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.
PPT:
Psst… if you want to sound intelligent by using big words, I suggest you spell-check them first:
Misogyny
Misogynist
Paradigm
BTW, on that last one: Paradigm shifts are, by definition, changes in viewpoint, so some conduct that’s been ongoing is, by definition, not a paradigm shift. You might be able to claim that there is a dominant paradigm here that in some way NEEDS to be shifted, but your pathetic attempts at faux intellectualism have pretty much destroyed any effort you might make in that direction.
As for “protomaterialist existentialism”… Er, no. Even if you were right and we were all materialist existentialists (we’re not–I’m a cap-A Atheist, and there’s a few others as well, but there’s several folks here with religious and spiritual belief-systems that are miles away from materialism, so, you know, fuck your narcissistic essentialism), we wouldn’t be ‘protomaterialists’. Proto = “First” or at least “Early”. Materialism has been around, and adapted and molded, for centuries, occurring in most cultures. The first folks in a given culture to say, “There’s nothing but the physical world; when we die, we become dust and memories, and that’s it” are proto-materialists. Everyone else that comes after them is just a materialist. So we’ll just hack that prefix out as completely nonsensical, then get rid of the rest of the phrase for being completely untrue, as I noted above.
Also, quit thinking you have the faintest right to dictate (or even judge) what medical risks a woman has to take w/ re: her own pregnancy (and get a clue about the fact that medical risks are part of every pregnancy, and figure out what those two things together produce as a logical conclusion). M’kay? Kthanxbye!!
RE: Bob Goblin
LIES, man! I’m going my own way–or should I say COMING MY OWN WAY, am I right?
*is promptly shot and never heard from again*
You don’t even have to be American to see the racism there – if you’re not a complete shit, that is.
Thanks for saying that better than I could, Freemage.
Funny, isn’t it – PustulentPimple thinks we read every last word of their bad acid trip walls o’ text, but they can’t even be bothered reading replies to them that specify someone’s beliefs re the afterlife.
Narcissistic indeed.
Oh, and Pustulent? NWO called eleven-year-old girls in capri pants sluts. He posted pics of little kids at the beach as proof of any girl being a slut trying to arouse men. He compared women being legally able to go topless in some places with him being able to go up to little girls and show them his erection.
Misogynistic? That isn’t the half of it with him. Quite apart from his off-the-planet nonsense about Illuminati and whatnot, this was a man who wanted adult women beaten on the streets for whatever-it-was that offended him (being alive while female, I think) and talked about little kids as willing sex objects.
So, y’know, go fuck yourself with a wasabi-coated cactus.
So, materialism. Are there like, two strains or something? Cuz I’m used to it meaning “caring about the shit you own”, whereas freemage’s definiton, well, I’m cop to it *materialist*…except my conclusion from that is what you do truly matters because this is it, this life, and your “legacy” will be what you do, not wtf you own. (Hell, my 86 year old religious grandfather is of the “take what you want, I can’t take it with me” school)
And I’m 95%+ sure pecunium and I agree on the “what you do matters”, but in his case it’s his take on Catholicism. So like, “There’s nothing but the physical world; when we die, we become dust and memories, and that’s it” doesn’t mean OH NOES YOU’RE A TERRIBLE PERSON.
I mean, am I following the actual meaning of “materialism” here?
(And sorry if I’m wrong pecunium, I’m recalling your thoughts on the alpaca you sent and my lovely frankengloves [I’ll send pics once it’s cool enough to wear them!])
Wait, they think we read every word of their comments as part of a search for enlightenment? LOL.
Hat dude – learn to logic.
While you’re at it could you learn to spell too? “Mysogeny” makes my inner editor cry.
Investigating NWO more, he was definitely not one of the good guys in any way. Sorry about that. Even as a fellow conspiracy theorist, the types of things he said about women and children are awful.
Many of the posts written in response to me are very educational, and would not have been written without my posts. Therefore I serve a useful purpose.
They think we read every word of their comments at all is pushing it. I sure as hell don’t. There’s only so often I can put up with my eyes glazing over.
Argenti – yeah, materialism has two meanings for me; the one that is close to consumerism, I guess, puts value in Stuff; and the one that in my mind usually has “reductionist” attached to it somewhere (probably wrongly!) – the “this physical world is all there is, no spirit, no afterlife” with a side order on occasion of “we’re just chemical reactions and your* emotions aren’t real and don’t matter”.
I think there should be a third meaning. Materialism! The state of being deeply in love with fabric and sewing and knitting and stuff you use material for! Being able to spend hours in Spotlight or Lincraft or Cleggs! Looking at fabric you’d never use in a million years and thinking I HAVE TO HAVE THAT!
*It’s always “your” as in the person being dismissed, not the oh-so-scientific** and superior person speaking.
**Except they’re not.
You serve somewhat of a purpose as a chew toy. Cease to be entertaining and you’ll be discarded.
Good chew toys do their research before praising people.
Materialism the fourth! Being so into interesting textures that you can be stopped in your tracks at a party by anyone wearing leather, silk, brocade, or lace (because you want to touch it).
Yes, it is true that many of the smackdowns of you, PPT, have been both entertaining and educational. I very much enjoy seeing your “arguments” (such as they are) completely eviscerated.
So, thanks?
“Many of the posts written in response to me are very educational, and would not have been written without my posts. Therefore I serve a useful purpose.”
Not for me, you don’t, unless you think being laughed at while I tool around instead of working is useful.
Related category – texture-ism! The tendency to want to try random food products just because the texture might be interesting. In the service of which I bought both oat scones and walnut shortbread at The Cheeseboard in Berkeley today.
Cassandra, I like it! The materialism that carries the danger of rushing up to strangers and saying OMG wheredidyougetthatjacket/jumper/dressdidyouknit/sewit before realising what you’ve just done and expiring of shame on the spot.
OMG IS THAT REAL VELVET IT’S SO PRETTY oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to start randomly stroking your sleeve like that.
Speaking of which, yesterday in the tram I was sitting behind a guy in a cable cardie and counting the stitches to figure out the pattern.
I haz it bad.
that’ll be one cup of coffee, express delivered, plz
ArgentiAnd I’m 95%+ sure pecunium and I agree on the “what you do matters”, but in his case it’s his take on Catholicism.
You aren’t wrong, but it’s more complicated than that; and it would take thousands of words to cover it all, so the answer is:
Not quite. But I’m more works than Grace (you can’t “earn” salvation/heaven” but, “grace without works is dead”.
My take on why what one does matters is that I am not going to bet the bank on an afterlife. Even if I did, this is the here, and the now, and making it better is a good thing. What if there is an afterlife, and it’s Falwellian?
Then someone who didn’t toe the line gets to suffer for all eternity (arguendo: there are logical, and theological problems with that, but work with me). Ok. So I can do one of two things: work to make them miserable here on Earth, as well as the Hell they get in the Afterlife, or I can work to see to it they are enjoying the Creation more, because they aren’t afflicted by their fellow man.
Heck, maybe that will show them the “Glory of God” and they will be saved.
Materialism (in the religio-philosophical realm) is the belief that only life exists. The Material World is all there is.
And you publicly said you have an ideological position.
So you are confessing to a total lack of empathy?
Thanks for letting us know, otherwise we might have missed it.
unh… right. And here I thought it was that you were a gibbering fool. Isiah afflicted the comfortable. You, are whaling on the afflicted.
So more New Testament Pharisee than Old Testament Prophet.
Truthiness: We’re not saying the alliance makes logical sense or is going to last forever.
You aren’t arguing an alliance.
You are deluding yourself. You see a parallelism (which is false) and therefore argue feminism and talibanism are fellow travellers. You stretch this blather from there to actually working together.
It’s bullshit.
The coffee you may have but you will pull this oat scone from my cold dead fingers only.
Pro-patria truthiness: People accuse myself, BRZ and The Black Fedora of posting without sources, wanting free therapy, and tell us to go away. Yet you continue to read every single line of our postings and write long responses to us. If you want us to go away, you must encourage the site owner to ban us. You continue to read us because you are on a search for truth and understand in your hearts that you don’t have all the answers.
If you keep up that back-patting, you will need to see a chiropracter.
We don’t accuse you of it, we observe the facts. Can you show me the sources for the various claims you’ve made? How about the responses to the questions I asked about the theological issues you say you are going to write a treatise on. A treatise which will put it all into perspective?
We respond to you because it amuses us. We respond because silence equals assent. We respond because, absent pushback the ill-informed might think there was no good response to you; and so be deluded into thinking you had some semblance of right on your side.
And no, I don’t think I have all the answers, but I don’t read your lot because I think you have any of them, I read the lot of you because it’s hard to look away from a train wreck.
What is the extreme position (if that’s what the moderates are saying)? Stone them all?
How about this letter from a Republican Member of the House of Representatives:
Open Letter from A Republican Rep to his Colleagues
Git outta my head, Madonna, I don’t like your singing!