Anatomy of a Victim Ideology

Lecture No. 5

"The weakness of men is the façade of strength: the strength of women is the façade of weakness" - Warren Farrell

Among the worst mistakes that freedom-loving people can make is to stereotype feminists as a small, motley crew of angry lesbians who have long since ceased to be relevant. Take note: this stereotype helps them.

I must repeat myself: this stereotype helps them.

Let that sink in for a moment. Every time you have belittled feminists as a bunch of cranky old hags that nobody takes seriously, you have helped to obscure their program and indeed, their very existence as a form of organized power. Belittle them, you must - but do so in a way which exposes, not obscures! For feminism is far from being a relic of the past. The feminist movement is taken very seriously indeed by those with the power to enforce its core aims:

(1) The expropriation of resources from men to women.
(2) The punishment of men.

Obscurity assists the realization of these goals by creating doubt amongst potential opponents. The misidentification of feminism as a cultural artifact which no longer holds sway over the operations of government and society is a product of feminism's own metamorphosis. Note that the essence, or substance of feminism has not changed over the years, only its form, or packaging. The change of packaging has proved so effective that some now deny that the product still exists.

Au contraire. As much as the times changed with feminism, feminism has changed with the times. In the transformation of feminism from a movement opposed to government and society at large, into a movement which controls the state and public opinion - and uses this position to persecute the new enemies of the state - its strategies underwent a certain cultivation. Today, feminists no longer need to throw temper tantrums to get their way, because while they once raged against the machine, they now control it. This is the truly profound shift in Western societies since the height of consciousness about feminism in the middle of last century; it is not that feminists have become less relevant, but more.

As Fidelbogen recently put it:
Feminism is now lodged in the institutional structures, hence, "respectable". I might compare it to organized crime, which was openly thuggish in the early racketeering days, but once they got their people into "city hall", and into electoral politics, learned to wear a silk tie and play the game in a different way.
When feminists were outside the tent, causing offense was one of their prime weapons - poorly disguised as edgy boundary-pushing. Who remembers this lovely piece of propagandistic hate, published in the 1970s?

The above is precisely the kind of thing that feminists today like to pretend never happened. Now that feminists are inside the tent, they are forced to defend their gains; in the 1970s, when the above picture was produced, they attacked from the outside, and sought to tear down official morality rather than (as they do now) define and dictate it.

And how better to maintain control than by punishing those who attack, or who might attack, the new status quo? We are of course referring to men, who stand to lose the most from the three core aims of the feminist project as listed above. Today, feminists believe that women have the inalienable right to not feel offended, and they do not hesitate to employ state violence to enforce this. Prosecuting those (men) who cause offense is their new weapon, one which has replaced the old (causing offense). Of course, persecuting people merely for being offensive is rather less charitable than men were to feminists before feminists took over. But, as Gynocentrism Theory tells us, men were only charitable to offensive women in the early days of feminism because women already exercised substantial control.

Do feminists believe that they are doing right? The answer is an unequivocal yes for most of them - they truly do believe that they are a righteous people, and even when they become cognizant of doing wrong, they rationalize that they are also, simultaneously, doing right. How could this be? Well, let me show you how it works, by tracing the anatomy of a victim ideology.

Once a period of consciousness-raising has propagated the belief that the members of a group are - by their essential nature as members of the group - victims, the group shall pursue two objectives:

(1) To equalize with the designated 'enemy' group;
(2) To forge their own 'victim identity,' separate from and unaccountable to the 'enemy' group.

You will notice that, while the first objective brings the 'victim' group closer to the 'enemy' group, in terms of status, expectations, autonomy, etc., the second widens the gulf between them. The first objective, we are told, will unite us in our common humanity, and bring about liberty for all, and other nice things like that. But as soon as we get close to this, there tends to be a drift towards proclamations of the importance of the second objective. Nothing will ever be enough to satisfy the 'victim' group, because they view themselves as essentially and inherently the victims of the 'enemy' group, regardless of what may have changed in reality. A victim ideology is anti-contextual, and its followers - the self-designated 'victims' - shall never see themselves as anything but. Their victimhood is affirmed in advance, and the facts must be made to fit the story. In other words, they will spin any situation into one where they are most harshly treated.

This is why feminists like Hillary Clinton can get away with saying things like

Well, sure - losing family members to horrible deaths is so much worse than actually having to die those horrible deaths. That is, if your whole worldview is tainted by sexism and you reduce the status of men to Protecting/Providing Objects. In Mrs Clinton's quote, no humanity is ascribed to men whatsoever. The real problem is not that they are traumatized, mutilated and blown to pieces per se; it is that, because of their being subject to atrocities, men will not be able to fulfill their protecting/providing roles quite so effectively. It is, therefore, women who lose out, because men don't actually matter except insofar as they can assist females. This is precisely the kind of attitude which emerges out of a victim ideology. The entirety of existence, in all its wonderful complexity, is reduced to black-and-white primitivism: my people matter, your people don't. Or, as we shall see, my people good, your people bad. Anything good for my people is good, no mind whether it is good or bad for your people.

This kind of thinking is known as Manichean Essentialism, and it is the metaphysical cornerstone for feminism as a whole. Decades of consciousness-raising have ensured that women are reflexively considered to have been wronged, whatever the facts. Whenever genuine examples of women being wronged cannot be found, compensatory privilege becomes the sanctioned goal. That is, women are treated more leniently in one regard because they are believed to be disadvantaged in unrelated regards, or just disadvantaged in general. One recent example of this from the United Kingdom is the order issued by Dame Laura Cox to judges that they must treat female criminals with greater leniency, a ruling which simultaneously reduced British men to second class status while green-lighting abusive women who might otherwise have been deterred.

There are some who go further than this. Baroness Corston, who explicitly identifies as a feminist, believes that women don't really deserve to be punished at all when they commit crimes. Her 2007 Government report advocates that all women's prisons should close, and that even the most violent and abusive female offenders should not be locked up. Indeed, they

would no longer go to one of the country's 15 women's prisons, which would all close. Instead, killers such as Rose West, serving life for the murder of ten young women and girls, would be sent to "homely" local custody units. There they would be allowed to live as a "family unit" with between 20 and 30 other women prisoners, organising their own shopping, budgets and cooking. The units would also allow them to stay close to their families ... All the women's jails would shut within the next decade, and could instead be converted into prisons for men ... The report claims: "Women and men are different. Equal treatment of men and women does not result in equal outcomes."
The above is a classic example of Orwellian Newspeak. Anti-feminists of all stripes have been saying for decades that men and women are essentially different. Feminists have insisted that men and women are essentially the same, and we must therefore have equal treatment. But as soon as equality works retrograde to the goal of female empowerment, it is dropped like a hot potato, and feminists twist themselves around in incredible semantic gymnastics to justify the sudden turnabout.
Women also (sic) never be sent to jail to "teach them a lesson".
Of course they shouldn't. Women shouldn't have to actually learn how to abide by the law, much less how to be functioning members of civilization. They should be allowed to run wild and free, abusing and destroying anything they please with absolute license. They shouldn't even expect a slap on the wrist for their misbehavior - that would be domestic violence, don't you know?

But if feminism truly was about equality, shouldn't feminists be pushing for new laws to criminalize more women, rather than their anti-egalitarian approach of imprisoning less women and more men? Or does equality only matter when it is women who are deemed unequal? (In and of itself, this would imply strongly that women are a privileged class like no other.)

The female incarceration rate is just one-eighth that of men in the United States (Wikipedia, accessed 10th October 2010), while women account for only 5.7% of inmates in Great Britain (accessed 10th October 2010). Surely, if equality was the goal, we would be relaxing the punitive, feminist-inspired laws against men, and seeking to punish more women instead. I can think of nowhere in modern society that is more male-dominated or unrepresentative than the penal system - something which, in the interests of sexual equality, needs to change.

But no - flatly contrary to the principles of neutral, impartial justice, feminists deem it a good thing for its own sake to lock up fewer women! It is as though women who are guilty of crimes aren't really guilty - and are therefore victims of whatever is done to them as punishment. It is a popular notion that women are disadvantaged - generally, inherently, essentially, within the very fiber of their being - and so must be disadvantaged in every particular area of life; thus, anything done to assist them must be a reduction of unfair disadvantage. Any rationally-minded person can see how absurd this all is, and I include leading feminists in this, as they are shrewd but not stupid. Just deserts, deterrence, fair treatment, civilization itself be damned; this is Gynocentrism in action.

To recap, victim ideologies such as feminism seek to:

(1) Equalize with the 'enemy' group;
(2) Forge their own 'victim identity,' separate from and unaccountable to the 'enemy' group.

That these two objectives are in contradiction is not just a logical flaw; it's part of a strategy which allows the 'victim' group to shift its stance as circumstances require. Objective (1) might be consistently pursued for a little while. But if the movement comes under scrutiny for disadvantaging the 'enemy' group, the 'victims' can just switch to objective (2) and emphasize the importance of their own uniqueness in ways for which equality does not suffice. Or, as feminist Germaine Greer puts it:

In 1970 the movement was called 'Women's Liberation' or, contemptously (sic), 'Women's Lib'. When the name 'Libbers' was dropped for 'Feminists' we were all relieved. What none of us noticed was that the ideal of liberation was fading out with the word. We were settling for equality. Liberation struggles are not about assimilation but about asserting difference, endowing that difference with dignity and prestige, and insisting on it as a condition of self-definition and self-determination. ... the visionary feminists of the late sixties and early seventies knew that women could never find freedom by agreeing to live the lives of unfree men.
Once equal status has been reached, the rhetoric of equality can be discarded, because who wants to be only equal to a man anyway? Here, in black and white, is a statement of female supremacy.

Same as it ever was.

If equality had ever been the end goal, then men's disadvantages would have been addressed seriously, and not exacerbated while men themselves were goaded. To this day, the only time a feminist bothers herself with an issue of male disadvantage is when it benefits women to point it out - as in the case of parental leave. Enforced equal paternity and maternity leave rules out any disincentive that employers have to hire women. A feminist will set aside her 'all fathers are rapists and abusers' shtick, just long enough to insist that men should have equal rights to parenting - but this is typically presented as a demand that men shoulder the burdens of raising children so that women may be empowered in the workplace. Even when injustices against them are being redressed, men are tools for female betterment.

Same as it ever was.

Another example is male rape in prisons. This is occasionally highlighted by feminists, but only because men can be shown to be the oppressors, allowing them to attack maleness itself. Feminists pick up the torch once the rapist has done his part; they complete the rape victim's sexual humiliation by destroying his self-identity, poisoning his mind with aspersions that maleness itself is to blame for his victimization; and so a fundamental, immutable part of himself was the cause of his rape. They force upon him the identity of rapist along with rape victim, their vilification of 'toxic masculinity' serving to assure him that he shares the abusive characteristics of his abuser. On the other hand, the high level of female culpability in child abuse, both sexual and non-sexual, is ignored or denied.

This is why our universally applicable definition of feminism could not have included any reference to 'equality' - it's not a reasonable statement to make if we're using analytical tools more incisive than Manichean Essentialism. The universal definition remains, and no ground can possibly be ceded: feminism is the project for increasing the power of women.

Power in what regard? Power to do what? Such questions inevitably arise. The answer, if you've been following closely, is obvious - whatever they please, no matter who else is harmed. Silence is not consent, but it is complicity, when you have the power to draw attention towards abuse and the resources towards stopping it, yet you fail to do so on the grounds that the abusers have genitals that resemble your own.

And that's what it comes down to, folks - we are dealing with primitives in pantsuits.


Further Reading:

Welmer. Feminism and the Prison Industrial Complex

Babette Francis. Feminist Legal Theory

Oz Conservative. Men's role is to empower women for what exactly?


Human-Stupidity.com said...

Great set of articles. Should be a mandatory course in womens studies. I will post about them.

I am worried, though, that you have this on blogspot. If they want to close you down, they can. I think you should get your own domain and have backups at home. gynocentrism.com, gynotheory.com, whatever.

I would love you to come over the the Human Stupidity blog and comment. I have many different topics, so please pick the ones that coincide with your interest.

Human-Stupidity.com said...

By the way, your blog is not very well organized. Or I am too stupid.

I had a hard time finding your prior lectures. I only found them as you mentioned there were lectures 1, 2, 3, .....

Adam Kostakis said...

All right, I've added a 'contents' to the bar on the right hand side. There's now easily accessible links to each lecture.

Fidelbogen said...


I have not yet put up my customary "pointer post" to your latest lecture. Oh what a guilty slug am I. . I must go straight about that, smartly! ;)

Paul Elam said...

Anyway to set up RSS Feed to your blog? I just included you in the links section, but an RSS would increase your visibility.

You are doing a fantastic job, Adam.

Anonymous said...

Hi fidelbogen Nice blog keep up the good work I am anti-feminist Pro-male Women can kiss my ass

Anonymous said...

Why American men should boycott American women






Human-Stupidity.com said...

I wrote an article about your lecture series.
Gynocentrism (male chivalry) was the norm, not Patriarchism

How come this does not show up as a "Links to this post"?

My blog was not meant as a men's rights blog, but ended up focussing a lot on them.

In case you want to link, you might want to link directly to the men's rights section

Men's rights at Human Stupidity

Good luck with your work. Maybe you want to provide them also as downloadable pdf files, and later join them together to form a book.

Adam Kostakis said...

"How come this does not show up as a "Links to this post"?"

I'm not really sure. I know that a number of other sites have also linked to my posts, but the links only sometimes show up.

I'll add you to the 'blogroll'.

Fidelbogen said...


Anon, a man's mind is his castle. That goes without saying. So if you feel that "women can kiss your ass", well, you're entitled to your opinion. It's no skin off my nose.

But I should make clear that "anti-feminism" is NOT the same as "anti-WOMANISM".

That is a feminist word trick used to silence anybody who might speak out against feminism.

So...we need to reclaim the word anti-feminist, and reinforce the correct meaning of "opposed to feminism".

But when you say "women can kiss my ass", in the same breath that you say "anti-feminist", you are giving fuel to the feminists and reinforcing their semantics.

Anyway, I myself would never make a statement like "women can kiss my ass". The reason is, that I have not met every woman on earth -- not even close!

So I wait until I meet any particular woman, and decide case-by-case whether that individual should "kiss my ass" or not. But I don't decide this ahead of time about a person I have never met. I give women, as a group, the benefit of the doubt.

However, i WILL say that feminists can kiss my ass.

And yes. . that includes the ones I haven't met.

Thanks. I felt that I needed to clear this up.

By the way, you are right that I am Fidelbogen, but to set the record straight, this here is not my blog.

My blog is counterfem.blogspot.com

Adam Kostakis said...


Some people seem to think we are the same person. Even Angry Harry harbors suspicions!


I'll look into setting up an RSS feed.

Ernest Chatham MSW said...

Congratulations on a real masterpiece of a blog. Much needed.
Will recommend to everyone I know. Keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

All the essays in this lecture series are an intellectual treat.

Might I make one small suggestion; as well as elaborating your Gynocentrism theory, might it not be profitable to do an essay on narcissism? Narcissism (actually gender narcissism) is clearly the libidinous force driving gynocentrism.... if its not, then what else?

A look at Narcissistic Personality Disorder in the DSM-4 gives a simply delicious criteria for an elaboration Gynocentrism theory:

4. Requires excessive admiration
9. Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Without mention of the narcissistic drive gynocentrism theory comes across as needlessly mysterious regarding it's psychological basis. Sociological analysis gives only part of the picture.

Gynocentrism is saturated with examples of narcissism; all the princesses, pampering and entitlements you have been mentioning.


Adam Kostakis said...


Oh my! The DSM-IV's criteria for NPD fits feminist women to a tee!

Fear not; the psychological basis for Gynocentrism is coming. I'm going to run a good few rings around that old chestnut tree!

Thankyou for bringing to my attention NPD's glove-like fit to the feminist hand ... it's tagged for inclusion!

Anonymous said...

Indeed NPD fits the profile of many feminist women. However I think we can take this further than saying individual feminists may exemplify NPD.

Most well-known theorists, from many different schools of psychology, agree that individual disorders detailed in the DSMs can and often do show as collective pathologies. On the basis of that idea my proposition is that gynocentrism, as you have termed the long history of special treatment of women (and women's concomittant expectations of this entitlement), is *psychologically* driven by the universal human drive to narcissism, in this instance in extremis. In order for women to accept the socially sanctioned gynocentric role it must dovetail with a matching libidinous drive, and I cannot think of a more perfect match than the narcissistic drive. Can you?

If this is so then we need to name it and remove the mystification surrounding why this myth is so attractive for women to align with. What is the operant pleasure principle?

Narcissistic gratification.

There are numerous forms of narcissism, all the way from supposedly 'healthy' infantile narcissism which is supposed to cease in early childhood lest it become interpersonally 'pathological'; through to 'gender narcissism' which involves a pathological love for one's own gender; through to Narcissistic Personality Disorder -the extremely pathological variant at detailed in the post above. After surveying each of these forms of Nism one could conclude that feminists, and all women actively living the gynocentric myth, are displaying psychological traits of all three forms of narcissism, in various mixtures; infantile, gender, and personality disorder versions.

However one wishes to break down the various shades of narcissism, the list of traits of NPD from the DSM is broadly useful for getting inside the head of the gynocentric woman's head.

But what about males? If males are not living the narcissistic urge, then what is thier drive, what the drive? That takes us into other conversation, but a starting point may be to research 'Inverse Narcissism' which is described as the drive to live one's own narcisstic aspirations by cultivating it in another..... males indulge the narcissistic urge by proxy, in the shape of women.

Anonymous said...

Apologies for the few repetitive remarks, am rushing!

Anonymous said...

The following Wikipedia page defining 'Narcisasistic Rage & Narcissistic Injury' provides insight into the psychological roots of indignation expressed by all those who become angered at the lack of adherence to, or infringments of the gynocentric program:

Julie said...


NB: My english is not perfect so I can be hard in what I say, no subtilities, but don't see bad intention.

I readed all your lectures, very interresting. And also many others blog with great interrest. I can't agree with misogynistic views, but I agree that you have it very bad now in western world. And that can't continue no longer.

Gynocentrism, I think, is in good part based on human biological instinct. In other word it's here to stay. For the good and for the bad. Evolution have gived us superior biological value and status. Nature have created you with a purposes of "serving" us (providing, protection, etc.). You can't escape this, no more than us. But balance is needed, We are different but in a symbiotic relationship.

You said the feminist project is increasing the power of Women. No problem there for me until this power is on our own life but this is not what they ask for.

I agree that they (the radical feminist) want political Female Supremacy in a way or another. They are not numerous but influent.

This influence is increased by the fact that, we Women collectively "lack care" (a kind of indifference) about you collectively. I mean as a gender. We say notting and let them go. May be because of an instinctive gynocentrism, may be because we beleave that you are strong and don't need it or we have learned to beleave that. I don't know.

Nevertheless, I think you have a bigger problem than those radical Women. The much more numerous males advocating and acting for this lunacy. Some of those men are prime minister, governor, president, judge, representative, etc. And they vote laws, policies and rules. Some of those males have kinky fantasm about Female Supremacy. Some have money and career in it. Some are just the kind of male ready to say yes to anything a Woman ask...

The general unvisible climate of misandry. (I discovered his existance with stupefaction after reading about it.) Is in part created by the same males. Like the t-shirt saying to throw rock at boys... Created by males for profit!

Because of my life-style, I know this kind of males, they are excessive, deeply anti-male, they beg me telling me how males are stupid, worthless and blah blah blah... Dreaming of Female led totalitarian regime...

Adam Kostakis said...


I did not believe that Gynocentrism is a biological predisposition. I do not believe that evolution grants women superior biological value and status. I do not believe men are created to "serve" women, or that this situation is inescapable. What you describe is not a symbiotic relationship, but a parasitic one. And it is one I believe is socially constructed. It's an enduring relationship, for sure! But you know what they say, rules are made to be broken.

I also disagree that women are indifferent to the plight of men and boys - I know, and have talked to, plenty of women who are deeply concerned about misandry.

What you have described is a set of Gynocentric myths. I am sorry to see that you have bought into them. Perhaps you believe that Gynocentrism is an inherent human trait because it helps you feel secure in your privileged position - if it is inherent, it cannot be taken away.

You are correct that there are a number of men advocating for the lunacy of radical feminism. When attacking feminism, I do not attack women. I attack feminists, whether they be men or women.

However, I do believe that the climate of misandry is created - exclusively - by women. Certain powerful men are the enablers, but they did not create the hatred.

Julie said...


«I do not believe that evolution grants women superior biological value and status.»
What I mean by superior biological value is that to perpetuate our species (like every mamals)the bottle neck is the number of Women. This is why every culture are ready to give up males' lifes to protect us from danger. You will agree on that fact.

May be the misunderstanding come of my limited english. I agree with you, many Women are concerned, I'm myself concerned by this misandous climate. Otherwise why the hell I was here?

«However, I do believe that the climate of misandry is created - exclusively - by women.»

On that I can only disagree.

Firts,I saw some contradiction here with what you said before «I also disagree that women are indifferent to the plight of men and boys» We can't be for and against it in same time.

We are in part responsable, because We buy the t-shirt saying to throw rock at boys. But, We don't made them. And the greatest misandrous things I have seen was from males.

«Certain powerful men are the enablers, but they did not create the hatred.»

The enabler is money, We are controling most of the spending of each household. The proof of that is in the number of store dedicated to us in any mall.

They want the money, they try to seduce us. They do itthe same way the males telling Me how stupid males are. Unfortunately, We are buying in that because We saw this as fun. And they push more of it the next round.

«When attacking feminism, I do not attack women.»
This was clear for Me. It's unfortunately not every MRA. I sawed, many who are in misogyny and hate.

Adam Kostakis said...


I will not agree on that point of view. I see this biological essentialism as a gloss on traditional female privilege. For one thing, you're only talking about a narrow band of women - namely, those who are young and fertile. Am I to believe that those beyond their most fertile years (i.e. older than 25) are recognized as having no greater value than the average man? Of course not: women remain privileged, regardless of their age and fertility. Reproduction really has nothing to do with it.

Moreover, any society with a deficit of men will not survive very long. It is men who design, create, build and maintain the infrastructure of society. Insofar as women give birth to the next generation, men give birth to civilization itself. Remove men from the equation, and we return to some primitivist state of nature.

Now, as a corollary of rooting out Gynocentrism, this latter historical fact will be forced to change as well: women will have to contribute to the building and maintaining of society, or they will be forced out - which is the deal men have always been handed.

So, you see, I'm very set against all notions of biological essentialism - historically it may be the case that women were valued more for reproductive reasons, while the onus was on men to build, maintain and defend society. That does not have to be the future, and if feminists were really honest with themselves, they would admit that such an idea, egalitarian as it is, scares the living daylights out of them.


Yeah - my comment wasn't attacking you personally. You said that women are indifferent to the plight of men and boys, I responded that I know this to not be the case, but I did not mean to suggest that you are indifferent.


It's simple. Some women are not indifferent to the plight of men and boys. Other women are indifferent. And still other women are the generators of misandry. I do not view a social entity so heterogeneous and amorphous as 'women' to be one solid bloc. Within 'women', we find individuals who are inevitably going to fundamentally disagree with each other on basic principles. There is no contradiction to say that misandry is in the first instance generated by (certain) women, and that there are (certain other) women who oppose misandry.

Just like men, really.

Adam Kostakis said...


I won't dispute that (certain) men are responsible for aiding and enabling misandry. The person who created the T-shirts you refer to is, indeed, a man - I believe his name is Todd Goldman.

But, put it this way: if hatred against men and boys did not already exist, would Todd have been able to sell his T-shirts?

Can you imagine anybody selling T-shirts saying "blacks are stupid ... throw rocks at them" today? I can't. But what if T-shirts were in vogue in the early 20th century Deep South? I'm sure those T-shirts would be sold by the truckload. The hatred needs to already exist for the product to be saleable.

And that's why I say that (certain) women generate misandry, while (certain) men are its enablers. Todd Goldman and men like him capitalize on female hatred against the male sex. Todd does not create the hatred. If the hatred was not there, nobody would buy the T-shirts; everyone would be repulsed by the very idea.


This is partially true. Money is surely the motivator for Todd Goldman and men like him - as I said above, they capitalize on female hatred of the male sex. Essentially, they sell out their own sex to make a quick buck. I won't deny that men like this are misandrists, but I think striking at the root is a more effective strategy, and in this day and age, that means attacking feminists.


Yes. I find it unfortunate that many MRAs use inflammatory language which turns off potential supporters. On the other hand, I understand exactly why they do it, and wouldn't want to take away their rights to express themselves however they please. They are venting, because for years (decades for most), they have had no place to express their dissatisfaction with feminism and Gynocentrism. They now have that place, very suddenly, and having bottled up rage for most of their lives, they are for the first time given the opportunity to blow off some steam. Predictably, the bottle erupts all over the place. There is some serious anger, and it is emanating from good men: a sure indicator that times are going to change.