Featured

Welcome

My name is Xavier (also known as X-man). I’m an advocate for men. The purpose of this website is to add content on men’s issues and provide a platform that takes men’s issues more seriously. This website will be used as a tool to promote a new narrative for the human rights of men

When Men’s Activism Works: The Why

Part 1: Introduction
In a previous article (When Men’s Activism Works: Framework), we established that women are more of a net negative on men’s progress than a positive. That was the “what”. We haven’t fully dived into the “why”. Why are women so bad at being allies? Why are they such a net negative on male progress? Why are men stuck in denial mode, constantly trying to get women on board?
The short answer can be summed up like this: women are toxic, and men don’t have self-respect. Women have leverage over men in major aspects of life that they don’t see going away anytime soon. If there’s no consequence for behaving poorly, what’s the incentive to improve their behavior? Men know that women hold the leverage in relationships. As such, they abandon their principles in order to achieve their success with women. Trying to compensate for the cowardice, they often make meaningless strives for “unity” and preach pseudo philosophical terms about “manhood”. This behavior does nothing to fix women’s repulsive behaviors-it only enables it and incentives the bad behavior to expand.
But that’s just the quick answer. The longer, more drawn-out answers are below.

Part 2: Women
Muh-sogyny

Women have a strong infatuation with the term “misogyny”. Unfortunately, their infatuation with usage overrides their concern for accuracy. Essentially, there’s a textbook definition of the term misogyny, and there’s a female definition of misogyny.
Textbook misogyny is based on a dislike, contempt, or baseless prejudice against women. Female-defined misogyny is essentially any behavior or belief that’s at odds with women’s desires.
Are you acknowledging a pattern of female behavior that doesn’t paint them in a positive light? Misogyny. Do you disagree with women on a specific topic? Such as due process, romance, or family court? Misogyny. Are you not a fan of something female-led that women feel empowered by? Such as movies, politicians, and public figures? Misogyny.
Essentially, women have their own ideas of how society should play out. If you’re not on board with it, regardless of reason or rhetoric, it’s because you’re a “misogynist”. Women love their version of this definition because it helps them dismiss criticism-if not outright silence it. Their concern for a narrative and an echo chamber is stronger than their concern for any uncomfortable truths.

Female Hypocrisy & Entitlement

Researchers have created the term “ambivalent sexism” and divided sexism into 2 categories: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism involves a negative attitude towards women. Viewing them as inferior and undermining their competence. Benevolent sexism involves portraying women as fragile beings in need of protection and cherishing. Ideas rooted in romantic chivalry.
The conclusions from the studies were very clear. While benevolent sexism sounds harmless or female-positive on the surface, it always circles back to hostile sexism. The more women are viewed as fragile beings in need of protection, the more their competence and agency gets dismissed. Benevolent sexism must be eradicated for hostile sexism to be eradicated.
Seeing how much women claim to value their “agency” and how much they preach about “equality”, you would assume that women would be in favor of this conclusion. And you’d be wrong. Women are against hostile sexism, yet strongly in favor of benevolent sexism. Meaning, women love the behaviors and benefits they receive from traditional gender roles. They just don’t like the other side of the coin, in which tradition benefits men.
Furthermore, women had negative opinions on men who weren’t in favor of benevolent sexism. Ironically, women referred to “non-benevolent” men as “misogynistic”. This is contrast to the studies that claims, “men are more likely to hold misogynistic beliefs if they were in favor of benevolent sexism-not against it”.
What do these studies tell us? Women are going through extreme levels of hypocrisy on the topic of gender roles. They are so committed to the idea of men being chivalrous, that they’ll go as far as calling men “misogynistic” in order to shame them into maintaining those traditional roles. This is important to keep in mind when a men’s group gains traction and women refer to it as “misogynistic”. Women view male liberation as “misogynistic” by default.

Perception

An important thing to note about women is that they really want their gender to be seen in a positive light. But they don’t want to live up to the standards of what that image carries. Being perceived as good people is their priority. Whether they’re actually being good people or not is irrelevant to them. Essentially, they’re putting on a mask.
As such, when men start to point out negative patterns of behavior from women, women’s kneejerk reaction is to blindly push back. Downplay its prevalence. Dismiss the harm that it causes. Deflect blame to men for their own poor behaviors. And, in a lot of cases, resort to condescension and personal attacks.
This strategy is supposed to help society continue to see them in a positive light. If they can work hard to silence or stigmatize criticism of women, then society will continue to see them as “good people”. Right? Well, the reality is the exact opposite. This strategy only makes them worst. If women’s kneejerk reaction is to blindly defend their gender’s toxicity, this makes them look even more guilty. Furthering the distrust of women.

Part 2: Male Enablers
A Better Woman

As mentioned in the Framework article, activism often involves the disadvantaged demographic attempting to appeal to the advantaged demographic. While it’s easier for the disenfranchised group to write off the opposite demographic, it’s often better in the long run to appeal to their humanity. It’s a philosophical staple in successful activism. They experience a lot of negativities from the advantaged community, yet they maintain this belief that a better version of that community exists. They know that the “good ones” will become more outspoken than the “bad ones” and create a clear separation-declaring the “bad ones” to be a minority opinion.
Well, men are no different in their thinking. Men see so much repulsive behavior from women in media and in person. It becomes unbearable. Yet, men hold on to this idea that a better version of women exists. Unfortunately, unlike any other demographic, men have yet to be proven right. If a better version of women exists (and that’s a strong “if”), they have yet to let themselves be known. So far, the “good women” can’t seem to make themselves a collective majority of the female population. They refuse to separate themselves from the bad and often find themselves being in blind defense of it.

A Man With No Principles

I’d like to compare the relationship dynamic between men and women to a “seller and buyer” economics concept. The seller (a street vendor or door-to-door salesman) is trying to sell their product to the customer. They’ll do all types of marketing and sweet talking to get you to buy their product. The buyer, on the other hand, has a simple choice: accept or decline. Due to this concept of business, the seller is always more desperate than the buyer. Because the arrangement puts the leverage in their hands.
In the gender dynamics of relationships, men are the sellers and women are the buyers. Men are constantly working their hardest to sell the idea of a relationship to women. Asking women out on dates, initiating sex, and proposing a ring to women. Women’s only role is to accept or decline these advances. Due to this nature, men are psychologically more desperate for a partnership than women. This gives women the leverage, and influences men to put aside their principles in favor of relationship success.

A Real Man Is A Pushover

The term “real man” has always been loaded language used to keep men thinking inside of a box. But the idea of a “real man” has definitely changed in the past half century. Historically, being a real man meant being courageous, principled, and sacrificing for the greater good of society. In modern society, being a real man is about being stoic, achieving success with women, and being a utility for women even if you get nothing in return.
The logic behind this is simple. Men don’t have enough self-respect to push back against women. As established in the previous section (“A Man With No Principles”), men are psychologically more desperate for a relationship than women, which gives them leverage. So, if they have to put up with women’s toxic behaviors just to not be lonely, they’ll do it. But, it makes them look pathetic and weak. As such, they have to reinvent manhood to be a militaristic role that only exists to serve women. Therefore, they’re no longer a “coward with no principles”. They’re now a “real man performing their duties”.

The Male Isolated Handshake

Men’s activism often gets derailed, because they often prioritize unity over substance. They don’t even prioritize actual unity. They prioritize hypothetical unity. Men see women demonizing men’s concerns, hobbies, goals, and emotions. Their solution is to stick out their hand and offer a truce, assuming that women will accept it in the near future.
The problem with this call for unity is that it’s baseless. A unity agreement requires both parties to be in favor of it. So far, only men are offering such a deal. It also requires both men and women to feel obligated to do so. Women’s leverage hasn’t gone away, and they aren’t suffering immediate consequences for their actions. So, what’s the incentive for them to agree to a truce?
If someone is attacking you (physically or verbally), demonizing everything about you, and suffers no consequence for it, they have no reason to unify with you. In fact, your failure to push back against their toxicity incentivizes them to antagonize you even harder. You come off as a “weak person” for women to take advantage of. You have to match the energy of the person opposing you.

Conclusion
With these gender dynamics, it’s not hard to understand why men’s activism often struggles to gain traction. Women, being toxic, have no intention of allowing men to successfully campaign for men’s issues-at least not without a fight. Men, having little self-respect, don’t plan on lowering their dating pool by pushing back against women’s toxicity. As such, the small number of men who push for men’s issues aren’t getting enough public support from their male counterparts.
I’m bringing these motivations to your attention for strategical purposes. You can’t push back against our current culture without actually understanding why your opposition acts the way they do. You need to know why women (and their male enablers) are being such a nuisance to your progress. The more you understand the problem, the easier it is to plan against. Know your opponent psychologically and strategize accordingly.

Source(s)
Chivalry
Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men’s benevolent and hostile sexism
Chivalry is far from dead

Men’s Health Facts: Quick Facts About Cancer

>According to CDC……
-Men have higher rates of getting cancer and dying from cancer than women
-Cancer is a disease caused when cells in the body start to grow out of control
-Genetic changes often remove the brakes that usually hold cells back from growing too quickly or stop directing cells to die off
-Without these breaks and instructions, the cells form tumors that may impact a tissue’s normal function.

>Here are the 5 most common cancers in men.
-Prostate Cancer
-Lung Cancer
-Colorectal Cancer
-Bladder Cancer
-Melanoma

>Symptoms of cancer in men
-Fatigue
-Weight Loss
-Unexplained Fever
-Persistent Pain

>Risk Factors
-The risk of many cancers increase with age.
-A family history of cancer can increase a man’s risk
-The risk of several cancers can be caused by obesity, smoking, drinking alcohol, and lack of physical activity.
-Exposure to certain chemicals can increase the risk of cancer.

>There are a variety of ways to detect it early and prevent it from happening
-Get doctor recommended cancer screenings
-Maintain a balanced diet
-Get regular exercise
-Reduce sun exposure
-Limiting alcohol consumption and smoking

Source(s)
CDC
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center
American Cancer Society

When Men’s Activism Works: Framework

Part 1: Introduction
Preface
Advocating for men is generally unpopular and unsuccessful. Even when it gains notable recognition, that recognition is usually negative. However, there are rare instances of male activism actually working. Instances where women (and their male enablers) fail to silence men and prevent male progress. In these successful campaigns, one consistent factor emerges: “disregarding women”.
Typically, the success of a socio-political group relies heavily on cross-demographic alliances. While it is easy to dismiss the opposite demographic, allies from that very group frequently prove invaluable. Activists conventionally strive to appeal to the morality and rationality of the opposing community, working to correct misconceptions, cultivate an inclusive environment, and denounce “radical” positions in favor of “unity.” This strategy generally encourages agreement, draws in neutral parties, and can occasionally persuade opponents to switch allegiance.
Unfortunately, the opposite applies to the advancement of men’s issues. Men are more successful when they mobilize independently of female influence. This is because women barely play the role of “ally” or “neutral party”-they often play the role of “detractor”. Watering down the issue. Antagonizing men who speak up about it. Redirecting the attention back to themselves. All of these behaviors do nothing to advance the issue forward. When men bank on “female morality”, the entire conversation and problem-solving comes to a complete halt, as they spend their time arguing in circles with women.
Once men accept that they can’t count on the average woman for meaningful support, they disregard them and focus more on mobilizing to fix the problem. The small number of women who genuinely support men are going to join the cause regardless, because they understand that justice is more important than their ego. As a result, the campaign for male progress becomes successful.

Part 2: 3 Stages Of Gaslighting
When men attempt to raise attention to a men’s issue, women (along with male enablers) will often try to gaslight and/or silence them. They’ll use every major and minor outlet possible to collectively accomplish this goal. It’s men’s job to refuse engagement with female gaslighting and continue to push the issue forward. Always remember that you, as a man, want to be treated humanely and demand that society give you that respect. How women feel about that is irrelevant.

Downplaying

Their first stage of gaslighting is to be dismissive of the topic. Framing the topic as if a bunch of “losers” are disturbing society with their “whining”. They’ll go out of their way to publicly let the world know that they don’t care about this topic. Despite the fact that no one is asking them whether they care or not, they feel it’s their female duty to set the non-existent record straight.

>This form of gaslighting comes in 2 different forms.
-The first form is to plead ignorance to the issue existing at all. Assuring you that whatever you’re complaining about is being blown way out of proportion.
-The second form is to dismiss your efforts as irrelevant. Attempting to psychologically manipulate you by giving you a feeling of isolation. Trying to convince you that only a handful of people agree with your beliefs, while the rest of the world is laughing at you.
-The purpose of this tactic is to discourage you from moving forward with the issue. Why would someone want to fight a losing battle that only a handful of people care about

>It’s important to remember that the issue is important. It’s the reason women feel the need to put on the facade of not caring about it. They’re trying to gaslight you into believing it’s a non-issue, in hopes that you give it up. Their dedication to that facade should be seen as motivation to keep pushing the issue forward.

Slander

Their second stage of gaslighting is to play the role of “damsel in distress”. Seeing that their dismissive nature hasn’t derailed your cause (and that your cause is only growing), their entire attitude changes from “dismissive” to “fearful”. They’re no longer mocking the men bringing up the topic- they’re now pretending to be afraid of them. Pretending as if the world is going to end if men don’t stop bringing attention to this issue.

>Here are the core behaviors you’ll be subjected to during this stage of gaslighting.
-They’ll start writing slanderous articles against you. Your controversial or negative remarks will be used as proof that your cause is “hateful”. This slander will then be used as justification for any toxicity or disrespect they show towards you in the future.
-Women will claim that your group is “dangerous” and that women are “afraid for their lives”. This scared, vulnerable woman tactic will be used to get men to intervene on their behalf (verbally or physically). All to keep the outspoken men in line.
-They will attempt to lump your cause in with literal hate groups to mislead the general public. This makes it difficult for people who support human rights to affiliate with your cause-as no one wants to affiliate with bigots. This will also make actual bigots assume that they have a space in your group and attempt to infiltrate it.

>It’s your job to prevent bigots from infiltrating your movement as much as possible. Remind people that your stated goal falls under the categories of “human rights” and “civil liberties”-not “prejudice” nor “bigotry”. Create separation from hateful people who want to infiltrate. And continue to push the issue forward.

Failsafe

If you’ve reached this stage, that means that your activism was mostly successful. That you’ve managed to overcome the gaslighting and garnered social, political, and legal success. It also means that you’re about to be subjected to the final stage of female gaslighting.
The final stage of gaslighting is for women to falsely portray themselves as advocates for men’s issues, despite their history of being your loudest detractors. As the famous saying goes “If you can’t beat them, join them.” Or (in women’s case) “If you can’t beat them, take credit for their success.”

>As is the case with most movements, once you finally manage to find success, your detractors jump on the bandwagon. Unfortunately, women’s ego won’t fully allow them to admit failure. If they can’t prevent the topic from rising up, they can at least find a way to control the way the topic is being spoken about.
-They start by branding the success as a “feminist victory” and claiming that this was their plan the whole time. Assuming that all of the people who rightfully criticize them for being detractors are “misinformed.”
-They continue their attacks and demonization against the group of men who were actually responsible for its success. Claiming that those people are ultimately right in identifying the problem, but still “terrible people” who deserve to be attacked.
-They blame the men’s problem on men (“insert vague description of “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy hurts men too”). Reframe the argument of a men’s disadvantage into a women’s disadvantage to rob sympathy from the men speaking up.
-They ultimately conclude that the solution to fixing the problem revolves around more “empowerment of women” and more support towards women’s projects.

>Just for clarity, women are NOT doing this subconsciously.
-They are 100% aware that they were the ones pushing against the men’s topic. They are fully aware that this “all of men’s problems are men’s fault” isn’t a helpful addition to the conversation. And they know that advocating for more female empowerment will do nothing to advance men’s issues.
-They’re not doing this to be helpful. They’re doing this to “muddy the waters” of the conversation. They’re doing this to play the role of a hero while behaving like a villain. They see this group of men being successful and gaining “status”, and they want history to look at them as a leading voice of that success.

>I would suggest you document all of the backlash that you’ve received from women’s groups and female public figures. Keep all of the evidence of their social and institutional wrongdoings. Be prepared to show the public all of the evidence whenever the topic comes up. Remember that the truth is on your side and work to persuade men to your side, as opposed to the side of your opposition.

Part 3: Conclusion
Whether it be through an institutional platform or a social media platform, women have made it abundantly clear that they are not an ally to men’s causes. Their voices will do little to advance men’s issues forward, as the majority of their time will be spent attempting to halt our progress. When it comes to men’s issues, women will play the role of detractor, fence sitter, indifferent bystander, or manipulator. But they will not collectively play the role of a useful ally.
Your job as a man is to accept it. Once you accept it, you can actually push forward the issue more effectively. Spend less time trying to appeal to women’s morality. All of your time can be spent recruiting like-minded men and strategizing your next move.
This is the main mental block that men constantly struggle to overcome. Just like every other activist group, they want the opposite demographic to be a helping hand so that they can build a united front together. But women consciously made the decision to be a roadblock instead of a path to a better future. It’s time for men to accept it and create their own path to a better future.

Source (s)
Chivalry
Lay misperceptions of the relationship between men’s benevolent and hostile sexism
Chivalry is far from dead

Men’s Health Facts: Black Men & Prostate Cancer

>Prostate cancer is the 2nd most common cancer in men. While this is a big problem for men. This is also a major problem for black men.

>According to 2023 data from the American Cancer Society:
-Black men are 70% more likely than white men to be diagnosed with prostate cancer.
-They are also 2-4 times more likely than any other racial and ethnic groups to die from the disease.
-While there are theories, the reason for this isn’t fully clear.

>Some researchers seem to link diabetes with prostate cancer.
-Men with diabetes are at a significantly higher risk of developing metastatic prostate cancer, and this is exacerbated in black men
-Diabetes is a disease characterized by high levels of blood sugar.
-Over time, this leads to serious damage to the blood vessels, nerves, eyes, kidneys, and heart.

>Screening could really benefit black men in the long run is an increase in screening for the disease.
-Given the high risk of developing, and dying from, prostate cancer, black men are more likely to be saved by screening.
-Digital rectal exams are a common screening test, in which doctors check for swelling and inflammation.
-A PSA test is another common screening test, which measures the level of prostate specific antigen (PSA) in the blood.

>Another benefit would be increasing the number of men joining clinical trials and research studies.
-Despite the increased risk, black men are underrepresented in clinical trials that test new therapies.
-Making up only 6.7% of patients.
-Dr. Andrew Laccetti says that there seems to be a lack of awareness of the trials and the possible benefits they offer.
-In addition to clinical trials, black men can also join studies to help improve understanding of the disease.

Source(s)
City Of Hope
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

Violent Women: The Notorious Jolly Jane

Jane Toppan - Wikipedia

>Jane Toppan, was born in 1854 as Honora Kelley. Due to Jane’s bright and friendly attitude as a nurse, she was given the nickname “Jolly Jane”. What an incredibly ironic nickname, seeing as she’s now known for being an infamous serial killer with horrific motivations.

>In 1885, during her nurse training at Cambridge Hospital, she was well-liked for her bright spirit.
-She loved to prey on the elderly and very sick patients. Those were/are the most vulnerable and willing to listen to their medical professionals.
-She developed a close relationship with patients. Often spending time with them alone.
-Giving them a sense of comfort and companionship in their most vulnerable moments.

>Once she became close with them, she picked out her favorite ones and abused their trust.
-She used them as guinea pigs, experimenting with morphine and atropine.
-In order to see the effects on their nervous system, she altered their prescribed dosages.
-Covering her tracks, and maintaining the trust of the patients, she made fake charts, as she medicated them in and out of consciousness.

>She was later recommended to Massachusetts General Hospital in 1889, where she claimed more victims before being fired. She briefly returned to Cambridge Hospital but was later dismissed there for administering opiates recklessly. So she decided to become a private nurse”.

>In 1895, she began her poisoning spree.
-In 1895, she killed her landlord and his wife.
-In 1899, she killed her foster sister using strychnine. Which is highly toxic and often used as a pesticide to kill birds and rodents.
-In 1901, after killing Alden Davis’s wife (Mattie), she moved in with him and his family to take care of the elderly fellow. Within weeks, she killed Alden, his sister, and 2 of his daughters.
-The surviving members of Davis’s family ordered a toxicology exam on Minnie (one of his daughters that Jane murdered). The exam determined that she had been poisoned, leading to Jane’s arrest for murder.

>She was taken to court in 1902 in the Barnstable County Courthouse.
-12 victims were confirmed. However, she had confessed to taking 31 victims.
-Due to the leniency female murders generally get, she assumed that she would have a chance of being released from prison if she admitted to being sane for the murders.
-She pleaded her sanity, claiming that she knew what she was doing was wrong and therefore couldn’t be insane.
-However, against all of her pleas, she was found not guilty by reason of insanity.
-She died in the Taunton Insane Hospital in 1938, at the age of 84

>The horrific factor doesn’t end there.
-Jane reportedly fondled her victims as they died
-Jane stated that she got a sexual fetish of people being near death, coming back to life, and then dying again
-While the victims were dying, she would lay with them and hold them close.
-She claimed that her goal was “to have killed more people—helpless people—than any other man or woman who ever lived”.

Source (s)
Lowell Sun
California Digital Newspaper Collection
Google Books

Men’s Health Facts: Black Men & Skin Cancer

Risks
>According to a study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (JAAD), black men have the lowest 5-year survival rate of melanoma.
-black men’s 5-year survival rate was recorded at 51.7%
-white men’s 5-year survival rate was recorded at 75.1%

>Also according to CDC, black men have a higher risk of death from melanoma.
-white men are more likely to get melanoma
-black men, however, have a 26% higher risk of death from melanoma than the white population

Timing Of Diagnosis
>Timing is important. The sooner you find out about the cancer, the easier it is to remove. Doing so, raises the chances of survival.
-When caught early-in stage 1 or 2-a melanoma lesion can be surgically removed because the cancer hasn’t yet spread to a person’s lymph nodes or distant organs.
-But later diagnosis involves more invasive treatments like immunotherapy or chemo, and it also cuts the chances of survival.

>The study showed that black men were diagnosed a lot later than white men, lowering the survival rates.
-nearly half of black men were diagnosed when the disease was already in an advanced stage
-in comparison, about 1-in-5 white men were diagnosed when the disease was in an advanced stage.

Causes
Then the question arises: why are black men being diagnosed so late compared to other races?

>It turns out that melanoma presents differently in black men than it does with everyone else.
-every other group of people were more likely to have superficial melanoma (the most common type, characterized by skin lesions).
-black men were more likely to have acral melanoma (which occurs on the hands or feet).

>According to Ashley Wysong (chair of the department of dermatology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center), men were less likely to have access to medical care.
-black men were less likely to have private insurance.
-men were less likely than women to seek medical care.

>Wysong also added that there could be trouble identifying the disease.
-melanoma patients with darker skin often mistake their cancer for other skin conditions, which delays the care and definitive treatment.

Soultions
So now we know the risks of the disease, the dangers of not recognizing the signs earlier, and the possible reasons black men are a large target. Are there any solutions? Well, there are a few.

>Ashley Wysong recommends that people go to a board-certified dermatologist if they notice any lesions on the skin that are new, bleeding or not healing.

>There are 3 places that black men should check for melanoma.
-the soles on your feet
-the palms of your hands
-nails and nailbeds
-darker skin tones make you less likely to attract skin cancer, which is why they can be in those 3 areas where melanin is less prevalent.

Conclusion
Although black men are at a higher risk of death from skin cancer, men of all races are at risk of it. Melanoma can form anywhere on the body. That includes the inside of your mouth or on your eyeballs. So, stay safe. Look for any signs of skin conditions. Visit your local hospital for checkups if you find anything abnormal about your body. Be prepared for the possibility of having a disease and communicate with your doctor on how to treat it. Eventually, with your assistance, we’ll be able to raise the survival rate of melanoma.

Source (s)
Science Direct
Insider
NBC News

Violent Women: Cordelia Farrell

Jealous girlfriend Cordelia Farrell - who grinned as she stabbed her lover to death just weeks after biting his testicles - has been found guilty of manslaughter

Introduction
>Cordelia Farrell had been in a relationship with Wayne Coventry (father of 3) for 2 and a half years. The relationship was described as “toxic” and “characterized by violence and jealousy”.

>Cordelia had been caught into illegal situation on 2 separate occasions.

Both Violent Attacks
>On one occasion, she brutally attacked Wayne. Biting and twisting his testicles.

>She was arrested for the assault. There claims that she told the police that one of them would end up dead.

>Which brings us to the main issue. Weeks later, after the prior assault, another incident happened.

>She was arguing with Wayne at her brother’s house. She again, failed to control her anger. She stabbed him to death in front of their friends, who were horrified by the sight.

>Cordelia didn’t seem to have the same “horrified” sentiment after seeing the result of her horrible actions. In fact, she grossly grinned at the sight of her grotesque work. Taking some sort of sick pleasure. An admiration, if you will, of her “artistry”.

Legal Aftermath
>Instead of taking accountability for her actions, she fled the scene. This led to a major police hunt. She eventually surrendered herself to detectives.

>During her court case, it was implied that Farrell was not only a violent woman, but also an instigator in the relationship. Before the initial attack, Cordelia had tried to “wind up” Wayne by watching YouTube music videos featuring her ex-boyfriend. She was also have heard to say, “I’m going to kill him”.

>She was cleared of murder. But found guilty of manslaughter. She was found guilty by a unanimous verdict at Worcester Crown Court.

Conclusion
>Considering how multiple witness accounts keep saying that she was openly speaking about killing him, and how violent she was in the past, Wayne’s murder is relatively predictable. Which makes you question how hard any of them tried to get Wayne out of said abusive relationship-if they tried at all.

>Why didn’t she get charged with murder? Why manslaughter? According to the accounts, she already said in advance that one of them would end up dead eventually. She threatened to kill him prior to the killing. She even smiled in the middle of the horrendous act. That seems to fall under the perfect category of murder.

>Well. What do you think about the entire situation? Please leave your comments about this topic in the comments section.

Source (s)
Daily Mail
BBC News
Daily Record

The Annual Tradition Of Lying And Submission

Introduction
Submission is the condition of one demographic deferring to the influence and/or superior authority of another demographic. Submission exists in sports, in politics, business, war, etc. The state of deference is an informal one and has kept up that reputation for years. However, there is a psychological form of intimidation and unwanted vulnerability that men and women feel when acknowledging their submission to the opposite sex.
Similar to every other aspect of life, the man and woman are choosing to be submissive, as it has its benefits-though it also has its disadvantages. However, the male and female sex can’t bring themselves to admit to their submissive behaviors. They address the existence of these behaviors. But they refer to them as something other than “deference”. It would appear that while people enjoy the “benefits” of their submissive behaviors, they don’t feel comfortable “wearing it on their sleeves” so to speak. It’s almost a way of embracing the behavior actively, while dismissing the behavior verbally.
But why is this? Well, from what I can tell, it would appear that men and women don’t like the implications of being vulnerable towards their opposite peers. It gives them a form of vulnerability that makes them feel “less than” the opposite sex. As a result, they will do mental gymnastics to justify this submissive behavior. Obviously, men and women do it in different forms.

Women: The Masculine Patriarchal Puppet Master

Women spend decades trying to put on this gimmick of “female empowerment” in the media. Claiming that women are just as capable in all walks of life, and that these roles that they took up are a result of social conditioning. According to them, if they promote an empowering message to women, then women will become more “independent” of the male population in all aspects of life. Well, reality doesn’t seem to support that thinking.

-As published by Elizabeth Ralph (to Politico on Feburary 7, 2020), studies show that modern women still search for men who have a higher income. In fact, highly educated women, have an especially strong preference for men who out earn them.
-Another study showed that women are actually more attracted to men who engage in benevolent sexism. They even went as far as to find women who have “strong feminist attitudes” in an attempt to prove that this thinking was only due to “women with traditionalist values”. Yet, the study concluded that women who are against traditionalist arguments (like “it’s a woman’s role to stay at home”, “women are not fit to be leaders”, “and that women are less than men”) still completely believe in men performing acts of chivalry (such as holding the door open for her, helping her lift heavy objects, protecting her from danger, and cherishing her beauty).
-This means that women are open to being submissive to a man as long as they can utilize it to their benefit. They’re ok with being viewed as objects of desire, as long as it leads to a man (that they’re attracted to) constantly putting them on a pedastal-cherishing their beauty. They’re ok with being seen as “fragile” if it leads to a man protecting them from danger. They’re totally fine with their capability and competence being in question if it prevents them from having to lift heavy boxes and gives them a “ladies first” gesture.

Women usuallly dismiss their submission as an indirect result of “patriarchal brainwashing”. By labeling it patriarchal brainwashing, it implies that women are being “forced” to adhere to these submissive gender roles against their will. When in reality, they agree to submissions that benefit them. They can’t call it willing submission, as it would imply that women (even with free will) would completey agree to submit to a man once life becomes too inconvenient. Which implies a level of hypocrisy in female behavior.
I know what you’re thinking: “Isn’t forced submission still submission?” You’re correct in your observation. However, people don’t change their perception of a person due to forced submission. A dictatorship is forced submission. No one would look down on that population for submitting to authority, as their life and humanity can be robbed for speaking out. People submit in places of employment, as they can lose their jobs if they don’t. Forced submission puts you in a predicament where you feel as if you have no other choice but to follow suit.
-By claiming that men are creating a culture brainwashing them to perform these actions, they’re giving themselves a pass for their behaviors. They’re trying to convince everyone that their submission is being forced upon them by a “poweful male influence”.

Men: Emotional Superiority

In relationships, a man usually goes out of his way to court a woman. Women are the “selectors” in a relationships. Giving them the social leverage. Men know this and attempt to keep women satisfied in relationships and daily walks of life. Women will form an opinion on a given topic about gender. Men will have mixed opinions on it. Instead of speaking up, men will sit there and let the woman walk all over them with little-to-no pushback.
This puts men in a vulnerable position at the hands of women. But this reality doesn’t reflect the reality that men want to live in. Men can’t accept the fact that they’re submitting to women. They can’t handle the fact that women basically own them, and put them in a predicament where they have to do whatever the woman says all for the future possibility of finding a women and/or getting laid. It makes them look pathetic to the casual observer. Knowing this, men try to cite women’s emotional state as the “real reason” why they won’t step up and cal women out.

Historically, women have been seen to be more emotional than men. Whether they’re really more emotional or whether they just express their emotions more is a subject of debate that people still have today. Men in this case, conflate female emotion with female irrationality. They use that as a reason why they never speak out or fight back when they disagree with women’s ideas. They would rather believe that women are so incompetent and emotionally inferior to men, than to put their foot down and argue back. In the rare occassion where a man does argue back with a woman, men will intervene and ask the man why is he arguing with a woman-knowing how “emotional” they are.

I got a better theory. Maybe women aren’t acting this way because they’re “emotionally unstable”? Maybe, just maybe, they’re acting this way because there’s no consequence for their behavior. Women seem to have no problem keeping their emotions in check in aspects of life where consequences would be involved. Women keep their emotions in check when dealing with their bosses at a place of employment. Why? Because, acting out would lead to them losing their jobs. Women and girls manage to keep their emotions in check when they’re in class at a school. Why? Because refusing to do so could lead to suspensions or expulsions. Yet, when it comes down to women speaking to everyday men, they can act out, antagonize you, and resort to shaming tactics. Why? Because there is no consequence. They know, at the end of the day, the worst you can do is end the discussion and move on to something else. They know you’re gonna back down and bend the knee for them. So what do they lose for mistreating you and behaving poorly? Nothing.

Women: Taking Back The Power

Heterosexual sex is something that men and women have to do together. Not one or the other. It’s a way of submission. Doing things to satisfy your partner, being sexually rewarded. Women do very specific things to spice up their sex lives. They wear revealing clothing (cleavage) in order to seduce their partner. They do suggestive poses. They speak seductively for the man to experience arousal. All of these things are used to attract a man’s attention. In other words, you’re doing it for the man’s satisfaction. There’s nothing wrong with this. Live your life-but don’t lie about it.
Women, unfortunately, have to maintain their ego. The idea of doing something for a man, is something that puts a bad taste in their mouth. For that reason, women have to rewrite history and ignore logic, in order to convince themselves that they’re dressing up purely for their own approval. Not to say that people don’t wear attire for their own liking. But, the purpose of sexualizing one’s self is to attract the attention of other people. To install sexual thoughts into someone else’s brain.
Yet, they have to go on camera everyday pretending as if they’re wearing revealing clothing purely for their own satisfaction and not for any pleasure of others. They even go further to justify this delusion, by creating 2 terminologies that they use in order to make a distinction between dressing for male approval. They call dressing for male approval “the male gaze”. The opposite, in which they supposedly “dress for themselves” is called “taking back the power”. They dress sexually provocative and do explicit dances in many different walks of life (the music industry, Twitch, Onlyfans, etc.) all in the name of “taking back the power”. Women go on to compliment other women for being “bad bitches”

Men: Stupidly Implying Male Power (SIMP)

The term “simp” was originally used as a shortening of the word “simpleton” implying that a person is foolish. Recently, the word was been completely redefined. The term is now used against someone (usually men) who panders to women in a losing effort to garner affection or a sexual relationship. It’s even been turned into an acronym, standing for “Sucker Idiolizing Mediocre Pussy”. Many behaviors can fall under the “simp” umbrella.
-blowing away money on a woman who doesn’t love you
-running countless errands to appease the woman, like a servant
-attacking and threatening other men in blind defense of “your woman”
-basing your entire identity of manhood on how many women give you affection

Yet, all over media and in real life, men live their life in denial. Trying to convince themselves that these behaviors are a form of “male power”.
-Irrationally believing that putting women on a pedastal somehow is a feature of their rulership. Throughout history, the person being put on the pedastal is the ruler and the person putting them on the pedastal is the servant. Yet, in the alternate reality that men choose to live in, putting someone else on a pedastal gives you sovereignty.
-Bragging about how many women leach on to them for financial gain, as if it’s a staple of male bragging rights.
-Treating men like heros for getting in the face of any man who’s an inconvenience to “their woman”. Putting your life and health on the line in blind defense of women, showing it as a staple of their dominance.

The only thing this can be classified under is “delusion”. Men, since the beginning of time, have been engaging in these behaviors. It was their tradition. They can’t see themselves giving these behaviors up, despite the fact that we consistently claim to be living in “modern times”. Knowing how pathetic this looks, their only line of defense is to convince themselves that men’s behavior is really just a representation of their masculine power. When, in reality, this is just men’s deluded minds working overtime to cling on to the little form of self respect that they have left. This behavior is not a form of power, rulership, or dominance. It’s a reality of servantry and inferiority.

Conclusion
The question one must ask is, why do men and women spend all of their time pretending as if willful submission is anything other than willful submission? My guess would be a form of embarrassment. Modern women are trying to portray themselves as “strong and independent”. Modern men are trying to portray themselves as “emotionally superior bad asses”. They’re self-aware that their submissive behaviors are a complete contradiction to the image that they’ve garnered for themselves. They know that this reality hurts their “gimmick” and credibility.

Well, here’s my rather simplistic take on the subject matter: it’s your choice. Choose which side of the spectrum you want to be on and live with the results.
-Some people would rather be willfully submissive. Makes sense. It’s the status quo after all. If you want to be willfully submissive, that’s your decision-but be honest about it. Call a spade “a spade”. Don’t lie to yourself and other people, just because you can’t handle the truth.
-Other people may be tired of living their life as a lie. Understandable. It gets more and more difficult as reality closes in. Well, there’s a solution to all of this: stop being willfully submissive. It won’t be easy, as we’re used to this being the standard of society. But if it’s better for you in the long run, then it’s something you should strive for. Long term happiness is better than short term interest.

At the end of the day, it’s your choice. It’s your life. Choose wisely.

Source(s)
Politico
Psychology Today

False Accuser: Kristy Barr

>Kristy Barr was a woman who made headlines by speaking out against Ryan Kerrison, her ex boyfriend. Speaking in detail about the abuse that she suffered at the hands of the “monster”. There was just one tiny little issue…..she fabricated the entire event. Barr is one of many women who attempted to use society’s obsession with the “damsel in distress” phenomenon in order to ruin an innocent man’s life.

>Just to give you a sample of how much she fabricated to ruin this man’s lie, here is one of her tense allegations. In December 2018, Barr called 999, claiming that Ryan chased her up the stairs and assaulted her. She claimed that he then cut her with a knife and threw her down the stairs. She added that he later put a gun to her head.

>Due to the violent nature of her allegations, legal action was taken. In one instance, he was given a restraining order. In the next he was taken into custody of 2 months. In an unfortunate instance, a fully armed police force was sent to his home.

>However, evidence and witness statements convinced police that there was no way he could have committed the offences that Barr was accusing him of.

>The lack of evidence convinced law enforcement to investigate the accuser. She was eventually charged.

>Appearing at a Hull Crown Court, Barr confessed to perverting the court of justice. She was jailed for 3 years and 9 months.


Source (s)
ITV
BBC News

False Accuser: Sharon Taylor

Introduction
>Sharon Taylor is a former independent town councillor

>Sharon admitted to her husband that she was having an affair. Leading to the breakdown of their 21-year marriage. Mr. Taylor chose to move out of their home.

>Sharon did not accept the end of the relationship. Nor did she handle the end of the relationship with maturity. Instead, she concocted a vile campaign of false rape allegations in order to get revenge and leverage.

Harrassment
>Between March and April of 2022, she spent a month harrassing Mr. Taylor with 216 messages. Demanding money and that he continue to carry out household chores. She even said in one message “I want to destroy you”.

>She later went to his post office job, and outright lied. Claiming that he had raped her for years. A staff member advised her to report the claim to law enforcement. Which she refused, citing that it would hurt her political career.

>The following day, she retracted her statement. She tried to cite her supposed “affected mental health” which she ties to the separation from her husband. Yet, her behaviors of false rape allegatiosn didn’t stop there.

>She threatened to call the police and falsely accuse him of rape, if he didn’t quit his job.

Punishment?
>She was found guilty of black mail and stalking charges. She appeared at Worcester Crown Court.

>Richard Hull, defending her, said she had been going through a mental breakdown and struggled to accept that their marriage was over and that she was ‘deeply remorseful’ for her actions. I like to opine that its easy to be remorseful after being caught and held in front of a legal court.

>Judge Martin Jackson commented: “False allegations of rape are extremely unsettling. Threatening to make an allegation that is untrue is a very serious matter.” Just not serious enough to keep her in prison, apparently.

>She was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 3 months in jail. But that sentence was suspended.

>She was also ordered to complete 30 days of rehabilitation, banning her from keeping in contact with her husband.

Conclusion
This case should disturb everyone.

>There is no sympathetic portrayal one could possibly muster up for Sharon Taylor. Sharon had the affair, leading to the end of the marriage. She then harrassed and stalked him. She went on a long campaign to destroy his life in order to get “vengeance” despite the fact that there was nothing to avenge (as she was the cheater).

>This shows you the legnth some women will go to destroy an innocent man’s life. For the simple act of a breakup that she herself caused.

>This also shows you the problem with the justice system. Which should just be called the INjustice system at this point. Depsite the fact that her behaviors were premeditated. Despite the fact that she harrassed and antagonized
an innocent man. The courts still treated her as “a woman with mental illness” and not “a vengeful woman seeking to destroy a man’s life”.

>To their credit, they ORIGINALLY gave her a sentence (before suspending it). They did ban her from talking to her husband. They did give her a 30 day rehabilitation sentence (yup, that’ll show her-not). But this situation was handled with kids gloves. The media should have been heavily reporting on it and the woman should have been unapologetically condemned. Not sympathied or teated as simply “mentally ill”.

Source(s)
Leading Britain’s Conversation
Yahoo

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started