I hear you… but in my response I didn’t mention law, nor did I imagine the law would be a fruitful…
David Piepgrass
1

I hear you, David, and understand. I have even given out the same message at times.

To stick with your analogy of opening doors, there are times when I try, I knock politely and do my best to encourage the person to open the door just a little .. only to have it slammed in my face as soon as it becomes clear that I am trying to do something for men or boys, not (middle-class, white) women.

There is a reason why you were not aware of how unequal society is, and thought that women had near-equality to men. That reason is the very demon – and that really is how it feels at times – that I fight.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of us writing, trying to get our message out and have it understood by just one more person. We try to say “Look at the reality, not what the propaganda you have been said tells you. Just see with your own eyes.” Yet we know now insidious that propaganda is. Most people won’t even consider that we even might be correct.

The one thing that always impresses me, personally, in any debate is when one side of a debate can say “Look up the facts for yourselves. Use independent sources from the other side of the debate, and have a look for yourself to find the truth.” This is one reason why I often will only give out little teasers of information. I know that I can’t normally convince someone; they have to be willing to examine the issue for themselves and find their own truth. But so many people are told so many times that the sky is pink and that motorcars fly, that we end up with laws to help colour the sky blue again and control those pesky flying motorcars. (And I know you won’t get those analogies yet but if you invest the time to understand why men don’t have human rights, you will come to see how apt such comparisons are.)


Earlier this year, a politician in the UK gave a speech in favour of equality under the law. Even though I personally think he was wrong in doing so, he did not blame feminism or feminists in general for having kept the truth disguised, he deflected the blame onto radicals and zealots. Equality before the law. Sounds OK, eh? Feminists up and down the country called him names, called for his resignation or sacking, said he was a liar, denied the data he presented (from government statistics, such as now long people spend in jail) and generally trashed his call for equality.

Now, you might think that is something exceptional.

It is not.

Wherever men can clearly be demonstrated to be doing poorly in society, there you will also find feminist organisations and individuals – usually with the backing of taxpayer’s money – spreading lies, disinformation and deflections. And if that doesn’t work then death threats, street protests, vandalism will follow.

No, I’m not kidding. I know it sounds like something out of an Orwell novel or from 1930s Germany but it is right here in the USA, in Canada and in the UK, in modern Germany, Spain, Denmark, Brazil, and most other western nations. The insidious campaign to deliberately focus away from men’s issues starts in pre-school, goes right the way through education systems and pervades our media and our thoughts whether we like it or not. You know some of this, David. You caught yourself wondering why it matters that most men are killed by men, when I pointed out that most people who are killed are men. You probably thought it was otherwise before I pointed out some facts. Ask around your friends or colleagues, see how many of them have learnt lies too, and ask yourself who taught you all those lies. You might well still doubt me, in which case I only ask that you do your own independent research to find the facts, without relying on – without allowing – anyone else to spoon-feed information. I know the truth is out there for anyone to find if only I can encourage them to break free of the shackles of indoctrination.


I know I seem to have gone way off track again, David. I have, in a way, because you were, in other words, suggesting I meet people half way. That when talking of issues that affect men, I should mention things that affect women. I acknowledge, again, that there is something to what you say and I say again that at times I have tried to approach issues more sympathetically for my listener.

There is a difference between breaking something gently to somebody and being willing to meet their viewpoint halfway. Allow me some licence, please, to put it crudely and personally to illustrate why this latter path can be so dangerous and deceptive. If you are accused, out of the blue and completely wrongly, of having raped a woman last night, a bad lawyer might suggest to you that you throw in a plea deal for a lesser offence of sexual assault. You might be encouraged to meet your accuser halfway. when being told that you are a rapist, you would instead say “no, no, I only sexually molested her.”

But you didn’t, did you. Not only would you be doing yourself a disservice but you would be deceptive, too. The moral and just action must be to deny the lie.

Now, imagine you are standing in a crowd of men, a thousand, ten thousand, as many as your mind can picture. None of you are guilty of raping that woman last night but the crowd of you are accused that one of you did. Does the morality and justice change, or is the moral and just action still to deny the lie?

Now, keep that same crowd of men, and imagine another crowd (mostly women with some men, but it doesn’t really matter). They ALL say that one of you is guilty of raping that woman last night. Some go further and say that everyone in the crowd you stand amongst are guilty of rape. Some go even further and say that rapists is all that you are. Does the morality and justice change, or is the moral and just action still to deny the lie?

I know that if your crowd of men has over 400 in it, one of them might well be a rapist (sickening, isn’t it) but the numbers aren’t my point: the morality and deception are.

So, there are times when meeting someone’s position half-way isn’t right. When someone says “women need protection from violence” then of course I can agree, as does almost every man on the planet – we’re wired to care for our women folk and many of us will unthinkingly put our very lives on the line for an unknown female. But when someone says “women suffer most violence,” then there is no way to even partly agree and remain true, and no way to accept the lie and be just or moral.

Whatever my point was, I hope I made it well – it’s now midnight and I am tired, having started early today, giving some personal support to a woman falsely accused because she was about to travel abroad to talk on male health care. The accusation is clearly false but serious enough for her to be told to stay in the country. And so we go on.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.