I am not an animal!

“Male Torture Art” was recently removed from Child Support Offices in California…
It’s good that they got rid of this. However: let me ask a few questions….
Why, was “male torture art” – placed in a the lobbies of multiple government buildings?
Who, decided to place “male torture art” in the lobbies of multiple a government buildings?
Who, ordered and procured “male torture art” for display in the lobbies of multiple government buildings?
How, was “male torture art” ever conceivably considered to be appropriate?
Follow up question…. Would a piece of “female torture art” depicting a tortured woman – ever be permitted to be displayed in the lobby of any government building?
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was envisioned: meaning some unknown person or persons decided that a depiction of a tortured man is what they desired to display in the lobbies of a child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was selected, by some person or persons, in particular, from among various possible choices…. for display in the lobbies of child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was then ordered, in bulk, with tax power money, by some unknown person or persons for display in the lobbies of child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was then shipped, en mass for display, by some unknown person or persons, in the lobbies of child support offices.
This “art piece” depicting a tortured man was then received, unwrapped and placed on display by some unknown person or persons in lobbies of child support offices.
Which means: only an executive officer – could have possibly given the order to procure, purchase, ship, receive and display this “art piece” depicting a tortured man. Paid for with tax payer dollars and exhibited in the lobbies of child support offices.
The “art piece” itself, depicting a man who’s had both his arms cleft from his body, then set upon a table in front of him, and clasped together as if pleading. Pleading either for death or perhaps to see his children: it was on display in the child support offices after all.
The author of this article states the following: “I’m quite pleased that the county is sensitive to the need for government to maintain a neutral, unbiased and objective position on family matters.”
When the victims of said persecution are mocked by being greeted with “art” depicting the torture of men. We can see exactly how “neutral” and “unbiased” the law is.
Why don’t you just inscribe the doorway in Latin: “Abandon hope, all ye whom enter here.”
Oh yes, please tell me some more about my “male privilege” when I can be greeted in government offices by “artistic” depictions of men being tortured?
The entire chain of government employees, who decided to display such a monstrosity: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
The entire chain of government employees, who functioned as the selection committee to decide which particular depiction was chosen: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
The entire chain of government employees, who were in charge of using tax payer money to procure in bulk these monstrosities: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
The entire chain of government employees, who received, unpacked, and displayed these monstrosities: Should be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
Why? Simple, If it were “female torture art”, depicting a tortured woman, which had been purchased with tax payer money and displayed in any agency’s government buildings – everyone connected to them would be summarily dismissed and bared from serving in any government employment again, ever.
This is what it means to be male in this society. We can be persecuted with unjust laws, jailed for failure to comply, and mocked inside government buildings. Sure, with enough complaints they rid of the “art”, but they didn’t hold anyone accountable.
By the way: lest you forget – there’s a fantastic number of men who’ve been made victims of child support, in circumstances no reasonable or rational person would exclaim they should be paying child support.
Such as, male rape victims.
From article “Rape Culture
Nick Olivas: raped by 20-year-old at age of 14, ordered to pay $15,000 in child support.
Nathaniel J., raped by a 34-year-old at age of 15, makes $800 a month at Burger King, expected to pay $200 a month child support.
Shane Seyer, raped by a 17-year-old at age of 13, sued for child support, plus an additional $7,000.”
Or men who never consented to having children, and in fact the female partner went behind their back to intentionally get pregnant.
This woman saved the “contents” of oral sex, got herself pregnant with said contents – took the man to court for child support and won.”
This woman used a discarded condom: proof positive the man did NOT consent to having children – used the contents of the condom to get pregnant, gave birth to twins and sued for child support regardless of her actions – and yes: she won.
Or perhaps, the millions of men being extorted out of money for children whom are not theirs? Referred to as “Paternity Fraud”
“Today, 30% of DNA paternity tests, nearly one in three, prove that the man involved is not the father of the child in question. Currently more than 300,000 such tests are done each year. Since it is unlikely that these paternity tests were done without an underlying reason, almost certainly involving payment of child support, there are thus over 90,000 men who have been falsely accused of paternity each year.
Maybe if we didn’t encourage such behavior by enslaving men to pay for it we wouldn’t have so much of it? But courts are notorious for continuing child support even when it has been proven the man named is not the biological father. With few exceptions we can assume that a minimum of 90,000 men a year are being indentured for onerous payments for a period of at least 18 years in the United States. That would suggest that, at a minimum, 1.6 million men are enslaved today by the courts to pay for other men’s children (90,000 men per year for 18 years).
“There are signs of substantial fraud or mistakes in identifying fathers in child support disputes. The American Association of Blood Banks says the 300,626 paternity tests it conducted on men in 2000 ruled out nearly 30% as the father.
The legal doctrines raising barriers to DNA testing on paternity questions are formidable. In 30 states, married men face a 500-year-old legal presumption that any child born during a marriage is the husband’s. The concept, based in English law, is aimed at preventing children from being branded illegitimate. Nebraska’s Supreme Court ruled last week that an ex-husband who is not a child’s father cannot sue the mother to recover child support payments.”
This is what it means to be “male” in this society. We can be persecuted with gender biased laws. Violated and then extorted by those who rape us. Defrauded by lies which are then enforced by the courts. Then, when we think we’ve been denied every possible right, and dehumanized on every possible level. Just when the thought occurs…. “we are not animals,we deserve to be treated like a human beings.”
Then, we are mocked, *by* the very people who are enabling us to be reduced to second class citizens. By being greeted in the lobbies of government offices by depictions of men who have been torn limb from limb and are pleading for mercy.
This is what it means to male in this society. You say I’m privileged? Would you want to be me?
Observing Libertarian
Latest posts by Observing Libertarian (see all)
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy, and have only recently joined the MHRM.

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="152443 https://www.honeybadgerbrigade.com/?p=152443">12 comments</span>

  • So you recognize that males are discriminated against heavily in our society, but don’t understand the importance of showing that males are tortured by a corrupt and incompetent family court system?

  • I’m not entirely convinced that this is ‘male torture art’. Just seems like shitty art.

    • Normally I would agree with you. but in the context of the Child Support office and the reason why I was there (false allegation that I was a “deadbeat”), led me to another interpretation. My feeling is that I am being unjustly tortured by Family Law, and this thought seems to resonate with people. That said, everyone does agree that the space would benefit from art that is more upbeat.

      My girlfriend also thinks that someone put that art there on purpose, fully celebrating the fact that men are getting the screws put to them financially and emotionally.

      Perhaps a bigger point is that we can engage with government officials, be heard and have a positive outcome.

    • After looking at it, I agree. This is a head and shoulders bust of a man coming up from a surface. In such busts we don’t see hands and what they might be expressing. We don’t even question the pedestal or surface. But we don’t construe them as beheadings or chopped up bodies (as the aftermath of executions such as the judges of Charles I).

      So where there’s an unspoken question there’s an artist willing to answer it! Still not answering what the surface is — water? quicksand? a table? — he had the man raising his hands, clasping them, beseeching. So I saw it as “Please give me a break! I’m sinking! Make my wife turn in receipts to prove she’s spent the child support on our children!”

      At some libertarian or business site or magazine I saw a statue of man torture art. It depicts a man whose enemies after other tortures have cast his legs in concrete, blindfolded him and tossed him off a dock and taunted hm with a hammer and a chisel to chip himself out. Or maybe they put him in a burning building, y’know, liekthe last scene in Mad Max.

      Except that’s not the artist’s statement. Bobbie Carlyle says his statue is “The Self Made Man”. The man is chopping himself out of rock such as a mountain peak. He is blindfoled because the innovative entrepreneur must invent his own way. The gashes are indeed the wounds and mockery of his rivals and naysayers — which have not stopped him. The next stroke is at a knee. Is the angle of the chisel too deep. Is the swing of the hammer too strong? Will this move further define him or cut him off at the knees?

      Here’s the artiist’s site. Do not at all link to the image. The artist wants $66 just for a poster and that is a strong statement that he is jealous of his copyright so we should respect that.


      However the other point of the article is well taken. If a piece of art of a woman was ugly there would be a witch hunt to find everyone responsible and at least demand the most humilating apologies.

      • Here are the other statues that were placed in the child support lobby so you can have some additional context.


        I struggled with which word to use when I wrote the article. “despair”? “saddness”? “pathetic”? I settled with the word “torture” because “torture” means “the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.” This is what family law represents to me and many others.

        Though that said, I could see how service men may differ and I apologize if the usage offends. However, I speculate that the fellow who came back from Saddam’s prison only to be arrested for back child support probably would simply say that family law is a different type, a mental type of torture.

      • Bobbie Carlyle’s statute depicts a man firmly in control of his own destiny.

  • If the image at the top is supposedly this tortured man, he looks bored, possibly frustrated and waiting. Eternally waiting.

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather