Mr. J, a Former Professor Series – Entry 15: P*ssy or Toxic Masculinity?
“She left, so I published a revenge porn poems about her
She filed a report, so I wrote about NATO and Trump.
She documented coercion, so I mentioned the ARC.
…Still think this is literature?”
Starts with a breakup. Now spirals into a manifesto.
“Froggy face” — is that affection or an insult?
Written without consent. Screenshot retained for documentation purposes. Originally authored by Pat Johnston.
See the full public evidence available here.
Written without consent. Screenshot retained for documentation purposes. Originally authored by Pat Johnston.
See the full public evidence available here.
Written without consent. Screenshot retained for documentation purposes. Originally authored by Pat Johnston.
See the full public evidence available here.
The Muse Myth: When Women Become Someone Else’s Footnote
These poems was sent to me directly, referencing real events and private moments. I did not consent to its publication. It was written after I ended the relationship, and after he was asked not to contact me.
Written without consent. Screenshot retained for documentation purposes. Originally authored by Pat Johnston.
See the full public evidence available here.
A man — once regarded as intellectual, spiritual, or even ‘gentle’ — suddenly begins to cite global institutions when a younger woman stops submitting to him. He doesn’t write an apology. He doesn’t address the harm. He writes metaphors. He posts online. He performs confusion. And then he signs his name.
Performative vulnerability used to preempt consequence - Public Note published by Pat Johnston (captured June 5, 2025; archived prior to deletion)
The original post is publicly available here at the time of writing. A full archive with timestamps has been retained for evidentiary purposes.
This reference is provided for institutional verification. In case of removal, metadata and screenshot archives are available upon request.
Full 98-harassment-day evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC and Ethics Australia: View here.
Some men can’t bear the idea that their former muse now documents them as a former abuser. So they hijack the narrative. They scramble to claim “symbolism” as a shield — as if vague poetry absolves real misconduct. As if NATO references can hide their past coercion.
Let’s call this what it is: narrative tantrum, veiled in verse. And when that fails, they do what fragile power always does:
They mock, they project, they invoke institutions — not to engage, but to intimidate.
If you’ve ever witnessed a man:
publicly mention the ARC, NATO, ICC, TEQSA, or the Police in a poem
without being legally charged
but after being reported
while never directly addressing the harm he caused
…then you may have witnessed the literary version of toxic masculinity.
This isn’t poetry. It’s a rhetorical disguise for entitlement, a vocabulary hijack used to avoid accountability.
It’s the equivalent of a man yelling “Look how philosophical I am!” while refusing to say “I hurt you.”
Behind every clever metaphor is a simple fear:
That women who once admired them are no longer afraid to name them.
And when that happens, the only thing some men know how to do… is rhyme.
When Self-Respect Is Performed — Not Practiced
A man who truly respects himself does not parody international institutions just because he was named in a complaint.
Referencing NATO, ICC, TEQSA, ARC, and even Donald Trump — in a poem — isn’t literary resistance. It’s reputational panic.
This isn’t dignity. This is projection. When control slips, some choose spectacle over silence — hoping confusion will mask their collapse.
And dignity never looks like this:
Subtweeting victims.
Rewriting history to cast himself as persecuted.
Turning trauma into a stage for theatrical blame.
For someone who once held a senior academic title, these aren’t signs of critical thinking — they’re symptoms of narrative erosion.
“When someone loses the ability to preserve their own dignity, they start violating others’ instead.”
His writing isn’t restorative. It’s retaliatory. His metaphors aren’t introspective. They’re evasive.
In psychology, this pattern is called externalized self-esteem:
When someone’s worth isn’t built from integrity — but from how well they can control or outshine others.
And once that audience shrinks, once admiration fades?
The panic gets louder. The rhyme gets faster.
But the man gets smaller.
Disclaimer:
This profile image was publicly visible on the individual’s account and used here strictly for commentary purposes.
It does not depict the actual person but was self-selected and displayed by them at the time of the events described.
This post is a behavioral critique, not a personal attack.
Any resemblance is limited to publicly chosen representation, not actual likeness.
Update (June 10, 2025): Counter-Takedown Filed — Fair Use & Survivor-Led Documentation
On June 9, I received a formal DMCA notice from Google informing me that Patrick Johnston had submitted a copyright takedown request targeting my publicly accessible survivor evidence folders documentation already submitted to QPS as part of police evidence.
This content, previously submitted to law enforcement in the context of unwanted contact and coercive behavior, cannot retroactively be reframed as protected intellectual property for the purpose of silencing survivor documentation.
Any takedown request targeting such material constitutes a strategic misuse of copyright law, not a legitimate rights claim.
These files were published strictly under academic Fair Use and Fair Dealing protections, as part of an ethics-based documentation series. This takedown is not a valid copyright dispute, but a coercive response to institutional criticism.
Attempts to assert copyright over police-submitted evidence constitute a serious ethical and potentially legal breach. Such actions may be interpreted as obstruction of justice and retaliation against protected reporting
This is not copyright protection. This is reputational panic, disguised as a takedown notice.
The content was non-commercial, already submitted to Queensland Police (QPS) and regulators under official case IDs. Its removal constitutes an attempt to suppress documented harms rather than enforce legitimate rights. Misusing copyright mechanisms in this manner may qualify as a form of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP).
My publication falls squarely within the thresholds of:
Australian Copyright Act 1968 – Sections 41 & 42 (Fair Dealing)
U.S. Copyright Law – §107 (Fair Use)
International norms protecting public interest commentary and trauma documentation.
I have submitted a formal counter-notice. As per standard procedure, Google has forwarded the takedown request to the Lumen Database, where it is now publicly visible as part of platform transparency archives.
View takedown request on Lumen
If harassment persists, I reserve the right to escalate this matter to ethics boards, international legal monitors, and public interest watchdogs tracking strategic censorship and retaliatory misuse of institutional tools.
Any misuse of personal information obtained via counter-notice or takedown responses will be treated as further coercive harassment and may be reported to law enforcement under digital harm and privacy abuse frameworks.
No individual has the right to suppress survivor-led documentation solely on the basis of personal discomfort — especially when such material pertains to evidence already submitted to law enforcement.
Note on Naming:
The individual named in this piece is referenced due to the public nature and severity of their documented behavior, including threats and retaliatory writings.
The purpose of naming is not humiliation, but record integrity. When public responses fail to address the core evidence presented, transparency remains necessary.
Naming in this context reflects a duty to document — not to defame. Selective rebuttal does not equate to accountability.
Full evidence archive submitted to QPS, TEQSA, AHRC and Ethics Australia: View here.
Read the full series
- Entry 1: The Man Who Taught Me Ethics by Failing All of Them
- Entry 2: The Disappearance of the Public Poet
- Entry 3: The Hanging Tree Case Study
- Entry 4: Hidden Like Accountability
- Entry 5: The Collapse of Assumptions
- Entry 6: The Ethics of a Tinder Bio
- Entry 7: How He Ate Told Me Everything
- Entry 8: What Makes a Scholar Dangerous
- Entry 9: Fragment of Life, Fragment of Accountability
- Entry 10: Anatomy of Disappointment
- Entry 11: Legal Defense Challenges: A Framing Statement
- Entry 12: Six Years After Ronell – What Academia Still Doesn’t Get
- Entry 13: QUT and The Man Who Raped Me
- Entry 14: Why Sarcasm Toward Institutions Can Backfire
- Entry 15: P*ssy or Toxic Masculinity? (you are here)
- Entry 16: Who is Your Favorite Comedian?
- Entry 17: And What is Your Favorite Song?
- Entry 18: Grant Proposal — Narrative Ethics as Survivor-Led Forensics
- Entry 19: The Coward Behind the Clone
- Entry 20: [URGENT HIRE] CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS SPECIALIST
- Entry 21: [URGENT] Legal Counsel Needed for Complex Reputation Rehabilitation
- Entry 22: YOU’RE AN ABUSER. STOP CONTACTING ME
- Entry 23: Seeking Counsel for a Fallen Academic
- Entry 24: Internal Legal-PR Briefing
- Entry 25: For Journalists – Legal & Ethical Clearance Summary
- Entry 26: Symbolic Prostitution, Transactional Intimacy, or Just a “Loan”?
- Entry 28: Why He Simply Cannot Shut Up
- Entry 29: Forensic Commentary on “LARGE Language Muddle”
- Entry 30: Don’t Just Threaten My Future. Because I’m Going To Archive Your Present
- Entry 31: Open Letter to the Person Who Tried to Break Me with Defamation
- Entry 32: Defamation, Harassment, Doxxing Class 101
- Entry 33: Confidential Crisis Recovery Proposal
- Entry 34: Forensic Behavioral-Somatic Report
- Entry 35: Forensic Commentary on the Tattoos
- Entry 36: QUT and the Abuser They Once Had
- Entry 38: When Poetry Becomes Revenge Porn
- Entry 40: A Man Built for Applause, Not Accountability
- Entry 41: Neurobehavioral Addendum
- Entry 43: Why Does It Sound Like a War Metaphor?
- Entry 44: Forensic Commentary on Racialized and Fetishizing Language in “Hidden Like Rice”
- Entry 45: Public Misuse of Former Academic Affiliation
- Entry 46: The Two Things That Didn’t Leave a Bad Impression
- Entry 47: When Affection is Just an Alibi (A Bundy-Inspired Reflection)
- Entry 48: Humbert, Lolita, and the Fetish of Fragility
- Entry 49: The Fetish of Smallness as Symbolic Violence
- Entry 50: Motif Risk Analysis
- Entry 52: Can an Abuser Be a Good Father?
- Entry 53: Who Protects the Children?
- Entry 54: From Blackmail to Children
- Entry 55: A Letter I’ll Never Send
- Entry 56: Outc(L)assed - Critical Race Analysis
- Entry 57: Forensic Breakdown: “A Voidance” by Johnston
- Entry 58: Johnston, Who Raised You?
- Entry 59: Public Financial Terms & Narrative Conditions
- Entry 60: What Kind of Future Do You Think Awaits You?
- Entry 61: Why I Believe He Has No Real PR or Legal Team
- Entry 62: Why I Can Legally (and Ethically) Call You a Pathetic Pig
- Entry 63: Tell Me You’re a Pathetic Pig Without Telling Me You’re a Pathetic Pig
- Entry 65: Did Your Mother Teach You To Speak Like This?
- Entry 66: Nobody Cares Anyway
- Reflection: The Miscalculation
(More entries coming soon)
→ [Back to Start: Introducing Mr. J, a Former Professor Series]
© 2025 Linh Ng. All rights reserved.
This publication is intended for educational and reflective purposes only.
Sharing the original link is welcomed and encouraged.
Please do not reproduce, redistribute, or translate this content — in whole or in part — without written permission.
This piece reflects both lived experience and critical analysis. It is not meant to be detached from its author or reframed without context.
Misuse or decontextualization may lead to formal clarification or takedown requests.
This work has been reviewed and quietly followed by scholars, educators, and ethics professionals across multiple sectors.
If your institution is engaging in critical discourse around narrative justice, symbolic coercion, or representational ethics, feel free to connect via Substack DMs or formal channels.
A regulatory case regarding this matter has already been classified under a protected status within national education integrity systems.
Should any reputational countermeasures or distortions arise, I reserve the right to publish the documented timeline, behavioral patterns, and contextual metadata.
All relevant documentation has been submitted through formal legal and regulatory pathways.