world as a future John, but that would be equivalent to pretending to ourselves that the winner of the coming 2012 Olympic men’s 100m final is just as likely to be a white man as a black man. It could happen, I suppose, and if it does, so what?
But if it comes down to a bet, I know where I’d put my money. And I might actually be disparaging about a white sprinter’s chances. But does this mean that I hate white people? Do I have issues with white sprinters?
In Rape I say that we are living in the age of the toxic female.
Does this mean that all women are toxic? No, it applies to the women under discussion and also to the ease with which any woman can falsely accuse a man. What it says is that in our society, women are encouraged and enabled to be toxic. In the areas of divorce, DV, false rape, sexual harassment and false child abuse allegations, some women take to that encouragement very well.
In Feminism, I say that women are stupid.
This is a contextual assertion that only applies to the specific women under discussion – Feminist women. Let’s go through the boring pre-school level thinking process again, for those folk who wish to claim that I am hateful for saying something like that.
Are all women stupid? No.
Is it even possible for all women to be stupid? No.
Therefore, can that expression apply to all women? No, it can’t.
It is impossible for it to apply to all women, so why ascribe such meaning to those words? And right there, you nail their own prejudices and hateful thinking to the wall.
They would rather believe the impossible rather than extend me the same understanding as they would when discussing anything else. They would rather pick and choose when to take me literally and when to engage their brains just so that they could feel righteously offended or say that I am offensive.
These same women that feel so offended at my work, will happily leaf through hateful article, after hateful article, after hateful article about men, have a laugh about men getting their penises chopped off or being treated like dogs, gloat about boys under-performance when exam results come around, excuse a woman when she is a rapist because she’s a woman, and then smile when men are blamed for the financial crisis. All of that is fine with her. She won’t be making accusations. She won’t be sending any emails in complaint. She won’t cite ‘hate speech’. She won’t react at all.
But how dare I speak disparagingly of any woman ever! That’s hate speech, right?
Q & A
Do you hate women?
Normally, I wouldn’t respond to such a ridiculous question. I mean, would you respond to a question like: Do you hate air? Do you hate the ground? For me, this type of irrational question is mystifying. I mean what kind of malicious idiot would even pose such a question?
However, since I’m the one posing the question on this occasion, I suppose I should answer.
I don’t actually hate anything or anyone except maybe Feminism and possibly traffic wardens. But that’s where it ends. Nothing I’ve done could even suggest hatred of women except in the minds of those predisposed to hatred themselves. People seem very intent on finding what they’re looking for in the films and on this site. And they find it even though it isn’t there.
That said, of course I’m aware of how the use of certain language and broad terms can be misinterpreted even by the fair-minded, but I maintain that in the context of the films and this site, it is abundantly clear that my issue is with Feminism and its adherents, not whole populations and entire sexes.
Good grief, surely this is obvious?
Alright, so you say you don’t hate women, but you clearly have issues with them.
Hold your horses there, Tex. I have issues with women? Once again, this is 99 parts invention to 1 part evidence.
In a way, yes I do have issues with women, the same as I have issues with men, with government, with the media, with charities and perhaps with other entities. But in reality, these issues boil down to a single central problem that runs through all of the rest. It’s about Feminism and Feminist governance. It’s about misandry and male-disposability. It’s about an ideology that is literally killing men and blighting the lives of those men who have the temerity to live and breath. Yes, it is that serious and I have laid out the evidence to prove it and have more on the way.
It’s not directly or only about women, and I don’t advocate or support arguments that it’s a battle of the sexes, or women are the enemy or any unsupportable tripe like that. The actions of most women – the primary and most avid adopters of Feminism – are certainly a part of the problem, but in reality, men are as much of a problem as women. I do have issues with the ideology of Feminism and the various institutions it infects. I don’t have issues with women in and of themselves any more than I have issues with the air I breathe.
But you say that women are toxic! You say it right here on this site!
It is not possible that the behaviour of all women can fall into the descriptions of the toxic women I identify and so it is therefore not possible that I can be referring to all women. To assert that I am saying that all women are toxic is to assert that I am stupid, ignorant, hateful or all three. And I am none of those things.
If I’m breathing air and the air is poisonous, then I say “the air is poisonous”. Of course not every molecule I breathe in contains the substance that is poisonous, but not even a mindless pedant would say: “some of the air I’m breathing is poisonous, not all of it mind, perhaps not even most, just sufficient an amount that the result of breathing it is poisonous to me”. This is fairly obvious. What is also obvious is that the more toxic the substance, the less of it you need in the air around you to make all of the air poisonous.
The women who are toxic create a toxic environment for everyone.
Do you think that women are less than men?
No, I don’t think that women are less than men. That’s idiotic. It’s like saying your upper arm is worth less than your forearm. Men and women complement one another and measures of absolute worth between them are not logical.
You can say that men do certain things better than women and in fact there is a great preponderance of things that men do better than women; but that is not the same as saying that men are worth more except in the strict ability you’re talking about. For example, a man will generally be worth more to an employer in many jobs (most jobs in fact), due to a combination of things discussed at length in the pay gap. But worth in a job does not have any bearing on absolute worth as a human being. It’s only in the malicious minds of idiots and ideologues that anything else could be the case and I reject any such nasty and baseless assertions.
Do you think that women should get back in the kitchen?
Asked and answered. In brief, no, that’s ridiculous and unsupportable. Plus, that’s bad for men and things are already bad enough for them as it is.
Do you want a return to traditional roles?
Why are you so disparaging about women?
Remember, these films are not about women. What’s really going on is acknowledgement of men.
I have highlighted the accomplishments of men relative to women in certain areas of endeavour and discussed the differences in male and female abilities at length. The question is, does this mean I’m being needlessly harsh to women?
There are a hundred-and-one ways I could have approached this business and I chose angles of attack that are bound to cause upset in some people and may even lead some to question my motives.
The reason I chose to put things in the way I have can probably be traced back to the inception of the project. I remember the moment I decided to actively do something about misandry. It was when I became so incensed at the volume of lies about men in a documentary on domestic violence (DV) on Channel 4, that it put me off my dinner.
In the show, men were little more than caricatures of human beings. They were abuser objects and nasty pieces of work that were held to be representative of most men. It was also asserted that any man could be violent to their loved ones like this. Now there’s the real hate speech, broadcast to millions, that people might dare to accuse me of. But it wouldn’t occur to them to even notice it because the targets are men and it’s on national TV. So that makes it OK, right?
On commencing full research into DV and the larger scope of misandry, a pattern emerged that put men down on every occasion and boosted women on every occasion. This came from everywhere and was highly consistent. Men were pitted against women in every field and every area you could imagine; from cooking, to working, to driving, to dress sense, to eating habits, to hygiene, to even waking up in the morning. Women were brilliant and men were losers.
But my research led me to completely different conclusions. Men were not worse than women at x, y and z. They were not losers, nor were they obsolete, dying out, useless, criminals and less intelligent than women.
The reality is that men have never wished to be pitted head-to-head with women and be in competition with them. It makes no sense and is an artificial state of being. It is a small subset of women that have created this rivalry, aided and abetted by a small group of men, but with the eager support of a multitude of enthusiastic women and an equal multitude of bemused men.
The fact is that when men are artificially put in competition against women, men win virtually every time. There’s is no other way it could be and so what happens is that the results are fudged and skewed and ignored and misrepresented to present the false image of female superiority. In the work place, on the sports field, on the stage, in words, pictures, art or science, in music in philosophy in the creative fields – in virtually all areas of working life where men and women can be measured against one another, men come out on top.
But here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.
The issue – the real issue – is that this simply doesn’t matter. Or at least it shouldn’t. Men and women were never meant to be in competition with each other. The results when they do compete are meaningless and disruptive except to people who seem to have no idea of how the human race got where it is today. People who have no real idea of men and women and what they want from each other and so choose to impose a hate-riven ideology instead. People who, unfortunately, are in great control of all of our lives.
The films and this site are focused on tackling misandry. Any disparagement of some or all women is not the purpose or even a significant part of the work. Women do come in for some criticism and the truth is not dressed up or softened for the sake of women’s sensibilities. The films are about men and for men, and they tell the truth. The real truth. Not the politically correct truth. Not the Oprah truth. Not the BBC truth. Not the advertisers’ truth. Not the manufactured truth. Not the invented truth.
If you watch them as a woman, and if you read this site as a woman, don’t be so shocked that it’s not the usual BBC fare telling you that women can do anything men can do. And do it better. And do it in heels.
You have an entire article here on Toxic women. Only a man who seriously hates women could write something like that!
Oh really? It so happens that the toxic women article is the second most read post on this site, behind one on false allegations. The reason it’s so often landed on is that it presents a stark viewpoint on the issues with women who are toxic in the general population, but who are never regarded or described as such.
Once again, it’s a matter of approach and I took a very hard line with the presentation of certain real-world issues. It is a partly satirical and deliberately extreme view of genuine problems with the behaviour of a great many women in our society. Ask a man who’s been through divorce; ask a father who’s ex-wife prevents him seeing his children; ask an employer sued for spurious sexual harassment; ask a man who finds out 10 years down the road that his kid isn’t actually his; ask a man who’s girlfriend ‘accidentally’ gets pregnant; ask a man falsely accused of domestic violence; ask men who have spent time in prison because they had consensual sex with a woman who then decided to cry rape.
However, to be absolutely clear, and much to the disappointment of those malicious individuals who think that the article refers to all women, it does not.
You are married, so why do you speak out against marriage? Are you a hypocrite?
Asked and answered. Marriage suits me because my wife and I are unusual cats. But marriage in general is dead and women killed it, encouraged by Feminists of course. Every woman that smiles as she nails her ex-husbands ass to the wall on divorce and thinks she’s won something wouldn’t smile so broadly if she could see the target she has allowed to be drawn on her own ass.
Any woman who embraces the legal system against her erstwhile husband and thinks the system is her ally, is sadly deluded and can’t see how she weakens herself and the future of her children. The government is no friend or ally to anyone except itself. Men instinctively know this, women instinctively don’t.
You say that women are stupid? How is that not misogynistic?
Once again, I’m talking about some women. Certain women. The women at issue. The women I’m talking about. How many different ways can I put it when it’s so obvious in the context of the film anyway?
The women I’m talking about are Feminist women. Any woman who calls herself a Feminist and/or supports Feminism I regard as a stupid woman. This is irrespective of any kind of qualification like equalist Feminist, equity Feminist, orphan-loving Feminist, not-like-those-other-Feminists Feminist etc. This is not misogyny, it’s merely an appropriate description. Incidentally, the same applies to male Feminists of course.
How do you feel about being thought of or labelled as a misogynist?
Intellectually, I know it isn’t true and that most sensible people will know it’s not true and I can dismiss such accusations.
However, on the other hand, it is still a horrible smear and a label that it completely misplaced, completely unwarranted and completely unfair.
So, in response to the online accusations I might come across, I reject them utterly. They are the empty allegations of the simple-minded bigot and I have to let these go and just ignore them.
However, in response to any such accusation in my personal life, I don’t see any way that I could accept it in the same way. There is no ignoring it and no brushing it off.
For anyone who knows me to dare to call me such a thing, or to treat me as a hateful person, is a person I regard as beneath contempt. For me, who has spent years crafting and presenting my thoughts in a very complex area of human relations, it would count as one of the worst insults I can conceive of. It could only be the result of an ignorant, knee-jerk mentality and I don’t need people like that around me.
Anyone that came at me with this would be treated like the piece of work they are. I would reject any such accusation and would have to reject them as well, regardless of consequences.
Will you be producing more of the same in future?
Yes and no. Future work will be markedly different because I am a different person to the one of several years ago and my understanding of the issues has changed. The Truth, Lies and the War on Men project has served a purpose in the current time. Future work, however, will probably be quite different.
A rude awakening
To sum up, in our society, women are wholly unfamiliar with being described in anything other than glowing terms. At the same time women are also unfamiliar with men being described in anything other than negative terms.
Elsewhere, men are rapists and abusers and paedophiles and controlling and harassers and stalkers and all round mean individuals. In contrast women are great, women are strong, women are wise, women are special and women are oppressed. When women do wrong it’s probably the fault of a man. If they kill a man he deserved it. If they murder their babies, she’s a wonderful mother with a tragic psychological problem. Hell, women are so virtuous, even when they are convicted criminals we don’t think they should go to prison.
So, I can fully sympathise with the adverse reactions of women coming to these films and this site and encountering genuine descriptions of male and female behaviour: it’s a form of culture shock.
These Cosmo chicks swim in mainstream media sycophancy towards women and the wholesale demonization of men. Yet here, men are the builders, the architects, the engineers, the scientists, the street sweepers, the electricians, the sportsmen and the writers and so I do understand how all this may be too much to compute.
Positivity about men which they probably haven’t encountered before + negativity about women where deserved, which they most definitely haven’t encountered before = shock, anger and denial.
To you I say, ask yourself why you find the material so uncomfortable. Ask yourself why you feel it is hateful or unfair towards women,and perhaps even toward you.
Now imagine this discomfort or anger you feel, due to one youtube channel and one website (that is but a blip in the world) multiplied by a million. Imagine it wasn’t just one or two or a dozen websites that spoke negatively about women where deserved, but literally millions of sites speaking negatively, even when not deserved. And this same hatred played out in the media, in Hollywood films, from the president and prime ministers of nations, from charities, from businesses, from the UN and from the school system in which you were educated.
That’s what it is to be male under Feminist governance, yet you expect me to give you the time of day because your feelings are hurt by the language used in my films?
Why I do this
What led me to commence this work which has taken so much time and effort to produce? What motivates me to continue with more and better work going forwards? Where does the energy come from when there is so much else in life to be getting on with?
I do it because there is little else that I regard as more important to me, my son, and my family. I know what lies in store for my boy in our institutions and I’m thankful that my knowledge means that I can hopefully spare him the worst of it. When he’s treated to government presentations that demonise him, or made to walk a mile in her shoes, or made to pledge he will do his best not to follow his bestial male nature and rape women, when even as a 5 year old boy, the school system – which has little interest in his education anyway – will try and convince him he’s a born abuser etc, etc
When these things occur as they will in some form or other, I will do what I can to ameliorate it and explain why it’s happening. I will try my best to help him understand why so many women (and some men) collude in it, rationalise it and excuse it and even attack me for having the temerity to point it out and not just suck it up.
I’m trying to find a way forward for me and mine, just as every man tries to do.
As a side note, it so happens that Paul Elam at a voice for men has written a similar article regarding the issue of meritless attacks against MRA’s and the chosen tactics of the MRM.