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.
@cassandrasays
Equal power as Virgin/Whore (or Madonna/Whore, depending on what version we’re looking at)? I wouldn’t dream of it, because there’s a whole system backing that at a stronger level, and (as always) men are allowed to be individuals as opposed to archetypes at a far greater level than women in our society.
But that said, I think you’re underestimating this as a cultural narrative. While Serrano is using “NiceGuy/Asshole” with its unfortunate high school and Internet NiceGuy(tm) resonances, you can find evidence of this split all over the culture. It’s part of how we construct masculinity in its lovely toxic forms. I mean, the “Bad Boy” archetype isn’t some obscure academic idea. 🙂
LBT:
Okay, having come far in the analysis of the MRA mindset, I can eke out the notion here.
MRAs desire virgins because it’s the sign of control–the woman ‘belongs’ to you, completely (by their way of thinking). The poster is claiming that he doesn’t want to have sex with non-virgins. If a woman lies and says she is a virgin, she’s theoretically violating his right to set conditions on his sexuality. This, in turn, becomes a case of deceptive rape in his widdle, icky mind. On the surface, if you blink a lot, squint, and don’t look at it very long, and have a screaming headache, it might actually look like a legit position.
Of course, what it fails to comprehend is the difference between past and present. The whole notion of virginity as a ‘thing’ is horribly flawed, because it defines a person’s current state by some act that occurred in the past, with no particular justification for doing so.
Prior sexual conduct does not, in fact, create a change in status of a woman. There are aspects and consequences of prior conduct which are fair to address (for instance, is your partner free of STIs?). While a declaration of ‘virginity’ may speak to them, so too does a reasonable attitude towards sexual health (such as getting the occasional test if you’re sexually active with multiple partners over time, or otherwise involved in non-monogamous relationships).
The woman who lies about her ‘virginity’ is roughly equivalent to a guy who maybe broke the law when he was a teenager and has since lived a law-abiding life, who conceals the past crime from current partners. He is not a criminal now, and his past criminal behavior (because of record sealing) has no impact on how he can live his life going forward, so lying about that past conduct, while perhaps not admirable, is also not rape-by-deception.
Rape by deception, on the other hand, is a deliberate attempt to obscure relevant information about your current state of being, NOT about past conduct. If you conceal the fact that you’re an HIV carrier, that’s a major violation of their right to say no to that particular risk, and utterly unacceptable.
Oh, and Navy-Blue Cap is clearly unworthy of engagement except for stick-poking purposes. Pro-Taliban feminism is an amusing concept, but not something you actually get in this version of reality.
Wha… whu… whaaaat?
Asshat, your opinions on the complexity of the world count about as much as a manatee accountant without a calculator. Is the belief that “the world is not complex, people just need to see that I’m right” part of your right-wing moral superiority complex? Because it sure stinks like confirmation bias, narcissism and a couple of other things I dare not name.
The complexity of the world stems from the fact that when multiple people with different personalities and life goals occupy the same space, there’s bound to be clashes and disagreements. Listening to and understanding other viewpoints is crucial in maintaining harmony within a large group of people. An unwavering belief in the complete righteousness of your cause has led to many bad things in history. Quit with the “objective morality” thing already.
This is off-topic, but I wanted to post this here since it’s the most active thread. I asked her about sharing it with everyone here, and she said that she would appreciate that.
My philosophy teacher recently sent a reader query to Feminist Philosophers, asking for any advice or thoughts on her situation at this community college she used to teach at. She was recently involved in trying to help a female student who was sexually harassed by a classmate, and she has faced quite a few problems.
Here’s the whole story: http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/reader-query-about-response-to-sexual-harassment/
hahahaha omg i can’t believe i missed this
hahahahahahahahahahahaha
“FEMINISTS ALIGN WITH TALIBAN, SUPPORT THEOCRATIC PATRIARCHY” said no headline ever.
Dark-Chapeau is also of the “that was then” school of troll. He has abandoned arguments in other threads (I don’t recall seeing any further response from him about the problems in his theory of evolutionary “proof” regarding the nature of human breasts), and proceeds in new threads as if he has some expectation of credibility positions, as if every utterance was both, ab initio and presumptively authoritative.
The clue, he doesn’t have it.
Aaliyah, I don’t really have any advice; it sounds like your professor did the right thing. I guess he is denying sending the sexually graphic PMs, but that seems like a matter for their IT department to look into. If he’s acknowledging sending that public message to/about the same student, that also seems inappropriate.
Funny that as evidence of this supposed universal situation of women only dating violent criminals, Brz has to pull up a hypothetical example of a nerdy boy who lives in a high crime, gang-controlled neighborhood, yet this boy still for some reason believes he needs to have sex with the hottest girls in the neighborhood before he goes to university.
Sorry, “nice guy shaming” isn’t an actual thing. And in any case, feminists don’t have a problem with guys who are nice. They have a problem with “NiceGuy(tm)’s”. Notice the ™.
A guy who is nice is nice because that’s just how he is. His niceness isn’t a ploy to get something from someone.
A NiceGuy(tm) is a guy who acts nice to a girl with the expectation that he’ll get sex in return. When he doesn’t get the sex he thought he was somehow entitled to, he turns angry and bitter, and rather than learn the grown-up lesson that not everyone will be sexually or romantically interested in you, and that nobody owes anyone sex or a romantic relationship, he goes online whining about how he’s totes such a great guy but he keeps getting put in the “friend zone” by ungrateful bitches. Unlike a guy who happens to be nice, a NiceGuy(tm) isn’t actually nice at all. He’s a whiny, bitter asshole using pretend niceness as a ploy to try to get into a woman’s pants. And THAT is why feminists don’t like NiceGuy(tm)s.
Don’t have time to read all the comments now, but if Mr “feminists just lurve the Taliban” isn’t a Poe he’s the dumbest person ever to dumb in the history of dumbasses.
I suspect that the thing about women dating bad boys is probably one of those things that people “just know” is true, but isn’t actually what people think it is. Like in reality it’s maybe more of a “people of all genders sometimes date people who are horrible people, because sometimes horrible people are still attractive for other reasons, and being really attracted to someone can cloud your judgement” thing.
There are plenty of men who date bad girls, women who date bad girls, men who date bad boys, etc. but the popular narrative focuses on good girl/bad boy, so that’s what people tend to notice when it happens.
@ lightcastle
You appear to have completely misunderstood my point. Nice guy/asshole certainly seems to have some cultural resonance, but that resonance is mainly in the minds of men. Witness the complete bafflement of most women when men start going on about it. There may be some exceptions, mostly among the young, but if you think that it’s common for adult women to obsess over this idea the way a lot of men do you’re flat out wrong.
Also the smiley at the end of the comment was rather obnoxious. Let me mansplain your own feelings about male archetypes to you with a grin! Or maybe don’t do that.
@ Fibinachi
Thank you.
I have been with a friend who nearly died this weekend (technically he did die) from a heart attack. He is younger than me and was working long hours to support three sons that he never sees. We discussed lifestyle for a bit and maybe one part of him is actually waiting for that second heart attack that will finish him off. Death would be a release for him.
Sometimes the waste gets to me. It is so relentless and inhuman.
Nevertheless you have done me good. I sense that you once got involved with feminism to do good- not because you intend to destroy other people.
Ideology destroys empathy. If you are a feminist it is men who are evil and if you are a MRA it is feminism and big government.
I am so tired with it all. I really wish there was some way out. If not for this generation then for the next.
I loathe “tough guys” or blokes who aim to look tough or act that way. Did at school, too. They were usually bullying louts back then.
Also! Because the condescension in that comment really annoyed me. The idea of the “bad boy” as a lot of men deploy it seems to mean “man who is physically attractive and perhaps has long hair/tattoos/some other sign of being outside the mainstream”. Thing is, none of those things make someone an asshole. The whole thing is an attempt by men to frame women’s preferences for men who aren’t them as pathological, imo. Which is why having someone try to reinforce that social tendency for men to reframe women’s clearly stated preferences as meaning something other than what the woman say they mean, complete with smiley, grates like nails dragged down a chalkboard.
whut
lightcastle – when you say “spread all over the culture” are you talking about the sort of shit one sees in films or television or advertising, (made, surprise surprise, largely by men for men) or about real women’s thoughts and experiences? If you’re saying the former then it makes more sense to me, but if you do mean it’s how women frame things then no.
Aaliyah – or in the case of MRAs, the total lack of empathy leads to their ideology.
Christ. It seems trolls either want a free dom or free therapy. Which, of course, is laced with a heavy helping of mansplaining. Gross.
@ CasandraSays
I really wish these was no truth in the radical Islam/ feminist alliance.
It was very evident during the ‘stop the war’ marches which were jointly organised. The psychology of these marches seemed to be based upon a form of Nice Guy shaming. The basic concept was that the coalition forces must have some evil intent because nobody wants to bring democracy and prosperity to a nation. This is identical to the way kind and decent men are treated. Feminists seem to find it impossible to believe that a man could actually like or care for women. He must be an evil Nice Guy! Destroy him!!
We saw the same thing in local government. The radical Islamist and the feminists succeeded in getting some librarys segregated according to sex. For the Isalmist it was religious and for the feminists it was about rape- but they worked together very well.
Keep fucking that chicken, bro. Maybe it’ll shit out more assfax for you.
It was very evident during the ‘stop the war’ marches which were jointly organised. The psychology of these marches seemed to be based upon a form of Nice Guy shaming. The basic concept was that the coalition forces must have some evil intent because nobody wants to bring democracy and prosperity to a nation. This is identical to the way kind and decent men are treated. Feminists seem to find it impossible to believe that a man could actually like or care for women. He must be an evil Nice Guy! Destroy him!!
Deeply, pathetically, almost impossibly stupid.
So there was absolutely no opposition to the wars from people not identifying specifically, and exclusively, as feminists? And the U.S. has an excellent track record of bringing democracy and prosperity to other nations?
Got it.
I don’t know how you manage to chew food. I mean, do you get it from the fork and into your mouth but then just sit there because you aren’t sure how the actual chewing works?
Block quote monster!!!! That top part is a quote.
Ha! Oh thank FSM I wasn’t drinking my tea – or you would owe me one keyboard and refreshed tea.
Please accept this gift-wrapped internet. It smells like peaches.