The (current) rules of gender reality

The Rules are as old as the hills. The rules constrain and dictate our understanding of gender reality. The Rules are rigidly enforced by psychic energies much more powerful than fact and logic. The Rules may be summed up as follows:

Rule One: Toward men and masculinity we direct accountability without compassion, which is ruthless. It is respecting men as autonomous and empowered beings responsible for their own decisions and predicaments, but it is not loving men enough to recognize their true vulnerability to forces outside their control and to lend men their fair share of empathy.

Rule Two: Toward women and femininity we direct compassion without accountability, which is infantilizing. It is loving women as vulnerable beings to be protected, but it is not respecting women enough to recognize their true power, autonomy, and accountability as equal partners equally responsible for outcomes.

Rule Three: Men have the power and women are the victims. For humans with penises, victim is an illegitimate concept. For humans with vaginas, power is an illegitimate concept.

Rule Four: Men are Bad; women are Good. And, therefore . . .

Rule Five: All Fault Is Male.

Rule Six: Females are not subject to critique. A critique of the feminine is “misogyny” and is forbidden.

Rule Seven: In the sexes relationship to each other: men reject victim, embrace shame; women rejected shame, embrace victim.

These are The Rules. We at NCFM break these rules but the rest of the world follows these rules with blind devotion. Any facts or logic that happen to support The Rules are embraced, which allows the Rule followers to believe that facts and logic dictate their beliefs. Any facts or logic that contradict The Rules are rejected, which proves that their gender beliefs have nothing to do with facts and logic. When it comes to gender belief systems, gender politics, gender policies, and gender “common knowledge,” humans are in thrall to the following irrational considerations: sentimentality, instinct, chivalry, Eros, the mere physical appearance and vocal characteristics of men and women, plus the myths and mythos that date all the way back to the mighty Odysseus and the fair Helen of Troy. Against these monumental psychic forces, logic doesn’t stand a chance.

This conundrum is deepened even further when we consider that humans are not machines. Humans cannot thrive on logic alone. Sentimentality does have a vital role to play in the human mind and in the human heart. What is romance without the ritual pleasantries of gender?

As I see it, this is what we’re up against, and it is huge!

Because our message is in accord with facts and logic (in my experience), it’s fairly easy to gain some measure of agreement out of most of the people we meet. But, because our message is contrary to sentiment, those same people are rarely willing to commit to our cause. Meanwhile, other people are appalled and would have us categorized as “hate crime”!

But paradigms, even passionately but irrationally held paradigms (i.e., an earth-centered universe) have been overturned in the past. The MalePower/FemaleVictimization paradigm is nowhere near as unassailable as it once was. “Truth will out.”

Tim Goldich

The above piece was written by Tim Goldich and is reprinted here with his permission. Our view at AVfM is that these rules he lays out need to be broken. Tim is the President of the Chicago chapter of the National Coalition for Men. He is the author of Loving Men, Respecting Women: The Future of Gender Politics, which we highly recommend purchasing.

To read more about the history of the National Coalition for Men, click here. You may be surprised. For an interesting interview with Tim Goldich on these ideas, see the below interview. –Dean Esmay

About Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay has written for Huffington Post, Thought Catalog, The Moderate Voice, Honey Badger Brigade, and A Voice for Men. He is a writer and podcaster with Erin Pizzey on domestic violence, Mumia Ali on race issues, and various shows on geek culture. He encourages people to look at issues through the lens of compassion for men who deserve it, and respect for women who deserve it. He is the author of the critically-acclaimed novel Methuselah's Daughter.

Main Website
View All Posts

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

  • Adam

    All those rules are laid bare in his interviews, I’m still working my way through them but he pierces the social veil in many excellent ways.

    Thanks Dean for bringing them here.

  • MrScruffles

    The propaganda goes something like that. In terms of practical effect, however, feminism is very much an us versus them ideology. The whole “men bad, woman good” paradigm disappears the very moment a man agrees with them, or the moment a woman doesn’t.

  • dejour

    Very good piece.

    I would argue that rule 5 follows more from rules 1-3 than from rule 4 though.

    Basically, if you assume that men have all the power, then yes whenever something happens (good or bad), men are responsible. Men are responsible for all the good things in civilization, and men are at fault for all problems.

  • Jay

    I know I am an old fart.

    The feminism of the 70s I supported as a kid, the science fiction of the 60s and 70s I read in the 70s, seemed all about breaking these rules.

    Oh well.

    • Dean Esmay

      Me too.

      It’s all but gone now. I think it’s because some of those science fiction authors we probably both read had no idea what the real agenda of the ideologues was. Hell a lot of the ideologues probably didn’t either…

  • harrywoodape

    Excellent article. Thanks Dean.

  • harrywoodape

    Australias PM is following these rules and a few of her own as she whips out her misogyny pistol and shows men in Australia what they face if they need to be reminded of the rules. Trigger warning. Count the number of times she is offended. I think this is a signal to radical feminists and a clear polarization of the sexes. Shit storm is a comin. I can see the fem profs high fiving themselves. They clearly have a friend in Julia and she happens to lead a nation.


    • harrywoodape

      In this case, Mr. Abbott apparently violated rule number 6. The feminine is not open to critique from men…even if she happens to lead your country… or you are guilty of misogyny. One can see the appeal of installing women in positions of power since they are really unassailable. Who knew that the key to domination of a people was to install a woman in power?… Hitler should have appointed Eva Braun as chancellor and gave her her lines.

      • harrywoodape

        Here is a predictable reaction. This article is basically an open call for female politicians to start bringing out the claws on men. There are several in Canada that I can totally see heeding the call.

        I’m calling it here….the people will now be exposed to public displays of angry female politicians berating male opposition. It won’t just become empty attacks either. It will become a real live witch hunt where white male politicians are driven right out of politics.

        We are being shown this stuff for a reason and it is not accidental that major news chains will be trumpeting more female politicians to start pushing their weight around with misogyny accusations….fight those goddamn rules I say.

        • scatmaster

          I would not have expected anything less from the Ottawa Citizen and Heartfield. One of the most misandric “news” outlets around.

        • harrywoodape

          Whoa…fuck. So now they are going to broaden the definition of misogyny because fucking Gillard used it rather loosely.
          What a bunch of evil little spinsters out there. I can see them all with their butch dyke haircuts and their expensive little nerd glasses.
          I do fucking hate them…not all women…just these ones. The ones that think they control the fucking language. Call me a me whatever the fuck you want. Can a brother get a flamethrower?
          Overthrow this goddamn government in Australia mates. Plead with rational women to reject this shit. I can see where it is going. They will take their new definition and use it to ban all critique of any female as misogyny. They will use it in court and make new stupid laws around it. Fight back.

          • Tawil

            Gee you know how to make a guy sick giving links like that…. to think even the dictionaries are in on the game of misandry.

            I was appalled by Gillard’s recent rant about misogyny- she blames her abysmal performace on misogyny, and blames Abbott’s critique of her poor performance also as misogyny, and since that speech even her voice-tone has changed to sound more strident and abrupt, as if the new tone highlights her newfangled moral authority over the misogynist world.

            Abbott is right in his response, “enough with the gender car already”.

            Gillard absolutely lost all respect from me and many others when she played this cheap gender card. Already she had poor male support, and with this latest charade she has decimated the male vote forever.

            To hell with her and her male disparaging opportunism.

          • harrywoodape

            @ Tawil,
            I think there is a lot going on here with her “fishy” little rant. The mainstream media across the Western world really promoted her rant and gave it a lot of coverage. I don’t believe anything that they show us is an accident anymore. The fact that within days they are broadening the dictionary definition of misogyny based on her complete witchhunt is alarming. Laws are made up of words and changing the definition of those words can change who the law is applied to. Gillard clearly demonstrated – to applause amongst radfems – that any man may now be labelled misogynyst (aka hate speech, hate group) by a woman. Australian men have looming over their heads a misandric plan to “end domestic violence” (if you haven’t checked that out I warn you that it is far more sickening than her speech).
            Imagine a time in the near future where any man can be automatically evicted from his home by the police, surrender ALL his assets, be forced to register in a database as a domestic violence offender, and have no contact whatsoever with his children…and there is not a thing he can do about it. THAT is where they are going. I think a lot of people need to become aware of what is going down in the land down under.
            I’m not sure what Australia’s hate speech and anti-hate group laws are like but by changing the definition of misogyny where it can be applied to any man, it may well be removing any requirement for any proof or evidence whatsoever.
            I would really like to see the fine writers and people at AVfM start covering this and focus on it because the feminist machine is global and seems to have moved boldly into a new era and have hijacked a country. Australia today, Canada tomorrow, and the rest of the so-called free world soon after. They are going to enslave the men and are trying to co-opt the female population to go along with it. I’m really quite sure that is what is happening here but I hope I am wrong.

        • Poester99

          And they will not be able to answer back in kind without being viewed as awful bullies, to most of the women (and men) that see it.

      • bowspearer

        I’m not sure you realise how close to the mark your comment is. Julia Gillard isn’t merely “Eva Braun acting as chancellor”; she’s the combination of Eva Braun and Hitler. Julia Gillard has long been associated with the Fabian Society- a society who were the ideological impetus for the Holocaust and the Stolen Generation (they were – and arguably still are – the premier think tank for eugenics as of their foundations around the turn of the 20th Century). When you look at her refusal to condemn the genocide of Palestinians, the racially oppressive and exploitative policies of the intervention and the QALY based health care reforms she’s driven through (ie “Obamacare”); it’s blatantly obvious that she still shares their beliefs. It really speaks volumes when we have a perpetual Hitler hiding behind a female persecution complex.

        • harrywoodape

          Meh. My take on her is that she is slightly less fucked in the head than Sarah Palin but is about as shallow and seduced by power. I think it would have been hard to get her elected even with the full power of the mainstream media behind her…she doesn’t fool many and she lacks any real leadership skill. I think there is no depth that she won’t sink to to hold onto power and she is a creature of privilege and comfort.
          I think her “strength” comes from her backers and I think she was put where she is by a curious set of circumstances and she is just smart enough to know who calls the shots and she would never have got where she is in a million years if it were at all based on any talent or actual leadership. She is an empty vessel (a Margaret Thatcher wannabe) that globalist mentors and global feminist nutjobs can use to usher in any whacko policies and laws as experiments o. The Australian people. They are her string pullers. She doesn’t have any real bold creativity or independence from that group. She is a franchise manager but not a real shot caller. If they told her to start martial law tomorrow in Australia and gave her her lines…she would do exactly what they say without question.
          I don’t know if she had to suck George Soros’ or Henry Kissinger’s dick.

  • Augen

    Saying nothing at all to the quality of the commentary in the interviews, but an interesting aside …

    Ok so watching the vids was curious who the interviewer was so googled her, and she’s got a book, “The Female Solution”, which I looked up, here’s it’s description on Amazon …

    “In many parts of the country, single women over forty already outnumber men their age by more than three to one … condemning countless numbers of young women to either remaining single for the rest of their lives or committing adultery. This is cruel. We must enact a more humane marriage law to enable every woman who desires a husband to get married. Statistics show that eight-five percent of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in fatherless homes. Women must cooperate with each other, so that all children are raised in the safety and security of a household that includes a mother and a father. This is the female solution to single parenthood. Strong, decent, responsible, God-fearing men must prepare themselves to marry more than one wife.”

    So much to say, so much to say, but I’ll limit my own response to this:

    The solution to these (real) problems is for men to, ehem, marry MORE women?

    I can think of no worse form of hell.

    • Dean Esmay

      Yow. I didn’t know that about her. Uhm, well, the interview speaks for itself, not necessarily the interviewer, is all I’d say.

    • harrywoodape

      Lol Augen. @ “I can think of no worse form of hell.”
      Absolutely :) sad but true.

      • Skeptic

        There is one form of hell more severe than that – marrying several women, then being divorced and dragged through the femily caught$ by them.

    • Bev

      This is a constant theme running through feminist Literature

      “So, how do we control men’s fertility? Mandatory
      contraception beginning at puberty, with the rule
      relaxed only for procreation under the right
      circumstances (he can afford it and has a willing partner) and for the right reasons (determined by a panel of experts, and with the permission of his designated female partner).”

      “…controlling men’s fertility would not be a
      hard restriction to enforce. The fertility
      authorities could use a combination of punishments
      for men who failed to get the implants and for
      doctors who removed them without proper authorization. The men could be required to adopt one orphan per infraction and rear her or him until adulthood. The doctors, could lose their licenses or, in extreme cases, go to prison.”

      Martha Burk feminist pro-abortion advocate. former chair of N.O.W.
      Taken from:

      November/December 1997 issue of Ms. Magazine.

      • Skeptic

        This is total BS from feminists.
        The truth is when reliable non hormonal male birth control pills (now in testing stage) hit the market, MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of men will voluntarily take it to avoid being fucked over by hypergamous women in feminist cultures.
        Men in such places won’t need any pressure from feminist law, as they will GLADLY be voluntarily infertile until such time as misandric laws and conventions are overturned and men given human rights.
        That can only mean MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of women reduced to involuntary spinsterhood.
        Barren and unfulfilled.
        Women won’t have a feminist celebration party under such circumstances, as there isn’t enough sperm around to satisfy current demand for sperm donors, let alone for many millions of women.
        Parthogenesis (fusing two female eggs to procreate) apparently won’t work for more than a few generations either as it leads to mutations and weaker offspring who don’t carry the male genetic side for immunities to a range of ailments.
        Men are needed much more than fish need bicycles, and for more than just building and maintaining the entire planet’s infrastructure as well.
        So all these fraticidal eugenic Nazi ideas from feminists are cloud cuckoo stuff.
        Just goes to show how very deranged they are.

      • Astrokid

        “Sperm Stops Here!” by Martha Burk (regurgitated barf alert)
        Ms. Magazine | Nov/Dec 1997 issue | Martha Burk

        She couches it as ‘A Modest Proposal’. Yeah..and the SCUM manifesto was satire.

    • Astrokid

      I have come to be very distrustful of women who talk about gender issues, coz none of them are male-friendly (unless they are MRAs of course, who have passed MRA bootcamp conducted by Factory). Many conservative opponents of feminism.. kate o’bierne, susanne venker, danielle crittendon, etc .. ultimately end up wanting MORE for women.. a different MORE. Fuck.. Rich Zubaty was right.

      So before even watching this interview, I looked up Naimah Latif. These women want better providers for women and children. period.
      The Female Solution Part 1.mpg

      • Kimski

        It seems to me to be a consistent suggestion from that side of the demographic, that in order to solve a problem, you just have to have more of it.

        To fix the problems with feminism, we just have to have more of the same.

        To fix the problems that causes men to opt out of relationships and marriages, which in turn leads to lost boys, we just have to marry more of them?!

        “We, the women, have the power to end this crisis.”

        Seriously, good luck with that.
        I sometimes wonder if the majority of women have even the slightest clue about what men are like, but judging from their problem solving suggestions, I would say quite clearly not.
        Too bad, that their solipsistic nature prevents them from seeing the obvious solution lying right in front of them.

        • Astrokid

          I was watching this piece Self Made Man by Nora/Ned Vincent recently, and even with her limited experience and understanding, she quite clearly says that women have no idea what its like to be a man (in the Part 3 conclusion). On top of that, I am reminded of what Sue Hindmarsh said in a podcast

          Easily, because she doesn’t have any connection to the world other than through Woman, and Woman is by her very nature—you were talking about biology before, Rich—by her very nature is never satisfied, can never be satisfied because she actually has no connection to anything. There is not that depth of mind to allow her to have a connection. So, it’s all just superficial. It’s all very shallow. It’s all spontaneous. Nothing is deep. You were saying before, Rich, about men having deeper emotions. Of course they’ve got deeper emotions, they actually have an inner self to house those deeper emotions. Women don’t have that. It’s all just now. Everything is in the present moment. And of course, this is why she doesn’t to do any of those things you were talking about, Rich. She doesn’t have to build a table, or build a computer, or do the janitor’s job, or go fight a war, or be a cop…if she doesn’t want to that is. She doesn’t have to because it doesn’t serve her, or most importantly, it doesn’t serve Woman.

          You were saying earlier about woman being born fully formed. She comes out as a woman. She lives her whole life as that, Rich, she doesn’t gain anything from doing anything. She doesn’t gain anything from being prime minister or president of the United States. She doesn’t gain anything from being the CEO of a major corporation. Nor does she gain anything from being able to understand the feminine. She definitely will not ever understand the feminine because if she did, she then automatically removes herself from it. She automatically becomes masculine.

          So this is why…yeah, she has no need to be worrying about…or being grateful!—Ugh! Spit to chips! You know. Ah! Vomit! Gosh! A woman being grateful!? That would actually imply that she actually had those deeper emotions. So yes, you’re spot on, Rich.

          What baffles me is that the vast majority of men cant see through the bullshit either, in spite of all thats out there. I was at my first, local ‘walk a mile in her shoes’ event today.. got to hand it to the wimmin.. they ran a slick operation.. booths spreading disinformation, and white knights who had pre-registered to don heels.. Mostly young white men, in their 20s I would estimate, accompanied by their young girlfriends, and a few middle aged and older men too.
          I am quite convinced that many of them have young women at home.. say sisters or daughters.. possibly ill or handicapped or damaged in some way.. that have triggered their protective instincts to such an extent they cant see through the bullshit no matter what.

          • Kimski

            Very telling that her little experiment eventually landed her in a mental institution.
            I can’t help wondering how that goes hand in hand with the general female notion, that men has it so much easier than women.
            Like hearing a blind person discussing colours, would be my answer to that statement.

  • Primal

    Some hilarious satire: RIP Men: An Obituary for Gender:

    • MenDiscontinued

      Their commenting policy is pretty much “if you say anything to criticize women, it will be deleted”

    • Sting Chameleon

      That article is pure satire with a misandric spin.

  • bowspearer

    This article touches on points I brought up in an article which was supposed to go up on the site here a few days ago, however as I bring up in it and as people here seem to be missing; Rule 1 is one which many MRAs are guilty of reinfording. To be specific, I am referring to pro-Alpha-Male MRAs (as opposed to pro-Zeta-Male MRAs) who wish for a return to things “as they used to be”.

    However “things as they used to be” means a reinforcement of not only rule 1, but also rules 2,3 and 7. In fact rules 4-6 could be argued as an exploitation of the other rules and are the only rules which feminism is responsible for and even then the lines are somewhat blurred.

    Which begs the question, how interested in authentic male liberation are pro-Alpha-Male MRAs as opposed to traditional male socialised oppression??

    • Dean Esmay

      There are those in the men’s movement who consider people like myself and Goldich to be “protestant feminists” because we accept that there’s something negative about traditional gender roles, which is an area wherein we wind up agreeing with many feminists. So if your definition of “feminism” is “rejects ironclad enforcement of traditional gender roles” then of course we’re feminists, and I would presume about 90% of our audience is too. But that’s the problem with the word “feminist” isn’t it? It means whatever anyone wants it to mean. It’s one of the most endlessly flexible words on the planet. Feminists themselves squabble like cats and dogs over whether X, Y, or Z is or is not a feminist issue, or feminist perspective. The word “feminist” doesn’t fucking mean anything. Or rather, it means whatever YOU want it to mean whenever you say it, and simultaneously means whatever the person you’re speaking with wants it to mean, which is part of why any time you argue with someone who’s defending “feminism” it turns ugly: neither of you is even working from the same definition of the word.

      This is why I increasingly prefer the word “gynocentric” or “gynocentrist.” Then at least we know exactly what we’re talking about.

      From this frame of reference, it should be notable that those men who want to “return” to “traditional roles” are not necessarily problematic. I personally think they’re a little naive, because their idea of what those “traditional roles” are doesn’t have a whole lot of basis in historical reality. They think it does, but it’s mostly a Hollywood-concocted illusion. That said, if you want to have a “traditional” relationship where husband is “head of household/captain” and wife is “first mate/helper” then fine, that’s your choice as long as you’re both on board with it. Just don’t try to force me to live that way, I have never in my entire life wanted that, was pushed into it once in one of my relationships with a woman who wanted me to be that and it ended badly. I REFUSE. With the woman in my life, we’re either equal partners who help each other and have each other’s backs, or I want out.

      If a “conservative traditionalist” MRA wants that “traditional” role for himself, and finds a woman who’s sympatico, great. I think he’s still taking a huge risk since his woman can remove his “family patriarch” status any time she wants by just walking away, and that in today’s world you can’t make that impossible in anything short of a Saudi-style dictatorship (and maybe not even then). That toothpaste is not going back in the tube. But if it works for them, great.

      In the meantime, from my perspective, is there anything in conservative traditionalism that says women should not be respected? Actually my experience is that respect for women is a requirement in most conservative traditions. And I can certainly say that “compassion for men” is certainly not necessarily foreign to most conservative traditions that I’m aware of. So I’m not sure there’s a big problem here from that angle.

      • bowspearer

        The problem there is though Dean, that the “patriarchy is to blame” militant feminist end of the spectrum is the point of the sword and carries the rest of feminism along with it.

        However even then, you’re talking about a movement that has manipulated, rather than rejected, gender stereotypes.

        Conversely some MRAs simply knee-jerk in their response to militant feminism, by responding to their villification of the alpha-male by virtually deifying it. However in doing so they blindly steer themselves back into oppression. They also blindly dismiss the fact that feminism has done anything whatsoever that is positive for men.

        Yet in a rather black sense, it has. There’s something you come to understand when you’ve survived an abusive relationship and have started to deeply reflect upon it. That is that there is one incident of abuse that was actually a good thing.

        See the thing is that abusers work by getting under your skin, breaking your defense mechanisms and “normalising” the abuse.

        However what happens is that eventually, the abuser tries their luck just enough and pushes things so far that eventually something kicks in internally and you lash out and fight back.

        To translate that to feminism and traditionalism; traditionalism is the abusive relationship where men being oppressed into an alpha only role and vilified for failing to match up to it is a positive thing and men are given enough material trappings to ensnare them – like a pedophile offering a small child a lolly or a toy. It’s those trapping which make us think that being treated like scum for being victims – worthy only of contempt and ridicule for failing to be a perpetual superman – is a good thing for us.

        Feminism on the other hand is that abuser pushing things too far – shattering the illusion and showing every man out there what a shit deal we’ve been on the receiving end of since antiquity.

        Yet pointing that out, will only get you labelled a mangina by pro-alpha-male mras. And we wonder why we’re so fragmented as a movement…

    • harrywoodape

      I hear ya :). I know there must be much going on under the surface. Thanks. Your response eases my anxiety a bit. I checked out the 1 in 3 and I am impressed.

  • tallwheel

    I just ordered Tim Goldich’s book recently. Can’t wait for it to arrive. Already read the sample pages on Amazon, and am convinced I agree wholeheartedly with the majority of Tim’s opinions. Once I finish reading it, I’m going to lend it to as many friends and family members as possible. At the very least, the title suggests that it is a fair and balanced look at the problems with both gender roles. The majority of the pages being related to men’s issues is justified when you consider that most people are already pretty familiar with women’s issues already.

  • Codebuster

    Nice appraisal of the rules that impact on the different priorities of men and women and thus how they make different kinds of choices. Relevant to things like the wage-gap, women’s choices in men, men’s preferences in women, etc. This is important, because the tendency has been to presume that men’s and women’s thought processes are equivalent, that men and women want the same things (jobs, security, etc), which is clearly not the case. The provided-for inhabit a world that is very different, with very different priorities, to that of the provider.

  • Ray

    Great read.


    Well said.

    But very sad. Disgusting. What world do we live in? How can we get out of this nightmare of injustice, blindness, stupidity?

    Nice movie, too.

  • Primal

    Don’t mess with (kids in) Texas: but of course we are still debating whether the mother is a monster or not.

    • Dean Esmay

      I find it fascinating that the headline writer (the headline writers usually are not the people who write the story in most pro news organizations unless that’s changed in the last few years) chose to minimize by saying she was sentenced for gluing her kids’ hands–not for delivering a crippling, near-killing beating over a potty training incident.

      It is also hard not to be cynical and ask if it would have been different if her victim was a boy instead of a girl.

      I do wonder if the sentence is too long, honestly, though I also doubt very much that anyone would even ask the question if it was a man (even though women commit the vast majority of crimes like this by far).

      • Primal

        Interesting. Didn’t know that about headline/stories separation. Thanks for schooling me.

        Hard not to be cynical and ask if it would have been different for her were the father the perp instead of the mother too. Father as monster would have been accepted with no notice too.

        I too question the length of the sentence. The judge was probably looking to deter other ‘lovely’ mothers from copy-capping this mother. That said, given how often women/mothers literally get away with murder/rape maybe this kind of extreme is what it will take to swing the pendulum back to the center. Still, it’s very important to ask the question in all cases because justice is very much a personal thing.