[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here are no laws. If you’re a man, you can be murdered with impunity. You can be charged and convicted with rape based on nothing but anonymous accusation. Not just in a court of law, but hey, in a court of kangaroos cooked up by college students. Laws? Bill of rights? Ha! If a woman accuses you of misconduct, your conviction for sexual assault – on no evidence – means increased funding for people who depend on your utility and disposability.

Okay, there are laws – sure, and you’re governed by them, but you’re not protected by them. We are now living in postlegal culture. Laws are selectively interpreted and enforced. This is nothing new obviously, the rich and the famous have always enjoyed privilege. However the legal system now operates along sexual lines, with you, my brothers, on the bottom tier. You’re not even a human being, buddy. Nope, you’re a disposable dispenser of labor, money, sperm, and on behalf of anyone but yourself – violence. The law says so.

Speaking of disposability, the appellation of “hero” in our culture depends on you sacrificing your future, and potentially your life on behalf of people who discount your humanity.

In spite of this, most men sleep-walk through life thinking they’re living in a culture which treats them as humans with rights. A listing facts which show this to be false is beyond the scope of this discussion. Link in this article’s footer for those interested[1].

Certainly many people are aware that their government illegally tortures both foreigners and Americans, arrests and indefinitely detains citizens without trial or charge, wire taps the population in violation of the bill of rights, steals private property through eminent domain, but people still sedate themselves with 4 hours of television per day and mumble something about it being a “free country” while they know it is not.

However, systemic financial fraud and personal destruction by illegal private courts operating with the complete endorsement of government seems conceptually difficult to grasp. Perhaps it’s just too similar to dystopian science fiction to recognize. When people are informed of these doings, because is is so far removed from popular understanding of living in a nation governed by laws – they dismiss factual reporting of the phenomena.

Another reason for public ignorance and apathy is that people still believe they’re enfranchised citizens. They believe they’re protected by the civil liberties encoded into law. These assumptions are wrong, of course, but the illusion persists, re-enforced by the momentum of a formerly democratic society and by cultivated misdirection in mainstream media. The unfortunate truth is that men are effectively peasants; chattel without legal rights. This isn’t reflected in the formal structure of law in our culture, which is now mostly ignored as a matter of convenience, and that’s partly why it goes mostly unaddressed by men.

The maintained illusion of legal enfranchisement is vitally important, because if men understood consciously they are peasants – they would do what disenfranchised and abused peasant populations has always done through history.

Now I’ll attack women, please hold my beer.

This problem continues to be escalated by activism from ideologues who benefit from male disenfranchisement, and the result is an increasingly tiered society. This is superficially advantageous to women, of course – which is why the process continues with widespread public support. However, to be satisfied by benefitting from the legal, social, and economic disenfranchisement of a biological demographic demonstrates developmental arrest. Our culture has socialized women to have the emotional and ethical maturity of spoiled children. A notable characteristic of the developmentally stunted is an inability to be satisfied with any outcome.

A child demanding candy, and given candy at each demand – will not be a happy individual. Children provided with inadequate parental limits on their behavior will demand their parents, and other adults obey them. Those parents who accede to such childish tyranny generally produce children who grow into angry, dysfunctional adults. This is analogous to what western cultures have done as we relate to women as a demographic within society.

Characterized with a broad brush, women in western culture have become angry, entitled, violent, unaccountable, self indulgent, selfish, fat and wilfully ignorant bullies.

I’m not suggesting these qualities are innate. Rather, we have collectively cultivated these qualities, and we continue to do so. Killing men with the excuse of speculated past abuse, and destroying lives, careers and families through unfounded accusations are privileges afforded to only one sex. It is by public complicity as well as institutional endorsement of the routine misbehaviour of females that we’ve arrived at a society of female sociopaths.

That’s not quite right actually, sociopaths tend to disguise the harm they do. Harm to men is openly treated as humor. A kick the the balls is one of the most overused devices in contemporary comedy. When Katherine Becker drugged and tied up her husband before cutting his reproductive organ off with a kitchen knife and disposing of it in a kitchen waste grinder, a female daytime talk show audience found it hilarious.

I’m not sure if sociopath is the correct term to describe so complete a failure to recognize brutal violence as abhorrent – mistaking it for comedy. What’s not in doubt is that women in our society are developmentally stunted to a degree that makes mention of behavioural disorders like psychopathy wholly appropriate.

Bitch, and Psycho Bitch are even used as proud self identification by some women – T-shirts featuring these labels are sold to women in department stores, and worn proudly without a hint of irony. The shirts don’t generally include the word “violent” but they should.

[box type=”tick” icon=”none”]Sharon Osborne – who hosted the same daytime talk show mentioned on air that she idolized and maintained a shrine to the violent criminal Lorena Bobbitt.[/box]

If we cheer and giggle at a real occurrence of calculated mutilation of human beings based on their ethnicity, or their religion, there is something wrong with us. We call such people racists and bigots. However – if this violence and hatred is directed at an acceptable target demographic, then we’re not bigots, no, we”re empowered – and it feels good.

The dissatisfaction of a child given candy at every demand is also manifesting in a rising social trend demanding of men they obey the strictures of an acceptable masculinity. This model being the “man up, become a provider protector and (disposable) sperm dispenser for women whose concept of “real man” is built on his utility alone.

Key Hymowitz and Penny Nance are just two recent lights of society who have thrown their weight behind an escalating chorus of attempted forced male conformity through shame. The problem, from the point of view of feminists as well as social conservatives, is men are increasingly waking up to their position in society as everybody’s beast of burden – and are quietly refusing. Some are opting out and not bothering to be discreet.

A complete blindness to male pain is evident in the mainstream’s new narrative to “man up.” There is an apparent inability to reconcile feminist doctrine of male-as-oppressor with men’s shorter lifespan, higher suicide rate, death rate on the job or exclusion in employment and education. Whether this disconnect is wilful self delusion or conceptual blindness due to ideology is open to interpretation, but in practical terms doesn’t matter.

At present, non violent male behavior is increasingly criminalized on a selective basis, while violence against men is excused, or ignored. If this were to merely continue – the tide of men rejecting any onus on themselves could not be slowed. However, as the narrative of shame against male self actualization is dialled up, men are increasingly hostile to the self-serving reproach of their critics.

Campaigns of forced conformity through shame are not new of course. An unusually naked attempt to engineer male compliance with self-sacrifice through shame was practiced to “convince” men to enlist during the first world war. If the men’s rights movement existed at that time, it has been buried in history, but MRAs certainly do exist now. Push back from the MRM community continues to undermine attempts to force male conformity and agreement to disposability – using factual and logical argument, as well as open mockery of so-cons and feminists.

It’s because of this push-back, along with the established tendency of feminist ideologues to reject reality, that I expect a new form of feminist and so-con legal innovation. Men who refuse the allowed role of disposable provider will be criminalized. When that begins to happen – I believe that MRA’s will not be the only males in this culture that the opponents of men’s human rights will find unpalatable.

[1] Summary of Hatred