The source of violence and hate

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]arget confusion is a term used in military parlance to describe a phenomenon of indecision which can occur when an individual is presented with a large number of obvious, high value objectives. It’s also an occupational hazard of writing from a men’s rights perspective. In the past few days, there have been so many blazingly obvious examples of male-targeted hatred, discrimination, violence, and persecution that I’ve been overwhelmed and consequently have failed to adequately address any of them.

Unfortunately, I’m unable to write 10 articles at the same time. What I can do is make a list, and hope for the forbearance of readers that a more thoughtful fisking of each item wasn’t presented.

(1)Feminists continue to attempt co-opting the occupy wall street movement, and while this isn’t news, one feminist blogger provided a piece of absurdist complaint on the site “occupy-the-patriarchy.”

(2)According to Lmarshall, the protesters against the patriarchy demands that the patriarchy provide, enforcers (men) to protect the protesting opponents of the patriarchy from other agents of the patriarchy. We hate you! You must go! Away with you patriarchs! Protect us![1]

(3)According to the sexual assault myths and facts page at Roger Williams University[2], 1 in 4 college women will be raped or sexually assaulted. In a Student Body of 4505[3] , this works out to roughly 732 women raped at RWU every year. Compared to the BJS’s criminal victimization survey, showing 1 rape per 2000 people, Rogers Williams University demonstrates a rate of rape 650 times higher than the national average. Paul Elam and I both salute the courage and integrity of the school’s faculty and administration, for bravely publishing these numbers. These civic-minded educators value student safety far above any possible loss of revenue due to potential mass un-enrolement as parents and students learn of the exceptionally dangerous environment on RWU’s campus.

(4)The best-selling Simon and Schuster published author, Perri O’Shoughnessy – not only writes under the pseudonym in homage to fictional TV Detective Perri Mason, she also has ambitions of genocide exceeding those of Charles Manson. In her blog entry on a site called RadicalHub, she’s written a 4000 word manifesto[4] endorsing a long term criminal conspiracy to commit serial as well as mass murder. When first outed by Paul Elam[5], her response was to copy the entire comments thread of Elam’s article, posting her own “grrrl-power” rebuttal, and made sure to let each and every commenter at AVFM know that although she advocates genocide and eugenics, it’s actually you gentlemen who are “creepy.”[6]

(5)The editors and executives at cafemom, a mommy-blogging community catering to middle class, upwardly mobile mothers has endorsed, through silence and inaction – the view that male targeting mutilation and violence[7] reflects “the very best community and content for moms.”[8] In a culture of celebrated female criminality, its not implausible to assume that Tracy Odell[9], executive VP at cafemom takes pride in being listed alongside rapists and murderers.

(6)Meanwhile a Montreal male feminist has denounced the November grow-a-mustache-for-prostate-cancer movement on the grounds that getting cancer is a badge of privilege.” The ironically misnamed Alex Manley published an article in the Concodia University newspaper in which he claimed “the whole thing is just a really well-disguised tantrum that guys are content to throw to make it seem like prostate cancer research is as important as research towards curing women’s cancers.” I re-read the article 5 times looking for signs of satire. Manley is, to all appearances, serious. So, according to this execrable excuse for a human, prostate cancer is a hallmark of privilege. Deal with it.[10]

(7)In what feminists continue fraudulently naming a “rape culture,” men cannot be raped by women. I’m sure this comes as a great relief to men like Jay Herron[11] and numerous others who cannot come forward without being re-victimized by a mainstream media which routinely denies the masculinity of men who are victim to this crime. These are men who, prior to learning male rape doesn’t exist, probably though of themselves as rape victims. Leading thinkers as diverse as Canadian Broadcaster Micheal Coren[12] and South African Opposition party leader Helen Zille agree that female on male rape doesn’t exist. According to a recent twitter posting by Zille : “ Because women can’t have sex with men without men’s consent. “[13] Even Google’s online dictionary supports the claim that rape can only be committed by a man. [14][15]

(8)The domestic violence industry continues to knowingly promote rampant fraud, falsehood, lies and policies which promote and exacerbate domestic violence, willfully ignoring research demonstrating that Male-aggressor, female-victim ideology is mythological, rather than factual, and continuing to deny and silence male victims of violence[16].

(9)Universities continue to use Gender studies textbooks filled with known falsehoods, demonizing men, promoting hatred and violence against men, although the entire academic community knows the “facts” used to prop up this agenda of hate are false. In the textbook “Domestic Violence Law.” used in women’s studies courses at american universities – the claim is made: “The history of women’s abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement…. The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man’s right thumb.”Unfortunately, Romulus is a mythological figure, a demigod, sired by the roman god Jupiter and suckled by a wolf. Christina Hoff Sommers said – and I agree – that “people who believe that Romulus actually existed in the real world have no critical faculties whatsoever”[17]

(10)While this is all going on, the academic world continues to gleefully lay waste to the principals of law on which western civilization is built. Kangaroo courts of feminist ideology now routinely destroy male students and reward female students in any allegations of sexual regret by women. In courts run without a system of laws, lawyers, or anyone except enthusiastic students and humanities lecturers – male students are found guilty based on a reduced standard of evidence – by edict of the Department of education’s absurdly misnamed Office of Civil Rights.[18][19]

(11)Meanwhile, smug, successful, publicly lionized feminist academic openly gloat about the sarcastically named “mancession”. A term used to underscore the fact that economically, academically, and socially, men are an underclass, and that feminist policies in education, government, law enforcement, family courts and employment are successful. Feminism has succeeded in denuding men of a viable role in society. Feminism has succeeded in elevating women as a class of privileged victims, while re-enforcing and amplifying the age-old social dynamic of male disposability. When this reality is acknowleged in mainstream media, outside men’s rights writing, it is as a problem to be addressed, but with triumphalism[20][21]

And while this carnival of hate, violence and apartheid churns male human beings into chum – feminist ideologues continue singing from the songbook of men as oppressors, and women as victims. Men as violent, women as innocent. The simple fact is that if men were the violent, evil, oppressive patriarchs they are claimed to be, faced by such naked aggression, violence and marginalization, they would have responded in kind by now.

That most men continue to operate as the disposable providers and protectors of women even as they are culturally reduced to a socially accepted role of appliances provoked some philosophical questions about the nature of human empathy, justice, and the concept of evil.

In 2009, the CBC[22] published an article reporting that Researchers at the University of Zurich and Royal Holloway, University of London conducted a study of 120 women and found that testosterone promoted fairness, and not, as ideologues claim of the male hormone; aggression.

Christoph Eisenegger of the University of Zurich said “If one were to believe the common opinion, we would expect subjects who received testosterone to adopt aggressive, egocentric and risky strategies regardless of the possibly negative consequences on the negotiation process,”

The study by Eisenegger, Naef, Snozzi, Heinrichs[23] – published in the scientific journal Nature was titled “Prejudice and truth about the effect of testosterone on human bargaining behaviour”. The published abstract includes the statement “the folk hypothesis seems to generate a strong negative association between subjects’ beliefs and the fairness of their offers, even though testosterone administration actually causes a substantial increase in the frequency of fair bargaining offers in our experiment”

Another study published in 2011 appears to point to conclusions opposing the fairness hypothesis on the Eisenegger study published in Nature.

Researchers van Honka, Schuttera, Bosa, Kruijtc, Lentjesd, Baron-Cohene published thier research in a report from the Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences of the United States of America – which suggested Testosterone as a causative factor in reduction of empathy. However, the research indicated this effect in women, and excluded mention of male response. The published paper: called “Testosterone administration impairs cognitive empathy in women depending on second-to-fourth digit ratio”[24] is one more item of evidence not only is masculine behavioural psychology closely tied to fairness and empathy – but also that feminine psychology is, rather than the culturally understood model of fairness and kindness, linked to such socially “negative” behavioural qualities as cruelty, aggression, and selfishness.

In fact, this hypothesis is not new. I wrote in March of 2011 about a possible evolutionary selector in female behavioural pathology.[25] I speculated that a tendency toward selfish self-interest and lack of empathy might, in pre-agricultural human cultures have provided a reproductive advantage for women and their children in conditions of food or resource scarcity. The economy of human reproduction has always resulted in females selecting reproductive partners from males who competed to be selected. While inter-male rivalry and conflict is a significant driver in this competition, female-favouring behavior in males must also be considered in a reproductive economy governed by female selection.

This means that the selecting sexual demographic has a real control in any society not ruled by directly applied violence. For women, typically possessing lesser physical strength than men, reproductive control means disposition to greater manipulative skill and innate selfishness provide reproductive and survival advantage to women in a way that to men these qualities do not. A selfish and manipulative man affords survival advantage to himself, but not necessarily to his family group. A highly selfish and manipulative woman of reproductive age, being the biological center of the family unit, does increase group survival.

Understood from a view of reproductive advantage, the behavior modes of fairness in men, and selfish manipulation in women can be understood as biologically associated. Unfortunately, those evolutionarily selected characteristics have not just disappeared in our modern environment where food and shelter are plentiful. The modern ideology of feminism, which now dominates our courts, government, education, and social custom provides an amplifying effect on old selective advantages which we no longer need. In fact, in a context of mechanized labor, food production, and warfare – humans are still driven by built in behaviour patterns that have become toxic.

The deep biological programming of men to accommodate women has led to a social reality where a host of “disorders” have been created by the mental health community to excuse and absolve adult women from responsibility for their own actions.

The modern recognition of this is hidden behind a prevalence of clinical terminology describing mental illnesses which overwhelmingly afflict women, we need to realize we’ve created these clinical conditions.

Narcissistic personality disorder, avoidant personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, these are arguably not aberrations of normal human psychology at all, rather they are the amplification of female personality traits which afforded women a survival advantage throughout human pre-history. The pathology is in a society which socializes half the human population to retain the emotional development and non-accountability of children while possessing the social and political power of adults.

And if you don’t like it, just plug your ears, close your eyes, and tell yourself that none of this makes sense, because everybody knows we all live in a patriarchy.






Recommended Content