Breaking Bad: The Male as Designated Criminal

In her 1989 book, Defining Rape, feminist author Linda Brookover Bourque argued for a shift in the burden of proof in rape cases to the defense, which would entail that the defense establish, with a preponderance of evidence, that it was most likely that a woman alleging rape against her gave clear assent to engage in sex. This argument is made on page 178 of her book.

This is not an argument in favor of men obtaining consent before having sex. No, she means to alter the principal of western jurisprudence in which the accused is innocent until proven guilty through evidentiary proceedings. Bourque proposes a new, improved system in which for accusations of rape, guilt is assumed by the court, and the accused must present overwhelming evidence of innocence.

Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly by unanimity, describes the principle of presumption of innocence as follows:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a public trial at which he/or she has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.

In Western law, it has always been the case that the burden of proof rests on the party who advances a proposition affirmatively.

In the brave new world of radical feminist jurisprudence, for men, the obligation in the face of accusation would rest on the accused, and the presumption would be of guilt.

We call our system of laws, courts and police “the justice system”. And it’s likely that we will call it this for the foreseeable future, but the principle of justice is arguably no longer the foundational philosophy of our justice system. Through a 40 year campaign of lobbying, misinformation, activist education, and biased journalism; the construct we call the justice system is changing into a tool of privilege and control.

Susan Caringella, a sociology professor at Western Michigan University, wrote in her 2008 book Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice:

“It is high time to give victims a fair shake, to dismantle the zealous over-protections for men accused of this crime, which have been buoyed up by the myths about false accusations, ulterior motives, and so on, commonly embraced when rape charges are levied.”

Caringella commits the formal logical fallacy of the unstated major premise, or “begging the question” when she mentions zealous over-protections for men accused of the crime of rape. No such protections exist, in fact, men accused of the crime of rape are routinely named, prior to any legal or evidentiary proceedings, or trial, while women making accusations as presumptive victims are protected and held legally anonymous.

Similar to Linda Bourque, Caringella is arguing is for the dismantling of due process and the establishment in legal principle of guilt by accusation for men.

Radical feminist Jessica Valenti recently threw her considerable influence behind this grotesque idea in an article the Washington Post published on Dec 12 2010 called “What the Assange case says about rape in America.”

Valenti suggests that America should model its rape laws on Sweden’s where activists and legal experts want to change the law, so that the burden of proof is on the accused. In fact, although Valenti’s position advocates a monstrous perversion of the concept of justice, she should be thanked for bringing a decades old thread of feminist legal activism into the public light.

While presumptive guilt in accusations of male-on-female rape is wrestled over by activists and lawmakers, another point is missed, and that’s the point that the construct within western society of the rule of law based in the principle of justice is no longer operative in reality. The rule of law still operates of course, but it has become the rule of private law, where criminal and civil laws are applied differentially depending on social class.

In the past 2 years we’ve watched as bankers who made fraudulent, irresponsible loans, and lost, were paid off with a 7 billion dollar bail out, and the burden for paying that debt transferred onto the public. This is private law for the very rich, in which responsibility and risk for the gambling of bankers is transferred to middle class Americans. The very rich have always enjoyed privilege – which actually means “private law” – but another privileged group – women, is asserting a much more powerful hold on legal and social advantage, at the expense of men in our society.

This is expressed in laws like title IX and the violence against women act, in spite of the reality that men are far more likely to be victims of violence. And, soon may be expressed in the legal principle of guilt by accusation. This is the ultimate trump card of feminist utopia, or as I once called it, the lightning-bolt-finger of feminism.

We are not poised as a society to move into a world of male non person-hood, or subjugation. We’re there already; the only question now is a matter of degree.

In the past, I’ve discussed the need to recognize chivalry as a system of social control, attaching social position to the degree of conformity to male service to females. I stated that individual self actualization for men requires the rejection of the concept of chivalry.

I also suggested that the concept of heroism be recognized as one based in the subjugation of personal actualization in favor of the other or of the collective. That the label, hero; is a blind for personal slavery.

The ongoing transformation of the legal system from one based on justice to a system of control of one class of people by another suggests something deeper to men in their self identity and concept of what it means to be ethical. When the law ceases to be an of justice, and becomes one of increasing apartheid, an ethical mandate for self ownership by individuals must embrace the self identification of outlaw.

While it would be easy to stumble into the trap of cynicism and embrace a self serving philosophy that “what’s good is that which is good for me,” I’m going to step carefully around that soft ground, as well as advising other men struggling to define themselves outside the untenable masculine role mainstream society allows – do the same.

What I’m suggesting, or contemplating is a more difficult path than a simple philosophy of self interest. Through most of my lifetime, while there have been laws I disagreed with or thought foolish, I still viewed the larger framework of the law as a pretty good reference point for ethical conduct, for myself as well as others.

Increasingly, with laws that not only criminalize masculine identity, but seek to characterize normal, healthy human behavior as pathological, the law loses its legitimacy as a metric of the normal, the moral, or the ethical. It is not simply a handful of laws which trample on a sane conception of human rights; it is the system of law, perverted into the tool of a hate fuelled ideology which in the philosophy I contemplate, becomes anathema to continued self identity as “an ethical human being”.

This poses a problem, or at least, from this contemplative vantage, it appears to. Without a social baseline which can be trusted, the law being no longer adequate, it may be significantly challenging to judge the rightness of a course of action or decision. Humans, being social animals are influenced very strongly by social pressure, and I don’t need predictive powers to say that censure and condemnation from the cool aid drinking majority will follow the actions of men deciding for themselves to flout socially expected models of masculine behavior. Not just socially expected, but with the shifting of the legal system from one of justice to one of control based on sexual identity, ethical self determination must stray increasingly into a newly defined criminality.

I’m aware that opponents of men’s rights will jump on this and claim I’m endorsing criminal behavior such as rape, and if any hearing or reading this should attempt such characterization, it’s with my blessing. I like it when my opponents tell absurd lies, because it makes knocking the legs out of their arguments so simple.

No, the problem I mentioned a few minutes ago is that in a climate of reactionary criticism, finding a reliable path to ethical self interest may be a substantial challenge. On the other hand, newly forged paths are hardest the first time they’re walked, and may appear much more daunting at the outset than they prove to be in the traveling. I am not afraid of the identity of outlaw.

Now, it’s also easy in contemplating this philosophy to opt entirely out; to go ghost.

There’s a major subset of the men’s rights movement characterized by the phrase Men Going Their Own Way, and for some, this means severance from a major fraction of civil society. While I don’t condemn that option, it is not what I am discussing here. My current and continued identity one that includes a strong and participatory role in the community of my friends, colleagues, associates and so on. I abrade the social conventions which I find objectionable actively and directly, and not by my absence.

Opponents to male rights, like Valenti, have already demonstrated a desire to redefine the most basic act of procreation as abhorrent. To take a physical act which for centuries has an expression of love, and call it an act of violence.

Characterizing Valenti’s intent as perverse is inadequate, but my vocabulary fails to mount the enormity of it.

In England, where radical feminism is a bit farther along than the United States, a man who walks away from a woman in the midst of an argument is characterized as having committed assault on her, by his act of walking away. In France, criticism by a man of his wife is treated under French law as battery. In Scotland, flirting without explicitly obtained consent is a crime. Is anybody confused as to who that law will be selectively enforced against?

As the normal is increasingly redefined as the abnormal and masculine biology and identity named pathological by ideological feminism, to remain a man, right in the centerof activity, rather than a fawning yes-mouthing house pet will carry the stigma, and the legal stamp of outlaw. Not outlaw in the cute, commercialized wrapping of the Hollywood bad boy, no, I mean the old definition. An enemy of the state. Certainly an enemy of the status quo. The ethical, self determined individual is, of course always the enemy of the state – and of any collectivist ideology.

One question which springs to mind is, will feminist ideologues shaping the retooling of western law flinch at the subjugation of their brothers, fathers, and sons? I suspect the answer is no. But do feminist scholars and law makers recognize the consequences of rendering a social class who have traditionally been problem solvers, inventors, philosophers and shapers of their surroundings into legislated criminals by identity?

To that I suspect the answer is also: no.

  • Attila L. Vinczer

    Excellent piece as always, but regrettably Paul, when it comes to rape allegations, regardless of what the law states, regardless of what our rules of procedure is, regardless of what any UN declaration states or what presumption of innocence we are deemed as a right to have based on given declarations, Charter of Rights an so on, a male IS considered GUILTY by the mere word of a woman! That is the gross egregiousness of that notion of rape when uttered by a woman!

    “We call our system of laws, courts and police “the justice system”.” Sorry, this is wrong. We have a “legal system” for there is nothing just within in it when it comes to Family Law, Criminal Law that prejudices one based on sex, namely men! In my view we have been on the very slippery slope of injustice towards men in all facets having feminists and radical feminists to thank by their unscrupulous wants and needs to destroy men and make them seem to be horrible animals to be detested, ridiculed and punished simply because they are men! Society is infested with feminists ideology of greed and a perpetual zeal for control regardless of the carnage they leave in their wake! Why do we tolerate this? I detest it as do a growing number of others! But we are supposed to do it quietly so as to not offend anyone? Bull!!! It is time to be fully vocal about these travesties!

    Allow me to elaborate in a bit of a lengthy but useful comprehensive manner reflecting on Canadian Law which encompasses Common Law amongst Commonwealth Nations. There are differences, but with an abundance of parallels and similarities with American Laws and concepts that we share.

    I am currently deeply involved in a case where a man was wrongly charged and wrongly convicted in September of 2010 and is before the courts to be sentenced to prison for very serious sexual allegations brought against him by his own disgruntled daughter. The charges carry a maximum term of 44 years behind bars.

    I met with this man’s lawyer and it boggled my mind when he said, “It is NOT my job to prove anything!” when I questioned the flaws of his defense at trial. (I was not involved then and my help unfortunately was sought after conviction.) That comment blew my mind for in my view a defense lawyer’s job is to prove the innocents of the client and not to allow that to happen by default of the Crown Attorney’s inability to prove guilt! That to me is suicide. As it turns out the daughter called her dad moments after he returned from court, bawling and apologizing to her dad for lying in court! Can you imagine? I strongly advocate that if you are a male, you MUST tape record at all times, especially if you are before the courts!!! Had he taped this, he would be free of the hell he is trapped in now! Fortunately I managed to get the law office of Mr. James Lackyer to take on this case who will perfect the appeal and in time set this innocent man free.

    Here is a link on FB hailing for public support within this travesty and miscarriage of justice. Then here are a couple of links one about a Fifth Estate Documentary of a series of Canadians wrongly convicted of crimes they never committed and the last an interview we did at Canada Court Watch with Williams Mullins-Johnson a few months before the Government of Ontario awarded him $4.25 million in compensation for wrongly incarcerating him for 12.5 years!

    Allow me to give you a first hand accounting and sense within a Rape proceeding in a courtroom. On December 8, 2010, I attended court with this wrongly convicted man and was appalled at what I saw! I witnessed the alleged 25 year old victim, the arresting police woman, the female counselor, the ex wife and her boyfriend were all giggling, smiling being fully smug as they waited to see this innocent man being sentenced and taken to prison. I think a real rape victim would be in tears and not displaying emotions which are more consistent with vindictiveness with malicious intent to harm someone! As it turns out, we managed to keep him out of jail on a technicality for they violated his rights by not affording him those rights he enjoys being a Native Indian. So the sentencing has been put off tentatively to January 6, 2011 pending an Aboriginal investigation to establish his Aboriginal Status. I am bound by a publication ban so I am not allowed to give specific details of this case that would expose the alleged victim or witnesses. This is another benefit false accusers enjoy, anonymity!

    Here is my take on the subject matter.

    Anyone that is caught bringing false criminal allegations against another, MUST be held fully accountable and MUST be charged and tried to the full extent of the law! It is the only way to send a stern message to those who might consider this heinous act to think twice and recant such a wanton disregard against another and a blatant disregard for justice and peace amongst us within our communities!

    How do we correct these errors when the system gets it wrong? We should be proactive and NOT reactive in our measures, but we have it backward, don’t we?

    So this is some of what we have come up with when we are caught making errors in prosecution. We give the wrongly convicted monetary compensation right? What if they were executed? Do we have the power to give back life as we took it? The answer is patently a big NO! I am a bit confused how one can equate being made to live in prison for decades to giving them cash as a way of saying we are sorry and everything is back to normal? Personally, give me back my time! Thank you!. But wait! That request IS an impossibility.

    Give me back my liberty robbed for eternity. Unfortunately THAT can NEVER be corrected! That is why it is crucial that fellow citizens are treated with the utmost care when it comes to criminality. This care MUST start from the police officer who takes the statement from the victim or who collects the evidence from the scene of a crime. That care must flow to the Staff Sargent who has input, the Crown Attorney who reviews information and the so called professionals who attribute to analyzing the evidence which is then presented in court. Everyone MUST be held accountable for their actions! In addition to that, the defense lawyer MUST be competent and MUST follow their rules of conduct which says this in Canadian Law;

    Incidently this applies to the PROSECUTOR as well who is also a lawyer!

    Rule 2 – Relationship to Clients
    2.01 – Competence

    As a member of the legal profession, a lawyer is held out as knowledgeable, skilled, and capable in the practice of law. Accordingly, the client is entitled to assume that the lawyer has the ability and capacity to deal adequately with legal matters to be undertaken on the client’s behalf.

    A lawyer who is incompetent does the client a disservice, brings discredit to the profession, and may bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In addition to damaging the lawyer’s own reputation and practice, incompetence may also injure the lawyer’s partners and associates.

    A lawyer should not undertake a matter without honestly feeling competent to handle it or being able to become competent without undue delay, risk, or expense to the client. This is an ethical consideration and is to be distinguished from the standard of care that a tribunal would invoke for purposes of determining negligence.

    A lawyer must be alert to recognize any lack of competence for a particular task and the disservice that would be done to the client by undertaking that task. If consulted in such circumstances, the lawyer should either decline to act or obtain the client’s instructions to retain, consult, or collaborate with a lawyer who is competent for that task. The lawyer may also recognize that competence for a particular task may require seeking advice from or collaborating with experts in scientific, accounting, or other non-legal fields, and, in such a situation, the lawyer should not hesitate to seek the client’s instructions to consult experts.

    A lawyer should clearly specify the facts, circumstances, and assumptions upon which an opinion is based. Unless the client instructs otherwise, the lawyer should investigate the matter in sufficient detail to be able to express an opinion rather than mere comments with many qualifications. If the circumstances do not justify an exhaustive investigation with consequent expense to the client, the lawyer should so state in the opinion.

    A lawyer should be wary of bold and confident assurances to the client, especially when the lawyer’s employment may depend upon advising in a particular way. In addition to opinions on legal questions, the lawyer may be asked for or may be expected to give advice on non-legal matters such as the business, policy, or social implications involved in the question or the course the client should choose. In many instances the lawyer’s experience will be such that the lawyer’s views on non-legal matters will be of real benefit to the client. The
    lawyer who expresses views on such matters should, where and to the extent necessary, point out any lack of experience or other qualification in the particular field and should clearly distinguish legal advice from other advice.

    Rule 4 – Relationship to the Administration of Justice

    4.01 (1)
    When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client resolutely and
    honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect.

    The lawyer has a duty to the client to raise fearlessly every issue, advance every argument, and ask every question, however distasteful, which the lawyer thinks will help the client’s case and to endeavour to obtain for the client the benefit of every remedy and defense authorized by law. The lawyer must discharge this duty by fair and honourable means, without illegality and in a manner that is consistent with the lawyer’s duty to treat the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy and respect and in a way that promotes the parties’ right to a fair hearing where justice can be done. Maintaining dignity, decorum, and courtesy in the courtroom is not an empty formality because, unless order is maintained, rights cannot be protected.

    (2) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall not;
    (i) dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent

    I believe our current laws are sound and well written, the problem lies within those minds who pervert our laws to suit their respective ulterior ill motives!

    Attila L. Vinczer

    • Jimmy K.

      I hope things work out in a positive way!

  • AntZ

    I keep dreaming of terra-forming Mars, and getting out of this mess.

    • 4thtroika

      I myself keep waiting for some guy in a blue box to come along and take me with him on his journies through time and space.

    • Theodore Labadie

      The Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson.

      Note, one of the scientist terraformers essentially kidnaps a woman and forces her to take a kind of neural reprogramming so she can learn how to stop being a professional victim. I forget which book, probably the third.

    • Aharon

      It is interesting how many top sci-fi writers are libertarians.

  • Pierce Harlan

    As some of you know, I’ve written extensively on shifting the burden of proof at False Rape Society. While Attila’s heart is in the right place, statements like the following — the “male IS [already] considered GUILTY by the mere word of a woman!” — trivialize the potential problem of shifting the burden of proof and suggest that things can’t get any worse for men.

    Wrong, and if we aren’t vigilant — or if we don’t think things can get any worse –it’s going to happen.

    What would flipping the burden of proof mean in practice? In many rape cases, there is no significant evidence aside from the testimony of the accuser and the accused. Under this plan, if the jury doesn’t know who to believe, as is often the case, the jury would have no choice (short of nullification, which most jurors don’t know about) other than to find the male guilty — because he would be unable to meet his burden of proof. He will have lost the trial before it has begun.

    Beyond that, from a legal perspective, such legislation would do an end run around one of our most cherished rights — the right not to testify against oneself. At present, a prosecutor is not permitted even to suggest that the jury draw an adverse inference from the defendant’s refusal to testify. Under this plan, the defendant would have no choice but to testify because it would be his burden to prove he didn’t rape the accuser. It would be a setback to pre-Magna Carta days.

    Make no mistake: reversing the presumption of innocence for consent is the radical feminists’ Holy Grail.

    • Attila L. Vinczer

      I acknowledge and respect your authority on matters concerning rape, Pierce. I miss the great debates we used to have at your input was a great asset!

      Just wanted to clarify Pierce, that while it may read as such, I had and have no intention of intimating that things can’t get worser. They can and will get worse if we stand by and watch the carnage unfold.

      What I did mean to convey is that when a man is accused of sexual crime(s) people, even men, tend to assume that they (the accused male) ARE guilty merely at the word of a woman!

      That is a principle fundamental flaw before we even engage the police or the courts thereafter. I believe we have a duty to correct people’s perception and mind set about matters concerning rape, sex crimes including the fashionable allegations of pedophilia and Domestic Violence used primarily by women to gain an upper hand in various situations to their sole advantage and to men’s disadvantage.

      Again in my view the laws are sound whereas certain peoples hidden intent to apply it is not! I agree we MUST be vigilant!

  • Denis

    “We are not poised as a society to move into a world of male non person-hood, or subjugation. We’re there already; the only question now is a matter of degree.”

    This all fits in with Orwell and Machiavelli. The trend is towards more government control and subjugation of men.

    Very interesting article. I’m partial to MGTOW but I don’t see that going ghost is a practical option for living (surviving). Personal choice.

  • Pierce Harlan

    Thanks for your comment, Attila. I fully agree.

  • rebtus

    Whatever Wikileaks Julian Assange actions were in cable case, the rape charges were “buyers remorse”.
    Drudge Reports reveals that the two women would not had gone to police if Assange had agreed to take HIV test.

    That’s like some John going to police because the prostitute did not do good enough job/

  • Peter Allemano

    Dear John (and others): Thanks for your cogent writing! Coincidentally, just this past weekend, I watched “After Innocence,” a documentary about the Innocence Project now available on DVD. I recommend it highly, as well as the “extras” on the DVD, as food for thought on the topics discussed here. (For more information, see Best wishes, Peter

  • rebtus

    Buyers remorse by John shortchanged by hooker. Link
    “The Ohio man yesterday paid a prostitute $50 with the understanding that he would receive a full menu of sexual services in the bathroom of a White Castle in Cincinnati. However, when the hooker only performed oral sex on him, Ferris–who was also expecting vaginal sex–contacted police to report that he had just been robbed”

  • The ScareCrow formerly known as Richard

    Excellent article. Statements like the ones made by Jessica Valenti re-enforce Paul’s suggestion, that if one is a juror in a rape trial – simpy acquit – no matter what…

    I agree with that philosophy more and more on a daily basis.

    Here is my mock article of JV’s statement:

    Juvenile, lame – whatever. These mock articles are having the effect I want them to have – and in greater proportions than I thought they would…

  • Attila L. Vinczer

    Ooops! My apologies to JtO, the author of this piece. In my haste I failed to realize that this piece was not written by Paul Elam.

    • Paul Elam

      I am sure it is not a problem, sir. Great comment, by the way.

  • Jonathan Mann

    Let us all closer our eyes and envision a world where feminist laws predominate and any woman with Borderline Personality Disorder or an axe to grind against a man, decides to accuse an innocent male of rape. Now lets imagine that feminists have also pushed through a law mandating that ‘convicted rapists’ must be castrated. At this point can any self respecting Man not conclude that feminism is not only a perversion of logic, but a violent and appalling system of in-grouping extremists that are quite literally calling for a general state of war to exist between men and women?

    Like 97% of people, I am AGAINST rape. Its a disgusting crime, to be certain, but all this will result in is a world where most men (who are just as opposed to non-consensual intercourse as I am) are terrified to be left alone in a room with so much as a female co-worker. Laws like this are not meant to curtail rape, they are meant to foster enmity between the sexes. Period.

    If they were so concerned about reducing the number of rapes they would be advocating, first and foremost, laws to give convicted serial rapists life sentences. And, presuming the legal system still places the burden of proof on the Accuser, and assuming the defendant received a defense as strong as any one could expect in a capital case, I, personally, would support such a law. But I’d be willing to bet that you won’t find that quote popping up on any feminist blog site now or ever.

    So why advocate these new laws and not laws against life-time confinement repetitive violent criminals? Because laws that allow any woman to castrate almost any man, without any evidence of wrong doing, will build up skyscrapers of fear and resentment between the different halves of the human race; and thats exactly what feminism wants. Feminists want a WAR.

  • Capt. DaPoet

    Upon her throne Mother Nature
    sits and weeps
    ashamed of own daughters
    who have
    quite willingly chosen to become
    the betrayers
    of their fathers, brothers and sons

  • TByte

    And regarding Jessica Valenti, a week has gone by and she has still not approved my comment to her Assange article. So much for dialogue and supporting one’s positions. Here was my comment in full, perhaps too “inflammatory” for her website:
    “In the article, Jessica asserts that men should be considered guilty until they can prove their innocence, based solely upon the verbal testimony of a woman.
    None of you see any problem with this?
    And you wonder aloud, and frequently, why fewer and fewer fair-minded young women identify themselves as Feminists? You blog complaints about women who state “I’m not a Feminist, but…I believe in equal treatment for women.”, inferring that they are ignorant of Feminism or misguided, when in truth they have a much greater understanding of Egalitarianism than you. They believe in equal treatment, and equal levels of responsibility for women, and that our legal process should treat people equally regardless of the genders of the accused and accusers.
    That is what separates them from Feminists.”

    • AntZ

      TByte, you are nuts if you think a comment like this will fly in any feminist site, much the less a radical feminist site like Valenti’s.

      I posted on “feministe” suggesting that fair minded feminists might write letters to BA, Quantas, and Air New Zealand asking for an end to the sexist child abuse prevention ban on men (but not women) sitting next to unaccompanied minors. I added that (1) no case of in-flight child abuse has ever been observed, so the policy addresses a non-existent problem, (2) collective guilt is immoral — how would people react to “Muslims in the back of the aircraft” to prevent terrorism policy? (3) the policy hurts women (as well as men) by suggesting all men are depraved predators, marginalizing men from roles nurturing vulnerable people such as father/husband/caretaker. This results in added (mostly unpaid) work for women.

      I was immediately and permanently banned from the site, for suggesting that men have any issues whatsoever.

      Do you have any idea of the insane level of man-hate that underlies all feminist sites?

      Your comment has zero chance of success. The only men who are allowed to post on feminist web sites are toadies that beg for scraps of approval through comical self-ridicule.

      Do you expect feminists to tolerate dissent to their religion? Where have you been for 50 years?

  • B.R. Merrick

    I also suggested that the concept of heroism be recognized as one based in the subjugation of personal actualization in favor of the other or of the collective. That the label, hero; is a blind for personal slavery.

    Quite a provocative idea, concerning “hero.” Something to think about, and think about, and think about. Great article.

  • Factory

    Consider me floored. You, sir, have set the new standard for excellent MRA writing.

    Very well thought out, and written even better.

    Great work!

  • Introspectre

    Excellent article John.

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Breaking Bad: The Male as Designated Criminal « A Voice for Men --