The recent video clip [1] illustrating yet again the assumptions inherent in the domestic violence industry can be partially understood from the “women good … men bad” narrative that dominates our thinking.
Where does the narrative for the domestic violence industry come from? Domestic violence, as one manifestation of gynocentrism, goes much deeper than the “women good men bad” narrative would suggest.
Gynocentrism and Matriarchal Authority
This topic relates to things I’ve posted before on AVfM. So before going farther down this rabbit hole, because of its importance to this discussion, let us recap on the nature and extent of matriarchal authority and the importance of the primary nurturer in defining the things that matter:
- What is it that is behind the gynocentrism that characterizes Western culture (and, arguably, all cultures)? What is “first cause,” the primary reason? It is the primary nurturer. It is under the primary nurturer’s care that most of a child’s neuroplastic brain is wired—one informed estimate being that 90% of a human brain’s wiring is accomplished within the first four years of life. And in most cultures throughout most of human history, the primary nurturer has tended to be the mother. The primary nurturer is our primary trainer, training us about the ways of our culture and the things that matter within our culture. The trainer–trainee dynamic has much in common with how a lion tamer is able to train a lion, provided that the trainer raises said lion from the time that it is introduced to them as a cub. These ideas relate to matters of philosophy and theory, such as phenomenology, semiotics, existentialism, and systems theory.
- If it is mostly mothers that wire brains, then the role of fathers, by contrast, is best understood in the context of cultural evolution and improvement, and undoing the baggage of imperfect wiring. Remember, before feminism, when it was permissible to talk about schizophrenogenic mothers? Cultural traditions and religions have always placed man in the more spiritual role. This is the role of freeing oneself of the mother’s and the culture’s definitions. MGTOW and all that.
- Given the role of the primary nurturer, it would seem self-evident that children first learn violence from their primary nurturer. It is well established that women play at least as crucial a role in child abuse as men do. For example, in 2012, of the perpetrators of child abuse and neglect in the US, 53.5% were women and 45.3% were men [2]. Of child fatalities (in the same report for 2012), 27.1% were perpetrated by the mother acting alone and 17.1% were perpetrated by the father acting alone. Women are regarded as the primary perpetrators of infanticide [3], [4]. “Infanticide is a crime overwhelmingly committed by women, both in the Third and First Worlds,” writes Adam Jones of Gendercide Watch [5]. Women have been overwhelmingly implicated in other categories of child harm, such as Münchausen’s syndrome by proxy, but given the nature of contemporary agendas that are less than forthright, these references are becoming increasingly “controversial.”
- Matriarchal subcultures are often the source of violence. Irrespective of which part of the world you come from, many women choose thugs because, coming from the same abusive upbringing, thugs resonate with their own abusive natures. Like with like, and all that. But there is a further entitlement granted to an abusive woman when she chooses the company of violent thugs … they do her dirty work. Like that woman in Septa, Philadelphia, who cellphoned her accomplice thugs from the bus that she was on. They responded by arriving and shooting out the bus, after ushering her off, because another passenger on the bus criticized her abusive parenting skills. These are thugs who were likely raised by women. Usually raised by abusive women themselves, thugs know instinctively what’s expected of them as men. Their womenfolk can direct proceedings from a safe distance without having to so much as lift a finger and without having to confront the sorts of risks that they are exposed to. Such is often the nature of nurturing matriarchies—if Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy. Tommy Sotomayor’s video clip [6] provides an excellent illustration of how this works.
- Think about it … the very success of feminism is itself an expression of the power of unbridled matriarchal authority that has refused to allow itself to be tested.
- These ideas are also related to hypergamy [7]. You don’t need to be a PUA to understand the importance of women’s hypergamy.
- Even in cultures said to have the worst reputations in the world for denying women their rights, matriarchs seem to wield considerable influence in defining the conduct that is to be expected of their sons. For example:
- On Australian 60 Minutes (subject “Human Bombs,” August 19, 2001) [8], a Palestinian woman declared, raising her voice, trying to convince the ignorant Westerner who just didn’t seem to “get it,” that she wants her son to die, to become a hero for the Arab cause—as the camera panned across to the innocent face of a little boy not even into his teens.
- In The Australian newspaper (November 15, 2005), Natalie O’Brien’s [9] front-page headline reads, “Mum’s permission needed for terror plan.” Quoting from evidence before Sydney’s Central Local Court, spiritual leader Abdul Nacer Benbrika is quoted as saying, “Some people claim to love jihad but don’t respect their own parents.… You need permission from your parents to go to jihad. If your mother says no to jihad, then no jihad.” Two days later, Mazen Touma (alleged to have been training for jihad) asked for his mother’s permission to undertake jihad. Her response did not appear in the police evidence, and she refused to speak to the media.
- Muslim women are not the wilting wallflowers that feminists prefer to portray them as. They may not have the same “rights” as their men, but there is every reason to interpret their purported absence of rights in the context of their privileged, protected status on the pedestal and men’s servitude unto them. Ayam Sirias [10] does an outstanding job of dispelling the established narrative.
For all their blather about the patriarchy making women invisible, it would seem that it is feminists who are most keen to make the matriarchy invisible. But we digress. Let us now explore adult women’s choices and why it is that women are often predisposed to choosing gorillas over poets … for, ultimately, that seems to be a large part of the unspoken narrative playing out behind the scenes in the domestic violence industry.
Bully–Victim Narrative
Merrick [11] introduces us to the relationship between self-confidence and exposure to risk, and how the infantilization of women predisposes them to diminished confidence and lower self-esteem. This, in turn, has a wider psychological impact on the relationship between the submissive and the dominant. This plays a major part in the choices that adult women make. So how does this relate to the preference that many women have for brutes? Let us take a closer look.
Much has been written about the power of the tyrant, and how a tyrant can only earn respect by being tyrannical. The willing deference of submissives to those who dominate them is a well-established psychological phenomenon, as it relates to the bully–victim narrative. The complicity of submissives within the context of oppression comes under different labels, depending on one’s agenda. For example, there is the Stockholm syndrome [12]. Other writers make reference to the bully–victim narrative in the context of cultures, for example, violent–passive tribes, why thuggish rulers are respected more than peaceful ones, etc. It is generally accepted that there is no such thing as a gentle, respectful tyrant. One example from Elias Canetti’s (1973) Crowds and Power [13]:
One of the main attributes of an African king was his absolute power over life and death. The terror that he spread was tremendous. ‘You are now Ata, you have power over life and death. Kill everyone who says he does not fear you’: thus the formula of investiture of the king of Igara. He killed as he pleased and gave no reason. His wish was sufficient; he did not have to account for it. In many cases he was not allowed to shed blood himself, but the executioner who did it for him was the one indispensable official of his court. Whether the man who started by occupying that office ultimately became Prime Minister, as in Dahomey, or whether there were hundreds of executioners who formed a kind of caste, as in Ashanti; whether executions were frequent or were limited to occasional cases, the pronouncement of death sentences was always the undisputed right of the king and if he let any considerable time pass without exercising it the terror essential to his power was lost; he was no longer feared, but was held in contempt.
The last sentence is key “… he was no longer feared, but was held in contempt.” This bully–victim dynamic plays out not only in violent tribes in far-off places, but also in modern democracies and in households characterized by violence, whether between a woman and a man or a parent and their child. A woman’s preference for thugs does not magically materialize from a vacuum. She knows what she wants and she knows how to get it. This needs to be unpacked to properly understand it.
Mostly without realizing it, PUA Game is actually an attempt to harness the submissive–dominant narrative with the intention to manipulate women. Summarizing the main implications of the submissive–dominant narrative, as it applies to female psychology and the spontaneity with which women often pair with troglodytes:
- Women often spook easily the closer that a man is to what they are looking for. If a man does not make it easy for her, a woman’s rationalization hamster kicks in, she works herself into a lather, plays hard-to-get, etc., and the poor dude has to flee, wondering WTF just happened. A groping brute, by contrast, can free a woman of all that angst and anticipation. Why? Because his intrusive impulsiveness disarms her. While there is little to be expected of a brute, there is little to get worked up about. There is no anticipation of loss to fear because there is little to lose. Everyone’s much more relaxed and at peace with the world, and this primes her for submission and earns him an easy notch.
- When a woman chooses a brute, she validates him. She is casting her vote in favour of what she thinks all men should be. From her choice, many women learn what’s hot, and many men learn what works … and her children acquire the training necessary to carry on the family tradition into future generations. Spreading the karma.
- Women most relate to the average in man. They do not relate well to excellence in man. This is one of the ways in which the bell-curve distributions for men’s and women’s intelligence expresses itself. This is why the tradition has always been for men to initiate and to disarm … it is the man who knows himself better than the woman knows herself, and her only option is to defer to the knower and the doer. Women feel least threatened by the loser in man … he is but an invisible utility device, as expendable as a toaster.
- One often reads of women choosing bad boys with the intention of trying to convert them. From the preceding discussion, we now see how this would work. Women spook easily when they encounter the formidable in man. Many would rather try to convert an adolescent, emotionally stunted brute who is non-threatening than relate to a self-assured adult who knows himself.
- Given the absence of risk in women’s lives, what with being provided for, affirmative action, the option to regard employment as a hobby instead of a necessity, etc., it is fair to conclude that the deferential (submissive) role will more likely fall to women than to men.
- Further to the absence of risk in women’s indulgent, provided-for lives, choosing a thug can provide spice to an otherwise predictable routine, it annoys over-controlling parents and sends a clear message for them to back off, and it draws attention to oneself as an innocent victim.
- Within the context of the bully–victim narrative, submissives will also be bullies to those who cannot defend themselves— i.e., their children—hence, women as abusers of children.
- From Canetti’s passage, “… he [the tyrant] was no longer feared, but was held in contempt.” A consistent narrative for a woman who inexplicably finds herself sipping a latte with a deferential beta instead of sculling beer with an exciting brute would be along the lines of: “There must be something wrong with him for believing that I am worthy … what a loser.” Many a brute is instinctively aware that a good thrashing can bring his errant spouse back into line, and he realizes that she won’t respect anything less. Of course, the odds are that he probably learned this first from his primary nurturer and the context in which he grew up.
- Women often conflate manliness with “degenerate” or “animal.” The more brutish a man, the hotter, to many a woman, he must be. What can be manlier than a mumbling gorilla lunging for a grope? The idea of the formidable man as poet, or inventor, or leader, or discoverer is alien to many women’s mindsets.
- Often a brute is profitable—Hypergamy 101. A brute with money is less likely to question his existence or her motives, and Material Girl will often overlook his obvious flaws and regard him as an appropriate lifestyle choice. This puts Material Girl in the driver’s seat, where she is in control of whether she stays or leaves. Grrrl power and all that.
- Last but certainly not least is the thrill of the forbidden—more specifically, the cultural forbidden. The forbidden lies at the interface between the cultural known and the unknown. This goes into deep psychology, philosophy, and phenomenology that are beyond the scope of this conversation. While abstract in theory, it has practical implications that can be understood within the context of men’s versus women’s sexualities. For example, a brute with attitude can stir a woman’s primal motivations in ways that a deferential beta cannot, but the same analogies cannot be extended to men’s primal motivations.
Of course, not all women choose brutes. Far from it. But it is important to understand that when a woman does choose a thug, she’s making an active choice. She knows what she wants. Often she may not know, in the early days, that he’s actually a thug, but she will be drawn to the dominant and/or the profitable in him. To this kind of woman, a deferential beta won’t get a look-in. Contrary to what popular lore would have us believe, woman is not a helpless wallflower being preyed on by opportunistic, clever men. It is a strange irony indeed that feminists don’t see the misogyny behind their presumption of women as lame and without agency. In the 1960s during the emergence of contemporary feminism, feminists used to spit on the chivalrous, suited chumps who would open car doors for them. These days, it would make more sense for them to spit on themselves.
The Moral Breakdown of a Domestic Violence Industry
America’s Founding Fathers understood some very important aspects of human nature when they framed the US Constitution. They understood, for example, the importance of personal responsibility. Most cultural and religious traditions in civilized societies understand the importance of personal responsibility… or at least, before feminism, they used to. In addition to appealing to commonsense, there is also a rational/scientific basis for this reasoning, for example, within the context of philosophy or the fields of systems and complexity theory. That is to say, personal responsibility plays a role in how cultural systems evolve, and when you remove personal responsibility, you set the stage for systemic disintegration.
The wonderful thing about integrating personal responsibility and accountability into the culture is that it is a cost-effective way of governing a nation. There is no need to employ complex, bureaucratic, legal, and administrative structures to direct resources, and there is no need for a domestic violence industry. A culture embracing personal responsibility, for the most part, basically runs itself.
Pretty much any civilized country in the world has some manner of assault and battery laws to protect its citizens. There is no need to “refine” these laws to create different categories of them. Any attempt to do so suggests an agenda that goes beyond democratic principles. It invites the state to meddle in personal affairs, and extends their license to intrude into our homes and our private lives. We are reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s perspective, usually framed along the lines:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
There is perhaps no better demonstration of what Franklin was getting at, with all its implications, than America’s VAWA and domestic violence industry. When a woman chooses a thug, she is casting her vote in favour of what she thinks all men should be. She is casting her vote for the disintegration of culture, and the domestic violence industry and the state want to reward her for it. Does she deserve to be protected from assault? Of course she does, as does anyone. As do her children. But the law is a blunt instrument constructed from agenda-driven narratives and applied by humans whose motives range from suspect or ignorant to well-intentioned but ill-informed. Asking of such an instrument to perform as a scalpel is unreasonable and dangerous. Such a blunt instrument should be used sparingly (this is consistent with the emphasis in the original form of the US Constitution on minimal government). But much worse than that, by presuming the innocence of women and the guilt of men, children are more likely to become trapped in toxic environments with no way to escape. The family court standard “in the best interests of the child” becomes a farce and a license for further child abuse from the one primary nurturer who does not have to answer for their actions. The family court standard instead becomes, in reality, “in the best interests of the mother … to hell with the best interests of the child.”
From freebie to freebie, from family courts and VAWA to the workplace and affirmative action, this feminist gravy train not only exempts women from their responsibilities but also trashes men’s rights and treats men with contempt for everything that has been achieved in Western culture. If they could get away with it, feminists would declare the Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton enemies of the state and divest them of recognition for their achievements. It is a twisted irony indeed that boys and men grow up doing only what their primary nurturer expects them to do, and then get shamed for it by subsequent generations of hypergamous primary nurturers who demand affirmative action freebies as retribution for all those millennia of oppression. Twilight Zone anyone? Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.
The domestic violence industry is not only toxic and immoral and contrary to the principles of the US Constitution. Like the feminism that spawned it, it is also evil and a recipe for cultural disintegration.
Bibliography
[1] OckTV. Domestic Abuse In Public!! (Social Experiment). September 24, 2014: http://youtu.be/cywQhs_6iC4 (Accessed October 12, 2014).
[2] Children’s Bureau (Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families) of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Child Maltreatment 2012: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm2012.pdf (Accessed September 29, 2014).
[3] The Society for the Prevention of Infanticide. A brief history of infanticide. 1998: http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm (Accessed September 29, 2014).
[4] Kunkle, Fredrick. What makes mothers kill their own children? Washington Post, September 27, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/what-makes-mothers-kill-their-children/2014/09/27/f599f0b4-4018-11e4-b03f-de718edeb92f_story.html (Accessed September 29, 2014).
[5] Jones, Adam. Case Study: Female Infanticide. Gendercide Watch: http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.html (Accessed September 29, 2014).
[6] Sotomayor, Tommy. Woman Calls Thugs To Shoot Up Bus After Argument With Passenger. YouTube, January 22, 2013. http://youtu.be/LiH2dUFv43Y (Accessed September 29, 2014).
[7] Tomassi, Rollo. Category Archives: Hypergamy. The Rational Male, September 23, 2014: http://therationalmale.com/category/hypergamy-2/ (Accessed September 25, 2014).
[8] 60 Minutes Australia, reporter Richard Carlton. Human Bombs. Channel 9, August 19, 2001: http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article/258824/human-bombs (Accessed September 29, 2014) Transcript: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/sixtyminutes/stories/2001_08_19/story_390.asp (Accessed 2007, no longer available).
[9] O’Brien, Natalie. Mum’s Permission Needed for Terror Plan. The Australian, November 15, 2005.
[10] Ayam Sirias. MGTOW vs Islam Part 1 – The value of men & women. A Voice for Men, August 26, 2014: http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/m-g-t-o-w/mgtow-vs-islam-part-1-the-value-of-men-women/.
[11] Merrick, B. R. On Feminism’s Infantalization of Women. A Voice for Men, April 29, 2014: http://www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/on-feminisms-infantilization-of-women/ (accessed August 17, 2014).
[12] Layton, Julia. What causes Stockholm syndrome? How Stuff Works: http://health.howstuffworks.com/mental-health/mental-disorders/stockholm-syndrome.htm (Accessed September 29, 2014).
[13] Canetti, Elias. Crowds and Power. Penguin Books, 1973.
