Category Archives: Victimhood Culture

The Men’s Rights Movement: A Misguided Octopus

In the vein of other political octopodes, this movement started with the apparently benign quest of countering toxic feminism, yet quickly developed into its “other side of the coin”, joining members not through calm and rationality, or hope for a better world, but anger, frustration, residual disappointment, entitlement, cultural claims of superiority, “regressivism” and in some cases, pathological hatred.

It is thus fair to claim that this movement, just like feminism, plays an active part in a manufactured tribal war of the sexes, as opposed to simply countering the extreme views it claims formented it in the first place.

If we engage in a rather grotesque exercise of imagination, we can compare both these movements with the human centipede envisaged in the creepy film bearing the same name. Once the tribal bond is established, the head of the centipede merely engages in an act of bowel relief, the contents of which pass through everyone attached. Such is the case with toxic ideas. I am attached, therefore I receive and pass on the message, without processing (digesting) it first.

The octopus analogy refers to the many subdivisions of this movement, each emphasising a different issue. On the whole, the MRM pushes forth the following ideas:

  • Western societies favour girls and women over boys and men, in terms of declaring them superior in nature;
  • Education is geared towards the needs and formation of females;
  • Women have legal advantages over men in terms of conceiving and raising children;
  • The job market favours women;
  • Women often make false claims of victimisation by men, especially when sexual misconduct is involved;
  • Feminism seeks to infiltrate Marxist ideas into western states;
  • Women have become undesirable to men through fashion fads and their lack of interest in pleasing men through their image or behaviour;
  • Women are deluded in thinking they can fill positions only men can;
  • Women are generally labile, hysterical and untrustworthy;
  • Women have unwarranted and delusional demands of men;
  • Women use their sexual prowess in order to prey on men;
  • Women seek to demean and demonise men;
  • Marriage is a prison;
  • Masculinity as a concept is under threat.

Needless to say, as in the case of feminism regarding all men with suspicion, there is only a thin line between making these assertions about some women and ending up making them about all women, not to mention male feminists (“betas” or “castrati” as they are sometimes referred to, the latter referencing eunuchs).

What is so disengaging about feminists today is precisely the generalisation and acrimony; the intention to dominate. Sadly, the same is present in the men’s rights movement.

It seems that neither side is actually looking for a better understanding and a harmony-conducive compromise through open discussions, but plain and simple dominance. This is achieved through righteous anger, demonisation, derision and solipsism.

The blind fighting the blind, so to speak.

Perhaps no advocate of this movement is better known than Paul Elam. To see the drive behind this individual one only needs to read a few of his “best quotes”:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

There is nothing left to interpretation or fit for whitewashing. Fortunately, such declarations might see Mr Elam permanently excused from jury duty, yet the encouragement given to others, to do the same, is very poisonous.

Below I will expand on two offshoots of this movement, on a gradient of harmful prejudices and intentions.


Along the way, the men’s rights movement developed a radical branch known as MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way. This particular group, though not disavowing sexual interactions with women, for short-lived practical purposes only, does swear them off in the sense of commitment and forming families, as apparently, all women are ravenous, manipulative parasites who can exploit men more than ever before due to our current culture of female empowerment.

It’s safe to say personal experience along those lines is a prerequisite for men who adopt this radical declaration. Both in being disappointed and looking for a justification for disappointments caused (that does, indeed, happen).

For a taste  of the group’s attitude (rather reminiscent of bile), here is a collection of fine quotes.


Although the term itself is gender-neutral, Incel, as in “involuntarily celibate”, is mostly circulated in online discussions between young men who find it difficult to find a female partner. It is often associated with the men’s rights movement and at some point spawned a radical offshoot known as Truecel, which in turn, spawned Elliot Rodger.

In other words, this group is a glorified case of blue balls, pardon the frankness.

They tend to focus on the superficiality of women and their preference for overtly alpha males (the MGTOW type perhaps), arguing women have materialistic and self-gratifying selection criteria when it comes to male partners, and some, such as Rodger, argue the female sex is animal-like in pursuing assholes.

They blend in with the rest of the select MRM gathering through their awful views on women; the only difference is their lack of dignity about it. Whilst the MGTOW crowd tries to display some type of spine, even if the result is members’ own loneliness and nothing more, Incel types declare their desire for vaginas (artificial ones will do, some claim). An infamous Truecel member even came forth with the proposition that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide men with sex, as some kind of social program.

For a taste of this group’s attitude (with a tinge of sour grapes), here is a collection of their intellectual produce. 

Identity politics are not limited to the left. To counteract the plethora of labels and categories the left has consecrated in popular jargon, the right is slowly building a system of its own.

Those who are willing to share their lives with women provided women always obey them.Those who hate women to the point of wanting little or nothing to do with them. Those who hate women but demand sex of them.

And on it goes; it seems all these attitudes, temporary as they may be for each individual, are identities and chosen paths in life now.


Tight Ships Do Sink – New PF Screenshots

Through the kindness of someone who has emailed screenshots of a recent internal debacle at PF, former members who still return to this blog can see the their practices questioned and discussed, and of course justified (quite poorly, I might add).

It appears that a number of long-term members are openly challenging the team’s treatment of them, the response being that they have formed a mutinous clique and there can be no other clique than the one in charge. The sycophancy of some, who accept this authority of PF over their life decisions, is fairly disturbing.

The dispute involved a long term member, admonished for the apparently inexcusable crime of having invited her ex to a conversation… last year. And having maintained a business-related channel for him to contact her, which obviously is related to her livelihood. Arguably, a normal group of friends would not attempt to get this person to overdramatise the presumed danger she has put herself in by simply contacting said ex, let alone chastise her for it. That’s not what emotional support is about. But then again, this is no normal group of friends, but Fahrenheit 451 with a twist of sour lemons.

On the PF mother ship, one is no longer allowed to be human. Being human is a sign of imperfection; a transgression of ideological purity. They cannot see how their attitude of excluding people for normal human interaction with “undesirables” renders them as bigoted as fundamentalist Mormons, who mandate that remaining with a partner/ spouse is an absolute, regardless of other factors. It comes from a need to control what others do, to regulate the details of other people’s lives.

When someone is truly empathetic, they listen. They take your life experience into account and seek to learn from it just as you might learn from them. Throwing the book at people on a constant basis is reserved for preachers and hypocritical moralists; it indicates distance and superficiality, not friendship.

Apologies for the size; when enlarged the text becomes blurred and impossible to read. Saving them makes them readable. I will extract some relevant quotes and comment on them below.

PFnew1  PFnew2    PFnew3 PFnew4   PFnew5 PFnew6   PFnew7 PFnew8


“She received an email and came here to get help and reinforcement to not respond, which was the right thing to do. After several days of pages and feedback form other members, it appeared she was going to ignore the hoover. What happened next though is she popped up in here a couple of weeks later with this dramatic, attention-grabbing thread written in ALL CAPS, as if it were breaking news, bragging about 1000% validation for doing everything she was told NOT to do. (…)

But the arrogance and false bravado with which she bragged about it and took offence with certain members and administrators who didn’t “congratulate” her for her supposed “closure” and breaking NC was a big part of the issue. It was only when she received some feedback from seasoned veterans that she didn’t want to hear, that she wanted her thread taken down. But then she started another thread, thanking members for their support in this thread and passive-aggressively complaining about the members who did not express unwavering support. That thread was taken down.” (Smitten Kitten)

Quick recap here, in more realistic terms. The member sought their advice but did not follow it, as, lo and behold, it was, ultimately, her life. Her choice turned out to work better for her than theirs. Instead of being happy that she was in a better place, they were outraged that she dared to break the community rules. Because in the end, it was all about them, not her, though they wouldn’t benefit or suffer whatsoever as a result of her choice. Them or anyone else on this planet. It was such a terrible affront that they never stopped to contemplate that she was, in fact, feeling better about her situation. You’d think they were trying to dissuade this woman from joining ISIS.

If you read through this admin’s entire account of matters, it’s rather bemusing.

“Honestly I am sick of PF becoming a place where the admins are accused of wrongdoing for reacting in an adult way to non-adult situations.” (Peace)

I recall the numerous cases, on this blog alone (not to mention other platforms), of members banned out of the blue, without an explanation, even after requesting one. An adult would at least dignify a supposed friend of a few years with a quick response. Is that so emotionally straining? What about the way they treated Thomas Sheridan, with a hysterical and vicious smear campaign? Is that an adult way to do things?

“While folks may say or do things out of pain, that doesn’t erase the hurtful effects that those words & actions have on their recipients. Yes, we are all human. That doesn’t make it okay to blame a website or friend for one’s internal discomfort.” (Peace)

How about applying not blaming a friend for one’s internal discomfort when thinking of those “hurtful effects” then? Do some people have more of a right to be hurt by others and act on it? How is it so unbearable to be questioned that you have to exclude this person from the communal entourage, cutting them off from everyone else?

“People here declare abuse or judgement or censorship because they aren’t validated 100% for everything they do.” (Peace)

When you react with such effervescence to common actions they take, and declare them potentially unfit for your group of straight-thinkers, excuse people for taking offence. I’d say a mirror is required here. It’s them who don’t validate you through what they choose to do with their lives in the end, and you find that unacceptable. You find them unworthy of speaking to unless they adhere to your exact guidance. Because you couldn’t possibly find valuable insight in someone else’s experience. You’re way above learning about life.

“That’s not how growth works.” (Peace)

Perpetually failing to address concerns or criticism, by blocking people and running away, is not how growth works either. You might as well cover your ears and start humming. Unless of course, you think in your case growth is no longer required, because you’ve already achieved the status of an all-knowing being.

“PF is not an echo chamber to validate and say “yes you’re right” to everyone all the time.” (Peace)

That’s exactly what it is, only in reverse. Admins and mods have an imperious need to be validated by other people living their lives by each letter in their program. If you fail to comply, you are of no use to them anymore.

“If anyone else would like to leave, they are welcome to do so. Please just contact us privately, instead of these dramatic public exits.” (Peace)

Quite a leap from seeing members off, or even their fellow admins and mods, with a rotten tomato fair-well party, accusing them of being disordered. I assume those were not dramatic exists.

“I 1000% agree with what you all have written here and especially in connection with what I have recently been astonished and confused by in witnessing in connection to the arrogance with regard to PF where some members feel that its theirs and theirs alone so, it might be perceived as “anything goes”. The statement of, “US against the admins” reminded me of a line from Lord of the Flies. REALLY????” (Phoenix)

I don’t know about entitlement to speak your mind on a forum of so-called unconditional friends – I’d worry more about the entitlement of someone else’s life being yours to manage, and the idea that not following your directives and contradicting your perspective is offensive. This person realised she didn’t have to do what they dictated. That she could choose for herself and surprisingly, it could have better results.

“On reflection, and simply put, a moment of strait talking and the resultant shock, can save years of unnecessary emotional abuse after taking a step back and properly “digesting” and evaluating. In my view, PF has always been about “the greater good, for the greater number”, never the reverse.” (Phoenix)

Explain to me how this is different than a fundamentalist religious group. Preemptive saving of the congregation. Do not speak to this person even once because he’ll end up convincing you to go back and you will suffer for years. Do not look at that Playboy as you will end up having orgies and getting HIV. These people don’t know where they themselves will be in five years’ time, let alone someone else.

The crux of the matter is their quest is not to help individuals – otherwise they would at least take a moment to be happy for them when their lives improve. Individuals don’t matter; the cult mentality does.

“We thought closing registrations would help calm things down and make it easier to keep the peace without an influx of new trolls, but of course that doesn’t solve the problem of existing trolls who are already here.” (Smitten Kitten)

She is referring to someone who had been there for years, not a “troll”. Regardless of how well you think these people know you, trusting they would never class you as such, surprise.

“Instead, there seems to be some new kind of arrogance that’s developed in some of the membership, where they act like they’re part of an exclusive club now and they act like that gives them the right to complain about us whenever they feel like it.” (Smitten Kitten)

Pure lese-majeste, which is French for an affront to royalty, or authority, by association. Subversion, no less.

Perhaps said members are connecting privately and starting to realise what really goes on. There should be little doubt with regards to what admins think they’re running there. It has nothing to do with friendship or even consideration towards others, let alone helping vulnerable people, and everything to do with control and self-aggrandisement.


Internet Cult Posing As A Philosophy Group

People who have recently been exposed to Freedomain Radio podcasts and videos probably accessed them for an in-depth analysis of current events, as the material seems quite popular with the sceptic “community”, as well as the alt-right (the two seeming to fuse nowadays on social media).

Unbeknownst to new listeners, this group is a proper cult aimed at reaching young people at the age of individuation; it used to convince them to separate from their families by cutting all contact, a practice known as “defooing”, which has its dedicated website for members,, reminiscent of Scientology or the Exclusive Brethren. Although apparently the advocacy for this has stopped (perhaps for legal reasons) the consequences remain.

The young people lured through discussions about politics, ethics, dogmas and so forth were encouraged to analyse their entire lives in ways which would lead them to think their families were morally corrupt and sabotaging them psychologically, at an age of being prone to rebelling naturally, which exacerbated the effect. They were encouraged to move out of their homes, which led to homelessness in various cases and at least one suicide, leaving behind dumbfounded families who only understood what had happened when discovering their children’s interest in Freedomain Radio.

From the start, members were told it was their duty to “get out there” and “become active” in order to help create a better world, and that occasional support such as the odd donation or product purchase was not enough for them to consider themselves “part of the conversation”.

As former members recounted, the group went way beyond what abuse recovery forums do, as it encouraged them to publicly berate the families trying to bring them back, even reading out private letters and emails for the world to hear, which reaches a deeply disturbing level of arrogance. Instead of the promised liberation, young people found themselves increasingly depersonalised, at least two describing a loss of interest for anything outside of group discussions.

Ad-hoc psychoanalysis was used by the leader to mimic a deep bond and understanding; it was also employed towards “recovering repressed memories”, in order to further antagonise them against their parents or even siblings and friends. They even used to provide those who wished to leave their families with a standard “goodbye letter”, in case they felt they could not formulate their own. Moreover, some of the most dedicated members ended up living together after “defooing”.

The group remains very popular today, continuing to attract those who consider themselves anti-system. Akin to any cult, they reject what their former peers have brought to light and berate them for being “weak enough to return to their morally corrupt families”.

There is plenty material on YouTube and dedicated sites, consisting of testimonies from former members and their loved ones, as well as the input of cult experts, confirming the nature of these dynamics.


“It’s not my job to educate you about my oppression!”

Whenever too many logical questions are asked regarding someone’s standing in the Oppression Olympics (too many for comfort apparently), this seems to be a retort of choice.

I paraphrase. “It is brazen and downright oppressive for someone of privilege, such as yourself, to demand explanations from us, the oppressed, regarding the harm we keep claiming you are causing us. It is not our job to educate you. Regardless, we reserve the right to assume you fully know what you are accused of and why, and treat you accordingly.”

This type of reasoning fails to take a very important issue into account.

When one is accused of something (in this case holding privilege over others), it is their accuser’s responsibility to present any evidence regarding said situation (wrongdoing would be an inappropriate term as this is supposed to be a passive, unacknowledged form of aggression). Otherwise, the accused cannot be held morally responsible for not taking the time to verify that which they are accused of, especially when oblivious to the possibility of such allegations before they were made.

In everyday speech and everyday situations, this would translate as follows:

“You know what you’ve done, so you’d better make amends!”

“No, I actually don’t. What have I done, exactly?”

“It’s not my job to tell you. It’s your job to figure it out. And if you don’t, I’ll call you every name under the Sun and tell everyone what an asshole you are.”

“I honestly don’t know what this is about. All I know is you’re pissed off.”

“Then you haven’t been paying attention, which makes you even more guilty.”

“Of what ??”

“Oh, so now, after you’ve wronged me and won’t even admit it, you expect me to waste my time explaining it to you? The nerve! Would I be upset if it wasn’t your fault? Think about it! If I’m upset, it means you’ve done something!”

In an everyday interpersonal conversation, that attitude would not only be counterproductive but in fact manipulative (if not psychologically abusive, if sustained); it is somewhat reminiscent of the one women are often portrayed to have in domestic arguments.

Here’s a stereotypical post on the subject (though I have read quite a few).

Do you know what I love? People who say “It’s your job to educate me.” Because of the work I do, and because of the fact that I’m basically an intersectionality salad, people are constantly telling me that it’s my job to educate them.

I had this realization the other day: Jobs are paid. I don’t remember filling out a W-2.

Does this job come with benefits? Because I could really use some dental and some optical. How long is our lunch break? Do y’all do direct deposit?

That’s all fine and dandy when said education refers to sharing certain knowledge in a neutral way, in a neutral field. However, accusing people left, right and centre of  -isms and -phobias without an explanation does not qualify.

It is so demeaning and dehumanizing to explain to people of privilege why people like them have historically and currently oppressed people like me.

That’s not where it ends though, is it? You’re extrapolating to make it look like they are oppressing you because people like them have oppressed people like you in the past. Which is a whole different take on it, as everyone (I assume) has some knowledge of history and would not dispute that. Which is when they ask how exactly they are oppressing you and you respond with “Google it“, apparently.

Feeling like you’re entitled to firsthand accounts about the abuse that I’ve experienced as a minority in this country reeks privilege.

Feeling like one is owed an explanation as to why they are arbitrarily placed in the same category as aforementioned abusers is only natural.

Have you ever had somebody demand that you educate them about a personal struggle that you experience?

No, I haven’t, perhaps because I did not put out material, publicly, about how an enormous mass of people oppressed me day in and day out by simply existing in my proximity. When you make such claims, perhaps you should expect this type of queries asking you to back them up.

Secondly, here’s another article from the same website (the gift that keeps on giving in terms of feminist propaganda, as there is so much of it and so diverse looking elsewhere is needless). It’s titled “Is it your responsibility to educate a person you’re dating on race and racism?”

No matter what, a partner shouldn’t rely on just you to always play the role of a social justice educator. You’re not on call to unpack systemic oppression for another person.

You shouldn’t have to educate your partner on issues of social justice all the time, especially as they pertain to your own lived experience. Giving love and support shouldn’t require “evidence” on why someone needs it.

When it comes to race, dating, and intimacy, I’m learning that it’s less about education and more about openness when it comes to listening and believing. Social justice is a collective process – and that should also apply to dating and partnerships.

In this instance, the “education” caper unabashedly translates into motivating why you keep attacking this person and others, while demanding they shut up and listen at all times. By the way, bringing politics into one’s bedroom is usually detrimental.

It’s not someone’s responsibility to be an on-demand resource or be forced to speak on behalf of “their” people.

Except when they bitch about it and feel entitled to refer to others as bigots. They are free to do that as many times a day as they like and for whatever reason, not necessarily authentic.

It’s not always so much about educating one’s partner, but on how to communicate ways that person can be more affirming even if they don’t intellectually or experientially understand something.

In other words, turn this person into an emotional bidet and a parrot of one’s attitudes, at all times.

Sure, all of these moments could be complete accidents – or they could be moments where implicit racism and sexism show up. (…) Sometimes he’ll wonder why I’m so frustrated.

This might be true – the other person wasn’t maliciously intending to do harm. However, that doesn’t change the reality that my feelings are hurt and that I’m expressing those hurt feelings to my partner.

In other words, the author plainly admits to taking offence in situations others normally wouldn’t, which has a few descriptions of its own: nitpicking, pettiness, childishness, hypersensitivity, a victim complex, immaturity, a propensity for whining gratuitously etc. This is not a socially attractive trait. At all. Yet somehow, a group of people claims the right to make things illogically difficult on the rest, on the basis of feelings.

Feelings are also behind stalkers’ obsessions, murders triggered by fits of jealousy or paranoid people attacking those they feel are attacking them. None of this is justifiable, especially when it causes great harm. Perpetually claiming discrimination by playing the race or gender card is no different.

But if I were just to share a story about how someone cut in front of me in line or cut me off while driving, there might be no reason to explain the specifics of why I’m frustrated.

Reckless driving can and does result in serious injuries or death, which is a real possibility in the real world, not just your head. It’s not exaggerated for someone to say they escaped death narrowly when put in danger on the road. It cannot be compared to “microaggressions”, which have no consequence whatsoever and are unintended.

We look to our partners to believe in us and affirm our experiences rather than making us doubt our observations as real.

Unless you start to go off the bend, which is when any good friend and especially your partner will tell you that your attitude is poisonous. They do not have to put up with it, especially when you single-handedly admit to the irrelevance of your grievances.

What often happens when my partner wants an explanation of oppression is that I just splutter back all of my feelings. For me, this isn’t just about having a conversation – I have personal stakes in the outcome of the conversation. (…) But rationality is often evoked as a silencing tactic and has made me feel that he was detached from my experiences. My emotions – my anger and frustration over issues of racism – are rational.

Someone who is articulate can discuss feelings rationally, with their nuances, limitations and traps. It is not unfair to ask that of them, especially since they spout them out constantly, which affects those around them.

Oppression isn’t rational, at least not to me, so how could I ever explain it in rational terms?

If you want it to be criminalised, you have no choice. The justice system has a “thingy” for rationality and objectivity, as in their absence tyrannical, absurd, inquisitorial practices can be instated.

Even as these conversations come from a space of love, nurturing, and accountability, “calling in can be difficult and also requires emotional labor.

The hypocrisy is monumental here.

Hence, explaining why you’re constantly bitching requires emotional labour, but for someone to put up with said bitching doesn’t.

Needless to say, tearing this rhetoric apart is a bottomless pit, as one never runs out of material. The crux of the matter is that a handful of attitudes transpire in any such piece: hypocrisy, entitlement, a lack of logic and a high level of immaturity.

P*ssy Hat Protest (Satire)

This satire was inspired by the SJW protests around Donald Trump’s inauguration, where many protesters showed up with “pussy hats” and giant vagina costumes. Besides engaging in frivolous rhetoric, some carried out acts of pointless destruction of public and private property alike.


Come join me, fellow sisters, in a majestic screech

The seals of the Antarctic could never hope to reach!

We’ll drown out all their hatred and stomp any adherent;

Just like the Wooly Mammoth, we’re slow but perseverant!


Do not be shy to handle my polyester tw*t;

You can’t get hepatitis or herpes from a hat!

Though some do say it gives them, if I may be so blunt,

A never-ending licence to label me a c*nt!


Last week I was a victor, I marched from dusk ‘till dawn,

I trampled the begonias on some cis white male’s lawn,

And after manly pummels, which left my muscles sore,

In Herculean struggles – his trash bin is no more!


I ran back in full glory after this brave foray,

Though covered in cat faeces and three-day-old soufflé;

This proves beyond suspicion, and please spare no applause,

That I’d decline no effort to further our cause!


We broke a good few windows, they cursed at us with pathos

And called for paramedics and cops to please sedate us;

I thrive in cis despair and in patriarchal dread!

We are the revolution, comrades! Full steam ahead!


We’ll show these cunts what love is, for unity we aim,

Our chants, group hugs and dances put any cult to shame!

Their faces are so pasty – but with a punch or two,

We’ll make them into rainbows, with shades of red and blue!

New Evidence Of Disturbing Extremism On Psychopath Free

(Sorry about the size of the images; I simply copied the text on each one.)

It seems the assumption that behind closed doors PF would become even more deranged in terms of its treatment of members (and cult-ish behaviour in general) was spot on.

Someone who still has access to their account was kind enough to take screen shots and send them; they reveal what seems to be a complete lack of sanity.

First off, as seen below, a member wishing to leave and have their account deleted is immediately labelled an impostor and a narcissist/ sociopath/ psychopath, for merely stating they didn’t need the forum anymore.



Being myself is all I need to believe in. Please delete my account here at PF


I think you need to contact one of the administrators, @SmittenKitten or @Victoria or @Indie917.


Joined in July of 2013 and never posted until October of this year. Most of the posts don’t make sense.


Ah, secret nsp in our midst just looking for a reason to start shit to devalue our forum?


We’ve had a few of those, what I call “Sleeper Cells”, suddenly become active since we shut the doors.

Seriously, what kind of group outright accuses you of being the worst kind of person imaginable, just for saying you want to leave them? What kind of “sense” does that make? It’s obvious that these people are a joke, as a community anyway, and that they always have been.

If that is their methodology in recognising personality disorders, one that they were very keen on peddling to schools and psychology practices, allow me to assume they wouldn’t have been taken seriously.

Such is their conviction of unchallenged expertise that they aspired to spread it all over the world, only a few months ago.

And if you want to see something even sicker, look no further.

According to a group of devout PF members, a woman can be labelled a “narcissistic mother” for dying one day after her daughter, apparently, to … get attention. The posts below refer to the sad recent passing of Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds, both of natural causes, though it is quite clear that Debbie Reynolds’ death was accelerated by her daughter’s, which is not uncommon within families.

The high calibre humanists and sensitive snowflakes on PF somehow ended up seeing a grief-stricken mother as a “narc” who wanted to “steal her daughter’s moment of fame” by none other than dying.


Yeah, shoot me. Tell me I will burn in hell. Go ahead.

But I cannot help but be triggered by the outpouring of grief for the Hollywood star, Debbie Reynolds.

Sorry Carrie. You had your five minutes.

Sorry PF members. I’m feeling bitter.

(7 members like this)



Do you see that Debbie Reynolds was a Narc Mother Charlie??

That’s what I think you mean. I must do some research.

It does seem odd she died only a day later taking all the attention of the headlines, so soon after Carrie.

(4 members like this)


I actually thought the same thing. Deb just couldn’t let the spotlight be off of herself!

( 3 members like this)


I’m not sure further comments are even needed…

A big thank you to the member who sent this, as it is a very revealing “inside glimpse”. And though posting these screen shots here might be perceived as intrusive, we can’t forget that these people are playing with the personal details and even sanity of those they have lured.

Later edit: PF banning members for… liking another author, possibly seen as “competition”

Melanie Tonia Evans, also referred to as MTE for short (on their forum anyway) is an author exploring roughly the same topics as they do, from a personal perspective, apparently introducing too many nuances for their liking, versus the black and white view of human interaction they propose. Although her motivation is at least partially financial – which appears to be par for the course in this field – it seems extreme for PF to take such a strong stance that she can’t even be mentioned. After all, what are they selling, if not made-up solutions to the problems of those in need?

The following quotes are from a thread about her (sorry for posting them so late after they were sent), after having previously referred to one of her books as a resource, in 2011.


image4 (1)-0

(…) So when I  looked at Melanie Tonia Evans’ website I was already feeling skeptical about paying for reading materials. After all, there is a wealth of information here, on the internet, and also in Peace’s book, which I have read 3 times now.

I think that this site is the most helpful, the most supportive, and certainly understands what it means to be empathetic. I am so grateful for its existence.


I am amazed how many threads exist in this forum…!! I decided to do a search on Melanie Tonia Evans and see if anyone here has used her Narcissistic Recovery Program. I too was skeptical; after all, she was a victim who asked for a miracle, and had an epiphany. This is something ALL of us can ask for and receive in our own individual way, (free of charge).

I have a problem with receiving something FREE and then SELLING it (“buy the Truth and sell it not”)

(…) I may purchase it, and if I do, I will let everyone know how it worked.

image4 (1)-2

For the newer members: MTE and SLC are not recommended by PF. There are some threads in the Meta sub-forum about them. Stick with the resources listed here.


MTE is Melanie Tonia Evans, who has a website charging victims of narcissistic abuse lots of money for taking her modules and online courses. Her approach also includes a lot victim-blaming and co-dependency claims along with what we call perpetrator-sympathisning in feeling pity for the abusers.


We don’t support MTE here and that’s why I referred to her regarding the link to the other site that was posted that has a similar style and approach o hers.


Of course… didn’t get anyone to take the bait and get into an argument, so threw this link in out of nowhere. This one couldn’t WAIT to get banned and is probably pissing himself while he ramps up another already-existing sockpuppet account.

Three of these posts stand out in my opinion – one claiming not to need other resources but PF, another mandating that members stick to the resources listed on the site and of course, the admin’s power trip display in the end, while banning someone suspected of trolling (I presume) for linking to MTE.

Also notice the language, the venom and contemplate being on the wrong side of PF staff, ever, even through a misunderstanding. Then contemplate having given them your most intimate details beforehand.


Feminists, Confused About… Women

It’s fair to say anyone claiming expertise in a field and simultaneously failing to properly define its most basic concepts would fail to be taken seriously.

The feminist movement, for a change, whilst apparently working towards advancing women’s rights, is permanently confused by this seemingly volatile notion of being female.

In fact, many have such an unclear understanding of the term “woman” that they choose to avoid it altogether, using expressions such as “people with vaginas”, “people who menstruate” and “pregnant people”, in situations which only apply to women, which leads to very awkward phrasing.

What is more, it seems identity politics should have an impact on society’s view on women to the extent of denying or ignoring their number on this planet. Yes, apparently, even census is offensive now.

“Five reasons why we need to stop saying that women are half of the world’s population” . I suspect, to some, this incentive might be a response to people pointing out that women, who are lumped in with various groups in the oppression Olympics, cannot be classed as a minority or a marginalised community, since that is utterly ridiculous. The reasons given here, however, are quite different.

I don’t see this “women are half the world” thing as being intersectional, nor do I see it as being correct.

And perhaps most importantly, I don’t see it as a step in the right direction: It marginalizes other people in a heck of a lot of ways, trying to uplift women at the expense of others – specifically people of marginalized gender and sex.

Not cool.

The day when statistics are supposed to be cool instead of accurate is the day O’Brien tells Winston how many fingers to see, though Winston is not blind.

Perhaps everyone should see what they want to see, in terms of objective reality. For instance, if your landlord wants to see another zero added to your rent, though the agreement specifies otherwise, or your doctor wants to see three inches instead of seven in the gaping cut in your arm, so that there would be less to stitch up, that would be completely fine. Who needs counts and measurements after all?

It would be every politician’s dream on this planet to convince the masses that numbers don’t matter. Unemployment, war massacres casualties, people living below the poverty line, you name it.

It didn’t occur to me until I began my gender transition, living now as a genderqueer trans guy, that the phrase started to rub me the wrong way – because it erased transgender people like me, for starters.

Every category has its own statistics and is free use them to make a point, as long as they are factual and not made up.

If we want to make a case for women’s equality around the world, we need to do it in a way that doesn’t erase or harm people of other genders and identities.

Aside from straight white men, I presume, as in every discussion about inequality there has to be a “privileged” group interested in maintaining it. A group which equality is sought with.

It’s time we did away with this talking point once and for all. Because as you’ll see, it’s not doing women – or anyone else, for that matter – any favors. Here are five things to consider the next time you’re thinking of spouting off the “women are half the world” argument.

Of course; not only is it justified to decide what others should and should not talk about, but it is completely justifiable for neutral facts to be censored through peer pressure.

Let’s be real: This phrase isn’t logically correct. When we’re saying that women are half the world, what we’re actually saying is that roughly half the world is assigned female at birth.

We aren’t talking about gender (and therefore, women) at all. We’re talking about sex, and assuming that everyone assigned female at birth must identify as a woman.

This is totally cisnormative – reinforcing the assumption that being cisgender is the default, and centering the experiences of cisgender people, effectively erasing transgender people – and makes this phrase really problematic.

Sure, let’s be so real that we deny the implications of associating the word “woman” with the correct anatomy; it’s not that boys and girls/ men and women have different needs in terms of, let’s say, medical assistance, to begin with. In a medical facility, like it or not, you will be treated as your sex, not your self-appointed gender. Let’s burden the medical system with terms such as pregnant men or women with testicular cancer. Let’s also burden the legal system with notions such as men who are vaginally raped or a biological mother claiming the legal status of the baby’s father, and vice-versa. Because it’s totally not unusual for your sperm-producing mother to impregnate your uterus-possessing father. That must just happen every day, everywhere, as to warrant a generalised policy.

Completely disregarding these differences leads to this dangerous type of situation, when a trans-female MMA fighter, possessing male physical abilities, was allowed to fight actual females. Anyone seeing an average looking guy punching and kicking a woman in the street would be outraged; however, in this context, one has to pretend there is a difference in terms of the major discrepancy of force.

Why are cisgender women the only women that count in this statistic?

They are not. All women are given the same type of assistance and opportunities since they are born (varying from country to country of course, and in some countries those are minimal; it also varies according to class). But a woman remains a woman regardless. One cannot say those who later identify as a different gender are being discriminated against since birth and are thus oppressed by their “gender assignment”. Their decision to transition has nothing to do with the medical system; or with the system in general; it is theirs and theirs alone.

And while trans women may not be a huge percentage of the population, your movement is not for women if it doesn’t explicitly and intentionally include all women.

What is a woman though, if we were to compile progressive standards into a brand new definition? Well, it would have to sound like this.

A woman is a person born female or male, cisgender or transgender, displaying female or male characteristics, holding this status permanently or temporarily, according to self-identification.

And the same could be said for men. Who are these people representing then?

Let’s see here. Women are half the world. So men must make up the other half of the world. That’s 100%. So presumably, this includes everyone! Right?

No, it really doesn’t.

Biologically and legally, in most regards except fancy terminology, YES.

Let me put it this way: you will not be drafted even if you cut your hair short and call yourself a man, if you are not one. And you will not be contacted for a prostate exam when the appropriate age comes, if you are a female “identifying as gender fluid”, or for a breast exam, if you “identify as androgynous” when you’re actually a guy.

Likewise, if you are, let’s say, “trigender”, you will not be given three different legal names to switch between on a whim – because you’re actually just one person.

Anytime we normalize a phrase that says there are only two genders, we’re erasing anyone and everyone who identifies differently.

People can call themselves what they like, but when it comes to practical implications, the environment they live in must be considered, as well as  their well-being. For instance, I can call myself a driver, but that won’t make the police treat me as one if I don’t have a licence. I could identify as elderly (yes, there is something called… trans-age, or something like that), but that won’t make me eligible for a pension. As a matter of fact, I can even identify as a dog and wear one of those fake tails, like the Otherkin, but that won’t mean I’ll be put into a van and taken to the kennel if I’m seen wandering the streets by myself.

Honestly, when I identified as a cisgender woman, I didn’t notice these issues, and the phrase felt empowering – it felt radical to claim our collective power as women!

There is no we and no collective power. If there were, human rights abuses against women in backward countries would not exist.

This mentality – that we are born female or male and there’s no in-between – is actually the source of a great deal of oppression and pain for intersex people.

Is it really, or could it be they are aware they were simply born with a biological abnormality, which says nothing about them as people and the lives they can have?

The reality is that biological sex also exists on a spectrum

No, it doesn’t. An abnormality does in no way define the norm; that is like saying that because some people are born without an arm or a leg, the number of limbs is also on a spectrum.

I really despise the underlying message of “women are half the population” because it implicitly communicates to me that because my community isn’t as large, the fight for transgender rights is somehow less of a priority or less significant.

Typical SJW infighting, jealousy and resentment, which shows that the notion of “oppression Olympics” is not at all exaggerated.

And finally, the cherry on the cake.

Here’s the thing: It’s important that when we build our movements, we create language that reflects our values. And if you take anything away from this article, it’s that we must be intentional about our words – because our words mean something.

We can do better than a lousy 50/50 percentage that lacks nuance. We can do better than a so-called “statistic” that erases people of marginalized gender and sex.

Here’s an idea, taken straight from a former communist regime. Not only did they ignore statistics; they used to make them up and present them to the population as real.

Because those made-up statistics reflected their values.

They wanted to live in a prosperous country, so they would simply call it that, even though the population was almost starving. They aimed for a certain agricultural production every season, so when the results did not match, they would simply change the numbers, which would make everyone feel better (well, except for the starving people, but hey, that was another matter).

So remember, kids: reality is in the eye of… well, anyone really.





Social Justice: How To Brainwash Your Kids Into Insurgency

Hush little baby, don’t you cry,
Just throw a rock at a passer-by;
Take that Batman hat off your head,
Here’s a balaclava to wear instead;
And when you’re bored with that toy gun,
Momma’s gonna buy you a real one;
A few Molotovs are always tops,
You can just fling them back at cops,
And if your great plans happen to fail,
A Swiss knife to dig yourself out of jail.


No, this commentary is not based on a documentary about Chairman Mao’s young supporters or the Leninist period. It is based on enthusiastic advice given to parents of white children by people who live in a democratic, developed country, namely the USA, in our current year.

Forget the “racially unaware uncle” at the Thanksgiving table (though fears of this particular type have generated so much material over the last few days, with feminists handing out emotional methods of coping with opinionated relatives). Move straight to your children; after all, indoctrinating them about “privilege” and “oppression” will be so much easier.

You can start by enthusiastically presenting violent, quasi-terrorist groups as role models.

That advice involves, among other things, listing Black Lives Matter as an inspirational movement, which can be a great source of education for them. Yes, the people who lute and vandalise their own cities, calling for the death of police officers (even while provided security by them in real-time) and carrying out racially motivated assaults on random strangers. Apparently, these are the people youth should admire and actively support. Or even emulate, as I understand it.

And remember: if your child is not interested in this type of activism, just insist some more. It’s not like this would ever be classed as indoctrination and setting them up to join the ranks of rioters, before they can properly tie their shoelaces.

It’s not like that’s what ISIS types do to their young generations, drumming ideological justifications for indiscriminate violence against strangers into their heads since they start understanding spoken language.

Even if conversations don’t go quite as you planned, make sure to keep talking to your kids.

They may not understand everything right now, but as they get older, they will slowly get it.

Also, you can convince your children that their president is a monster and the responsibility is theirs to change the country in the future.

In this article titled “How to talk to your kids about Donald Trump’s win“, the author envisages a grim picture of frightened, disenfranchised children with no hope for tomorrow.

And that’s the thing: Kids will be sad. And scared. And confused. And rightly so. (…)We can let them share their fears, and soothe them, but we also need to understand that this should not be theirs alone to carry. They should not have to bear the burden of this day as adults do.

Aside from the fact that this is dramatically presented as a natural disaster or war situation, one can’t help but wonder why those kids would be so scared in the first place; surely they didn’t wake up like that the morning after the election.

If this fear is real, it must have come after a long time of incessant fear-mongering from the adults around them, presenting this neutral situation (a change in political leadership), which kids otherwise might not have cared about at all, as the end of the world.

Of course, then come the words of encouragement and comfort. Not consisting of, let’s say, reassurance that life is very unlikely to change substantially and it will follow its course. Although mentions of that possibility are made, the author writes this below:

We can explain that we will continue to write and create. We will continue to advocate for what we believe in. We will march and protest and rally.

We can tell them we know that so much of what we are up against is systemic, and that we’re not going to be able to just usher in a hopeful new way of being unless we proactively tear down these systems we’re up against. (…)

And once we do this, then we can begin to rebuild.

Nothing to see here; just the planning of a socialist revolution in which kids are invited to partake, at least psychologically. Comforting indeed! Oh wait…

We can liberate our children with our vision for the next generation. “I wanted it to be my generation,” we can tell them. “But now, I can work towards making sure it is yours who makes this change.”

This of course does not take into account the possibility that said generation could have a completely different vision for the future. I don’t suppose that idea can ever penetrate a progressive skull – that once they are able to think for themselves, their kids might actually not share that political persuasion. They’re already working towards making sure that never happens.

This is a dark, dark time. But we need to hold our children close. We need to let them be children. We need to empower them. And we need to take a deep breath, regroup, and show them with our actions that we are continuing the crucial activism work that has never been more important than it is right now.

It’s almost as if kids had these expectations of activism, as opposed to the adults around them. As if they couldn’t just be left alone to enjoy life.

So there you have it. Off with the baseball cap, kid; on with the balaclava. You were born a revolutionary.


Male Privilege: Non-oppressive Urination Techniques. Seriously!

This is for real.

I’ve never witnessed a man have a mental breakdown before, but I imagine it starts with overpowering confusion; he might, for instance, feel the need to ask a feminist how many times he should shake before zipping up, when going to the bathroom. Because he’s aware feminism can’t leave anyone alone – not even in there.

You see, urinating is part of power dynamics between genders. I bet you thought these matters would be more sophisticated and more on the philosophical side, but hey – the toilet bowl is equally relevant. That’s how we have evolved as a species – by focusing on what really matters.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating stinking bathrooms here – but mixing this base issue with pompous feminist language truly sounds like a parody of everything the social justice movement has become.

It should be framed and preserved for posterity, as a symbol of the times when feminism declined so much it ended up regulating piss and farts. Literally.

Though many people have penises and/or stand up to pee, for this article I want to focus on ways that cis men can be better allies to the other folks with whom we share a bathroom.

Allies. What a degree of solemnity in wiping up urine stains. Everything in these people’s lives is so overblown, it sometimes seems like they’re having a maniacal episode.

While the constructs of the gender binary continue to evolve and dissolve, male privilege does not. We know that patriarchy and male privilege appear in all aspects of society, and the bathroom is no different.

Of course! Male privilege must start in your bladder! How come no one’s ever thought about this before?

I feel lucky that I even have regular access to gender neutral bathrooms in my own life – so, in these spaces, I want to make sure I’m respecting the space that many people fought so hard to create.

Lucky…? Are these spaces sacred now? As for fighting to create them, I’m pretty sure most of those toilet stalls were there before; they just have a different sign on the door now. And I’m pretty sure those using them have used toilets before that; it’s 2016. Isn’t the level of reverence a bit queasy?

You are a cis man. And to some degree (especially if you are a white cis man), society promotes an idea that we are entitled to absolute freedom of movement. You deserve, among so many other things, to pee freely and have no one tell you about the consequences of your poor aim.

Reality check: This is patriarchal logic, if not completely representative of the world in which we live. There are consequences.

Fuck’s sake… all I can say. I’m lost for words.

This should go without saying, but never, ever – and I really mean never – attempt the dangerous feat of peeing without lifting the seat up. For some of you adventurous people who want to prove yourself to the world, I understand how tempting this might be. (…)

Newsflash: This is a cis male-entitled delusion. No one, least of all you, has aim that perfect.

If that’s the standard of proving yourself to the world… This is not a joke, by the way. It’s on a feminist website. Toilet training for adults.

Similarly, a study found that peeing while sitting down may be easier on your prostate and allows for your pelvic and hip muscles to relax in a more neutral positions.

…So you can feel the unseen hand of feminism fingering you. Because let’s face it, it has already fucked you in any other imaginable way.

So in the bathroom, don’t be afraid of the sounds of people of different genders. It’s normal.

I wonder if they teach that in gender studies. No, honestly, imagine someone who claims to be an intellectual, in an intellectual space, talking about bathroom noises.

Don’t be another guy who doesn’t wash their hands. And don’t just wash your hands because someone else is there in the bathroom with you.

Do it when no one is looking. Do it because you care about gender politics in the bathroom and beyond.

I’m not sure why, but I’m quite confident handwashing was invented way before gender politics.

Don’t make folks feel unsafe or trapped by hitting on folks, following them in and out of the bathroom, or asking folks lots of personal questions.

Does that happen often? Do you even need to tell someone not to do that?

On the flip side, don’t run in and out of a gender neutral bathroom because it makes you uncomfortable or you’re afraid to find someone of a different gender inside.

No; by all means, just read a book in there. It’s not like public toilets are made for running in and out of. It seems now it’s an experience you have to think about and be nervous about.

As a cis man, people may not want to interact with you because of safety concerns or harm they may have experienced in a bathroom setting previously, so it’s important to have an awareness of this.

OK; so now you’re perceived as a potential threat as well. You don’t have the right to feel uncomfortable around them, but they are justified in feeling that way around you – even if it was them, not you, who insisted on that arrangement in the first place. Congratulations, cis man! You are now a pariah even in the lavatory. Looks like you’ve pissed away too much of your cis male privilege.

The bathroom can be a place of liberation. It can be a place of cleanliness and peaceful relief if we all do our part to create that.

And with that melodramatic statement we reach the end of yet another article on male privilege – which, sadly, can’t even be recycled into toilet paper for a supermarket cubicle.





“You’re In My Space” – The Moral Power Trip

Is it even possible to watch a recording from a liberal protest without hearing these words directed at those who do not form part of the protesting group?

  • You’re taking up our space by being here.
  • This is not your space; if we ask, you should leave immediately.
  • You’re a guest in our space, even if you consider yourself an ally, so step back etc.
  • Be quiet and don’t pretend you’re one of us; this event is not intended for you.

As demonstrations usually take place on public property, often outdoors, and one cannot legally be barred from attending (or not easily anyway), why are social justice activists behaving as if they temporarily took ownership of any area they gather in and could expel any unwanted presence at will?

The thing is, when holding public events, a group is apparently trying to engage the community; it’s unproductive for no one aside from its members (and among them, only those with stamped opinions) to be allowed to actively participate, either as an interviewer, a dissenter or an “ally”.

Whereas it makes sense – regardless of the petulance – for them to try to silence opposing views, their attitude towards their allies is quite surprising and can only be explained through the arrogance of feeling in command of a group, movement, event etc, micromanaging everyone else’s involvement, down to which subjects can be approached and by whom.

Being an ally to these types looks more like community service, served by repentant, apologetic second-class people who can’t sit at the same table with the rest and must always be on their toes, awaiting education, directions and the permission to speak from group leaders. They are reformed offenders, oppressors by birth; they can never be fully trusted, let alone form brotherly bonds with the group. They are looked upon with a queasy coldness, sometimes a hint of pity, in the knowledge that they are trying to be less flawed but will never, ever get there.

Here are a few examples.

Although the quotes refer to a single type of event – in this case a positive one – the same rhetoric can be read and heard regarding a vast number of similar ones, whether celebratory or anger-fuelled.

Even if you’re the ally of the year, you’re entering Pride with a lot of privilege. Using that privilege thoughtfully is crucial — especially at a time when the threats of homophobia and transphobia are so apparent.

“The most important thing a straight ally can do is make sure they aren’t taking up space for LGBT people — especially in talking about and dealing with the tragedy in Orlando,” Fallarino says. (…) It’s a time when allies need to account for their unearned privilege, especially when entering our space. (…) If you can muster the bravery, call out hecklers so your LGBTQ friends and peers don’t have to.(…)Bottom line: Never be off of your ally grind — especially in a space where you are a guest.”

“Evaluate your behavior before deciding to attend Pride. Recognize that this space is the most comfort and celebration most LGBTQ people get all year. And we want you there — but only if you deserve to be.”

“We want you, as a thoughtful ally, to celebrate with us. But we also need you to accept that this celebration was not intended for you. This is a moment for the LGBTQ community, and by entering this space, it’s important to accept that your good time is secondary.”

“After all, that’s the main role of a straight ally at Pride and beyond — to lift up a community in celebration and solidarity, while helping clear space for us to be ourselves.”


The same attitude can be found here relating to anti-racist activism.

The single most important thing we can do to be better allies is to listen across difference. (…) The other side of the coin of listening is that we can always do a better job of stepping back, asserting ourselves less into spaces, and, in doing so, allowing those to whom we ally to speak their truths. (…)

Though being a better ally can mean that we must talk less, that doesn’t mean that we ought to be in total silence.

We surely need to defer to those with whom we are acting in solidarity, but we also want to make sure that we are not leaving those to whom we want to ally ourselves to be the only ones speaking. Thus, there are times we should be speaking up, times where we can amplify the voices of others with our collective perspectives. It’s just important to be sure we’re amplifying, not overshadowing.

This is unadulterated cult mentality, which applies to socialism. Allies, comrades, cult members all act as amplifiers of a collective perspective and are not permitted original ideas, as they detract from the “common work” and “overshadow” the knowledge of those who are supposed to hold the one true knowledge. They are only permitted to shut up, listen, learn and intervene when needed (when numbers are needed) as backing vocalists.

One thing that I constantly find is the SJW obsession with these “allies” joining them in order to obtain some form of notoriety; it comes up so often and rephrased in many ways. Citing from the same source:

One of the ways that we can step up more regularly is to fill in supportive roles. (…) Sometimes supportive roles are the most important ones for allies to fill, and while you definitely aren’t going to get credit for them, you shouldn’t expect credit for your work as an ally. (…) Allies should rarely be the center of attention in work for justice.

I’m not saying they should – but the tone is just unnecessary. It’s just nastiness after nastiness meant to ensure these people don’t step one inch out of place. Instead, as mentioned in the same article, they are supposed to put their lives or freedom in danger by participating in dodgy demonstrations which border on (or turn into) illegal behaviour.

The attitude is so estranged from normal human interaction, which entails connecting emotionally and intellectually, or some kind of warmth at least, between people who work together for a common cause. Or at least an ounce of niceness would do.

We at Another Round get TONS of questions from white people asking us how they can be better allies, and while we appreciate the drive to be better—people of color can’t be expected to be everyone’s diversity counselors. It’s an unfair burden. (source)

I have read quite a few opinion pieces written in an angry tone, on how POC don’t have to educate anyone, don’t owe anyone their time etc. In what context is it acceptable to demand support from others, to the point of claiming it is their duty to work with you, while treating them like smudges of dirt on your shoe?

Don’t get me wrong; I’m not saying there’s any value in the white guilt indoctrination; its value can be seen from the attitude and violence it produces. I’m not saying anyone is better off delving into this radicalism. However, the bad attitude, which would put off even the most open of people, has to be pointed out.

Let me put it this way: you do not start a successful collaboration from a high horse, preemptively warning your would-be collaborators of any errors you think they might commit based on their presumed flaws of character. If somebody wants to work with you, it’s useful to show civility and at least not throw invented accusations at them. How would you like to be greeted by a new acquaintance in this manner?

Welcome; I’m glad you came. I’m sure we’ll enjoy our time together. But first off, I have to warn you not to shit on my carpet. This is your chair; if you sit anywhere else you’ll be out of here in two seconds. Also, DO NOT put your purse on this table. Now, would you like a cup of tea?

The proof that social justice activists see themselves as a pseudo-army resides not only in their aggressiveness but in this obsession for hierarchy, for lining up their little soldiers in orderly fashion, according to their “right” to speak and the value of their opinions.

And the little soldiers would do just about anything to become accepted by this crowd. There is a video on YouTube of Lauren Southern attempting to interview an “ally” of the transgender community, attending a demonstration. The ally would not give her own opinion in her own words, lest she overshadowed those who had a genuine right to speak. By this she was basically saying she was there to inflate the number of participants. Moments later, Lauren Southern was reprimanded for interviewing so many white males on this issue. Forget about being a person around these types – you are your gender, your skin colour, your social status etc.

And finally, everyone’s favourite acid trip, which is Everyday Feminism, explains why.

Know Your (Lack of a) Role: Honoring Healing Spaces as an Ally

You arrive at an awesome conference brimming with solidarity. Scanning through the program book, you spot the perfect workshop title, and you’re pumped for the conversation! Someone finally gets me!

Then! The italics below: “Closed to trans identified participants only.”POC only.” “For those who identify as women.”

Oof. The deep, gut-punch realization that even though you come with golden intentions and this potential conversation sounds safer than any you’ve encountered, this space isn’t for you.

Why can’t I join? Oppression also hurts me as an ally. Can’t we join together?

It sounds like you’ve come across a healing space.

I love the phrasing; it reminds me of nature programs. It sounds like you’ve come across a strange, rare animal you’ve never seen before.

It also reminds me of places of worship, submerged in religious dogma, where there are strict rules about who can enter, where to sit, what to wear and what to say.

It’s in these moments that we need to remember that being committed to a cause does not make us immune to perpetuating the problem. An ally taking up airtime in a healing space not only silences the voices of those directly experiencing oppression, but replicates the exact oppression we’re trying to address.

Which means an ally is also an oppressor, regardless of the good intentions.

Wait, are you advocating for segregation?

Segregation isn’t a choice. It’s forced removal. Segregation doesn’t challenge oppression – it strengthens it.

Actually, the definition of the word does not include state policies or any mention of force, merely describing it as the separation of one group from another.

Unlike healing spaces, safe spaces don’t require that someone share a particular identity. Safe spaces simply require members to be accountable for the influence of the power and privilege they carry. So healing spaces may also be safe spaces under those agreements. Or they may not. (…)

Asian Employee Group is a healing space marker because it indicates a choice on behalf of Asian employees to create community free from white supremacy. (…)Thus, the existence of this group challenges that status quo.

I’m sure referring to your employers and coworkers as “white supremacy” is conducive to a very relaxed, respectful working environment. And very realistic as well.

      (…)I sat and watched as they leaned in and their eyes lit up at meeting someone who shared their story – who not just knew of it, but felt it.

Inside, my mind swirled: Why aren’t they including me? Neither of them has even looked at me in 30 minutes. I want to participate in the conversation, too!

And yet: I don’t have anything to share. I don’t actually have this kind of ancestral understanding of my gender. In fact, my ancestors probably colonized their land.

I sat in silence and mourned the distance I felt given my lack of a shared identity.

But what would it have meant for me to step in and ask my friends to take care of my feelings? What might it have done to their stories?

The celebration and solidarity they had built might have been muddied or shifted focus.

Sorry to say, but ignoring someone for half an hour straight, after having set up a meeting with them, is dead rude. However high the intensity of the conversation, two people don’t just forget that a third one is sitting right beside them. But that’s OK apparently, because her ancestors must have colonised their ancestors’ land. Which pretty much excuses any level of rudeness today.

 I was privileged to witness this healing conversation between two new friends, a place free from the impact of the dominant group. To insert myself into the conversation would be to centralize my whiteness in a space that was reveling in its absence. Instead, my role was to step back.True solidarity means knowing that though we may experience oppression ourselves, we also can act in the role of the oppressor.

Reveling in its absence? So the conversation was not about gender, but about the absence of whiteness? All I see here is self-loathing, self-deprecation, to the point of accepting other people being uncivil and thinking that asking to be treated like a human being and not an accessory, to be used when needed, is “oppressive”.

The world has few healing spaces for marginalized identities.Systems of oppression set the context in which marginalized groups are kicked to the curb in favor of privileged or dominant groups.

The pinnacle of  irony is when a group voluntarily segregates itself, rejecting any intent of deeper interaction from the majority, and after that still calls itself marginalised by said majority.

As an ally, I know that my experiences with oppression do not give me access to all experiences of oppression or relieve me from responsibility for my privileged or dominant identities.

I’m interested in finding out how this plays out in one’s daily life. It seems that the same person who is otherwise a friend to those needing healing spaces, once they are in those spaces, is suddenly reduced to a “white person” and thus deserves less respect than in different environments. That is one odd way of approaching friendship.

And I honor that sometimes I can’t contribute shared experiences to the healing spaces of others because my own privileged or dominant identities contribute to their need for them.

Yes, yes, whites are nuclear waste. You’re personally responsible for any negative experience of the people you befriend and treat with consideration.

A queer women’s group has opened up at the LGBTQIA+ center. You’re new to town and want to find community. You identify as a trans man, but didn’t feel safe when you attended the queer men’s group. You wonder if maybe you could check it out.

Here’s a new one: apparently there are those who don’t feel safe even in safe spaces. A trans man who doesn’t feel safe around men, although he identifies as one. Because they have, you know, penises. And the trans man is well aware of possessing a vagina. And as we all know, a person with a vagina is meant to be afraid of a person with a penis, even if said penis has no reaction to vaginas whatsoever. And, you know, these safe spaces where people go to whine into a tissue are meant to be all about rape. Nice scenario.

What do you do?

Check in with yourself and the space. Is this space exclusive to those who identify as women? Or is it for those who somehow identify with a female gendered experience?

Identify what you are seeking from this space. Are you looking to discuss your experience being misgendered female? Or are you looking to socialize? These are different things that will differently impact the healing space.

Know thy self!

The last bit of advice is delightfully ironic, as there seems to be so much confusion not only regarding these spaces but in these people’s minds in general.Their identity and those of others seem to always get in the way of human interaction.

You’re with a group of straight friends, and they want to go dance at a gay bar. (…) Check in with yourself and your group: What are your intentions? Are you looking to dance or do some experiential learning? Is there any other way you could achieve those goals? If you do choose to go, minimize your impact on the space. Rolling 12-deep and loudly staking out the center of the dance floor is different from subtly participating in the existing culture of the bar.

Right. A bar of all places is where you go for an educational experience. It’s not like you can be around these people just to have a good time together; the only type of interaction you are permitted with them is one of quiet, respectful learning about how you oppress them. And if you do go to the bar, just sit awkwardly in a corner, because that makes others feel very comfortable around you. Feel and behave like the leper that you are.

And always remember – your personality doesn’t matter. All that matters is the little role the SJW hierarchy has put you in. Welcome to socialism; please leave your dignity at the door.