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.
I should note that that’s a Wikipedia article I linked to and has no images, so, safe to look.
I saw the most grotesque caption to one picture of an anencephalic baby – “all God’s grace in your sweet little face”. Didn’t go to the site, but if it’s not making a very dubious joke, then WTF sort of “grace” is it where an interventionist deity lets a fetus develop sans brain in the first place?
@Nepenthe & Kitteh, How awful. 0_o
I had no idea that feminists invented dueling in the 1960s! I was there and somehow it got by me.
I will now go back and read the thread.
@Kittehserf
I found the site you’re talking about. It’s not a joke. The author explains how her child’s deformity and death was a result of sin, because God would never plan something like that.
*spits*
I missed that too! Does that mean all the time Sir spent trying to stop his nobles killing each other off in the 1620s was imaginary? He’ll be astounded to learn that.
Nepenthe – oh, puke. That’s the most horrible … I don’t even.
Who invented sin in the first place, in that setup? Why, I do believe it was Mr Omnisicent Omnipotent himself!
Give me Ceiling Cat any time.
@kittieserf — I’d like to read that, lightcastle.
It’s a work in progress. I’ve got something of a busy week, so it probably won’t get written until the weekend at best.
In my world that’s fast! I take weeks and months to get stuff written if it gets done at all. And that’s when I don’t have the knitting bug!
Wait, what if I am running and working out, but not hitting the gym, and have a tattoo a woman designed for me, and am still a medical writer/bookworm? Am I a criminal thug yet?
@MDubz and Cassandra – Agreed about the confidence thing, but I think that this is actually part of the issue. Just as Virgin/Whore doesn’t actually reflect real people, neither does Asshole/NiceGuy. The constellation of stereotypes isn’t a very good representation of the reality, but it does loom large as an archetype/schema in the heads of people. Thus people get pushed to be interpreted as one or the other. Thus since confidence “belongs” to the Asshole stereotype, all attractive confidence must be jerk behaviour. (Since sexuality belongs to the whore stereotype, all women who enjoy sex are whores.)
@Aaliyah — I have problems with her “women just need to try harder to like nice guys” narrative as well, but as mentioned by Zarana, the pegging queen, the predator/prey dynamic was useful to me and the parallel damaging archetype of Nice Guy/Asshole to Virgin/Whore as well.
@Black Bloc – Do you leave the book lying around as advertising? Because otherwise I’m not sure how that works. 🙂
@thread – I can’t even with that NY Times story.
@Kittiserf – I am sometimes motivated for things (Like bringing SooJ to Montreal and writing pieces inspired by standing in line at Free Museum Day.)
I think I’m failing the Social Constructs of MRAs test again. 🙁
One could say at a stretch that the Mister is a criminal – I guess anyone who leads armies or has the say on a country going to war could get that description. Don’t think thug’s quite right, even without racist connotations.
Gym work – nope, never. Didn’t used to like reading but he does now and wears specs on occasion … does girly craft stuff … used to go hunting a lot … doesn’t have any tattoos. On the other hand I do have tattoos, went to a gym (briefly and Never Again). Neither of us communicates via grunt, or at least not as a general thing.
Where do we fit in? How can we know if we’re doin it rite or not?
You mean in the heads of men, in the latter case. Asshole/Nice Guy as an archetype holds very little emotional resonance for most women, in my experienc. The fact that men assume that it must hold equal power in the minds of women is a reflection of the tendency of men to universalize their experiences and not even bother asking if women share them.
As I’ve said before, I think many Nice Guy(TM) :s DEFINE “asshole” as “man who gets laid a lot”, making it trivially true that assholes gets lots of sex and women likes to sleep with assholes.
It should be the first line of “ghetto nerds : how to leave the underclass easily for dummies” and the second line would be “once you stop caring about what girls think about you, you stop fearing ending up in jail”.
Take your typical nerdy boy who happens to live in a place which is almost entirely structured by and around the drug business, where the local models of masculinity are tough guys who do illegal things that will certainly send them to jail soon, where the hottest girls of the neighborhood hang out with the toughest guys, where the desirability of a guy depends on his ability to do illegal things that will probably send him to jail.
If this boy decide to not play the game, to not play tough in order to attract girls because he prefers preserving his chances to go to university and leave the neighborhood rather than banging girls or simply because he knows that he’s unable to look tough anyway, his problem won’t be the tough guys, they don’t care about other guys as long as they don’t compete with them, it will be the girls, especially if the guy is somewhat handsome : they will punish him for not playing the game, for not trying to impress them, for not daring to look tough for them. They’ll bully him, they’ll say he’s gay, they’ll spread rumors about him, they’ll just harass him as long as he conforms to what they want : a wannabe tough guy who do stupid things to impress the girls which will put him at risk of ending up in jail.
It’s a good life lesson : don’t do stupid things you don’t want to do, which are bad for you, even if people call you a “pussy” for not doing them, it should be one of the few things every father should absolutely teach to his son : if they need to shame you to make you do something, it’s probably because it’s not a good thing to do.
Each time I hear people like you telling how men should behave by saying that the men who don’t do as you say are creepy basement-dwellers who should not be with women ever, I think that if you need to attack, literally, bellow the belt, it’s probably because what you propose is neither reasonable, neither logical, and that the real shame in the story, is that some adults permit themselves to behave in society like we were still in middle school.
I really do hate how MRAs see the world in such simple terms. Even though they would never listen, it should be obvious that people have different tastes and that they do fit a certain taste for women. But I guess you have to get out the house to know that.
Some women, are really friendly when I just show some mild interest in them. Others see my peaceful behavior, or think I’m funny, and think I’m a great guy. Sure, it doesn’t mean I get to have sex with them, but I’m sure those same women would be happy to see me happy with some woman. I really have the strange feeling some of those guys are liked by girls more than they believe. They just need to drop the, “Y can’t i fuk u” game.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in maximum security prison (work related!), and yes, there are women who go for these guys. But guess what? Those women are not a majority, and they tend to have issues of their own.
Brz, please stop pulling out arsedata and arsefacts, they stink up the place something awful.
@pollydactyl
I think their standard answer to that challenge would be calling you unattractive.
Brz’s arsedata is still less offensive to the mind than his poetry. At least it’s French so if you click by mistake on his profile link, most of you won’t suffer like I did.
Word of mouth. But the technique that enables the word of mouth, that’s 90% this book, at least. What I really like about it is the “Here’s a few recipes, women like different things so none of them are necessarily the ONE thing to do, you’ll need to get feedback on what works or not” attitude of the book, which makes sense seeing as it was written by a woman (and I would say “for women”, though not in the sense that it’s for lesbians ;)).
I suspect the attitude that lead you to read that book in the first place has helped as well.
Kim,
You do realize that the book is a Game classic right? And that this site likes to believe Game is manipulative?
@Cassandra- I think the archetype of “asshole=confidence” can hold some UNCONSCIOUS resonance for some young women. Like, they’re not seeking assholes out. They don’t want assholes. But it can take some of them time to unlearn the “asshole/ nice guy” rubric and come up with a new one to find confident, self-assured guys who won’t treat them like shit. But I think that’s part of unlearning the destructive dating patterns that a lot of us have when we are young, for various reasons.
@ Brz
Well done that man.