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.
That’s an interesting combination, cloudiah – I either gargle or, if no water’s available, hold my breath. Must try this way!
“The Golem and the Jinni” is the title.
Shiraz — idk, maybe? My perception here is biased in a manner rather unrelated to feminism — I was 16, in 11th grade, when the towers fell (and in CT) — graduated at 17 when most of my graduating class was 18, my peers were some of the first to sign up for these wars in other words. And pecunium and I have discussed it at length. None of them signed up to “bring peace”, they signed up to…settle a racist vendetta basically (racism alert! Shit like “gonna kill me some towelheads” yeeeahh)
In any case, I can’t view the soldiers as the Nice Guys here. Either their reasons where fucked up, or they signed up before the war. Surely some signed up for the college money and the other reasons people joined before the war, but again, nice guys bringing peace? Nope.
Which leaves me with “he must’ve meant the people in charge”.
But yeah, being completely ignorant is far more likely.
LBT — that sounds awesome, your link is open in another tab and will be gotten to momentarily!
RE: cloudiah
Oh wow, that looks good and very much of interest to me. I shall have to find a way to get my mitts on it somehow…
Mhm?
Lynchage is a very often used French word and each time a French uses it, it brings back the memory of what happened in France during the épuration after WWII, the lynching mob shaving the heads of women accused of having slept with German soldiers, the denunciations, the beatings, the hysteric atmosphere of snitching, settlings of accounts between neighbors and scapegoating. It’s a French trauma and you should have known that if you had the knowledge of French culture you pretend to have.
But you will say that it’s appropriation because shaving women heads as a punishment is a CRIME AGAINST WOMEN and not something we can see as being part of a lynching mentality, isn’t it?
My previous comment was a response to this :
Oh brz… You are still failing. You made a very specific point about us needing to know about US history, to understand your use of lynching. Now, because I took you at face value in that statement…
I am suddenly supposed to know that you weren’t talking about the US experience of lynching (which you were spot on for tone and tenor), but rather that of a brief period of time in France, which was about shaming, as opposed to killing?
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
The amazing thing is I’m about to pat you on the back for being able to say something negative about another troll. That never happens. One of the others asked NWOslave to guest post on his blog.
Wasn’t that Steele, who was Sock Most Ignored By Other Trolls, among his other *cough* accomplishments *cough*?
Yes, yes it was. Because Mr. Al is that desperate for friends.
Unless he was trolling Owly as well. It’s hard to imagine anyone being desperate enough to court his friendship!
I think that was him having fun with us; creating a more believable persona. Someone so clueless as to be courting NWO.
The amusing part was how that persona was ignored by all the trolls – and gods know they weren’t exactly smart.
Now I know why I had such an excellent time in Saudi; feminists ERRYWHERE!
Wait a tick – I hated being in Saudi while a woman. It was dreadful.
I had a lousy time in Iraq, it was the women… oh no, it was the men who were trying to kill me (and some other shit, but the men trying to kill me were top of the list, sort of. You know what mean).
You know those men shooting at you are radical feminists, right? Controlled by women, right?
Why, Fedora already even explained that! Of course we went to war because of radical feminism’s fight against materialism and hatred of Nice Guys!!
That snapping sound you just heard was my brain breaking.
Oh… Shit. I never figured that part out. So… wow. I’m so ashamed. I was worrying about my brothers, and if I’d only been willing to IGNORE THE FUCKING BULLETS, we could have united against our oppressors.
I am so ashamed.
@pecunium
-_-
You said :
I know you’re not able to grasp what an underlying tone is so I will try to make myself clear :no, it’s not “purely American”, because we use the term lynchage in French both in the literal and figurative sense and when people use this term, they generally don’t refer to the hanging of black people in the US but to something more close to them : the way people exercised justice themselves without fair trials in an atmosphere of mass hysteria after the liberation in France (it wasn’t only about shaming, we had also a great deal of summary executions) , so you’re just, as usual, full of shit when you say that it’s something someone “who isn’t culturally attuned” to American culture “can pull off”.
There was another thing which was underlined in the second part of my previous comment : the image people have in mind in France when we talk about the épuration is militiamen shaving women’s heads in the street in front of the crowds, like when we say lynching in the US, people have in mind the image of black people hung on a tree, even if lynching weren’t something that have been invented to target specifically black people, I implied that, as in the popular culture the épuration is associated with “crime against women”, you could have accuse me of appropriating the suffering of one group I don’t belong to, like Briznecko accused me of appropriating the suffering of black people, something I’m not supposed to do being not black.
It was just a little dig about your ongoing tentative to circumscribe the domain of the recognized suffering by trying to police the use of words.
“…of appropriating the suffering of one group I don’t belong to, like Briznecko accused me of appropriating the suffering of black people, something I’m not supposed to do being not black.”
Tautology is tautological. You can only appropriate struggles that you don’t suffer from, it’s in the definition. And you’re an even bigger asshole than I thought if you think that saying appropriation is wrong is some sort of word policing.
Well, there are pages and pages of comments for me to catch up on, and we seem to have moved on to the Iraq war and lynching
Despite the flailing and word salad, FauxFrench remains a Fucking Racist Asshole.
Oh.. Poor Brz, his words are biting him, which he uses partial context (of both my words,and his) to try and dodge his failures.
I said,”That’s purely American, and requires cultural knowledge to use in that sort of insinuational method“, because you made none, null, zero, reference to non-US lynching, and got on a high-horse about how we needed to learn, “our” history when we responded to your tone perfect usage of “lynch” in the dimissive tones of the USian race-baiter.
Now you flail, saying that all the subtexts of France were supposed to be in our minds; despite your not invoking them at all: Your defense of your position wasn’t, “Oh, well you have to realise I view lynching through the lens of épuration, it was, “you don’t know “your” own history”. When that was thrown back in your face, you backpedaled to the, “I’m a poor frenchman”. No dice.
Because you were appropriating US lynching, not invoking épuration.
But go ahead, keep fucking that poulet.
OK, time for a French language lesson.
The chicken you eat does not have the same name as the chicken you fuck (if that’s your thing) en français.
La poule is the living animal one might make love to.
Le poulet is the dead animal destined to be dined upon.
Unless of course we’re talking about making love to a chicken, quite dead and hot out of the oven, in which case one is indeed fucking le poulet. Otherwise, they’re fucking la poule.
You understand?