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.
So the only reason the second guy was an empathetic bookworm was to get laid? And the minute it didn’t work, he stopped trying to both read and be empathetic?
Huh. Wonder why it didn’t work out for him the first time around – almost as if cloaking oneself in coy manipulative behavior and pretending you can sell timeslots of “listening carefully” and “responding supportively” for “sexual activity” doesn’t work…
Different hypothesis. The reason “young women” date “thugs with shaved heads who communicate in grunts” is because the alternative is dating empathetic bookworms with no spine who, the minute any kind of adversity comes their way, puts down their books and leave because it was all just a pretend-play at getting companionship.
I’ll take grunting over that any day. At least Bob the Thug grunts, I know he’s doing it because its who he is. The mindfuckery of having to double-question every thing Bookanecilous The Reader does would make me go insane.
I find it interesting that when I was young it was often argued that objectionable behavior on the part of men was biologically determined, & that women should therefore just tolerate it & not expect men to attempt to change that behavior. 30 years later, I see MRAs proclaiming that objectionable behavior on the part of women is likewise biologically determined, but rather than concluding that behavior must be accepted because it is the result of unchangeable biology, MRAs cry outrage that women behave according to what the MRAs themselves claim is women’s nature, & demand that women alter their behavior immediately.
Can’t really say I’m surprised, whatever arguments a misogynist uses, whatever terms he frames it in, the conclusion is always the same: women should do whatever *I* want.
Sometimes I think I’m reading something straight from the 18th century.
This (a) makes very little sense, and (b) manages to blame women for everything. Hence my theory that it was actually written by Typhon Blue. XD
@boobury and BabyLawyer
Funny, in both Sixteen Candles and Pretty in Pink, the nerds still get ‘consolation prizes’ of sorts. In the former, the nerd ends up with the hot senior girl, while in the latter, you see other girls giving him a come-hither look at the prom. Even if you judge your reality by movie scenarios, us women seem to have a lot less vitriol for the nerdish types than they commonly assume.
@Amnesia
and I think it’s also worthy of note that in Sixteen Candles, it seems the nerd date raped the prom queen, because she was pass-out drunk. Granted, he had been drinking martinis with Jake Ryan and I doubt he had the best tolerance, but he was coherent at least. 🙁
I love nerdy dudes. Just not angry, bitter, misogynistic ones with shitty hygiene.
@frilledshark
Yeah, PUA types have an interesting way of making sex, the thing they (supposedly) devote themselves to obtaining, sound frankly unappealing. I jokingly theorize that it’s them trying to scare potential male competition away.
Off-topic, but as always, it’s time for anti-equality arguments that make no sense: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/05/29/openly-rejecting-the-concept-of-gender-equality/
“Criminalizing normal male behavior” is only a thing if you think it’s totally normal and cool for men to be violent. Which only makes sense if you assume men are naturally violent.
Is anyone else here actually WAY more afraid of the fictional men that live in MRA’s heads than the real men actually existing in the world? I keep thinking, “no wonder they think we hate men. They have a REALLY scary idea of what men are/should be.”
1: “Showered with Pussy” sounds like one of those ‘careful how you word your wish’ strips from Oglaf.
2: And yeah, 80s teen rom-coms have a LOT to answer for.
Now why does he equate getting contacts and tattoos and going to the gym with acting like an asshole? You can do all three of those without being an asshole. If you think you’d look better in contacts than glasses, you can get contacts. You don’t have to change your behavior. If you think you’d look good with a tattoo, you can get a tattoo. You don’t have to change your behavior. And, while there are a few negative stereotypes about people who go to the gym, it’s ultimately a harmless place. Hell, exercise is good for you and going to the gym more often will probably improve your life (as long as it’s not excessive). Why is improving yourself being an asshole?
That whole “sweet nerd gets rejected by girl, girl dates asshole alpha, sweet nerd BECOMES asshole alpha” ridiculousness makes me think of this
There’s something about this question that fascinates me, but I can’t put my finger on it. A lot of straight men seem to feel downright /betrayed/ by the idea that they might have to make any effort to be attractive to women, as opposed to “earning” women with the strength of their character or general manly awesomeness or something.
It’s like they’d rather insist that women want them to FORSAKE THEIR MORALS, and they’re holding the high ground. Instead of admitting that in all likelihood a lot of straight guys would get more attention if they went to the gym more often or tried to dress more stylishly or made other small, morally neutral efforts like that…
I’m with BabyLawyer: These guys need to get out more and meet real people. They remind me of Chance the Gardener, who has learned everything he knows from watching television (although, if memory serves, he was a lot more appealing). Sometimes I wonder, Can they really believe what they are writing? Or are they just making a lot of noise for attention? I’ll probably never really get a chance to know, however, because they never engage with real people…
@Bob
Funny how he’s already presupposing a patriarchal system (men have the resources and women live off those resources) in order to argue that everything is zero-sum. What an idiot.
Absolutely. If I thought of men the way MRAs do, I’d want to build a fortified woman city and shoot approaching men on sight.
Delurking to say that this is absolutely incredible to me. In my experience, expressing “a problem” with a man – whether it be with his sexist comments, unwelcome sexually aggressive behavior, or any other intrusion on a woman’s autonomy or personal space – to another man, EVEN A SIGNIFICANT OTHER, is frequently, if not usually, met with protests of “he’s not that bad!” or “cut him some slack” or “boys will be boys”, or a million other bro-code placeholders that really mean “I am not concerned that your feelings are being discounted, your boundaries are being violated, or your personal safety might be at risk.”
(Holy run-on sentences, Batman!)
I am so thankful to have a partner who would never consider responding to my concerns about another man that way. He would also never consider physically assaulting another man just because I wanted “to see a guy get beaten up”. What the hell? At best, seeing guys beat each other up makes me want to roll my eyes and flee the scene, at worst, it makes me feel queasy and awful. These men seriously must live in an alternate universe where they can see inside the minds of some very atypical women.
By the way, hi everyone! I enjoy your commentary almost as much as David’s posts!
@Fibinachi – I think Cerberus, & many other MRAs, don’t really know what “empathetic” means, he just saw it used to describe a person positively somewhere so he stuck it onto his bookworm.
They can’t even keep their ridiculous theories straight. One week, women are only attracted to men who look like underwear models. Next week, women are only attracted to rich corporate CEOs. Next week, they’re only into violent criminals. As “proof”, they point to mansophere blogs. That’s like saying “This is undeniably true because I saw it on a late night infomercial!”
Zanana: In addition, they also invariably fail to consider that usually, girls who zero in on tattooed guys who go to the gym are, in fact, tattooed girls who go to the gym. That is, it’s a point in common. If you’re not interested in the gym, or in getting tattoos, or being stylish, that’s fine–but don’t expect, then, to be attractive to women who value those things.
I’m an ubergeek, and have Geek Body Type #2–heavyset and hirsute. (GBT #1, of course, is thin, frail and wan.) It always flummoxed me how many guys who were similar to me in appearance insisted that nothing less than “an 8 or 9” (by their own, arbitrary and usually utterly unrealistic scale) would be good enough for them. And yes, the vast majority of them considered themselves to be–all together, now–“Nice Guys”.
“ne week, women are only attracted to men who look like underwear models. Next week, women are only attracted to rich corporate CEOs. Next week, they’re only into violent criminals” Know that this proves that women a fickle creatures who cant make up their (hive)mind.
I’ve said before that Price believes in a form of trickle-down that makes the most brazen and absurd of Reagonomics look proven. Even running with his supposition that gender disparities don’t actually exist:
“We are being manipulated to think and behave as though the abstract, arbitrarily defined divisions between men and women represent real, physical phenomena. The concept of “gender equality” rests entirely on the false premise that there is a division between the sexes, which provides almost all of the quantitave measures by which gender equality is determined.”
[G]oing from there to his implication that men’s money is women’s money assumes an equivalency between earning the money and being allowed it that’s absurd if you know that employers have power over employees. Though he’s claimed before that men should essentially hire their wives (source: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/07/04/careerism-and-fidelity/), so instead of repeating my usual claim that Price doesn’t understand basic economics (and things so basic I wouldn’t call them that), perhaps he’s being honest with himself, if not with others, in his belief that men should rule women.
This made me think about Julia Serano’s “Why nice guys finish last”. It’s very interesting, I really like this article. Have you read it? She does make a distinction between nice guys that are in fact nice and the “nice guys” that are referred here, which are far from nice. So she is not talking about this concept, but analysis a dichotomy “nice guys x assholes”.
https://www.geneseo.edu/webfm_send/3244
I also wonder about other things… I have friends who are nerds and geeks, some of them not attractive in the mainstream idea of attractive. These guys are really great guys and always have a girlfriend/boyfriend or a date of some sort. Never had a problem in this area. Maybe as teens, but not from their 20’s onwards.
-10/10
Pathetic trolling
Ah, but that’s not even the claim your ill-informed manosphere buddies are making. Their claim is that ALL women have evolved to be attracted exclusively only to the same type of man. But the manosphere dudebros can’t seem to agree on exactly what type of hypothetical ubermensch it is. It’s your bros who are confused, although I guess to be fair, I’d be confused to if I got all my ideas about how the world works from reality tv, mra blogs, and porn.
Some actual good news, though? I saw on r/againstmensrights that Facebook apparently agreed (finally!) to add gender based hate speech to it’s list of prohibited content, after several women’s groups put pressure on them:
http://www.reddit.com/r/againstmensrights/comments/1f9lub/things_were_weird_up_in_here_yesterday_heres_a/
An mra commented that this development “ruins” Facebook for him. Because apparently Facebook just isn’t worth it if assholes like him can’t make fun of women being abused.