We are all being watched

“I am not placing you under arrest, but I have some questions and I am going to read you your rights.”

That was the first thing the prominent Canadian MRA, whom we must now refer to as Mr. X, was told when he walked into the police investigators office. He had been phoned at work the day before by police officials, who told X that an allegation had been made against him that involved the MRM, stockpiling weapons and threats to do harm. They asked him to come in to “answer some questions.”

Those questions were largely about his personal life and beliefs, focusing on whether he was a violence prone individual. There were questions about the MRM and MRA’s, and it became clear to him during the course of the interview that significant prior effort had been invested by police officials into studying his beliefs as well as the overall mentality of those in the movement.

He admits to being a little rattled. Making threats of violence of any kind is a very serious matter in Canada.  And something like this coming nearly to the day on the anniversary of the “Montreal Massacre,” was a bit more chilling. December 6 marks the day that Marc Lepine murdered fourteen women and wounded ten women and four men at the École Polytechnique, an engineering school affiliated with the University of Montréal.

Anyone, and this includes police officials, who has read Mr. X’s blog articles or watched his YouTube videos, knows him to be a level headed, intellectual sort, not given to violence.  But it is clear that someone reported otherwise to Canadian law enforcement.  The question remains why, but that is likely to never be answered because he was not made privy to where the complaint originated.

He was informed, according to my conversation with him last night, that he was not a suspect and the police found nothing in his writings that caused them concern. They were, in effect, following up on a complaint and after speaking with him determined there was no need for further inquiry. So they said.

But even in the best case scenario, there is an object lesson in the thick of this that must be addressed.  The men’s movement is a growing phenomenon.  We are, as were we destined to do, starting to scare some people. That is what happens when insight meets ignorance. Those who cling to the status quo, in this case feminist governance, get uncomfortable. They react. Over react. Although over reaction may be the wrong word. These people were full of hate and lies long before anyone started speaking back.

It is possible that this was orchestrated, that more than one person conspired to set our associate up for trouble.  It is also possible that this was one reactive person acting on their own.  Again, we will never know.

But we do know enough to know that for MRA’s, especially those that live in Canada, that there is a need, not for panic, but for caution.

We are documenting the fact that these events transpired for the sake of public record. If other MRA’s are called in and questioned in similar circumstances we will document that as well. On the outside chance that we are seeing the police manipulated into some sort of ideological McCarthyism, we want to document it as it happens.

Regarding AVfM, there have been times when I have banned people from this site for making even non serious suggestions of violence. I have gotten complaints and nasty emails for doing so. Now you know at least one reason why I felt it was necessary.

Personally, I would be flabbergasted to know there are any MRA’s out there that would take their beliefs and use them as an excuse for violence.  And truth tell, I am more than happy with their being removed from our ranks, and even from society, if they are out there.

The only weapon we ever needed is the truth, and I do believe that we can see through Mr.X’s unfortunate experience, that the truth is indeed a potent weapon that causes irrational reactions from the very people we would identify as the problem.

But a word of caution. As we know all too well, lies are powerful weapons, too. They can take a terrible toll in terms of lost reputation, as even lost freedom. Unfortunate then that our stock and trade is in dealing with liars. We see people like David Futrelle and others trying to cast us as pro-violence in any way they possibly can, often treating the truth and integrity like minor obstacles to their ambitions.

So, the question becomes, how are we going to react to what has happened here? The answer is that we are going to move ahead full steam. We won’t slither into private forums with our beliefs. That is the province of those we oppose, as you will soon see detailed on the pages of this site like never before.

Just like Mr. X, the people at AVfM are simply telling the truth and looking for justice.  There is no need to slow down or change course. But these events remind us that on whatever level you can imagine, there are those that would do most anything to shut us up.  Or, as we have said around here before, we are getting flak, so we must be over the target.

But, it is official now, people. They are watching us.  We must remain aware of that, even though it changes nothing that we do. AVfM will continue to enforce its no violence policy, just as we have from the day we launched. And we will continue to confront hateful ideologues, corrupt public officials and the plague of misandry wherever we find it and FTSU.

Sometimes the ride will get bumpy, so we are all better off to strap in securely.

Support us by becoming a member

AVFM depends on readers like you to help us pay expenses related to operations and activism. If you support our mission, please subscribe today.

Join or donate

Sponsored links

  • Ray

    “We are all being watched”


    They are watching us and probably more.

    Can you find the face of the motorcycle cop who’s hiding in the parking structure?

  • E. Steven Berkimer

    And through all of this, hasn’t Mr. X learned, don’t talk to police without a lawyer. He could be really screwed.

    • Kyle Lovett

      I think the laws may be a bit different in Canada than they are here in the US in regards to what rights citizens have. This is an important question.

      • Denis

        You don’t have to talk to police, ever.

      • Whitney

        We have the right to counsel.

        We also have the right to not be questioned or searched without reasonable cause. This is why the police asked him to come in. They had no rights to detain or interrogate him but his words could ultimately be used against him if he said the wrong things.

        • Dannyboy

          unfortunately you are wrong and I really wish you were not.

          “The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that a person questioned by police in connection with a criminal case does not have the right to have a lawyer present during the interview.”……. “The police officer who conducted the interview said Sinclair had the right to keep quiet, but refused to allow him to contact his lawyer and told him he did not have the right to have a lawyer present.”

          This went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.
          Like I said I really wish you weren’t wrong on this.

          • Alek Novy

            “The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday that a person questioned by police in connection with a criminal case “

            Mmm… it says in connection with a “criminal case” in that sentence.

          • Primal

            Speaking of questions here’s a brave Canadian who utterly eviscerated the matriarchal PC bureaucracy: Notice his lawyer is present. More important so is his video camera.

          • Whitney


            That’s Ezra Levant! He’s my hero. He is the only case that the CHRC had trouble with and I think they dropped the case to keep their 100% conviction rate.

            The skinny:

            Ezra had a complaint filed against him for publishing the Mohammad cartoons on is online magazine. Guess who filed the complaint?

            She asked (and I paraphrase) “Why did you choose to publish those pictures?”

            He answered (paraphrasing again) “Pick the reason that is most offensive to you and I that’s why I did it!”

            I love this guy. He’s always throwing shots at the PC police! He sticks up for the White, Christian, Heterosexual, Single Male (while sticking up for everyone else) when nobody cares about the guy getting screwed so special interest groups can have their turn at the helm. He is a true libertarian! Man crush all over the guy!

          • Dannyboy

            @ Alek
            I realize the article says ” in connection with a criminal case “. I am a little confused as to why you would bring that statement up.

            @ Primal
            That looks like a human rights tribunal matter. I applaud the gentleman for going the distance in that matter. Yes his lawyer is present there and from the looks of it is around 2008 or so.

          • Fr Bob

            I know that in the military Police they were always to read someone the Canadian equivlant of the miranda rights when they are being arrested, for any reason or even if they were being questioned. But then again I was in the military 12 years ago I am not sure what the process is right now.

          • Primal


            One man with spine is worth more than millions of worms.

          • Alek Novy

            I realize the article says ” in connection with a criminal case “. I am a little confused as to why you would bring that statement up.

            Because there is no criminal case in this MRA story. It’s just someone had a hunch about a generalized something about a generalized someone.

            I fail to see how the court’s decision about responses to criminal cases applies or can be applied here.

          • Raven01

            Despite the rukling that you don’t have the “right” to a lawyer for an “interview” you do have the “right” to express, ” I won’t say a fucking word without my lawyer present.” At that point shut up except to enquire about your freedom to leave.

            P.S. Cops have been known to lie about your rights in order to get you to talk. That sadly is not illegal either. They may tell you that you are compelled to speak to them, you are not. Any time you are compelled to address, them you do have the right to legal counsel being present.

          • Dannyboy

            @ Alek
            While the ruling does mention ” criminal case ” That does not remove the ruling from an investigation into a possible crime.
            Trust me I am not too impressed with this ruling. If you read the article you’ll notice it was a 5 – 4 split in the decision.
            Cops don’t call people up out of the blue and ask them in for questioning without having a suspicion or a reason to believe a crime has been committed. ( member of the public complaining or an observation made by the police themselves = just cause )
            My personal take on what is mentioned in the article is that the police were considering laying charges against Mr. X but this is pure speculation. I was not there nor am I privy to all the details.

          • Dannyboy

            @ Raven01
            You are right on the money as for keeping quiet, and as well bang on about cops lying about your rights. They get paid to do it and the better they are at lying to “suspects ” the more they can advance in their jobs.
            I am not sure how long they are permitted to detain you though. This is an experience I have yet to endure.
            Further points that should be made are that anything you say to a guard can be used as well. Then there are so called ” cell mates ” that are either undercover police officers or that are rats trying to get their charges reduced.
            We know we have problems here in Canada and abroad, some of the police are the problem.
            Slightly off topic but still of interest lets say you are charged with something and in your mounting a defense you discover that the arresting officer (s ) have been reprimanded for an infraction against some internal policy or procedure or even a crime. It appears that you now have the ability to have said officer’s disciplinary matters entered into evidence on your behalf. Give this a read through :

      • Rad

        Canadian police are empowered to act by immoral “hate crime” laws.

        For example, if I am a criminal who happens to beat up two gay guys who I don’t like the look of, I will face more charges and likely serve more time than if it were two straight guys who I assaulted. The courts don’t care whether I actually knew the men were gay or not, I would still face the same trumped up charges. It’s like the other side of the coin of women doing less time simply because they are women.

        Hate crime laws are simply a way of granting special rights to minorities, or rather, discriminating against the majority (in this case, white males) as if their lives are of less value than other individuals.

        In addition to being a covert insult to minorities who are treated as if they couldn’t otherwise properly take care of themselves (i.e., institutionalized racism by the state), it’s also a mockery of the whole concept of justice since hate crime laws base the “crime” more on the non-chosen attributes of those involved than the extent of the rights violation involved and objective harm done.

        Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerns equal treatment before and under the law, and supposedly ensures equal protection of the law without discrimination. Of course, hate crime laws violate this section, but no one gives a shit since “positive racism” is viewed as virtuous by the status quo.

        In addition, The Canadian Human Rights act reads: “For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.”

        This is a violation of free speech and property rights. If I am the black owner of a business and I don’t like Asians, I should be free to not hire them for whatever reason I want to, including simply because they are Asian — and, I should be free to state that openly. After all, the business is my business and my mind is my mind, it is not the state’s or this other person’s…or is it?

        Yes, this would make me a bigot, but I have a right to be one. If we live in a healthy culture, people will find out about this and choose not to frequent or boycott my establishment, and I will pay thought my own pocketbook. I also lose the best minds and efforts of those who I discriminate against, and my competitors will likely gain them, along with their motivation to to defeat me due to my bigotry. So, there are economic consequences for this kind of discriminatory behavior without violating the rights of individuals to force a result that only expands people’s hatred from one ethnic group into the government and those others around them via their anger at being compelled to live by values they did not choose.

        If this isn’t the case, let’s try to avoid pretending I have any right to speak my mind or run my own life. Let’s drop the facade of property rights and free speech and be consistent: what you can say or do or own is dependent on its suitability to the moral sensibilities of your superiors.

        Hate crime laws logically follow the anti-discrimination laws. And so long as the Canadian Human Rights acts (and it’s provincially related codes such as the Ontario Human Rights Code) are written as to violate the rights of individuals in the name of supposedly protecting rights, we can expect the strength and depth of the hate crime laws to expand.

        The danger for MRM’s is that the hate crimes laws are the gateway to hate speech laws. Draw your own conclusions about what that would mean for MRM’s in our modern misandric society.

        The only solution for Canadian MRM’s to avoid becoming future victims of the state and their “unnamed 3rd parties” is to philosophically defend individual rights and advocate rectification of the their contradictory implementation throughout Canadian Law.

        Bottom line is: I’ll hate who I want to, thanks. Motivation should only matter to the judge in determining sentences, not to the legislators. Anything else is a spin-job of violating rights in the name of protecting them.

        • Peegies

          When you talk about these interpretations of law, I can’t help but think you’re applying american law to canadian law. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t change the law, but right now – men are not a special group, and every other class of people are special groups. Canada’s law seems to protect this and that special group, and that means MRA have to work to either also be listed as a special group (and thus nobody is special) or break down all special groups

      • Raven01

        Mr. Berkimer is correct.
        Never ever speak to police without a lawyer, even when you know you are innocent and think you may be able to clear up a misunderstanding.
        Know your rights and USE them.
        Part 1 and 2 will take about 50 minutes to watch but well worth the time investment.
        Although American, there are similar protections granted to Canadian citizens.

    • Paul Elam

      We had a way conference with Mr. X last night, JtO and Bob O’Hara also present. That subject was brought up more than once.

      X had his reasons for not lawyering up at the time. His call for sure, but also know that he has different plans should this arise again.

      • Dannyboy

        This may be of help for X and others MRA people in Canada facing a similar harassment by the police.

        ” The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Criminal Code] imposes a general prohibition on interception (recording) of private communications, but then provides an exception where one of the parties to the private communication consents to the interception of that communication. Thus, broadly speaking, Canadians can legally record their own conversations with other people, but not other peoples’ conversations that they are not involved in. ”

        A good article written by a lawyer from Vancouver B.C.
        By recording the police as they record us it gives us a measure of defense against false allegations. By this I mean, with 2 sets of recordings the likelihood of both being altered is much more difficult.
        If you believe that the police haven’t altered interview transcripts and or embellished on interview transcripts well then I wish you the very best of luck your going to need it.

      • Stu

        So did he discuss and publish these plans for all to see……or did you guys slither off to a secret forum/meeting together……complete with secret handshakes and special club rings and all :)

    • Rog

      not only are they different laws they are worse for the most part tell mr X to look for some legal help quick because uttering threats is near the same as assaulting someone here.

      • Dannyboy

        uttering threats is a hybrid offense ( can be prosecuted in summary court or charged indictable ) but what makes it really tricky is that it is a strict liability offense. That means you don’t need both elements of actus rea
        ( the physical act ) and the mens rea ( the mental intent ) for a person to find themselves before a court. It is defined around 264.1 of the Criminal Code.
        Find it here :

        For those who like most of us have trouble reading ” legalese ” a good resource for deciphering it can be found at Here’s the link :

        • Rog

          tyvm danny i was tryn to get him to error on the side of safety i will look into it so im better informed ty for the resource
          ok i found the link you sent and it looks pretty bad the way i read it
          264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat

          this would include the internet in my opinion including comments ect and would only apply to the person residing in canada so if the person who got “offended” said you were uttering a threat knew who you were they could literally phone the police in canada while telling you they were going to hunt you down?

          ok ty again for the link

          • Dannyboy

            You’re more than welcome for the info.
            I believe you are right about how it could be used against people on the net, although I haven’t looked into it myself.
            I as well truly hope Mr X did err on the side of caution.
            From the article it sure seems like the boys or girls in blue were sniffing around for some dirt or trying to create some dirt.

  • Eoghan

    Certain feminists, have progressed from making false accusations on line, to making false allegations to the police. And they say false allegation culture doesn’t exist.

    I take it that we will be looking to press charges of some kind?

  • andybob

    So, they are attempting to intimidate us by using their trusty proxy buddies. How utterly predictible that their opening shot has stemmed from some kind of false allegation. They must be very getting very nervous. Very interesting. Thanks for the heads-up.

  • scott1978

    and yet we have tiptree and so many others blogging about killing male babies and the like, hell a few years back the whole cast of jezabel wrote that wonderful article where they admitted to domestic violence, that seems acceptable ?

  • Denis

    They’ve been watching us for a while now and I suspect that we already have agents of the state in our ranks. I would be tempted to simply tell them no if they wanted to question me, but on the other hand, I would really like the opportunity to record such a conversation.

    I’m glad they are watching, because the more people we educate the better and there’s not a damn thing they can do to stop us.

    • Whitney

      If you refuse to talk to Canadian police, you’d better be living a straight and narrow lifestyle because they will stake out your house and follow you around. You could also get a security certificate sworn on you and disappear for a good long time.

      The cops in Canada are like hall monitors that grew up to be bullies.

      • Denis

        Being an informant won’t prevent any of that or stop them from being complete assholes. A video camera however, will make them think twice.

  • Introspectre

    Is there some statute under Canadian law, by which the police could be compelled to reveal the identity of the accuser? I know the system is almost certainly corrupt, but slandering someone like this and potentially endangering their freedom and personal safety, should be actionable.

    Also, if it was the RCMP, that called him in, I wouldn’t put it past them to make this up as an excuse to question Mr. X, they are quite the corrupt band of power trippers from what I’ve seen and heard.

    • Whitney

      Hall monitors with guns.

    • Dannyboy

      One has the right to cross examine their accuser once charges have been laid. It starts to get a little muddled after that. Look around 486.3 of the criminal code of Canada. Under sub – section 4 of the above noted law you will notice if the defendant is charged with an offence under 264 ( uttering a threat ) the prosecutor or the accuser may make an application for an order stopping the accused from cross examining the accuser. It does not prohibit the defendant from using a lawyer to do the cross examination.

  • Kyle Lovett

    And just as a side thought, one thing that I know for certain that is scaring the feminists that hate MRA’s, is that the MRM is now attracting a much more diverse group of people on the political and cultural scale. I don’t want to get into politics, and I certainly know there are politically liberal men that have always been a smaller part of the MRM, but when politically liberal men (old white knights) start flocking to the movement in the same numbers as libertarians and conservatives, like what is happening now, people’s ears perk up.

    After my first post on Reddit’s MR section, I actually got a few PM’s from manboobz himself who was trying to persuade me from joining. He knew about my political leanings and my previous work elsewhere, and he couldn’t understand why “people like me” were coming to the MRM. I’m not sure if everyone here is aware, but the MRM is expanding quickly.

    I am sorry for our brother Canadian MRA, and I hope everything works out for him. But we are sure as hell are making some noise now. This is going to a bumpy ass ride, but it sure as hell worth it. We have the facts and the truth behind us….and the truth scares the every living shit out of them.

    • Paul Elam

      If there is anything I actually feel a sense of accomplishment about in my time as an activist, it is that first I managed to offend enough people on the extreme right that a good many of them left. First, MND, and then here as they rose up their ugly chivalrist, sanctimonious, war mongering heads.

      The extreme left was easy. They are almost all feminists or sympathizers (who knows the difference).

      What I find most interesting (among a lot of boring shit) is that Futrelle has often referred to us as of the right wing, and as regressives that want to turn back the hands of time. He is literally too stupid, I think, to see that we are largely apolitical, anti-gender roles, and truly focused on the idea of freedom from expectation based on gender.

      You are correct on all counts, Kyle. We do have the truth behind us, and it does scare the shit out of them. The truth is a harder sell than easy, selfish lies, but people eventually start buying it when they hear it enough.

      We are not so far from winning some very significant battles in this war.

      • TDOM

        “[Futrelle] is literally too stupid, I think, to see that we are largely apolitical, anti-gender roles, and truly focused on the idea of freedom from expectation based on gender.”

        No, Booz isn’t a dumb as we’d like him to be. He knows better. For him its a deliberate attempt at deception. Most feminists would like to paint all MRAs as misogynistic, anti-government, right wingnuts who are a violent threat to society. he merely parrots the party line knowing full well that it isn’t true.


      • DruidV

        Feminazism owes it’s entire existence to the old propaganda war addage

        “The more more often a lie is told, the more likely it is to be accepted by the masses as the truth, and the more outrageous the lie the better!”

        Yep, you can thank the original nazi boy himself for that one.

        Sorry to drag him into this, but my point is that a huge truth, sadly like a huge lie, must at this point be sold to the masses, or more often and more accurately; inflicted upon them, for them to ever hope to see it and snap out of it.

        Most lemmings reject hard, uncomfortable or incovienient truth outright, as “impossible” or “conspiracy kranky” because that jeapordizes their cozy world view.

        For these people (libs and lemmings alike) that is the end of it. Most lemmings will become violent whenever their (false) beliefs and illogical fallacies are challenged with facts and data.

        This has been clearly evidenced and with astonishing severity in the very halls of the senate recently, and it is another uncomfortable truth that must never be allowed to slip down the feminazi memory hole.

        It’s important to remember that lies and delusion are very comfortable and seductive to most lemmings.

        On the other hand, the truth hurts-

        In a perfect environment, their every lie would be immediately challenged by our truth. So far so good, but we still have a long LONG way to go.

        We must stay vigilant and keep our message LOUD and PROUD!

      • Ray

        “If there is anything I actually feel a sense of accomplishment about in my time as an activist, it is that first I managed to offend enough people on the extreme right that a good many of them left. First, MND, and then here as they rose up their ugly chivalrist, sanctimonious, war mongering heads.”

        Gee Paul, I thought you were above such inaccurate, broad-brush stereotyping. :-/ While there may be some like those you describe on the far right, I find that most are not as you say. I do agree with your portrayal of the left, but think you’re pulling your punches, given that’s where the majority of misandry is spawned, and given how deeply imbedded that misandry is infested in left wing politics.

        • Paul Elam

          Oh, pulease. Gee, Ray, I thought you were more honest than this. There may be some like I describe? ROTFLMAO!!! You’re an MRA and you don’t know of the right wings wholesale and vital support of VAWA, no fault divorce, predominate aggressor statutes, Title IX and the whole stinking lot of far left legislation?

          Where were your republican buddies when they sent out the “Dear Colleague” letter? Which of them stood up and raised hell about Kaleb Warner, when UND kicked him out, and stuck to it even after a warrant was issued for his false accuser?

          Play your point at the left game all you want. This site is totally dedicated to outing what complete bullshit that is. You only think I am pulling punches at the left, which I have never done, because I am not singing the laurels of whatever Republican traitor you want me to vote for.

          Your spouting absolute rubbish, Ray. The MRM, and men, deserve a lot better than that.

          • Raven01

            Correct me if I am wrong but isn’t the Democrat/Republican split best described as one side insisting men should “do more for women” with the other side insisting men should do as they have ALWAYS done for women, which is provide for them like large children and die for them without complaint.
            With some thought we may use either side to further our goals but we must never trust either as their goals are contradictory to our own.

        • Primal

          From Phyllis Schafly: “it’s a dog’s (man’s) life.” She plans to keep it that way too. Traditional right wing ‘respect’ for men is far more dangerous that ‘progressive’ left wing contempt. Men are far more vulnerable to flattery than to venality from women.

          • Ray

            “Traditional right wing ‘respect’ for men is far more dangerous that ‘progressive’”

            Gee, I don’t hear Paul Elam jumping on this calling it “absolute rubbish,” which is what it is. Point made.

          • Primal


            What point made, pray tell?

  • the hermit

    “But, it is official now, people. They are watching us.”

    It would not surprise me at all.

  • TruthInAdvertising

    Earlier this year on OKCupid, I blogged about a pop-psychology article talking about why women prefer dominant bad boys. I posted it pretty much without comment, except to say that “it is always instructive when Feminist propaganda crashes on that iceberg called Reality.”

    Predictably, I got dozens of hysterical screeching NAWALT comments. But one Feminist from Canada threatened “Someday very soon, men like you will be ____” referring to a profoundly barbaric form of torture and murder that I’m not going to repeat here.

    At the time I did not have the foresight to screengrab the comment before she deleted it the next day. I wonder if I had, I could count on support from the thought police?

    I don’t live in Canada, btw.

  • scatmaster

    I have never advocated violence or threatened violence against anyone online or not. I have nothing to hide so I am not stopping what I am doing.

    • DruidV

      Nonetheless, agents of feminazism will ceaselessly attempt to twist our words and their context as far as they can, in order to present you, me and every other MRA in a negative or violent light.

      This tactic is a huge obstacle for the MRM, but -to borrow from the “civil” rights movement… “We shall overcome!!!”

      • Whitney

        Look at what mantits did when AVfM offered a bounty for the names of the Swedish psychopaths. He said we were advocating violence against the women and called the other satirical.

        If only he knew that the women he sucks up to would find him sexually repulsive. They’ll complain to him about their brutish boyfriends and even let him pay to raise the children.

  • namae nanka

    There was the Marc Lepine blogger who was arrested. Apparently he got out, but had to spent a few months in jail.

    And then there was the comedian who got sued successfully by a couple of lesbians who were offended by his commentary on their behavior and had PTSD from his insults.

  • keyster

    The LaPine incident and fear of “right wing extremist groups” has everything to do with it. It doesn’t matter how apolitical you try and position yourself. You’re against feminism and therefore you hate women, so you must be extreme (right), and if you’re extreme you must be prone to violence.

    Never mind the woman standing in the middle of NYC with a sign that says “ERADICATE MALES!”. She means through chemical genocide, not violence.

    It’s important to keep MRM in a “lunatic fringe” box, (which is Futrelle’s objective as an example). Ridicule and mockery are the tools of the left, shame the tool of the right.

  • Coldfire

    This is why I don’t participate in the MRM under my real name at this time. I do engage in some minor advocacy under my real name and direct people to AVFM articles, plus I have that AVFM patch sown onto my backpack, but the opinions I express under my real name are carefully sanitized because I don’t want to draw the attention of the RCMP and other Canadian authorities. Simply being put on a “watch list” could cause all kinds of harm to me.

    I should add that there have been at least two occasions where a feminist tried to find personal information about me.

  • Wayne

    In New Zealand, where I live, we have the legal right to know the details of any complaint made to the Police about us and also the identity of the complainant/s. Even if a corrupt cop refuses to divulge those details, we can submit a written request under “The Official Information Act” and the Police have 20 working days to comply with that request.
    I would refuse to submit to any interview with the Police without first obtaining those details.

    We, the public, own the information that’s held by government. And we’re entitled to see it on request unless there’s good reason (such as prejudice to national security or international relations) to withhold it.

    If any nasty bitch made vexatious complaints to the Police about me, I’d have her/his real name up in flashing neons.

    • MrStodern

      Wish my government had that kind of transparency.

  • Dannyboy

    Disgusting news but not all that unexpected. I use to be proud to call myself a Canadian but it seems more and more everyday I find another reason not to be proud of my country, this is indeed another reason not to be.
    I can let you know X that you are not alone. I can tell you what has happened here in Hamilton with a call from an officer Serello * (sp) calling me up and trying to intimidate and or threaten me with legal action if I did not refrain from calling my ex the “accused”. ( Yes I made a recording of that but am having trouble trying to figure out how best to use it. ) She is still referred to on my blog as the accused and if the Hamilton white knight jokes think my battle is over they are delusional.
    Then there is of course the provincial government run by good ole McGuilty and his fiberal party who after I laid into them about the right to record proceedings under S 136.2 of the Courts of Justice Act on my blog had their press release regarding S 136.2 removed.
    The relevant part of the press release is as follows :

    ” Recommendation No.2: Use of Tape Recorders

    – The restriction on the use of tape recorders in court is codified in
    the Courts of Justice Act and would require a legislative amendment
    to remove the restriction. The McGuinty government will consult with
    the judiciary and is committed to introducing such an amendment
    – The ministry is conducting a policy review and analysis, and
    developing options in consultation with the Chief Justices for
    potential amendments to the Courts of Justice Act to permit the
    unobtrusive use of tape recorders by lawyers, parties representing
    themselves and journalists at a court hearing without prior approval
    of the judge
    – In the interim, the ministry is consulting with the judiciary on new
    signage for all courthouses across Ontario that would more accurately
    reflect the 1989 Howland Practice Direction, which can permit such
    use without prior approval of the presiding judge. ”

    Links are :

    This one news announcement out of around 93 other news announcements was somehow forgotten when the attorney general decided to update his site. However the fiberal government forgot they can’t stop it from staying on the Canadian news wire service and it is still there :

    Now why would the fiberal government go to such lengths to bury this news release if they believed the current justice system was fair

    To all MRA’s I would say learn your rights in whatever country your from . Never assume the system will do the moral and ethical thing for as we have seen time and time again they consistently choose not to.
    Speaking from Ontario and from some personal experiences I can say there is something extremely rewarding to watching police turn tail after an attempt to shut a protest down. Asking them a question in a loud voice such as ” Didn’t you folks under S 13 of the Police Services act swear an oath to the Constitution of Canada ? In which you will find the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under section 2 there is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of association and assembly ”
    ” Are you here to uphold your oath officer ”
    ” Are you honoring that oath officer ? ”
    Now what I did may not be in the cards for everyone I gotta say I wasn’t exactly all too pleased about having to stand up to them and stand up for my / our collective rights but it needs to be done. Better still it can be done and can be successful but there are risks.
    It all boils down to if you don’t exercise your rights you will loose them and we have lost far to many of them already.

  • Merlin

    I have no doubt at all that we are being watched. When your main goal is to extinguish corruption with a blanket of truth; is it any wonder that the corrupt forces are shaking like a shitting dog?

    Let’s hope they keep watching as their power crumbles around them as it’s invaded with righteous ground force troops.

    • Whitney

      Like a dog shitting peach pits <- FTFY

  • Damon L

    “To all MRA’s I would say learn your rights in whatever country your from.”

    Remember Thomas James Ball. Your rights are moot, the second set of books trumps the first set of books. It is the bureaucratic policies and procedures we must learn if we hope to use the system to our advantage.

    • Dannyboy

      I believe you to be wrong on this.
      If you are not aware of your rights then you are setting yourself up to fall for any lie a justice system employee could tell you.
      Knowing your rights gives you strength as an activist, not knowing them can get you in trouble.
      If you did not know you had the right to protest and a cop told you it was illegal to speak out about an injustice the natural response is to obey said cop even though what they told you was wrong.
      By knowing your rights you can reply to said cop in an efficient manner.

    • Stu

      Ok, I’ve learnt them……none

  • .ProleScum.

    Thanks for the heads up Paul.

    I’ve done nothing wrong and my only goals are:

    – equal rights and accountability across the board;
    – for society to reflect on misandry in the same way there is reflection on misogyny.

    ’til I see that, I will continue to FTSU.

  • Jade Michael

    You could be the personification of online etiquette and someone somewhere will mold something you said into pro-violence or otherwise threatening. And the second that happens you will have a shitstorm of nonsense to deal with. It makes the previous article asking “why are you here”, to be even more relevant. I would never detract anyone from acting on what they know to be right and just, but definitely remember to take a deep breath when you are angered before continuing any argument, online or otherwise. And make sure your friends won’t sell you out or cave to lies about you under pressure. If you sense they lack that resolve then perhaps cut them from personal acquaintances down to cordial ones. Or cut them out entirely.

  • lensman

    OK, this is going to be a long one…

    Guys, this is just going to get more brutal as you guys keep exposing the status quo for what it is.

    In Greece most bloggers have moved their blogs as far away from Greek Servers as possible. Why? Because Greek Servers are subject to Greek Laws and according to Greek Law you can’t speak against Public Officials, the Greek Orthodox church, and dead people among other things. The head of the biggest blogging company in Greece was arrested and had his servers confiscated all just because another blogger wrote something that bothered some big-head honcho in politics.

    What this basically means is that you are starting to make some very bad and powerful people piss their pants.

    I am going to give a bit of info on what is going on in my country right now in order for you to draw some conclusions…

    Greece right now is on the verge of collapse. The politicians that have ruined my country are still in charge, but they are deathly afraid to go out without at least a hundred bodyguards because they know that they will get lynched if they set their foot anywhere near the people that they screwed for all this time. And so are the journalists that sucked the big-money cock all these years. What these morons never realized, is that in the end, big-money is only loyal to itself, and when all this is over they will inevitably be on their own opposite the very people they kept fucking all those years.

    The people don’t trust the media, the viewer ratings of all the major channels are at an all-time low. All the major newspapers are at the point of bankruptcy and are trying to lure buyers by offering pirated DVDs and coupons. The majorly trusted news providers are the blogs. As the Greek government gets more scared it puts more legislation trying to gag them. People are getting “preventively” arrested in order to not “cause trouble”. Rights are being violated, people are getting killed (the head of one of the biggest news-blogs in Greece was assassinated by a “terrorist group”).

    We are now effectively a police-state. And, as the oppression goes on, the police becomes even more monstrous. A commonly known secret are what we call the “Known Unknowns”, who are basically people whose job is to infiltrate peaceful protests, cause trouble (i.e. riots, looting etc), and give the police an excuse to start beating civilians up. The fact that those guys never get arrested makes people suspect that they are in fact part of the police force (something which is further reinforced by a growing number of YouTube videos of them getting chummy with the riot squads).

    What is mostly worrying is that the Greek people are just plain fucking sick and tired. They have been beaten into submission. They kept protesting for over a year, and had the living shit beat out of them, shot with rubber bullets, dowsed with tear gas and tazed. All those protests in the end changed nothing. The Greek politicians still sold everything out and the big-heads moved their money abroad where it won’t be touched. We are currently in a sort of mental coma, searching for that shock that is going to pull us out of if.

    I am telling you all this because, in many ways, our past foretells your future.

    Expect police raids, expect confiscation of servers, expect censorship, gag-orders and further harassment as your movement gains ground. Expect even the internet to be shut down at some point. And, yes, expect even beatings and assassinations when all else fails.

    Expect infiltrators trying to make you look like a bunch of thugs. Expect your own version of “Known Unknowns” trying to turn your peaceful protests into a police beat-up party. Expect fake “MRAs” advocating extreme positions in order to make you look bad. Expect false accusations, and “preventative arrests”. Expect the establishment to try to break you.

    I’m not saying “be scared”. I am saying “be prepared”.

    • Paul Elam

      Thanks for that valuable post. And sorry to hear what is happening in your great country.

    • MrStodern

      Expect fake “MRAs” advocating extreme positions in order to make you look bad.

      This is especially going to be problematic I think, although at a certain point, it’s going to be pretty obvious that the major MRA communities aren’t the hateful bigots we’re painted to be, as we continue to toss the extremists and real misogynists out on their ass.

      In the states, we have the freedom of speech, and though the government can and will infringe upon that right, I doubt that any other amendment has ever been so deftly defended as the First has been throughout our history. Look at the white supremacists, they have the right to march through any given area and spout their hate speech without any legal consequences.

      Of course, there’s always the false allegations route, which, of course, plenty of American women are prone to whenever some man has pissed them off. So we have to be careful. Unfortunately, a lot of MRAs swallow the red pill after spending a night in jail stemming from a false DV accusation, or such similar incident, which can and will cause problems for them in the future as the enemy gets even more frightened of the impact we’re having, and will continue to have.

      Nevertheless, we must stay the course. The future of the nations we live in may just depend upon that.

      • Raven01

        `This is especially going to be problematic I think, although at a certain point, it’s going to be pretty obvious that the major MRA communities aren’t the hateful bigots we’re painted to be, as we continue to toss the extremists and real misogynists out on their ass.`
        This is one glaring differencebetween the MRM and feminism. You will not see middle of the road feminists come out hard against radical feminists. But, those in the MRM are inclined to call out those advocating violence whether it is directed against us or even our opponents. Our public image may be tarnished a bit by fake MRA`s espousing violence but true MRA`s openly disagreeing with such tactics goes a long way in undoing that damage.

    • Renly

      That’s why marches and other offline activism must be of a planned nature. I think this makes a good case for such:

    • Jane

      Interesting and frightening. I’m ashamed I didn’t understand things were this bad in Greece. As variously mentioned, I’ve had some experience with Sweden and have been shocked how the state media pushes agendas and demonizes those who bring awareness to “problem” topics. I believe there have been issues with websites being shut down as well and forums being closed. I’ve been shocked too that there isn’t even a real uproar. It’s a very oppressive atmosphere.

      I imagine as PR goes, the men’s equality movement will do well to have female support, especially such as (if i have the professions right) the psychologist and lawyer who have been featured on this site. I suspect that people are wary, and I think having a woman’s face in the crowd probably helps neutralize things. And it will herd critics to the points in question and not allow them to divert attention by attacking the messenger. (And/or you can get a riot dog.)

    • Whitney

      I apologize for being a dick.

      That said, the Greek people brought this on themselves. You can’t have everyone with a government job and nobody else paying taxes without going broke. The austerity measures are necessary but the unions won’t let it happen. Every time something is suggested, they go out and burn down a couple city blocks.

      Everyone should watch Glenn Beck. Do not rely on the Gubermint to give you jobs. e4 is the rule:

      E2 – EDUCATION

      We as MRA’s have E1, E2 and E3. We need to get a grasp of E4. We need to make jobs not the Gumbermint. We don’t need Unions, they just gumm up the works.

      The public sector should NEVER be allowed to unionize! You have a stubborn Union vs Taxpayer money. It’s a no win situation. If you don’t like your job, you look for or make another one.

      • lensman

        You are not being a dick, you are voicing the truth as you see it, and that is respectable.

        I actually agree with what you are saying. The unions here do more to dividing than uniting, and, in many ways are actually making matters worse. When the people protested in Syntagma square last summer, no unions actually showed up, which is why the protests lasted and endured for as long as they had. The few unions that did show up, immediately turned around and left, as if the “common people” had some kind of disease that they would catch.

        On that note, I am going to have to correct you on just one thing: the overall percentage of people that work in the public sector is 7%. That is way less than countries such as Germany where 12% of the people work in the public sector. So not *everyone* works there.

        The austerity programs are indeed necessary, but you have to understand that the Greek people are at their limit. Our paychecks read like obituaries, we have to pay over 3’000 Euros (that’s 5’000 dollars) annually in order to get to keep our homes, the price of everything, from basic necessities to medicine, increases exponentially, our health and education system is in shambles and we have a former Prime Minister that keeps saying that “Greece won’t become India” while the rest of the world says “We won’t become like Greece”.

        I believe Churchill said it best: “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle”.

        Currently, the austerity programs just make things worse. There is no middle class anymore (we are all broke at the end of the month), no development, just taxes, and the current industries, those that didn’t move their business overseas, are going broke. Furthermore, the fact that people don’t have money to spend means that even more businesses will shut down, causing the unemployment rate to rise even more which will create a need for even more taxes, and so on.

        In order for us to get out of this mess, we have to develop. And the Greek Government seems to be doing anything it can to prevent development rather than encourage it.

        Other than those couple of things… I agree with the things you said.

        What has basically happened is that Greece got most of its industries shut down and its production economy die out. Before we joined the EU we had factories that produced various things that were exporting. But once we got into the EU, for “some reason” (mainly that the Socialist Party Leader signed contracts preventing us from doing so) the exports stopped, the big industries moved overseas, we began to import everything and the factories began to shut down one after the other. The economy became mostly service based, the bureaucracy became monstrous, and tourism became Greece’s main industry.

        Are the Greek people to blame? Sure. We became opportunistic and lazy, we were fighting amongst ourselves over trivial matters, dividing ourselves to “Green” and “Blue”, we drunk the cool-aid, got loans that we couldn’t pay back, we played all of our money in the Stock Market, and we ended up going flat broke. But you have to understand that the Greek people didn’t get there all by themselves.

        The media in Greece has always been controlled by a handful of people that controlled the flow of information and what the vast majority of the people read and thunk. When the stock market was booming in the 90s, they urged people to invest. They continuously played commercials urging people to get loans. When a politician did something bad, they, being in cahoots with them, covered it up. They pushed for the politicians that gave them money and tax cuts, while slinging mud to anyone that didn’t.

        And, right now, when the people, mostly due to the internet are starting to wake up, the media conglomerates are starting to shit their pants because they know that they are largely responsible for what is happening right now. They know that their power is being diminished, that they are no longer opinion makers. The most visited blogs here are being written not by journalists but by common people, who are starting to find their voice and make themselves heard.

        And let me tell you something: Nothing scares those bastards upstairs more than people finding their voice and sharing information with each other. Which is why so many measures are being taken right now in order to muzzle them. The internet is being presented in the media as an addiction and a place where paedophiles go to get their kicks.

        I am sure this sounds familiar to many of you. There are many similarities between what has happened to Greece and what is happening in America right now. I am writing all of this in order to inform and showcase our mistakes so that other people won’t repeat them

      • Raven01

        I’d gladly invite you to my work place and see how long you say unions aren’t needed.
        Private industry, big money, and dead men pay for the fat cats(non-metal mining). Every couple of weeks we get a “safety bulletin” on a worker being killed at one of their facilities, sometimes 3 or 4 in a week. They draft new “policies” to “protect workers” and management ignores those whenever inconvenient. The only way we can manage risks is to have each others back.
        I believe you will find the root of the problem again falls on feminist views being implemented by governments.
        Governments run off like Wilma and Betty from the Flintstones screaming, “Charge it!!!” and running massive deficits to sponsor subsidized daycare when a woman chooses to be a mother but not take on the workload that choice should entail. Running hundreds of female favouring programs from education and healthcare to employment (subsidized employment for hiring “identified groups” i.e. McGuiltys $10,000 give away for hiring “new” Canadians while ignoring those that have paid taxes to this country and province for 20 years or more).
        I have watch the Shafia debacle with interest. Now Imam’s are toeing the feminist party line on DV. The simple reality that the Shafia’s are “wealthy Afghan-Canadians” seems to have eluded the media. How does one become a wealthy Afghan(Their money was not made here they came to this country well off)? I can guarantee that they were not wealthy from pomegranate farming, think poppies and arms, or extortion. But, hey let’s give companies $10K of taxpayers money to give this guy a job and then blame MEN for this guy being a grade A asshole that never should have been allowed in the country in the first place.
        When a government spends like a drunken woman at a strip mall they will always collapse.

    • Dr. F

      This is one spooky post.

      You really do paint a terrific picture of such terrible things.

      Great sympathies to you and you’ve done us better with your posting here with this information.

  • MrStodern

    This is definitely a wake up call for me, although I don’t imagine I’m “next” or anything. I don’t have a popular website, or even a popular YouTube channel, and in my neck of the woods, I basically don’t exist.

    But that can change. If my upcoming novel happens to bring me much success, allowing me an opportunity to speak to the masses in a way that I don’t currently possess, you bet your ass I’m going to take it. And it may just cost me everything.

    Fortunately, I’m not an idiot, and in the U.S., I have an absolute right to an attorney, and the right to face my accuser, so that’s something. They can’t count on me being intimidated either, or relenting in my pursuit of justice. As determined as they may be to silence us, I am certainly FAR more determined to shed light on the misandry running rampant in my homeland.

  • Anti Idiocy

    Not only have we recently seen the celebration of violence by females, as exemplified by the cheering on television for a woman who cut off her husband’s (boyfriend’s?) penis and put it into a garbage disposal, we’ve had recent attacks on police by females.

    There’s the recently removed YouTube video of a man not defending himself when repeatedly attacked by a female, and then, when the cops show up, the woman fights them and apparently (it’s off the vid, though in the audio people commented on it) twice knees the male cop in the groin.

    And then there’s this:
    “Marauding mob of 50 teen-aged girls beats down 2 NYC cops”

    The cops might want to take note of who their own enemies are.

    • Whitney

      No fathers. ;(

  • Brutal Antipathy

    Those girls can’t be the enemy of the police (and society in general) because they lack penises. Whatever they did, we are perceiving it wrong, because it wasn’t violence. It must have been self defense, PTSD, BPD, battered woman syndrome, or simply freedom of expression. Only men and boys can be violent, don’t ya know! That is why there is a VAWA but no VAMA, or even a fair and balanced Violence Prevention Act.

  • JinnBottle

    Dayum. And I wanted to be famous as a novelist, or an artist, or actor or musician, not *in*famous as a thought criminal! Oh well.

    Still, I wish somebody’d told me: “Son, you, or any non-mangina going for a career *anywhere in the fuckin Anglosphere* post-1970, let alone the Arts, might as well be trying to take a flyin fuck at the Moon. Now *that*, you’ll certainly be welcomed to do over the next 4 decades.”

  • Fidelbogen

    I haven’t had time to read any of the comments on the thread.

    But anyway, this again drives home my personal intuition that we need to evolve a variety of distinct brands. . . and begin to distance ourselves from the terms “MRA” and “MRM”. I don’t mean give those words up, but just be more coy about it.

    The idea is to present a diffuse, fog-like, scattered target.

    • Paul Elam

      That is a tough task, FB. Not the distancing part, but the rebranding. That is a huge amount of work and would call for unprecedented cooperation.

      • Fidelbogen

        But if it happened ‘organically’, even spontaneously, it could be a lot easier. It could be a matter of people spinning off into various little niches, and adopting distinct terminologies, styles, etc…..

        Like stellar systems coalescing from the clouds of dust, if that makes any sense.

        As ‘the movement’ grows, it is bound to spin off into groupuscules and sub-brands anyway. So the trick would be to give nature a boost.

        • keyster

          I understand what you mean.
          The “M” is the problem.
          “Rights” and “Movement” and “Activism” for equality can’t easily be contested. Men organizing for rights vis a vis women, doesn’t compute with the natural order.

          A group of people who merely want equality and justice is a difficult target.

          • Stu

            If the civil rights brigade, or the humanists, or any other egalitarian movement was going to achieve anything for men, we wouldn’t be sliding into a misandrist feminazi shit hole state. Every other “rights” movement is co-opted by and for women.

            We need a Mens Rights Movement because no other movement has, or will, bat for us.

          • Tawil

            I agree we needs a men’s rights movement, but maybe it can go under many different names?

            For the vast majority of people outside the MRM the word ‘rights’ is now thoroughly conflated with the word ‘priviledges’ ie. over women. Compliments of feminism.

            Using the word ‘rights’ and hoping the masses will not think we are referring to male patriachal priviledge is a bit like using the word ‘gay’ to refer to happiness and hoping the masses will not think we are referring to homosexuality.

            Just look at the way newspapers around the world place men’s “rights” in inverted commas to signal patriarchal privilege. Nowadays you can leave the inverted commas out and people still read it that way. Because of this development the word now has limited effectiveness as a definer of what the men’s movement is about.

            The only way the word ‘rights’ can now be used without misunderstanding is if it is contextualized; men’s health rights; men’s rights to freedom; to education, etc. This is what the feminists now do; women’s right to pay equity; women’s right maternity leave, women right to freedom from violence, etc

        • Stu

          I can’t see why we should distance ourselves from the MRA, MRM brand……is it because “they” will destroy that brand with negative propaganda and lies…….so what…they will do that to any rebranded brand we come up with. Just as I will classify and call feminists…….feminists….no matter what they try to call themselves…..or rebrand themselves as.

          I say own the MRA MRM brand. At the moment we can’t split into lots of little groups chasing all different causes anyway……we are too small…..for now I think focusing our energy against the most important enemies and battles would be best.

          Before we could benefit from developing several brands….we would have to be bigger…much bigger.

          By the way, it’s close to the end of the year……has anybody got any credible data on the growth of the MRM in the last year. I’m sure it’s grown….be good to have a ball park figure for the growth though.

      • Whitney

        How about returning to a constitutional republic like the U.S. of A was intended to be?

        There is no smaller minority than an individual.

        I hated it all my life but now I wish Canada would become the 51st state. I really want a piece of that ominous paper written by the most intelligent men in history ‘The Constitution of the United States of America’

        Damn! It would be nice to have inalienable rights that cannot be set aside for the “Good” of society according to the preamble as written by Jean Chretien.

        Long live the Constitutional Republic and the Libertarian.

        • Stu

          Yeah and Australia can become the 52nd….but not until Ron Paul or a similair candidate restores the constitution…….in practice…..not just in theory.

        • Wolverine1568

          Good idea. Canada does not have a proper Constitution. It is an ACT not the supreme law of the land. Statutes and acts are the lowest form of law and can only be upheld by the consent of the governed.

          The so- called Canadian constitution has not even been properly ratified. I didn’t get a vote on it. Did you get a vote on it?

        • keyster

          The US could easily overtake Canada in a matter of days. It would be very politically unpopular however because the perception of Canada is that it’s too damn cold and everyone seems so nice.

          You will need to attack us first so we can gather enough consent to invade. Instead you slowly infiltrate us with the Bieber Fever.

      • Wolverine1568

        How about:

        Men’s Advocacy League

        Men’s League of Common Justice

        Men’s League of Common and Equitable Justice

        If they say they are against us we can ask; of what?

        Justice? Equity? or Men?

        Just throwing it out there.

        • MrStodern

          I vote for “Dumbledore’s Army”.


    • namae nanka

      patriarchal feminists. We like women to be given equal rights as men but husbands to have hand over their wives. In our world-view there’s nothing wrong with that, no hypocrisy, or contradictions.

      • Whitney

        Rewrite required. Second sentence does not parse.

    • Primal

      Yes. And even more important, to attack from many directions at once as independent, diverse, and relatively obscure individuals. Just a few wolves among the buffalo are enough to create panic, cause stampedes, and scatter the beasts far and wide.

      • Primal

        And of course, the ‘attacks’ I refer to above are NON-VIOLENT rhetorical attacks only.

  • Tawil

    “We won’t slither into private forums with our beliefs.”

    That’s the right course. I have witnessed examples of paranoia coming to dominate all activities and discussions of MRA groups – a practice that eventually saw some of the groups disintegrate- eaten up from within. It was akin to an overproduction of stomach acid which turned something healthy into something corrosive.

    Paranoia about feminist motives is a valid and important thing; it says “there is something more than what we see on the surface, something hidden and harmful”. But it must be capped at an optimal level.

    I remember discussions on one MRA forum initiated by a limited few contributors from Australia, USA… and Canada who appeared overly paranoid about big government, surveillance, and who fearfully recommended keeping all conversations out of the public domain. “Our every move is being watched” was the belief, as was “We must set up a private discussion fortress, and (redacted-k) A paranoid sentiment overtook the wider membership of the group and it lost it’s way as a result. Fortunately these “fortress” types constitute a tiny minority.

    • Eoghan

      ““Our every move is being watched” was the belief, as was “We must set up a private discussion fortress, (redacted-k)

      Why the fuck would you publish that, on this thread of all threads? And if this group ever existed and then they disintegrated, that can only be a good thing.

      • Tawil

        I deliberately clarified that these isolated individuals constitute a tiny minority, and that groups dont survive if that sentiment is brought into it. So my observations about one unsuccessful forum were to agree with the above article that this forum is not based on paranoia and violence. There is clearly nobody like that on this forum, and the one forum on which I did see that happen folded many years ago. PS. by “fortress” I meant an online discussion fortress, not an actual fortress… wish I had made that clearer (its ok for management to delete if that comes across wrong).

        • Eoghan

          I understand what you wrote, what I don’t get is why you would submit a testimony to that in the first place on this thread, of all threads. Its as if you are trying to lend some credibility to this trumped up shit.

          • Tawil

            “I don’t get is why you would submit a testimony to that in the first place”

            My intention, however unclear, was to give a topical example of isolated individuals wanting to slither into private forums with their paranoid beliefs.

        • Tawil

          PS. On that old forum I remember there being one Canadian man in particular who kept raising problems about surveilance, police being overly suspicious of his hobbies and activities, hence his call for all discussion forums to be private. The other forum members were more responders to that conversation, whether they agreed or not. He also corresponded with managers of that forum sharing his concerns about police surveilance -providing personal anecdotes- and urging complete privacy of discussion.

          Suffice to say that if his account is accepted as typical then the situation in Canada may be worse than in other countries (except perhaps Sweden).

      • keyster

        And then you go ahead and repeat it!

        He goofed, it happens.

        Be aware that what you say can be easily misconstrued and/or taken out of context. “Deliberate clarification” doesn’t matter to those who want to see what they want to see. It’s wise to be cognizant of that.

        • Tawil

          Point taken and redaction fine, thanks for that.

      • Whitney

        The last article recommended an exclusive forum. It is so easy for agents to infiltrate that it makes no sense at all. Keep everything in the open. We need to be as open and honest as we want them to be.

        If we go into a “hidden” forum to discuss strategy, we will be constantly wondering who tipped off the fems. Keep it here, do everything legal and upfront and we are good as gold. As soon as you go into hiding you start to act like Che Guevara “If you don’t trust somebody, kill him!” This will disintegrate a group faster than stink because the only person standing will be the fastest draw.

  • justicer

    I endorse everything Paul says in his blog piece.
    We must concentrate on the task at hand, which is to build a political movement, one that aims at legislative and policy change.
    It’s terrific that Official Feminism is monitoring this site and others; it shows the growing power of truth over lies, and is perhaps a strategic shift in the public’s mood. However, it falls to all of us not to feed the provocateurs (trolls) and to keep our anger focused on polical change.
    To be sure, nothing short of defeating gender-feminism and pushing it to the outer fringes will satisfy me. But we ought to remember that it’s men who are taught restraint and patience, not women, and it’s a male virtue to hold one’s tongue.
    I’m familiar with the scene in Canada. The Ontario regime, at various policing levels, will respond to any false accusation of “hate,” “harassment,” “threat,” whatever, as long as a female makes it against a male. The police don’t apply the law, they enact policing policy. That depends, though, on the circumstances. In d.v., it’s anti-male hysteria. In more mundane conflicts, an officer will still use his best judgement.
    But overall policy is to control and terrorize the male population, sometimes to win points among female voters. Male officers are zealous, although most of them hate the rules and the lies. Female officers have a lot more savvy when it comes to sniffing out manipulative females.
    However the system has been stacked against men since the 1970s.
    The Dec. 6 event is an opportunist smear and blood libel against all Canadian men. Twenty years on, the act of one madman is still paraded as the model for “violence against women.” Males are still stigmatized as a collective perpetrator with a mark on their foreheads; however, the climate is changing now, as men and reasonable women worry about this exploitation. Knowing this, Official Feminism went back on the rampage this year, with vicious anti-male tones pushed by radical feminists, in and out of the media. You could see that this was not a casual happening. So the feminists do realize that their monopoly of discourse has been challenged.
    The shooter was a failed male student, of mixed ancestry, possibly abused as a child, who erupted in armed frustration in a classroom filled with women students. Obviously, the horror of that moment will never be completely erased. Some day, the event will be properly depoliticized.

    • justicer

      Just one note to add to the above.
      Nothing I say above negates the most valuable service performed by this site, which is the unvarnished reporting/witnessing by men. Tell us the whole story, even if the words are undiplomatic. Keep listing offenders on the Register.There are precious few sites anywhere, where men can reveal the oppression we all face.

  • Anti Idiocy

    In case anyone is interested in watching it, I found another YouTube link with the video of that girl beating the crap out of her boyfriend and then fighting the police after they arrive.

    • Jane

      My initial reaction was, why isn’t anyone DOING anything.

      • Stu

        Because it’s only a man getting beat on by a woman. Notice he does nothing back……nothing at all…..he can’t run away…..where are you going to go on moving train. Notice that he was still arrested also.

        She was cuffed and subdued not because of anything she done to him…but because she attacked the police…..if it weren’t for that…he probably would have been arrested.

        This is what feminists and manginas expect all men to be….punching bags that don’t hit back……even though nobody is going to help…and you have nowhere to run……just sit there and be a punching bag for as long as the woman wants to keep hitting you. But how does a mans bigger size and strength help him if he can’t use it to defend himself…..and what reason has the attacking woman got to stop attacking if he can’t do anything back.

        What you are witnessing here is a man behaving as the law requires him to….a punching bag….with no legal rights at all. This is what the feminists and the law….and any woman who says that a man should not hit back is stating……you should be a punching bag with no rights at all.

        What would you have done Jane…and it would be up to a woman to intervene…..because any man who tried to break that up would be in the same boat……a punching bag who was not allowed to hit back..and probably arrested later to boot.

        • Stu

          Women like her think they are so big and tough and brave…..but how much more cowardly can you get then beating on someone who is legaly and and morally not allowed to fight back…….how brave is it to work out on punching bag. Pathetic miserable coward hiding behind her own skirt……and an army of white knights.

        • MrStodern

          That’s why we need more Rayon Mcintoshs, we need more guys who aren’t afraid to adequately defend themselves, and we need them to not get locked up for doing so.

          I’ve never been so brutally attacked by a woman before, but you can bet your ass that when one of them does come after me, they’re not going to find me so submissive. I don’t care of the person who just kicked me in the head is a woman, I’m still going to knock them out.

        • Jane

          What would I have done? Cussing her and yelling at her to stop, is what came to mind when watching the clip. I’m not saying that would have done a whole lot, but that, at least, was a reaction and starting point.

          If this type of public violence is a recurring theme, then maybe men (and women) need to have some kind of passive action plan to deal with violent women whom men aren’t “allowed” to defend themselves (or others?) against – though I’m not sure how realistic this is, and maybe it sounds too much like a fire drill or fixed scenario…

          I guess some savy person could have tried to talk to her, though I’m guessing the odds were slim-to-none for any positive effect with that. I still wonder though if enough people yelled at her, if enough people just even stood instead of remaining sitting, what effect that would have had – just the presence of an alert and concerned crowd. And maybe no one could/should touch her, but people perhaps could have stood between him and her, if he moved out of the smaller area.

          I know being there with a crazy (and/or high) person is not the same as safely analyzing the replay. I don’t regulary ride subways either, so perhaps I’m not as desensitized as the urban mice. Someone did at least film it, and someone did call the police. For all anyone knew I guess, the crazy lady could have had a gun.

          If somebody on the subway though was punching and kicking and spitting, etc. on a dog, I bet someone would have said/done something.

          • Stu

            I think your right that someone intervening wouldn’t stop her, at least not without using force. Look at the cops, two armed cops with battons, guns, handcuffs, and authority….and she attacked them.

            The only way to stop this is to do away with political correctness and the bullshit that says a man shouldn’t defend himself, even if it means lashing out.

            One good wack would have stopped her in her tracks….she continues because she doesn’t get the wack.

          • keyster

            The reality is had a man intervened and merely touched her in any way, that could be considered Assault. The people on the train are very aware of this, especially the street-smart negro folk who know better not to get involved in police matters.

            Now a man beating a woman in a similar fashion is COMPLETLY different, hence our little movement here to make these points known.

      • J3DIforce1

        Because she is a poor victim.

    • Tawil

      Disturbing stuff. I notice the woman taking the video says she is going to file it on YouTube under comedy.

      While we’re on the topic here is an article that came out yesterday showing female rates of violence perpetration higher than males:

      There is a link at the bottom of that article to the actual study FWIW.

    • Patrick Henry

      Notice how the title of the video convicts him of cheating and insults him as well. It must be kick a ginger day. Fuck!

      • TMOTS

        Not specifically to you Patrick henry, but why are people using the slur “ginger” for red haired folk?

        Where I come from, that word is akin to the dreaded “N” word.

        Oh silly me, he’s not of the “protected goups” so it’s all good.

        Keep forgetting.

        And no, I am not red haired. I just hate ALL forms of bigotry.


        • Patrick Henry

          TMOTS, I assume you gave me the down vote. I think you misinterpreted my post. I am aware that ginger is a derogatory term. That’s part of what pissed me off. The title of the video. It’s entitled “Ginger Cheater Mad Girlfriend.”

          His girlfriend was kicking him in the head, which made me think of National Kick a Ginger Day. The cartoon South Park urged members to “kick a ginger” on Nov. 20, which has resulted in bigotry violence against redheads accross the globe. The whole thing makes me sick!

    • Whitney

      And this is what the advocates at the Verizon Monster Video don’t get. These girls are raised to think that they can not only beat a man for cheating (how many women are beaten for cheating?), but they feel so justified that they can knee a cop in the groin twice.

      The abuser is being formed into a monster before our eyes yet men are still demonized. I’d have smacked that chick like she was Chuck Noris (not that I’d smack Chuck, just sayin’)

    • MrStodern

      I don’t which is worse, the fact that the guy didn’t defend himself, or the fact that no one got up to help him, even after that bitch started kicking him in the fucking head.

      As always, reverse the genders, and things would’ve turned out VERY differently.

    • Anti Idiocy

      Related theme — these Russian cops seemed to know how to deal with the recent protest by the Ukrainian topless feminist group FEMEN (NSFW):

      • MrStodern

        Apparently, although it’s illegal, prostitution is pretty rampant in Ukraine, and men come from foreign lands to score, something FEMEN highly objects to, and wants the government to take more seriously. They also have a problem with the porn industry, although it’s unclear if they want porn outright banned. More likely that they want women to be running the show more when it comes to porn. Basically, they want women to own the sexual marketplace in Ukraine, just like how it is in the U.S. and just about any other country where prostitution is frowned upon.

        They also want to abolish lifetime prison sentences for (Ukrainian) women, which very much brings them in line with the kinds of feminists we all know and loathe.

        May the Russians never falter in their resistance of feminism.

    • Ben

      Yep, we live in a vaginocracy….. Definitely. The cops arrest HIM. He will probably be charged with domestic violence in order to inflate the statistics while she will likely face “assault” charges. We see what you are up to VAWA and our bells toll for you now. To those who are “watching us” : We cannot be stopped from exposing the truth.

      This is the way that female on male violence is supposed to be responded to by both the man as well as the bystanders in the current Orwellian Politically Correct zeitgeist. I should point out a couple of things, first being that the victim probably weighs about 160 pounds. Oh wait! I should be more specific. Anyone outside the MRM will assume that I mean the woman when I say “the victim.” Let me make myself clearer; by “the victim” I mean the man. If this 160 pound man were to attack a 325 pound man in the same way, no one would expect the 325 pound man to “man up” and take his beating while everyone videotaped.

      But that would be almost precisely the same situation. This proves with pristine clarity that the reason that female on male violence is acceptable, but male on female violence is not, is not because women are smaller, weaker, and cannot defend themselves against men, but is because of female supremacy. This reeks with patriarchal theory, which now has a stronghold in the collective psyche in which, astonishingly, most don’t even realize they harbor it or have even heard the term.

      The culture illustrated on this train beating is no different than a culture in which it is acceptable for a white man to whip a black man while the notion of a black man whipping a white man is socially unacceptable. This connection can be fairly made because the feminist’s “smaller / weaker” argument falls apart when we consider that 325 pound men are not socially required to take beatings from 160 pound men, as the 160 pound men call them the most emasculating term in our language — pussy, and then be arrested to top it off. Feminism is about privaleging one biological demographic over another under the guise of empowering the physically disadvantaged demographic.

      I have downloaded this video, converted it to a WMV and saved it to my hard drive, by the way. Thanks for posting it here.

  • Eoghan


    I understand what you wrote, what I don’t get is why you would link yourself and the movement to a group like that here, now. How is that going to look for Mr. X? For example.

    • Whitney

      I for one did not sign up to the secret chat forum and will not. This is the point. We cannot go secret. We actually need hoards of angry feminists decrying our rights to human decency.

      N.B. We need to watch our ranks. It only takes one Agent Provocateur to ruin a good movement.

      • Stu

        The secret forum is not to replace anything we have online now……it’s only for discussing plans for projects that we don’t want outsiders to know about until the time is right. That’s it…nothing more

        • Whitney

          But they will know. You’ll all be trying to figure out who tipped them off. Nothing is secret and it’s too easy to infiltrate a group on the web.

          • Denis

            It doesn’t matter. There is no reason for paranoia if we always operate with the assumption there are potential infiltrators. It’s only a problem when those infiltrators attempt to promote or organize illegal actions and they should/would be dealt with by the same standards as any public forum. A private forum is just an opportunity to discuss strategy with other MRM rather than just the article of the day with everyone on the internet.


    This is excellent!

    This shows up what our enemy’s are like, a bunch of little pussies that have to call the boys in uniform – funded by my taxes GRRRR – when someone even walks past their house of cards.Our enemies are cowards and behave as such.

    and how afraid they are.

    I hope Mr X has some AvFM stickers to hand out!

    As I said a few weeks back on another topic, if getting arrested garners publicity for AvFM and as a consequence some guy comes to website and it saves his life, getting arrested is the least we can do.

    Time to ball up men.


    KARMA MRA MGTOW – the law I am the law

    MRA Youth Core Recruitment Department
    Ph.D F.T.S.U


    Just for fun.

    This is what an MRA looks like.



    In 2011 MRA’s are questioned, that’s cool with me.

    In 2021 MRA’s are questioned and never seen again, not so cool…

    Julian Assange anyone…

  • J3DIforce1

    I have said this many times over! But just when you don’t think they can sink any lower, you find yourself constantly surprised!

  • Patrick Henry

    Just out on the AP wire, “Calif. Prison Psychologist Accused of Faking Rape.” The lengths she went to is sickening.

    I tried to link it but it got flagged a spam. It’s currently on the main page of Yahoo.

  • ZenCo.

    We’re gonna draw the line, not re-brand, and hold their feet to the fire.
    That’d be my advice…

  • Masculist Man

    Also keep in mind what Canadian MRA Earl Silverstein is doing to their Human (women’s) Rights Council. I’ll bet they’re getting scared.

    • Dannyboy

      Go Earl Go !!!!!!

  • Open War

    US allies: anything you say to an officer of the law can only be used to CONVICT you in a court of law, not ACQUIT you. Remember that and keep your mouth shut around the police unless you have an attorney present. Police will sometimes trick people into answering incriminating questions (Do you know how fast you were going?). Never answer those questions without an attorney. They will sometimes play hardball if they want to incriminate you particularly badly. Don’t respond to threats, intimidation tactics, searches, or seizures of your property. Just keep your head and stick to your rights. Don’t allow emotions to get the better of you.

    Even talking casually with police officers on duty can be problematic if you say something potentially incriminating and they have “reason to believe” you might be a suspect in a crime.

    The only safe thing to say to an officer is “I am exercising my right to remain silent. I need to speak to an attorney.” Repeat as necessary. If the officer isolates you, ask “Am I being detained, or am I free to go?” This allows you to know whether you are being legally arrested or merely harassed.

    Just a friendly PSA.

    • Ben

      Good advice. Also, in the states, if you are arrested you will be told that “…anything you say can and will be used against you…” Why is it that anything that a suspect says is, by default, used against him in a free country? I have never been comfortable with this. It is as if they are saying that rather than uphold the laws, serve, and protect, they are going to use each and every little thing in their power to find all suspects guilty. If I am arrested, anything I say will be used against me?! Really? :-/ Why is that? Is it their objective to uphold the law and only make meaningful arrests of the right people only when needed or to simply make as many arrests as possible.

      They might as well say,

      “All suspects are innocent until proven guilty but we really believe that all suspects actually are guilty and will therefore be using anything and everything within our power to incriminate them in the mean time before trial. In rare cases, we don’t think that a suspect is guilty but, even in this case, we are still determined to use any and all methodology obtainable by veteran expert law enforcement agencies to incriminate this suspect anyway and it is up to him to hire attorneys in order to get out of it.”

      What kind of BS is that?!

      • MrStodern

        If a cop sees you stumbling around drunk with no pants on, they can haul your ass in, because that’s reason enough for an arrest. On your court date, the presumption is that you’re innocent, but the prosecutor is of course trying to have you locked up for awhile, because you were arrested for committing a crime, and since the arresting officer saw you commit the crime you’re being charged with, the prosecutor has a pretty strong case.

        Without the presumption of innocence protecting you the whole time, an officer would just arrest you for no reason and, if you can’t prove you weren’t drunk in public that day, you’re going to spend some time in jail.

        Not that that kind of thing doesn’t happen. It’s just that it usually entails a morally corrupt woman who decided that she didn’t really want your dick inside of her the night before.

    • Brutal Antipathy

      Spot on! If the police pick you up, they are not your friend, no matter how friendly they may act.

      If they take you in for questioning and offer you a drink, refuse it. They are offering it in order to put you temporarily at ease with their hospitality, and only later will you discover that they have left you alone in a locked room with a bursting bladder.

      If they threaten you with harsher penalty if you refuse to talk, keep your mouth shut. If it is not in writing, they do not have to abide by it. If it is in writing and you have no attorney to witness it, it is useless to you. Truth of the matter is, the police have no pull in your sentencing at all.

      If they took both you and a buddy in at the same time, they will claim that your buddy is ratting you out. They are lying. If they say that your buddy is willing to cut a deal that incriminates only you, they are lying. If thwy say that they know it isn’t all that bad, and if you will only tell them the truth and they will let you and your buddy go, they are lying.

      If they say that anything said is off the record or not being recorded, they are lying.

      Here in the states, the police are supposed to read you your Miranda rights. Take those rights to heart even if you are not under arrest, because what you might say could very well lead to your arrest.

      You have the right to remain silent… so remain silent.

      Anything you say can be used against you…so don’t say anything except the following.

      You have the right to an attorney… so inform the police that you will not discuss anything with them until you have a lawyer to represent you present.

      Sign nothing except an inventory if they removed property from you. Tell them that any other paperwork will need to be read by your attorney first. If they place you in a holding cell, do not talk to your cell mates about why you are there.

      Also, if you are asked to come in for questioning, ask if you are under arrest. If you are not, you do not have to accompany them to the police station. Do not waive your rights to allow the police to search anything, or to enter your house. Naturally you should not physically resist them, but do not let them talk you into any search of your property, including your vehicle. If they have reasonable suspicion, they can search without your permission. If they are asking for permission, they probably do not have reasonable suspicion.

      I could go on about their interrogation techniques all day, including the use of atmosphere to intimidate you. I’ll spare you all the mechanics of their manipulation techniques though. Just remember, keep your mouth shut.

  • Tim Legere
    • dalriada

      I very much approve of her criticisms in that article. It’s just a pity she is a big fan of male circumcision! That’s a pretty big fly in the ointment for me.

    • justicer

      Thanks for listing this, Tim. I must say Barbara is getting sharper as she gets older. It’s nice to see her take the gloves off on this one.
      Of even more interest were the comments on the blog. This seems to have consisted in a shouting match between a defender of BK and a persistent male-hater. Appears to have been so heated that the sitemaster shut down the Comments.
      The male-hater’s venom has a panic to it, and she keeps repeating her mantra, sort of “that’s not the Official Line! keep to the Official Line, comrades.” We are getting the message through, slowly but surely. At the same time, this seems to show that the vaginocrats are playing “Occupy Media Street,” trying to hound their critics off the air.

  • scatmaster

    Apparently Tim the Verizon ad is fine to run on TV but this one from VW gets banned.

    • MrStodern

      Seeings how that paints men as incompetent, easily-distracted imbeciles, I can’t say pulling it makes me anything but glad.

  • Just1X

    FYI (particularly ”Never explain to the Police”)

    Taken from a UK policeman’s blog ‘Nightjack’ – note WRITTEN by an experienced cop.

    A Survival Guide For Decent Folk

    In these days of us increasingly having to deal with law abiding folk who have fallen foul of the “entitled poor” and those who have learned how to use us to score points and exact revenge, I thought it would be a good idea to give out a bit of general guidance for those law abiding types who find themselves under suspicion or under arrest. It works for the bad guys so make it work for you.

    Complain First

    Always get your complaint in first, even if it is you who started it and you who were in the wrong. If things have gone awry and you suspect the cops are going to be called, get your retaliation in first. Ring the cops right away and allege for all you are worth. If you can work a racist or homophobic slant into it so much the better.

    Make a counter allegation

    Regardless of the facts, never let the other side be blameless. If they beat you to the phone, ring anyway and make a counter allegation against them. Again racism or homophobia are your friends. If you are not from a visible minority ethnic culture, may I suggest that that the phrase “You gay bastard” or similar is always useful. In extremis allege sexual assault. It gives us something to bargain with when getting the other person to drop their complaint on a quid-pro-quo basis. This is particularly good where there are no independent witnesses. When it boils down to one word against another and nobody is ‘fessing up, CPS run a mile and you, my friend, are definitely on a walk out

    Never explain to the Police

    If the Police arrive to lock you up, say nothing. You are a decent person and you may think that reasoning with the Police will help. “If I can only explain, they will realise it is all a horrible mistake and go away”. Wrong. We do want to talk to you on tape in an interview room but that comes later. All you are doing by trying to explain is digging yourself further in. We call that stuff a significant statement and we love it. Decent folk can’t help themselves, they think that they can talk their way out. Wrong.

    Admit Nothing

    To do anything more than lock you up for a few hours we need to prove a case. The easiest route to that is your admission. Without it, our case may be a lot weaker, maybe not enough to charge you with. In any case, it is always worth finding out exactly how damning the evidence is before you fall on your sword. So don’t do the decent and honourable thing and admit what you have done. Don’t even deny it or try to give your side of the story. Just say nothing. No confession and CPS are on the back foot already. They forsee a trial. They fear a trial. They are looking for any excuse to send you home free.
    Keep your mouth shut
    Say as little as possible to us. At the custody office desk a Sergeant will ask you some questions. It is safe to answer these. For the rest of the time, say nothing.

    Claim Suicidal Thoughts

    A debatable one this. Claiming to be thinking about topping yourself has several benefits. If you can keep it up, it might just bump up any compensation payable later. On the other hand you may find yourself in a paper suit with someone watching your every move.

    Always always always have a solicitor

    Duh. No brainer this one. Unless you know 100% for sure that your mate the solicitor does criminal law and is good at it, ask for the Duty Solicitor. They certainly do criminal law and they are good at it. Then listen to what the solicitor says and do it. Their job is to get you off without the Cops or CPS laying a glove on you if at all possible. It is what they get paid for. They are free to you. There is no down side. Now decent folks think it makes them look like they have something to hide if they ask for a solicitor. Irrelevant. Going into an interview without a solicitor is like taking a walk in Tottenham with a big gold Rolex. Bad things are very likely to happen to you. I wouldn’t do it and I interview people for a living.

    Actively complain about every officer and everything they do

    Did they cuff you when they brought you in? Were they rude to you? Did they racially or homophobically abuse you? Didn’t get fed? Cell too cold? You are decent folk who don’t want to make a fuss but trust me, it pays to whinge and no matter how trivial and / or poorly founded your complaint there are people who will uncritically listen to you and try and prove the complaint on your behalf. Some of them are even police officers. Nothing like a complaint to muddy the waters and suggest that you are only in court because the vindictive Cops have a grudge against you. Far fetched? Wait until your solicitor spins it in court and you come over as Ghandi.

    Show no respect to the legal system or anybody working in it

    You think that if you are a difficult, unpleasant, sneering, unco-operative and rude things will go badly for you and you will be in more trouble. No sirree Bob. It seems that in fact the worse you are, the easier things will go for you if, horror of horrors, you do end up convicted. Remember to fake a drink problem if you haven’t developed one as a result of dealing with us already. Magistrates and Judges do seem to like the idea that you are basically good but the naughty alcohol made you do it. They treat you better. Crazy I know but true.
    So there you go, basically anything you try and do because you are decent and staightforward hurts you badly. Act like an habitual, professional, lifestyle criminal and chances are you will walk away relatively unscathed. Copy the bad guys, its what they do for a living.

  • BobbyL

    I can’t speak for Canada but my honest opinion is that very soon in the US people are going to start being hauled away in black vans and disappearing for simply speaking out against anything the government is doing.

  • Ray

    I made “Los Misandry” and “Witch-Hunting Males” just for such precious moments like the one when the officer interrogated Mr. X. I’d have simply said, “Oh, why officer please look at these videos on Youtube. They were made for moments like this and people like you. :-)”

  • outdoors

    I believe BCFather’s was the victim of the “Status Of whymen” for these same type of reason’s.

    BCFather’s proved that all of SOW”s propaganda was nothing more than paper for the trash can.

    We at mensrights-help have been attacked by a local feminist and I am surprised she has not filed false accusation’s against us also.
    After all “she” does have the run of a courtroom and any man who thought he had rights would be immediately removed from “her” courtroom.
    Her words-not mine.

    BCFather’s is counter sueing but the S.O.W. is making sure to financially strap them so the case can go no further.

    No respectable mra would help the feminist regime in any way by promoting or being a part of violence.

  • Eoghan

    Quick everyone, act shifty and as if you perceive the police as the enemy…

    Actually, given that nobody here is doing anything wrong and that Mr.X has been the victim of a malicious false report … there is no rational reason for paranoia and acting as if the police wish us ill will.

    I hope that these false accusers will be hunted down and charged with wasting the valuable time of the police, I also hope police time isn’t wasted because they feel that they have to investigate anyone here, because they are acting shifty, and as is the police represent some sort of threat to them.


    “If a cop sees you stumbling around drunk with no pants on”

    Oh no! :) I have to stop doing that. This is WAR!