TRIGGER WARNING: This article references Utopia, and speculates that it might never eventuate.

I’ve read a couple of articles on violence on A Voice for Men recently, and the comments that followed (the Other, 2012) (Fidelbogen, 2012). I thought I would throw in my $0.02c on the matter.

First of all, the definition of violence has recently been distorted beyond all recognition. Most of this can be traced back to the World Health Organization’s mindless expansion of the definition of violence (World Health Organization, 2002). This has since been expanded by governments in most western countries to include almost every human behaviour beyond speaking in a whisper as violent. It renders any discussion of violence as almost meaningless.

“Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something“ is a definition that most people would understand (Oxford Dictionary, 2012). But what about “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation?” (Violence Prevention Alliance, 2012).

Now we’re starting to get expansive, but nowhere near enough detail. Too much wriggle room for the patriarchy. Let’s get serious. The Australian Government gives a definition of domestic violence so complex that it needs to be categorized into the following: emotional abuse, verbal abuse, social abuse, economic abuse, psychological abuse, physical abuse, sexual abuse and, I shit you not, spiritual abuse.(Australian Government, 2012)

I won’t quote the entire definition for each category, but the definition of emotional abuse will give you the general flavour: “blaming the victim for all problems in the relationship, undermining the victim’s self-esteem and self-worth through comparisons with others, withdrawing interest and engagement and emotional blackmail”.

If “withdrawing interest” is abuse, and therefore violence, what do they call divorce? Clearly these definitions are intended to be selectable according to need. In other words, if it suits us to call it violence it is, otherwise it is not. Meaningless!

So when individuals proclaim themselves as anti-violence are they saying they are against men “providing an inadequate ‘allowance’” (Australian Government, 2012)?

But then, I ask myself: why is the MRM discussing violence in the first place? I have not read any article suggesting that we meet at the local town hall with our baseball bats and Molotov cocktails. If someone was proposing such a get together, then a discussion on violence would be valid. Instead, we are discussing a groundless accusation that is thrown at us by feminists for no reason other than they can.

I can see the point in showing declaring the accusation is false. There is also merit in showing why our opponents stoop to these dishonest tactics. However, sometimes there seems to me an attempt to obtain some moral high ground by making absolutist claims for the sake of it.


The MRM, as far as I know, has not had suggestions from activists that we should buy up some land. Should we be making pronouncements about moral property purchases just in case we get accused of possible shady dealings in real estate?

I mean, what ever happened to serious, proper debate?

MRA: “I say that men have a right to see their children after separation”

Feminist: “Men rape children”

MRA: “Fuck off! Men’s rights!  Men’s rights! Men’s rights!”

Feminist: “I’d like to point out here men also…” MRAs: “MEN’S RIGHTS! MEN’S RIGHTS! MEN’S RIGHTS!”

Personally, I have no intention in letting the feminists set the debate. I want to discuss the many, many, many instances of men being treated as second class citizens. I want to shine as much of a light as I can on the bigotry that is consistently and persistently being used to inflict real financial, emotional, mental and physical harm on men. I want to shine a light on the corruption of the legal system that targets men.

I want to see a real, serious decline in male suicide rates.

My plan, ill-formed as it currently is, is to make so much noise about this shit that men and women in their hundreds and thousands will demonstrate against it in all kinds of ways. In the kinds of ways that people currently demonstrate about women’s issues.

If they say I advocate violence, I’m going to say “MEN’S RIGHTS”. If they accuse me of being a rapist, I’m going to say “MEN’S RIGHTS”. If they say I live alone in my parent’s basement, guess what? “MEN’S RIGHTS”.

Fuck them, whatever they say. I have no interest in trying to convert them. They are the problem, and will never be part of the solution.

Some of the commentators in the A Voice for Men articles have expressed an opinion that anything that might be perceivable as approval, implicitly or explicitly, of violence will harm the MRM. To them I say:


Let me also say this about non-violence:

Who is the person who grew up in a home where a harsh word or derogatory remark was never heard? Who is the person who went to a school where no child teased, mocked, shoved or hit them? Who is the person who has never been lied to or cheated?

Who is the person who has never had awkward sexual advances in their teenage years? Who is the person who has always been treated on their merit, and never lost out on anything based on their race, creed, gender or colour – or because they simply had the wrong connections?

If that person actually existed, would they never be guilty of any of these actions themselves? What makes you think that they would not grow up a spoilt, entitled brat?

But, if you subscribe to the blank slate theory that people are born flawless and society fucks them up: what happens when you get these flawless people through childhood unscarred? If that flawless person grew up in a village of similarly flawless people, would they be whole human beings?

How would they react if the stilled flawed people from the next village came over and bashed them up and took all their stuff? How would they deal with non-human violence such as disease, fire, floods or rabid dogs?

In other words, even if the village of the flawless could exist, would it be Utopia or a fool’s paradise?

All of this, to me, sounds like a red pill deficiency.

We, in this modern western society, live in a violent world. That is the reality. The violence, crime and war aside, is simply more sophisticated violence that occurs out of plain sight. Take, for example, proceedings in the non-violent Family Court that I recently documented in an article in A Voice for Men (Blueface, 2012).

Here, the mother of the children non-violently, and using language that respects all people of all religions, ethnicity, colour, class and gender and anything else I’ve inadvertently left out – oops height – demanded that the father never see his children again. This is because she falsely, but daringly, accused the father of sexual abusing the children. The court then non-violently stopped the father from seeing his children while the matter was before the courts by threatening him, in a non-violent, inclusive but assertive way, with a non-violent period in prison if he did not comply.

The father was then non-violently taken through the courts for a couple of years. He had an option of representing himself, which would have left him wide open to non-violent abuse by the courts; or he could pay the non-violent but exorbitant legal fees which will cripple him, non-violently of course, financially for years to come.

The father was still non-violently banned from speaking to his children ever again. Even when it was proven beyond all doubt that the mother was non-violently lying. Meanwhile, the man is still non-violently coerced to fund the mother’s lifestyle by paying her money the courts dishonestly, but nonetheless non-violently, call child support. Again, if the man doesn’t pay he can end up, non-violently, in prison.

The pretence, of course, is that none of this is violent because there are no physical scars and the beating doesn’t take place in the town square for all to see. Resorting to the law is simply violence by proxy. When done fairly with an even hand, it is the closest we can get to justice. Otherwise, it is just getting the police and the courts to do your dirty work for you.

 But let us not pretend otherwise. Resorting to the law is the preferred method of violence for those who profess to denounce violence.

It seems to me that we, the MRM, want to make misandry in its harmful forms illegal. That is, we want those who falsely accuse men of rape to spend a non-violent but long time in prison. Preferably along with the misandric law enforcement officers and judicial officials who knew the claims were bogus but prosecuted the case anyway.

Those who don’t get imprisoned should be non-violently coerced to pay compensation for the damage they’ve done.

So please, spare me the attempts to be a Ghandi or a Luther-King. Really! All it really says is that you are law abiding citizens. I’m sure you are, but pronouncements of renouncing violence is like renouncing double-parking.

The real question is what are we for?




Australian Government. (2012). Domestic violence in Australia—an overview of the issues. Retrieved July 14, 2012, from Parliament of Australia:

Blueface. (2012, June 24). Altobelli’s Dilemma: The Failure of Australian Family Law. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from A Voice for Men:

Fidelbogen. (2012, July 12). The Non-feminist coalition rejects violence. Retrieved July 14, 2012, from A Voice for Men:

Oxford Dictionary. (2012). Violence. Retrieved July 14, 2012, from Oxford Dictionary:

the Other, J. (2012, July 13). A will to do harm. Retrieved July 14, 2012, from A Voice for Men:

Violence Prevention Alliance. (2012). Definition and typology of violence. Retrieved July 14, 2012, from Violence Prevention Alliance:

World Health Organization. (2002). Report on Violence and Health. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from WHO:


Recommended Content