Tuesday, 18 June 2013

Open Letter to Peter J Reilly, White Knight to Cathy Brennan

Peter J. Reilly is a US accountant who claims to have extensive experience of taxation and dealings with "high net worth individuals". He is a regular contributor to Forbes.com, and believing himself to be a white knight in shining armour, has just stepped up to defend the honour of Radfem organiser, Cathy Brennan. He is also a man who has very suddenly become aware that he is standing in the middle of a minefield, and doesn't know what to say or do next. Let's help him to decide!

Dear Mr. Reilly,

I am writing to you about your article on Forbes.com (link below) in which you describe your recent interview with Cathy Brennan, one of the organisers of Radfem 2013.

Peter J Reilly Interviews Cathy Brennan on Radfem

In your article, you openly admit that you don't really understand the issues involved, but step up to offer Cathy Brennan your support because you claim that radical feminists deserve respect. You also state that MRAs are the only people who refuse to acknowledge that radical feminists "have a worthwhile viewpoint" because they don't like to have "nasty things said about them." Furthermore, you say yourself that your analysis of the situation is that of an idiot. I suspect you were attempting to be disingenuous here, however, I am going to agree with you on your last point.

Last year, the Conway Hall convention centre in London rejected Radfem's 2012 booking citing the UK equality law after protest by transgender activists. Radfems typically refer to themselves as "TERFs", or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. In other words, they do not recognise male-to-female transgender individuals as women, and their 2012 event was advertised as being open only to "women-born women". Cathy Brennan, herself, has a documented history of espousing hate toward transgender women, see below.

Until February 2013, Cathy Brennan owned and ran a website called the "Radical Hub" (aka "Radfem Hub"). This served as a collective blog for her cause, and the articles it carried discussed gendercide and the genetic modification of males, as exemplified by Vliet Tiptree (aka. Pamela O’Shaughnessy, an author of crime novels from California) in her article titled, Radical Feminism Enters the 21st Century. Other posters called for the killing of baby boys at birth (see below) while still others argued that they should be deliberately denied care or nurture.

Men's human rights activists kept a dossier of articles, posts and screen-shots. They are too numerous to include here, but allow me to provide a quote, below, by Danielle Pynnonen, a child care worker who identifies herself as a Radfem organiser on Mumsnet under the handle "allectoTauniallectospoison".

Most radfems campaign against any funding or recognition for male victims of domestic violence and abuse, insisting that domestic violence is suffered exclusively by women. Almost all argue that children should have no rights to a relationship with their father. Over the last few months, radical feminists have violently demonstrated in Toronto, Melbourne and Paris, in one case abusing attendees and threatening speakers at a conference on tackling male suicide.

The London Irish Centre, the original planned venue for 2013, rejected Radfem's booking earlier this year after a protest by MRA London. As the organiser of this protest, I can attest to the fact that it was peaceful, without incident and ended with a cordial conversation with the centre's director. As you are aware, Radfem 2013 found a new home at the Camden Centre, who chose to ignore UK equality law and flout their obligation under the "No Delegation" clause of the Public Sector Equality Duty.

Mr. Reilly, you accuse us of trying to shut-down Radfem 2013 so that, as you put it, "our ears won’t burn while they say nasty things about us." On the contrary, we have used the controversy as a means of exposing these bigots and their ideology, and we make no apology for this.

At the time, I discussed the merits of trying to insist that I attend the Radfem 2013 event myself with Erin Pizzey, patron of MRA London and founder of the first ever women's domestic violence refuge in 1971. We decided that it would not be safe to do so even if, in the unlikely event, we were granted admission. Erin had previously been the subject of death threats and had fled the country in 1980s after being forced out of her organisation by radical feminists. Furthermore, shortly after the London Irish Centre protest, which took place months before the event itself, MRA London members were subject of an anonymous complaint to the police over alleged violent behaviour, an allegation even the director of the centre refuted.

You may believe yourself to be chivalrous and virtuous in your support for Cathy Brennan. You should not, however, expect anybody to respect you for this. Radfem members are, in fact, fully-fledged human beings, not weak helpless women in need of your protection. As such, they should be accountable for their own views and actions, just like everybody else. Furthermore, I can tell you now that they don't regard chivalrous men, such as yourself, as noble or virtuous — but only as useful "idiots".

It angers me immensely, when wealthy male "idiots", confusing their social privilege (or entrepreneurism) with feminist notions of gender privilege, believe that their sense of guilt can be relieved by "stepping up" in order to push down those under-privileged males beneath them. (Erin, herself, notes that she had no difficulty in soliciting donations from wealthy men to support women's refuges, but when she tried to open one for male victims, they suddenly stopped caring.)

Outside your circle of "high net worth individuals", there is a sea of broken men out there. Certain outdated notions of chivalry, combined with years of negative stereotyping by gender ideologues, means that society is utterly blind to their suffering. Indeed, I could fill a book with it, but let me say that where society refuses to let women fail, the choice facing many men today is often one of suicide or homelessness.

Here in the UK, according to the charity CALM, it is suicide that is the biggest killer of young men, not accidents or illness. Likewise, it is men who make up the overwhelming majority of the homeless and rough sleepers. And yet, when do you hear the issue of "homeless men" ever being addressed? Whenever male suffering is at issue, men are hidden behind gender-neutral terms such "the homeless", "homeless people" and "rough sleepers".

Mr. Reilly, let me ask you, how do you think such men end up being homeless? I'll give you a clue — the primary cause is not recession, but domestic violence. Homeless men are the dirty secret that society refuses to acknowledge, they are the human overflow of male targeted abuse and childhood neglect — the little boys who were once denied care and nurture.

What people are now starting realise is that, when their little boys grow up, society will no longer see them as human beings, but as "just men" — utilitarian providers lacking in human worth and legitimate targets for social hostility and discrimination. While your wealth may protect you, if the wheels ever came off your own life, you will discover just how little intrinsic human value you have in this society as a male. For example, when a man is physically attacked, abused, and even horrifically mutilated, he is not seen as a human being in need of care, but as a source of fun and ridicule. Where do you think this will end if people like you continue to give credence to the ideologies of people like Brennan?

We in the men's human rights movement are not a bunch of angry misogynists, but are simply trying to improve society's negative stereotypical view of males, so that boys growing up today won't have to face a dystopian future.

Mr Reilly, you have no idea what have blundered into, have you? Maybe you should just close your eyes and go back to helping "high net worth individuals" avoid paying tax.

Yours sincerely

Andy Thomas

PS. Anyone needing tax advice, can find Peter J. Reilly's blog here.

Sunday, 16 June 2013

We are the radicals now

Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" is a book which has our name on it. After all, the Men's Human Rights Movement is, in reality, the most radical movement ever in the history of the human species. Andy Thomas explains...

I groan inwardly whenever somebody pushes a book at me, and insists: "You must read this!"

The thing is, after reading Steve Moxon's "The Woman Racket", I was smashed as a going human concern. It isn't healthy to keep focusing on "the problem" without sight of "the solution", and I now feel a little reluctant to expose myself to further crushing analysis of how bad "the problem" is.

With that in mind, I'd like to introduce a particular book, and urge you to read this! But trust me; this one speaks of the "the solution", rather than "the problem".

Rules for Radicals, by Saul D. Alinsky, was first published in 1972. Having been extensively used as activist handbook by various left-wing and environmental groups, the impact of this book have been far reaching, although many outside political and PR circles may not have heard of it. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, the sheer bloody effectiveness of Alinsky's counsel has made him an unpopular figure to those on the Right.

Alinsky began his professional life as an organiser for the Congress of Industrial Relations in the US. What he learned about union strategies in industrial disputes, he applied later in his work as a community organiser in the black ghettoes of Chicago and Oakland. Shortly before his death in 1972, he distilled his experiences and insights into a relatively short and accessible book. While not quite a step-by-step instruction manual, Rules for Radicals provides inspiration and, more usefully, strategy and tactics for anyone involved in direct, but non-violent, activism.

The opening page of the book begins...
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be."
Alinsky goes on to present a distinctly Marxist approach that is rooted in a world-view of perpetual conflict between the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots" of life. The book's overriding purpose is to empower the Have-Nots, and when I first read it, I was struck by its potential applicability to our own struggle. For example, when contemplating injustice and the often perplexing lack of male response to egregious attacks upon their identity and human worth, I am often reminded of some of Alinsky's observations, including these two:
"...if people feel they don't have power to change a bad situation, then they do not think about it."
"Remember, too, that a powerless people will not be purposefully curious about life, and they then cease being alive."
For anyone who has attempted to communicate the male human rights issue to those who prefer to turn away, these sentiments must feel rather apt.

I grew up in a working town in the time of its transition from a centre of coal mining and manufacturing to one of unemployment and welfare dependency. My father was a union representative who stood in picket lines as they were charged by police (or as he claims, by soldiers in police uniforms without identity numbers). While my early memories of politics were coloured by TV news of "Militant", the extreme wing of the labour party in the 1980s, I sometimes wonder if I had been a young man in the early 20th century, would I have been an active member in the British Labour Movement back then? I also contemplate the parallel between that thought and the here and now of the early 21st century — a time in which I have somehow found myself to be a member of the Men's Human Rights Movement. It seems that I have always been a bit of a radical, and somewhat unfashionable.

This is the thing — the landscape in which we live out our lives has always been in flux. Our universe is one of perpetual change and conflict between opposing forces. Perhaps the single attribute that has made Marxism so enduring is that, by teaching its followers to view life through a prism of eternal conflict, it embraces change.

As described by Alinsky, the Haves of life fear change because they have nowhere to go but down. Whereas life's Have-Nots, with nowhere to go but up, have no such fear. If we see his words in the context of own movement as being a harbinger of change, I think he describes our experiences rather well:
"Religious, economic, social, political, and legal tracts endlessly attack all revolutionary ideas and action for change as immoral, fallacious and against God, country, and mother. These literary sedations by the status quo include the threat that, since all such movements are unpatriotic, subversive, spawned in hell and reptilian in their creeping insidiousness, dire punishments will be meted out to their supporters. All great revolutions, including Christianity, the various reformations, democracy, capitalism, and socialism, have suffered these epithets in the times of their birth."

Today's feminist revolutionaries may think they are radical, but they are nothing of the sort — they are simply fashionable. They represent more of the same; it is we who represent meaningful change.

Because effective organisation of people is essential to bring about change, the key player in Rules for Radicals is what Alinsky's refers to as "the organiser". An organiser is not so much a local leader, but more a creative thinker who's initial task is to "stir up dissatisfaction and discontent", and to "provide a channel into which the people can angrily pour their frustrations." The organiser's job description does not, in fact, appear to be a particularly appealing one, especially in the early days, as Alinsky explains:
"In the early days the organizer moves out front in any situation of risk where the power of the establishment can get someone's job, call in an overdue payment, or any other form of retaliation, partly because these dangers would cause many local people to back off from conflict. Here the organizer serves as a protective shield: if anything goes wrong it is all his fault, he has the responsibility. If they are successful all credit goes to the local people."
"The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a "dangerous enemy."
Nevertheless, reward comes if the organiser is successful...
"The organizer's job is to begin to build confidence and hope in the idea of organization and thus in the people themselves: to win limited victories, each which will build confidence and the feeling that 'if we can do so much with what we have now just think what we will be able to do when we get big and strong.'"
However, I do wonder if Alinsky saw the construction of mass power organisations more of an end in its own right, rather than simply a means to advance a just cause. He, himself, says:
"One of the great problems in the beginning of an organization is, often, that the people do not know what they want."
Thus, one of the key roles of the organiser is help the people to know what they want by identifying the "enemy" for them. Or, as he puts things:
"Before men can act an issue must be polarized. Men will act only when are convinced that their cause is 100 per cent on the side of the angels and that the opposition are 100 per cent on the side of the devil."
Many of us in the Men's Human Rights Movement, myself included, have no previous background in activism, protest or social politics. Most of us have started out from nowhere and are here simply because we have woken up to the tide of injustice that threatens to engulf us. But what to do? How often have we seen wounded men on forums complain bitterly of injustice, as if simply talking about the problem is actually doing something about the problem? Nobody is going to read their comments, recognise their plight, and put things right for them.

Nobody is coming to save them.

Endless rhetorical debate about "the problem", without reference to "the solution", is nothing other than emotional masturbation. What I am suggesting to anyone who might consider themselves an activist is that a good place to go for inspiration would be Alinsky specifically because he counsels on how to be a "realistic radical", rather than a "rhetorical one".

I warn, however, that with Rules for Radicals there also comes a sickening awareness of how its tactics have been deployed against the men and boys from the 1960s onwards, and I found the sheer bloody cynicism of it all overwhelming. As I turned its pages, it dawned on me that the entire male gender had, in effect, been identified as "the enemy" in order to "polarize the issue" and, thus, create conflict were none existed previously.

You see, back in the 1960s, those subscribing to Marxist ideology had a problem — the lives of the working classes were being transformed by higher wages and property ownership, and the old Marxist model of an oppressed proletariat and a wealthy bourgeoisie was in danger of breaking down. A possible solution, at least to some women on the left, was to re-purpose Marxist theory in the context of a gender war rather than a conflict between social classes defined by property ownership. The players were thus changed, but game went on. In fact, patriarchy theory was never anything other than a pseudo-scientific construct manufactured by Kate Millet and her ilk to give a veneer of credibility to the idea that men and women were, and have always been, at war with each other.

In the hour when I first understood, the sense of betrayal was profound.

Nevertheless, it proves nothing if not how Marxist thinking embraces change. The irony now, of course, is that it is men and boys who are the Have-Nots of western society, both in terms of social empowerment and wealth ownership. However, I'm not so sure that I would go as far as to claim that all women represent the Haves. Instead, I would argue that feminism has not universally benefited women at all, especially when you start to consider the hidden implications for them (a modest home in the UK now requires two full-time incomes to pay the mortgage). However, there are a subset of women with disproportionate influence who have been feminism's prime benefactors — they are the feminist academics and public sector elite — the bourgeoisie of our age.

Times have changed since Alinsky's penned his influential work, and some of the more hands-on tactics he suggests may not be so appropriate today. For example, one particularly delightful tactic is, what he lovingly refers to as, a "shit-in" (as opposed to a "sit-in"). This is where a handful of protesters occupy all available toilet cubicles at crowded public event and absolutely refuse to come out. The resulting distress of the crowd is a great cause of mayhem, apparently.

The sky turns darker, however, when Alinksy tackles ethics and how "the end justifies the use of almost any means." On this issue, I can't help but wonder whether his use of the word "almost" was a conscious addition to keep his book on the right-side of the line that separates riot from direct action. I doubt he cared that much for the distinction himself and, because of this, I think that we in the Men's Human Rights Movement would do well to remember the following instead:

"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I recommend Alinsky, not for ethical guidance, but for pragmatic inspiration. His book is, after all, mostly about communication, strategy and tactics. It's also a book about change — not only how to effect change, but how to live with and thrive in a climate of change. In the end, we must follow our own moral compass. It is our prerogative to take from Rules for Radicals what we find useful, and disregard what we find unacceptable.

Human society has rested on the back of male disposability ever since the time of Lucy*, and what we in the Men's Human Rights Movement represent is the beginning of the end of that and the start of a new era for our species. We are not just radical, we are in every sense the most radical thinking movement in the history of human society.

This article was first published on MRA London.

Andy Thomas
Copright 2013. All rights reserved.

Notes. Summary of Alinsky's Tactics
  • 1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.
  • 2. Never go outside the expertise of your people.
  • 3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
  • 4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.
  • 5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
  • 6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
  • 7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
  • 8. Keep the pressure on. Never let up.
  • 9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
  • 10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
  • 11. If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.
  • 12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
  • 13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
* Lucy (Australopithecus)

NCDV's Steve Conner — "Drag him away"

Last year, a small UK non-governmental outfit launched a particularly distasteful attack on half the human population. Their campaign took the form of a huge interactive billboard at Euston Station. It was called "Drag Him Away", and here it is:

The billboard showed looped footage of a man hectoring a passive woman. Although no actual crime was depicted, passers-by were invited to interact with the billboard using their mobile phone in order to see the man "dragged away". The organisation behind it, the National Centre for Domestic Violence (NCDV), is headed by a barrister called Steve Conner.

As a teenager, I recall how I was filled with so much shame after learning about how "men rape and abuse women", that I wrote into a women's magazine to apologise on behalf of my entire gender. I believed myself to be the "one good man", and felt an overwhelming obligation to stand up to these "other men", thus letting the world know that I wasn't one of them. While I watched the video of NCDV's stunt, I was reminded of this as I contemplated how dehumanising it it must be for a young boy or teenager to look up and behold himself through this prism of shame and guilt. Like I once did, many will simply disassociate themselves from their gender, rather than to see "Drag Him Away" for what it is — an opportunistic attack on their human identity by a professional NGO keen to raise its profile in a misandric state culture.

A "Drag Her Away" campaign, one in which people are invited to dispense justice to a female abuser, would never fly of course. It would widely be perceived as an unacceptable attack on women in general and would come in for fierce criticism (no funding would ever be made available for such a campaign in any case). However, NCDV's campaign was not targeted women, but at men — and this in today's society makes it acceptable, normal, even virtuous. What could possibly be wrong with protecting women from abusive men, many would ask?

By the late 1930s, having for years been painted as devious money lenders who were unclean and sub-human, German society reached the stage that social hostility against Jewish people had become normalised. We like to delude ourselves that we have consigned such things to history and, today, a billboard featuring a "Drag the Jew Away" campaign, one in which an archetypal Jewish figure is shown hectoring a passive Aryan, would be seen exactly for what it is — disgusting propaganda belonging in a 1930s Nazi film reel, not 21st century Britain. The lesson we have utterly failed to learn, however, is that in the time of its happening, all prejudice is seen as acceptable, normal, even virtuous.

In the here and now of today's "enlightened" society, after years of ideologically motivated campaigning, it is males who have been painted as perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence, and dominant oppressors.[1]

In reality, long standing cultural reasons and the legitimate fear of being wrongly identified as an abuser have always inhibited men in reporting domestic violence against them. However, government crime surveys, such as the BCS in the UK,[2] and its equivalent CDC Intimate Partner Violence Survey in the US,[3] are now presenting a picture of approximate parity between the sexes. Additionally, research increasingly shows that the majority of inter-partner violence is mutual, i.e. the violence and verbal abuse goes both ways, and where it is unilateral, the initiators of such violence are overwhelmingly women.[4] Within the government and non-governmental agencies of the west, however, domestic violence has been defined as "gender violence" or, increasingly, "violence against women and girls". (See the 2011 UK government policy paper, A call to end violence against women and girls.)

This is the great delusion of our age, and to continue to define inter-partner violence as "gender based" is to propagate the myth that one gender is responsible for perpetrating violence against the other, while disregarding and rendering invisible the suffering of millions of boys and adult men. Whether it be physical, verbal or sexual, the origins of abuse lie in early childhood, not in any intrinsic deficiency in males.

Both men and women can be equally abusive in their relationships, and the environments they create for their children is the significant factor in understanding abusive behaviour — for behaviour learned in early childhood, when the child's brain is in flux and the personality in formation, is carried forward into adult relationships.[5] As an abused child grows up, early emotional damage goes to define his or her default emotional responses and thinking patterns in adulthood. It is a cycle stretching back generations, and the reality is so simple that it should be self-evident. Only now, however, are MRI scans being used for the first time to reveal the damage in the brains of abused children.[6]

The problem is not gender-based — it is inter-generational. And the solution to it lies, not in curing some intrinsic male defect, but in our treatment of children. There is no reason why men and boys, therefore, should continue to wear society's garland of shame.

Now, to be fair, NCDV's stated aim is to provide a free legal service, both to the police and to individual "clients", in order to obtain emergency injunctions against alleged perpetrators of abuse. I do not condemn NCDV in this, but recognise that in those cases where domestic violence is uni-directional, or largely so, such a facility would be invaluable. Nor is it lost me that the language used throughout the NCDV website is gender-neutral, and NCDV states that its service is open to "anyone", not just women. Their use of visual communication on the other hand, as expressed by their website imagery and past campaign videos, is strongly stereotyped and hard-hitting. Previous NCDV campaign videos, which include this and this, exclusively depict men as abusers and women as victims.

It is with the sheer ugliness of "Drag Him Away", however, that I take particular issue. I have to question the commitment to due process on display here, when NCDV's own media campaign so clearly gives the message that any man can now be "dragged away" on the basis of a mobile phone text or mobile app. It represents more than NCDV's contribution to the negative stereotyping of males — it takes the whole thing to the next level.

I solemnly predict that the day will come when the accumulative fallout of years of anti-male propaganda won't stay confined to "other men", but will be felt by your son, your brother and your father. Every mother of a son should realise that when he grows up, society will increasingly view him with suspicion and contempt, and in a culture where guilt is assumed by default, virtue of his gender, the only thing preventing any man from being "dragged away" is the absence of an allegation. Many men would have some legitimacy in claiming that we have reached such a point already. One day perhaps, even NCDV's Steve Conner may realise that for himself when society fails to make sufficient distinction between him, or someone he cares about, and the "other man" in his interactive billboard.

Additional Information. NCDV ceased being a UK national charity in February 2012, and became a private limited company, "The Centre For Domestic Violence Ltd", registered no. 07917926. At the time of writing, Companies House lists this company as active but with a "proposal to strike off". The company's annual return appears to be four months overdue.

This article was first published on MRA London.

Written by
Andy Thomas

1. For a related discussion, see Neil Lyndon, Big Sister's Memorial: The Legacy of Germaine Greer
2. The British Crime Survey (BCS) for 2010/11 reported that 5% of men and 7% of women had experienced domestic abuse in the year prior to the survey. See: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/hosb0212/hosb0212?view=Binary
3. The American CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey for 2011 reported that 5.0% of men and 5.9% of women reported experiencing rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in the 12 months prior to taking the survey. See: http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
4. Graphic generated by SAVE was based on a US study by Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Rates of Bidirectional Versus Unidirectional Intimate Partner Violence Across Samples, Sexual Orientations, and Race/Ethnicities: A Comprehensive Review. Partner Abuse Vol. 3 No. 2, 2012.
5. Erin Pizzey, 1982. Prone to Violence. ISBN 978-0600205517
6. Eamon McCrory, 2011. See: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1112/111205-maltreated-children-fMRI-study

A female monster and a hidden sufferer?

I want you to watch the footage below and make a mental note of what you see taking place. Stop reading here, until after you have watched the video.

There are a number of things happening in this. Did you spot them all?

The woman in the video is clearly a monster. Her behaviour is disgusting and violent; the issue of where the young man should or should not put the refuse is irrelevant. What's more, if he were to lift a finger to defend himself and she picked up the phone to the police as a result, the consequences for him could be severe.

That was the obvious bit.

Then there's the guy with the camera, who thinks it's amusing — until she comes after him that is, at which point the footage ends abruptly. The original up-loader put the video under the "comedy" category and describes it in the low-bar as "highly funny." This says a lot about society's perceptions of male targeted aggression.

But did you spot who is, potentially, the real victim in all of this?

The guy in the blue top — his role in trying to restrain and calm the woman was largely incidental, but he is almost certainly her husband or partner.

While it's not possible to know for certain on the strength of this video alone, I would strongly suspect that he has, in fact, endured a living hell for decades at her hands. Look again at how delicately he attempts to intervene — he is afraid to antagonise her.

A man like this could be in a dire position. His only options would be live in misery or try to escape and lose his home. But at his age, with his parents gone, where would he go and how would he live?

Moreover, wider society will not easily recognise him as the victim in this — did you? For him, there are few options, and they are dwindling...

Duluth Model: Helps men to stop battering women
Recent UK trials with Domestic Violence Protection Orders (DVPOs) have facilitated the immediate removal of those accused of abusive behaviour without need of evidence. An accusation alone suffices, and police are trained to see men only as abusers, not suffers. For example, the title of the 2011 UK government policy paper, "A Call to end violence against women and girls" says it all.

It is an incarnation of the Duluth Model of domestic violence, if ever there was one.

The Duluth Model is a standard intervention approach used throughout the world and is based directly on feminist "patriarchy theory," i.e. that men, such as the man with the blue shirt in video, oppress women. As such, it focuses solely on teaching men not to be batterers.

If that wasn't enough, men, especially those of older generations, are culturally conditioned to believe that should be able to sort out their own problems, thus isolating themselves.

In reality, an innocent man trapped in a relationship with a manipulative and malicious woman would be uniquely powerless. His life would be lived on the edge of a knife in which the threat of a phone call to the police over some perceived wrong or slight would be an ever present reality. If he attempted to flee, the police could be weaponised against him, especially if past allegations had established a track record of his purported behaviour. If, having been abused for years, he snapped and resorted to physical violence himself — that would only condemn him.

If you heap abuse on a man, while denying him the ability to respond, then you are killing that man.

I wonder just how many men, who are primary abuse sufferers, are made to undergo Duluth based "education" programmes each year in order to "teach them not to batter?" In such cases, the effect would be utterly dehumanising — the state would be perpetrating psychological abuse against the abused.

Further viewing: Women Abusing Men In Public — and how society views them. This article was first published on MRA London.

Written by
Andy Thomas