Eye of the Spud: Hitching and freedom etc in Australia

Goodreads Review.

A delightful find, picked up in barn close to the Eumundi Markets. Read the last page 1st, or whenever your bookish enthusiasm wanes. Hitching is the core of the book, it persuaded me to adopt much of the authors attitude and so without further ado;

Laconically, assume a mob of 2 000 Hitch for a week. This will immediately improve a lot of problems, just a little bit. If the 2 000 mob consists over time, a catalytic chain-reaction would begin.
Example: less cars on the road as Ride-sharing is more acceptable (think: free Uber) therefor less traffic and less pollution and less traffic jam and less road-rage because there is less time spent on the roads.
People get locked into a headspace when driving. Their personal space expands, which helps to drive well, but leads to road rage and a sense of entitlement to a personal set of driving conditions which never quite match those taught or graded by the government (who are to be relied upon for this function of communicating & maintaining etiquette). This larger headspace would become pliant if a mostly-stranger was in the car. This hitcher could indulge the drivers motormouth, or begin their own monologue on any topic. There is more to write, but it has already been written so well by the author I fear to disrupt a better way of doing it.

This book is a dynamic book, in which a passion survives longer than the leaded petrol & DDT antagonisms.

The author is a little anarchist, (but mostly Kent State type of hippy, in my opinion) and believes that people are good not because they have been taught all the laws which they obey. Indeed, Mr. Mahoney asserts that most laws are obeyed out of apathy rather than righteous passion. Nevertheless, he accepts a core tenet of Capitalism, blood & sweat & tears (A.K.A. work) should be rewarded and never locked into relationships like a feudal serf or political dogma or religious obeisance.

I award this book 5-stars and may the Powers that Be have no mercy for you if you do not read it.

Advertisements

Political Ideologies.

Goodreads Review.

Loaned to me by my atheist god-mother.

Passion of Mr. Mussolini, the nameless hope of the New Left, a proud inheritance of the Conservative tradition, Mr. Kropotkin’s respect for the dignity of man, holism of an American Indian and so on so forth.

Expect an eclectic collection of essays on the subject of politics. Edited well, without any over-bearing interference from those who assembled this collection of essays. The original authors speak for themselves, unadulterated proof being when CAPITALISATION OF LETTERS IS ABUSED. Censorship would have been as simple as providing an initial definition of politics, and pruning as apt.

Food for thought, the Nazi Party wanted all War Debt to be forgiven, would this clash with the Black Panther demand of slavery reparations? (Trivial Tidbit on German Nazi’s; Africans-Germans were never targeted for systemic extermination, Slavs [root word of slave], Jews, and Romani people were. [of course, an interracial marriage would have been an obscene affront in that time & place.]) Perhaps the leader of the American Nazi party, who has an essay in this book, discussed that very possibility with the militant blacks whom he met.
Really though, is it enough to know that that genocide of peoples was more complex than “Kill the Jew, Kill the Jew, all we want to do is Kill the Jew”?

Mr. Gandhi’s literal foray into international war has only whet my appetite, which now hungers for development of Satyagraha in relation to the passionate intensity of a sublimed blood-thirst or vengeful hatred.

After reading the finale essay, which asserts that ubiquity & lack of friction indicate an ideology has lost traction in the world, one’s mind may layer it back onto the Technocracy essay. Without a debate, an ideology lacks expression, and so Technocracy is a modern Sisyphus, but forever rolling downhill… Or is it just me?

Quotations of Mr. Kropotkin.

Made without permission from the publishing house or whatever, in tribute to the Anarchist tradition, as an internet pirate, I feel guiltless.

“Socialists know what is meant by protection of property. Laws on property are not made to guarantee either to the individual or to society the enjoyment of the produce of their own labor[sic]. On the contrary, they are made to rob the producer of a part of what he has created, and to secure to certain other people that portion of the produce which they have stolen either from the produce which they have stolen either from the producer or from society as a whole. When, for example, the law establishes Mr. So-and-So’s right to a house, it is not establishing his right to a cottage he has built for himself, or to a house he has erected with the help of some of his friends. In that case no one would have disputed his right. On the contrary, the law is establishing his right to a house which is not the product of his labor[sic]; first of all because he has had it built for him by others to whom he has not paid the full value of their work, and next because that house represents a social value which he could not have produced for himself. The law is establishing his right to what belong to everybody in general and to nobody in particular. The same house built in the midst of Siberia would not have the value it possesses in a large town, and, as we know, that value arises from the labor[sic] of something like fifty generations of men who have built the town, beautified it, supplied it with water and gas, fine promenades, colleges, theatres, shops, railways and roads leading in all directions. Thus by recognizing[sic] the right of Mr. So-and-So to a particular house in Paris, London or Rouen, the law is unjustly appropriating to him a certain portion of the produce of the labor[sic] of mankind in general. And it is precisely because this appropriation and all other forms of property bearing the same character are a crying injustice, that a whole arsenal of laws and a whole army of soldiers, policemen and judges are needed to maintain it against the good sense and just feeling inherent in humanity.”

Gawker, of all the news outlets, has a well sourced article here which details the community authority (Home Owners Association generally), acting contrary to common decency and simple common sense.

 

“Yet there is one fact concerning this head which at the present time is thoroughly established; the severity of punishment does not diminish the amount of crime. Hang, and, if you like, quarter murderers, and the number of murders will not decrease by one. On the other hand, abolish the penalty of death, and there will not be one murder more; there will be fewer. Statistics prove it. But if the harvest is good, and bread cheap, and the weather fine, the number of murders immediately decreases. This again is proved by statistics. The amount of crime always augments and diminishes in proportion to the price of provisions and the state of the weather. Not that all murders are actuated by hunger. That is not the case. But when the harvest is good, and provisions are at an obtainable price, and when the sun shines, men, lighter-hearted and less miserable than usual, do not give way to gloomy passions, do not from trivial motives plunge a knife into the bosom of a fellow creature.”

System of a Down treats this subject here. Although the lyrics lack a melodic quality they are honest words. Study after study has shown that drug treatment is more effective than more police.
Alternatively, one can research how much food is thrown away by their local supermarket chain, tonnages being the common answer. I have no easy solution and admit this protects the consumer from food poisoning.
However, how hungry are the poor in Syria?
In your nearest hobo hotel?
The law dictates and protects the smooth functioning of business. Please follow me as I construct a hypothetical situation; in the week of expiry all food products are freely distributed to the 2 lowest classes of society (prisoners and work-fit unemployed). Subsequently, private profit would be reduced, taxation would be reduced, food poisoning would increase and the citizens of Hypothetical Land would be climb up Maslow’s Hierarchy.
Who doubts that homeless men, women & children would happily sign a waiver voiding their right to sue if the food was contaminated? Assuming it wasn’t deliberate.

Newes from Scotland – declaring the damnable life and death of Doctor Fian, a notable sorcerer.

Freely available online, which is to be respected. It is what you would expect after reading the Wikipedia page & no better or worse, and hence, 3-stars.

A gruesome & grotty dose of horrible history. I have no doubt that a great many of the contemporaries of this debacle were naive. Naive enough to believe the women and sorcerer would only confess if it was true and had no other reason for the confession except it was The Truth.

Let us now dive into some gruesome & grotty details. Who knows what pelliwinkes are? Would you be surprised to learn about moonlit orgies? What if I told you that devotion to the Devil requires you to physically kiss his butt-cheeks? Or that the King, in a fit of ignorance, demanded to hear the music of the Devil played on a Jew Harp? & for the pedants, when did the letter ‘v’ replace the letter ‘u’? ‘s’ & ‘f’ stopped being interchangeable?

Read on…

Jabber-Jibber

Written to an online friend.

Good luck with your endeavour to build your own vision.

I can hold onto that stick but there is not so much for me to get written today.
Regrettably this means I now lean towards pedagoguery. I have been writing this for an hour, maybe more, and before you begin down the rabbit hole of my writing and get lost in the warren of words, I ask if you agree with this statement.
The average rating (on Goodreads.com) should be 3-stars but is in fact higher.

Here’s a pet theory of mine I’ve been polishing for a length of time. If you can harness it in an algorithm or if it somehow gets you acclaim, good. I am seriously serious about it, and reckon more circulation should be good. Never yet met anyone in a position to demonstrate it as I believe it exists nor demonstrate the pattern I perceive fits into some already existing psychology theory. Maybe you will meet such a person at university. Perhaps it is just a mental Rube Goldberg machine. If the latter, I hope it entertains you.

The Goodreads thing is about a concept called by Wikipedia ‘Illusory Superiority‘. However, I like my way more & tell you my theory.

In Brief:
1. Belief alone changes reality (slightly).
2. Language requires belief to be meaningful.
3. Pleasure, like language, is learnt.
4. Avoidance of displeasure leads to a convergence of negative language (or other acts of belief).
5. Preference for pleasure leads to a divergence of positive language (or other acts of belief).

Therefor, the average rating on Goodreads will be above 3-stars. Comments with ratings beneath average will receive more votes than is reasonable to expect from the average rating of the book.
To dissuade me of this theory, I want you to argue for a different cause for negative comments reaching the “winner’s podium”, the top 3 comments. Alternatively you could sneer, leer and dismiss my statistical analysis as no more useful than counting sheep in my dreams and expecting to wake up to a bigger flock.

 

The Placebo Effect shows a power of belief. Ever so slight a mental attitude produces ever so minor an alteration to our physical world. A patient-held belief that red (or yellow or green or blue) is the best colour for medicine, improves the effectiveness of medicine coloured to match belief. The first Google article returned from, ‘believe round white pills are healthier and they are more effective placebo‘ by Google Australia, briefly outlines the effect of colour on tranquiliser-drugs. (I have not heard a satisfactory definition of drugs in my entire life.)

I iterate this, you may not share it.
Language is inherently meaningless. Did language emerge when an early hominid saw a tree and say ‘tree’ or ‘arbor’ or ‘pfab-gooey’? I say no! The meaning is created by the action of the human mind and has been in a state of constant flux since the original trigger. Would human belief be an apt description of this mental action? I say yes!

Belief triggered by any linguistic effort produces ever so slight a change in the real existence of the person doing the believing / speaking. To feel good, I may mutter to myself “F.I.G.J.A.M.” (acronym: Fuck I’m Good Just Ask Me) and not even bother imagining an answer to the question. This will produce a real change in my body, I feel a tingle down my legs right now and I’m sure there is a neuro-chemical responsible (spell-check insists I meant to write ‘petrochemical’, lol talk about the imperialism of capitalism penetrating the profane, lol).

Recap: belief alone can make (small) change, language requires belief, therefor language alone can make the same (small) change.

Combine this attitude, belief with something said by Mr. Zizek (not a quote), “All pleasures are learnt. Even sex I claim.”
Goodreads users want more pleasure. So they make an effort to say their reading is better than, statistically speaking, it should be. They come online the website and make ever so slight an effort of belief. Maybe, “This book deserves 4-stars.” & click the 4th star or they write a review. This genuinely improves their reading experience, but only slightly.

Not all the reading done is happy, fun and fulfilling. Sometimes it is boring, tedious or not-good. Assuming a balance is expected by the Goodreads users, or is an automatic / natural pattern, there is an emotional backlash expected.

To produce this balance and satisfy some demand for equilibrium Goodreads users vote for negative reviews. But the negativity they vote for never corrects the balance and brings the average rating down to 3-stars.

Perhaps this is the Objet Petite a of Lacanian theory. Perhaps not. If you would send me a few words about your perception of Objet Petite a I would be grateful.

So the gist of it so far,
Belief makes change. Language requires belief. Pleasure is learnt. Avoidance of displeasure leads to a convergence of negative. Preference for pleasure leads to a divergence of positive.
I assume Mr. Zizek means this pattern in aggregate when he says ‘the economy of pleasure’.

I, (without ability to relate my predictions to a theory any more clearly than the above) I predict that the Goodreads above-average rating will occur in tandem with a dominant negative review in the top 3 comments. I expect to find the average rating of the top 3 comments to be less than the total average rating.

To dissuade me of this theory, I want you to argue for a different cause for negative comments reaching the “winner’s podium”, the top 3 comments. Alternatively you could sneer, leer and dismiss my statistical analysis as no more useful than counting sheep in my dreams and expecting to wake up to a bigger flock.

I now venture into the virtual world to test my theory. I select 3 from the recommendations list and three from the list of top rated books.

BOOKS SELECTED FROM RECOMMENDATIONS.
Bridge of Birds (The Chronicles of Master Li and Number Ten Ox #1)
Average rating 4.3-stars.
Averaged rating of the top 3 comments, 4-stars.
SUPPORT FOR MY THEORY.

The Night Club: Part One (Noční klub #1)
Average rating 4.49-stars.
Averaged rating of the top 3 comments, 4.6-stars.
MY THEORY IS DENIED.

Jules Verne Seven Novels
Average rating 4.33-stars.
Averaged rating of the top 3 comments, 4.6-stars.
MY THEORY IS DENIED.

BOOKS SELECTED FROM LIST OF TOP RATED.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Harry Potter #7)
Average rating, 4.61-stars.
Averaged rating of top 3 comments, 3.6-stars.
SUPPORT FOR MY THEORY.

A Storm of Swords (A Song of Ice and Fire #3)
Average rating, 4.54-stars.
Averaged rating of top 3 comments, 5-stars.
MY THEORY IS DENIED.

A Court of Mist and Fury (A Court of Thorns and Roses #2)
Average rating, 4.72-stars.
Averaged rating of top 3 comments, 4-stars.
SUPPORT FOR MY THEORY.

Soft Colonialism & Chinatown.

Let me thrash out a certain perspective. Chinatown is a global phenomenon, ubiquitous to major cities & towns. Although to me they contrast most strongly when set against a non-Asiatic culture, that is a personal ignorance. To bind together all these disparate locations, expatriate culture has lead to the construction of similar architecture, food, language and semi-segregation. These are small, semi-independent colonies and are scattered across the world.

At times Chinese migration was directed by a foreign gold rush. Many Chinatown’s were founded by greed, similar to a lot of European colonisation (& Russian, & African, & Australian-Aborigine, and so on & so forth). Some Chinatown’s were created due to fallout from significant, contemporary events, which is seen after W.T.C. attacks in the U.S.A. caused a domestic migration from New York City to Montville, Connecticut. Nevertheless, greed via business seems to be a significant factor in all Chinatown’s and this is a concept with a lot of reach. Not only does greed motivate the founders of the colony ‘to boldly go where no Chinese has gone before!’, it is directly relevant to instances of negative action; legal targeting, insidious rumours, coolie-slavery, etcetera.

Discourse on colonialism is dominated by the European forms. These forms are distinct from a soft colonialism. They are characterised by much larger movements of people, greater technological inconsistency between the colonisers & colonised, seizure of power across a larger geographic area, seizure of power in deeper social values, a central authority responsible for the colony before its founding, and much more violence. These traits belong to a ‘harder’ colonialism. Frequently a colony will send some type of remittance to the homeland and resources are diverted from the local populace. These two traits are common to both ‘hard’ & ‘soft’ colonialism, although in the latter it is lesser.

Hopefully consideration of Chinatown’s as a soft colonialism will reform perceptions of colonialism into a broader category, enable realistic criticisms of certain modern nations and feed curiosity.

Astronomy, Catholicism & Plumbing.

Astronomers are mapping the stars, and the galaxies beyond them. Although it may become utilisable in the distant future, or may discover points of escalating interest (ex. Armageddon asteroids, aliens) in the short term, it is not practical nor essential like plumbing or farming. A lack of practical purpose however, does not mean it is unworthy of pursuit. It indicates to the community which supports this pursuit of knowledge for it’s own sake, to rank the expenditure with other potentially useless investments, such as the military. Some researchers find it personally purposeful to inch precise instruments across the night sky, they find some pleasure witnessing the magnitude of the visible universe. Such pleasurable pursuits are extended beyond the community of researchers to the broader public via the mass media by shows like Cosmos, with much slower time-frames than sporting activities.

Mapping of the stars, supernova & other astronomical debris is no equivalent to practical industry from the perspective of democratic citizenry. Headlines, such as 40 000 000 Stars Mapped, are intended to loosen public purse strings but emphasize progress over pursuit. Farmers, plumbers and emergency services have a value which outstrips what is offered by astronomy (or the military). It may one day produce great value, as put forth with clarity by Mr. Stuhlinger. The link is to a piece of correspondence between a NASA director and a Christian sister.

That missive to the world, which is a contest for the faith of the multitude between two members of secular and sacred communities, keeps the ball rolling. If the ball, or to say it differently how we value our objectives, were to be the abolition of suffering, a Nietzschean perspective looms. Can the good can only be so, when there is suffering to mitigate? The affirmative answer is more Catholic than Christian, and has an equivalence in the Buddhist dogma of dukkha. Catholicism, which has an often wild and despicable history, has been a powerful ideology for millennia. Change was slow and suffering was a common thread to bind together a community (& to induce serfs to embrace their lot in life). How should this inform efforts to structure an understanding of modernity? Is the international community of tomorrow better united by the importance of suffering, or stargazing (or soldiering or shitting)?

Professional stargazers have reached a certain threshold in public awareness, the public figures of Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Cox demonstrate this. As much as they champion values of the Enlightenment (tradition of criticism, egalitarianism) and the significance of their academic domain, they have been unable to challenge the supremacy of the public dollar. They, and less prestigious members of their faculty, produce headlines as steps in the paper chase.

When progress is measured by percentages of mapped sky, for an activity which is communally, although not personally, worthless in the immediate future, I would suggest astronomy is serving an ideological purpose. It is a mental support for Western citizens to conceive, secure & justify the international situation. So to say, our moral elitism (science & secularism) is why our nations are leading the world (by non-faith based measures), why they will continue to do so and validation of the global economic system which is the best measure & explanation of differences in life quality. Does anyone know how often religious-social elitism justified suppression of lower classes in the past? To justify the relative standards of material existence, signs of progress are need to alleviate guilt by reassurances that change is coming. This justification is emptying the inner worth of pursuing knowledge for it’s own sake.

A quote from Mr. Deutsch from the book ‘The Beginning of Infinity’;

“But then there is the philosophical magnitude of a cluster of galaxies. As I moved the cross-hairs to one nondescript galaxy after another, clicking at what I guessed to be the centre of each, some whimsical thoughts occurred to me. I wondered whether I would be the first and last human being ever to pay conscious attention to a particular galaxy. I was looking at the blurry object for only a few seconds, yet it might be laden with meaning for all I knew. It contains billions of planets. Each planet is a world. Each has its own unique history – sunrises and sunsets; storms, seasons; in some cases continents, oceans, earthquakes, rivers. Were any of those worlds inhabited? Were there astronomers there? Unless they were an exceedingly ancient, and advanced, civilization, those people would never have travelled outside their galaxy. So they would never have seen what it looked like from my perspective – though they might know from theory. Were any of them at that moment staring at the Milky Way, asking the same questions about us as I was about them? If so, then they were looking at our galaxy as it was when the most advanced forms of life on Earth were fish.”

These days, mathematical algorithms become computerised and a machine is substituted for the man (or woman), all to produce signs of progress. What’s the rush?

Compulsory Voting in Democracy.

Democracy, for all the word gets bandied about, was not well defined in my schooling. As democracy existed in ancient Greece, it could be described as a timocracy, a form of elitist and exclusive democracy. Modern, Westminster style democracy has many variants, what is of interest to me here is compulsory & non-compulsory systems of voting.
Interesting tangents to this topic include votes weighted by professional or social qualification, plumbers have more say on plumbing by-laws; vote about each issue, a more direct participation; trade-able votes, personalities could accumulate votes. Those last two are the platform of the Flux Party, and are more fully explained here.

Compulsory voting stands where two broadly valued concepts connect, freedom & democracy. A fully free citizen is under no State compulsion, therefor compulsory voting is an infringement of freedom. Democracy is, to quote Abraham Lincoln “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.”. So exclusion from voting, from apathy or active exclusion or  protest, is an infringement of democracy. Which is the Greater Good?

Demagoguery is an inherent risk of democracy, mob rule means general concerns can supersede technical concerns, amongst the possible manipulations of demagoguery. Lobbyists corrupt ideal functioning, yet the position of the lobbyist category relative to a certain type of elite business elite (in the case of tobacco), is congruent with the position of environmentalist advocate in relation to a hippy elite. That is, the lobbyist or advocate seeks to popularise the attitudes of their community, and treat the general citizen as ignorant relative to an elite attitude (free enterprise or nature love, respectively).

Drawing this line of thought towards the eponymous issue, a question arises, ‘Which voting system encourages the least worst style of demagoguery?’
If it is acceptable to inflame the generic citizen with passion enough to vote, the approach of censorship by passive exclusion is found, but only when the voting itself is non-compulsory. Compulsory voting requires demagogues to change tact, and focus on the vote more than participation. Citizens left behind by the State, are those able to benefit from a democratic revolution and also exceedingly likely to withdraw from this very process, again only if it is non-compulsory.

To paraphrase Terry Pratchett, one must know the daemons name before it can be slain. A democratic and free state should have compulsory voting to call forth the imagined conquerors of the daemons tormenting the citizen for the objective of overcoming the struggles, sufferings and horrors. This is my personal position. However, in the interest of balance, it must be stated that compulsory voting can validate a governmental system without popular approval.

A Minister for Men.

This is specific to Australia.

There is a Minister for Women. She is not chosen democratically, the duty is loosely described as “to ensure that women’s issues and gender equality are taken into consideration in policy and program development and implementation”. The Minister for Women has been a consistent role since 1983. I do not believe the role should be temporary, and should be permanent for the next 50 or 100 years, perhaps further. Rather this is an attempt to persuade you the reader, that the obvious complementary role, that of a Minister for Men, is a meaningful suggestion to develop our society.

If the role of Minister is justified as a better method to act on problems which disproportionately affect women (as opposed to a focus from relevant ministers i.e. domestic violence being adequately addressed by the Minister of Police), then it is or will become worthy to extend a similar role to address disproportionately male problems. There are problems (i.e. overtime-overworked, suicide, victims of most non-sexual violent crime, inconsistent university entry & graduation, shorter life expectancy, employment-divorce) which disproportionately affect men.

Male hegemony dominated most historic Australian societies, but it is greatly reduced in Australia after the turn of the millennium. Issues of focus for feminism remain, for example there is not an approximate balance of genders in parliament. To cut to the chase, the stereotypical straight, white male who dominates peak positions in media, business, society and politics is under no obligation to represent men. Feminism, as virtue, or its counterpart misogyny, as vice, is a tool of female politicians, and masculinity, or misandry (this issue was sometimes in jest, yet anecdotally, a university sociologist told me sincerely, speedos delivered a sexist advantage to his government), do not follow the same dynamic. Mens rights are often treated as an attempt to restore society to a Victorian era status quo, and simply blaming masculinity is acceptable to mainstream media.
I must personally & briefly reject the definition of feminism as someone who holds gender equality as a community value, this is an underpinning value but this definition does not even mention the focus on womens rights & issues which is essential to feminism.

The Australian of the Year made an appearance on Q&A earlier this year. David Morrison, as a manifestation of the above mentioned stereotype of the elite, straight, white male, spoke of domestic violence as Australias no. 1 social problem. It was pertinent to the question, but it was false, I’m certain by ignorance and not intent. I understand the role of AotY is under no obligation to develop & maintain a deep awareness of Australian society. Mr. Morrison’s comments follow a politically correct hierarchy of victimhood. To briefly demonstrate the falseness of a claim that domestic violence is the number one social issue (approximate numbers, links here or elsewhere in article);
– domestic violence kills slightly more than once a week mostly women,
– suicide kills roughly 38 per week an approximate gender ratio of 3 men : 1 woman,
– murder kills about 5 per week an approximate gender ratio of 3 men : 2 women,
– drug abuse kills 14 per week an approximate gender ratio of 9 men : 5 women*.
In raw terms of lives lost, domestic violence does not compare to other issues. Breaking down the discussion on murder into specific terms is useful in discussion and in pursuing a better tomorrow. Nevertheless, the male hegemony does not pursue the suffering of men, particularly premature death, a Minister for Men can fulfill that duty.
To briefly focus on the above mentioned politically correct hierarchy of victimhood. This is an extension of political correctness beyond it’s most practical realm. This practical realm is the need for a certain politeness for those who have a massive audience. Presidential nominees as well as Batman films can, inadvertently, trigger the mad &/ sad to do bad things and  I am suspicious of more insidious effects. Political correctness can transgress this practical boundary, for example the suffering of Justine Sacco for using sarcasm on the internet.

To return to the title, a Minister for Men could work on solving or reducing the problems which disproportionately affect men. Our community continues to offer less support for men, than for women. Examples abound, Royal Women & Children’s Hospitals are a signal of care which has no equal for men, of  course hospitals do not forcibly expel men seeking medical assistance. News articles about domestic violence always come with a phone number to call for immediate human contact, a form of social support. This support is not found in most articles with male victims.

To be positive, modern lifestyles are mostly better than historic lifestyles. This post is intended to be critical of some effects of feminism and political correctness, however it hopefully is not destructive to worthy objectives and is constructive towards a better tomorrow. If it has been persuasive, please sign the petition and join me in calling for a Minister for Men.
Let me leave you with a question, what should be required from a could-be father in relation to an abortion?