Over on This is Why MGTOW, the blogger who calls himself Cerberus Alpha (dude, seriously?) attempts to answer the question: Why are men more violent?
Rather than attempting to engage with the extensive scholarly literature on the subject, or even making a token effort to do any research on the subject whatsoever, Mr. Alpha instead spins a few familiar manosphere fairy tales into “evidence” that it’s all the fault of those evil sexy ladies and their evil sexy and/or feminist ways.
Young women train violence and criminality into young men. The thug with the shaved head who communicates in grunts is sexually rewarded. The empathetic bookworm is denied if not publicly humiliated if he approaches a girl. So the bookworm puts down the book, gets contacts and a tattoo, bulks up in the gym, and generally acts like an asshole. (Why would he be nice to women any more?) Suddenly, he finds himself showered in pussy. This is how it works. Women’s sexual desires are dark and pathological, and this encourages men to become violent criminals if they want to get laid.
His evidence for this?
Just look at all the Game blogs out there, which teach men how to mimic the frame of the uncaring, alpha criminal without actually breaking the law.
That’s right. Misogynist dude pontificating about ladies cites as evidence … other misogynist dudes pontificating about ladies. THAT’S SCIENCE!
Oh, but the perfidy of the evil violence-causing ladies gets worse! Because they also force men to commit evil violence by, apparently, telling them to do it in sweet sexy voices:
Women’s own violence is committed via proxy (i.e. they get men to do the difficult work of physical coercion), and thus is incorporated into men’s overall violence. That’s pretty smart of women, in a devious and manipulative sort of way. A woman who has a problem with a man (or just wants to see a guy get beaten up, because that kind of sadism makes her tingle) sidles up to her boyfriend and asks so-sweetly if he will ‘do something’ about that guy who’s bothering her. But when the fun is over and the cops show up because someone is leaving the party in an ambulance, it was all his fault, see. She didn’t do a thing. She’s sugar and spice and all things nice.
I think Mr. Alpha here is confusing real life with the TV show Cheaters.
But wait! We haven’t even gotten to the even eviller evils of … FEMINISM.
Since the 1960s, normal male behavior has been increasingly criminalized while criminal female behavior has been increasingly normalized. This process is known as ‘feminism,’ and includes legal restrictions on politically incorrect speech, redefinitions of ‘harassment,’ and so on. This ground has been covered over and over again in the sphere and we don’t need to retread how feminism makes it illegal simply to exist as a man.
Uh, maybe you do need to go over that once more because, well, here’s the thing, I’m a dude, and I’ve never been arrested for being a man. Or even given a warning. And I’m pretty sure there are literally billions of other men on planet earth in the same situation as I am. Are there warrants out for us all?
The flip side is that crimes like abortion and infanticide, for which women were typically held responsible, have been made legal and normalized by feminists.
Really? Could you remind me again when Congress passed the Actual Live Human Baby Killing Is A-OK With Us Act, because I’m pretty sure infanticide isn’t legal or “normalized” in the US or anywhere on this planet. And in the US, at least, abortion rights (not to mention abortion providers) are under pretty much constant attack.
Mr. Alpha also suggests that male violence is just a sort of side effect of men being such hard workers and deep thinkers and shit:
Men commit more crime because men do more of anything, that is apart from self-obsessed complaining. This is the Y-chromosome explanation that radfems are so fond of, except they miss out the part that if there’s no Jack the Ripper then there’s no Einstein either, and it’s kind of hard to be a career grrl if men haven’t invented corporations and desks yet. Men are proactive as women are reactive, which in laymen’s terms means we get shit done.
Also, mammoths, we hunted them to feed you, etc.
Not content to blame male violence on women, Mr. Alpha ends by suggesting that he won’t really mind if some men — wink, wink — wise up and start directing some of this violence at the ladies who made them all violent in the first place.
The majority of violence committed by men, which is encouraged or outright instructed by women, as described above, is committed against other men. Thus for the most part, it can be described as female violence against men, delivered via proxy. …
If, however, these machinations happen to backfire, and a man who has been trained into criminal violence turns on his trainers, who am I to care?
Gosh, men in the “sphere” sure do love to fantasize about ladies getting beaten up by men, don’t they?
Dude, please, go your own fucking way already. The farther you go, the better.
Yes, and I don’t see anyone fucking live birds, only ones ready for the oven.
to clarify, I’ve kept chickens… they aren’t mules, you can’t fuck them if they are alive; the parts don’t fit.
Thus endeth the TMI.
South Park led me to believe chicken loving was quite physiologically possible.
South Park led me to believe otherwise.
Hrm. I don’t recall writing two posts. I’m probably overtired.
@marinerachel
You can definitively eat a poule au pot but you can’t reasonably try to fuck a poulet because they’re armed and don’t have a huge sense of humor, that’s why people prefer, in this kind of situation, to bugger the flies.
kittehserf:
Materialism CAN go that way. Alternately, it can go, “Emotions arise out of complex biochemical processes. Our emotions are thus as ‘real’ as any other phenomenon–and since this world is the only one that exists/matters, emotions are FUCKING IMPORTANT.”
This is where existentialism comes in. I’ll give PPT this much, he actually managed to use one of the words properly, in context, though obviously not everyone here is an existentialist.
Short form of existentialism–you choose where to find meaning. Where you find it isn’t as important as trying to use that meaning to make life in this world as good as it can be. There’s even Christian existentialists (Kirkegaard, my real-world namesake, was actually one of the first existentialists, and very much a Christian; he recognized that faith was ‘absurd’, but accepted that absurdity–and in making the “leap of faith”, he found his meaning in the world).
Freemage – sounds like the usual thing, doesn’t it: assholes will be assholes regardless of the justification or whether they know what they’re talking about.
I like your summary of existentialism, and Kirkegaard (though I can’t help thinking of Hark, a Vagrant when I think of him now). Usually it’s presented as a depressing and off-putting sort of thing (complex subject oversimplified again). But finding meaning in something while knowing it may not make sense, may be “rationally” absurd – yeah, I can understand that. 🙂
Molly, please accept one internet, wrapped in real velvet and accompanied by a plate of scones (with butter, jam & clotted cream, of course).
>>>I mean, am I following the actual meaning of “materialism” here?
In philosophy you have the question of (mind/body) dualism versus monism. Materialism is the monism that posits only the material world exists and that the mind is a subset of material phenomenas. Idealism is the opposite, the monism that sees the mind (or the Platonic realm of Ideas) as the only thing truly existing and what we see as material phenomenas are generated by it (i.e. any form of religion that posits the material world as purely illusory, or entirely the creation of the human mind). Catholicism is firmly dualist, for instance, and has fought against idealist heresies in the past just like it fights materialist heresies now (the Cathars for instance believed the material world was an illusion ruled by Satan while the spiritual world was God’s).
And then there’s the popular definition of materialism, which is a gigantic meaning drift from that and that more or less corresponds to consumerism.
Some so-called materialists (especially online, in net atheist forums) say particularly stupid things like “emotions are only chemical reactions and therefore unreal”, which makes no sort of sense whatsoever if you think all that is real is material but makes some sort of twisted sense if you are actually still lugging around some dualist or even idealist views underneath your surface materialism. One might call them “vulgar materialists”, if one is inclined to use terms Marx once used to deride such bullshit.
Heh.
It’s almost the opposite of Game. First, it’s written by a woman (let’s be honest here about the writers of most Game books). Second, there’s absolutly no chapter on “landing” a mark (again, no illusion on what Game books are about… they’re not about how to meet a woman to be equal partners for sex or a relationship, but about taking something from one of them by guile… I love a good con movie but I abhor con men IRL). The book itself was actually written *after* her first book on how to get women to give great sex to men (she was, after all, actually giving courses on “How to please your man”) as a second thought because she realized there was a market for the book on “the other side”.
*Maybe* some of the PUAs pick it up (in which case, that’s at least some comfort for their marks, maybe it won’t be completely subpar sex), but my impression is they rarely care about the woman’s orgasm and are not shooting for repeat business with any individual woman. I would suspect most of them would find it a waste of time when they could be reading more field reports instead.
Lol!
The funny thing here (besides the obvious) is that I actually do cop to having a kneejerk “attack” reaction to certain male anti-feminists.
Not out of a desire for acceptance–though I owe a great debt to feminism and specific feminists who really set me free from a chain and shackle I didn’t know was there.
It’s because certain attitudes remind me rather excessively of what I used to think and believe, and you would not believe the poison that I found in there when I lanced that boil.
(of course you would–you read the OP, up top, right?)
I react like I do because I used to live there, and it was a terrible place to live.
His diagnosis not only insults me, it’s dead wrong. Which should surprise nobody, at this point. Frankly, if he claimed water was wet I’d start to have my doubts on that score, with his track record.
I note, for the record, Brzzzzt! has quit the field on the subject of lynching, and how he used it.
@talacaris
Talacaris, if you were addressing that @ Pro-Patria Truthteller, it may be the closest I’ve ever seen you get to an insightful trolling.
If you weren’t, and it was directed elsewhere, do please let me know so I don’t accidentally give you credit .
Beakhead: ‘All men are rapists’ is a feminist slogan- not a MRA slogan.
Prove it. Find the feminists who use it. (note, you have made a postive statement: “all men are rapists is a feminist slogan”. This means it’s a widely accepted idea, being actively promoted by, “feminism”).
I’d argue it’s an MRA shibboleth that feminists think this, which is very different.
To cite the tail end of a conversation as the complete statement is indeed selective editing.
WTF? So only a complete re-posting of an entire thread counts an an honest quotation?
Wow. So, we can expect looonnnnng examples from you of the falsity of misogyny, as well as the same in the “proofs” of how feminists hate men, and want to castrate them, just for being men.
Or shall we trust your probity; given how clearly you understood the entire thread TB was in, what with all the feminists attacking the victim, and calling for him to be castrated and all… you know the ones that weren’t for the former, and the total lack of the latter.
Damn, wrong thread.
How: “Talacaris, if you were addressing that @ Pro-Patria Truthteller, it may be the closest I’ve ever seen you get to an insightful trolling.”
Well,it was, but it’s so easy yomake mistakes when you are drunk 🙂
Reblogged this on Educated Peasant.
Talacaris: between that and the ‘self-kino’ comment on the other thread, you have officially posted more wit in the past week than I’ve seen from you in the last year.
I just wanted to put that out there because in the other other thread I put a blanket condemnation on your head. So, y’know, just letting you know I don’t find you completely without merit. Just some of your overall life choices.
Mr. Alpha makes a lot of sense. I’d like to read his article in full, witout interruption.
Click the blue “Why are men more violent” underneath the illustrative image, it’s a link to the full article hosted off-site.
🙂
This troll’s name seems familiar.
Anyone else notice that trolls say “attack men” when they mean “attack me”?