a woman is always to blame alpha males antifeminism are these guys 12 years old? bad boys boner rage evil sexy ladies evil women men invented everything men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny not-quite-explicit threats oppressed men playing the victim PUA straw feminists taking pleasure in women's pain thug-lovers we hunted the mammoth

Men Violent Because of Women, Says Man Who Hates Women

I blame women.

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.

348 replies on “Men Violent Because of Women, Says Man Who Hates Women”

Shiraz — idk, maybe? My perception here is biased in a manner rather unrelated to feminism — I was 16, in 11th grade, when the towers fell (and in CT) — graduated at 17 when most of my graduating class was 18, my peers were some of the first to sign up for these wars in other words. And pecunium and I have discussed it at length. None of them signed up to “bring peace”, they signed up to…settle a racist vendetta basically (racism alert! Shit like “gonna kill me some towelheads” yeeeahh)

In any case, I can’t view the soldiers as the Nice Guys here. Either their reasons where fucked up, or they signed up before the war. Surely some signed up for the college money and the other reasons people joined before the war, but again, nice guys bringing peace? Nope.

Which leaves me with “he must’ve meant the people in charge”.

But yeah, being completely ignorant is far more likely.

LBT — that sounds awesome, your link is open in another tab and will be gotten to momentarily!

RE: cloudiah

Oh wow, that looks good and very much of interest to me. I shall have to find a way to get my mitts on it somehow…

Lynchage is a very often used French word and each time a French uses it, it brings back the memory of what happened in France during the épuration after WWII, the lynching mob shaving the heads of women accused of having slept with German soldiers, the denunciations, the beatings, the hysteric atmosphere of snitching, settlings of accounts between neighbors and scapegoating. It’s a French trauma and you should have known that if you had the knowledge of French culture you pretend to have.

But you will say that it’s appropriation because shaving women heads as a punishment is a CRIME AGAINST WOMEN and not something we can see as being part of a lynching mentality, isn’t it?

My previous comment was a response to this :

No way in hell is he french. Not with that style of argument about lynching. That’s purely American, and requires cultural knowledge to use in that sort of insinuational method. It’s not something someone who isn’t culturally attuned (which he has assured us he is not) can pull off.

Oh brz… You are still failing. You made a very specific point about us needing to know about US history, to understand your use of lynching. Now, because I took you at face value in that statement…

I think you should learn a little bit of the history of your own country, I know history is not your favorite hobby but sometimes it can give you a little bit of sense of perspective : the first people who were lynched in the US weren’t blacks, lynching wasn’t invented because of black people, it was just a part of the Puritan/Calvinist tools your fanatical ancestors used to punish transgressions of the social norms.

I am suddenly supposed to know that you weren’t talking about the US experience of lynching (which you were spot on for tone and tenor), but rather that of a brief period of time in France, which was about shaming, as opposed to killing?

Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

Investigating NWO more, he was definitely not one of the good guys in any way. Sorry about that. Even as a fellow conspiracy theorist, the types of things he said about women and children are awful.

The amazing thing is I’m about to pat you on the back for being able to say something negative about another troll. That never happens. One of the others asked NWOslave to guest post on his blog.

Now I know why I had such an excellent time in Saudi; feminists ERRYWHERE!

Wait a tick – I hated being in Saudi while a woman. It was dreadful.

I had a lousy time in Iraq, it was the women… oh no, it was the men who were trying to kill me (and some other shit, but the men trying to kill me were top of the list, sort of. You know what mean).

You know those men shooting at you are radical feminists, right? Controlled by women, right?

Why, Fedora already even explained that! Of course we went to war because of radical feminism’s fight against materialism and hatred of Nice Guys!!

That snapping sound you just heard was my brain breaking.

Oh… Shit. I never figured that part out. So… wow. I’m so ashamed. I was worrying about my brothers, and if I’d only been willing to IGNORE THE FUCKING BULLETS, we could have united against our oppressors.

I am so ashamed.


I am suddenly supposed to know that you weren’t talking about the US experience of lynching (which you were spot on for tone and tenor), but rather that of a brief period of time in France, which was about shaming, as opposed to killing?


You said :

That’s purely American, and requires cultural knowledge to use in that sort of insinuational method

I know you’re not able to grasp what an underlying tone is so I will try to make myself clear :no, it’s not “purely American”, because we use the term lynchage in French both in the literal and figurative sense and when people use this term, they generally don’t refer to the hanging of black people in the US but to something more close to them : the way people exercised justice themselves without fair trials in an atmosphere of mass hysteria after the liberation in France (it wasn’t only about shaming, we had also a great deal of summary executions) , so you’re just, as usual, full of shit when you say that it’s something someone “who isn’t culturally attuned” to American culture “can pull off”.

There was another thing which was underlined in the second part of my previous comment : the image people have in mind in France when we talk about the épuration is militiamen shaving women’s heads in the street in front of the crowds, like when we say lynching in the US, people have in mind the image of black people hung on a tree, even if lynching weren’t something that have been invented to target specifically black people, I implied that, as in the popular culture the épuration is associated with “crime against women”, you could have accuse me of appropriating the suffering of one group I don’t belong to, like Briznecko accused me of appropriating the suffering of black people, something I’m not supposed to do being not black.
It was just a little dig about your ongoing tentative to circumscribe the domain of the recognized suffering by trying to police the use of words.

“…of appropriating the suffering of one group I don’t belong to, like Briznecko accused me of appropriating the suffering of black people, something I’m not supposed to do being not black.”

Tautology is tautological. You can only appropriate struggles that you don’t suffer from, it’s in the definition. And you’re an even bigger asshole than I thought if you think that saying appropriation is wrong is some sort of word policing.

Well, there are pages and pages of comments for me to catch up on, and we seem to have moved on to the Iraq war and lynching

Despite the flailing and word salad, FauxFrench remains a Fucking Racist Asshole.

Oh.. Poor Brz, his words are biting him, which he uses partial context (of both my words,and his) to try and dodge his failures.

I said,”That’s purely American, and requires cultural knowledge to use in that sort of insinuational method“, because you made none, null, zero, reference to non-US lynching, and got on a high-horse about how we needed to learn, “our” history when we responded to your tone perfect usage of “lynch” in the dimissive tones of the USian race-baiter.

Now you flail, saying that all the subtexts of France were supposed to be in our minds; despite your not invoking them at all: Your defense of your position wasn’t, “Oh, well you have to realise I view lynching through the lens of épuration, it was, “you don’t know “your” own history”. When that was thrown back in your face, you backpedaled to the, “I’m a poor frenchman”. No dice.

Because you were appropriating US lynching, not invoking épuration.

But go ahead, keep fucking that poulet.

OK, time for a French language lesson.

The chicken you eat does not have the same name as the chicken you fuck (if that’s your thing) en français.

La poule is the living animal one might make love to.

Le poulet is the dead animal destined to be dined upon.

Unless of course we’re talking about making love to a chicken, quite dead and hot out of the oven, in which case one is indeed fucking le poulet. Otherwise, they’re fucking la poule.

You understand?

South Park led me to believe chicken loving was quite physiologically possible.


You can definitively eat a poule au pot but you can’t reasonably try to fuck a poulet because they’re armed and don’t have a huge sense of humor, that’s why people prefer, in this kind of situation, to bugger the flies.


Argenti – yeah, materialism has two meanings for me; the one that is close to consumerism, I guess, puts value in Stuff; and the one that in my mind usually has “reductionist” attached to it somewhere (probably wrongly!) – the “this physical world is all there is, no spirit, no afterlife” with a side order on occasion of “we’re just chemical reactions and your* emotions aren’t real and don’t matter”.

Materialism CAN go that way. Alternately, it can go, “Emotions arise out of complex biochemical processes. Our emotions are thus as ‘real’ as any other phenomenon–and since this world is the only one that exists/matters, emotions are FUCKING IMPORTANT.”

This is where existentialism comes in. I’ll give PPT this much, he actually managed to use one of the words properly, in context, though obviously not everyone here is an existentialist.

Short form of existentialism–you choose where to find meaning. Where you find it isn’t as important as trying to use that meaning to make life in this world as good as it can be. There’s even Christian existentialists (Kirkegaard, my real-world namesake, was actually one of the first existentialists, and very much a Christian; he recognized that faith was ‘absurd’, but accepted that absurdity–and in making the “leap of faith”, he found his meaning in the world).

Freemage – sounds like the usual thing, doesn’t it: assholes will be assholes regardless of the justification or whether they know what they’re talking about.

I like your summary of existentialism, and Kirkegaard (though I can’t help thinking of Hark, a Vagrant when I think of him now). Usually it’s presented as a depressing and off-putting sort of thing (complex subject oversimplified again). But finding meaning in something while knowing it may not make sense, may be “rationally” absurd – yeah, I can understand that. 🙂

This thread is making me think nwo spawned and now his young are returning to ancestral breeding grounds by instinct.

Molly, please accept one internet, wrapped in real velvet and accompanied by a plate of scones (with butter, jam & clotted cream, of course).

>>>I mean, am I following the actual meaning of “materialism” here?

In philosophy you have the question of (mind/body) dualism versus monism. Materialism is the monism that posits only the material world exists and that the mind is a subset of material phenomenas. Idealism is the opposite, the monism that sees the mind (or the Platonic realm of Ideas) as the only thing truly existing and what we see as material phenomenas are generated by it (i.e. any form of religion that posits the material world as purely illusory, or entirely the creation of the human mind). Catholicism is firmly dualist, for instance, and has fought against idealist heresies in the past just like it fights materialist heresies now (the Cathars for instance believed the material world was an illusion ruled by Satan while the spiritual world was God’s).

And then there’s the popular definition of materialism, which is a gigantic meaning drift from that and that more or less corresponds to consumerism.

Some so-called materialists (especially online, in net atheist forums) say particularly stupid things like “emotions are only chemical reactions and therefore unreal”, which makes no sort of sense whatsoever if you think all that is real is material but makes some sort of twisted sense if you are actually still lugging around some dualist or even idealist views underneath your surface materialism. One might call them “vulgar materialists”, if one is inclined to use terms Marx once used to deride such bullshit.

Okay, BlackBloc, the man in the black hat (seriously, he says he’s the man in the black hat? Is there no self awareness there?) claims the book you enjoyed is a PUA classic.

Obviously, since he’s an obvious troll with no redeeming qualities and you’re a long-time poster with a track record of helpful comments, this is a totally credible assertion.


It’s almost the opposite of Game. First, it’s written by a woman (let’s be honest here about the writers of most Game books). Second, there’s absolutly no chapter on “landing” a mark (again, no illusion on what Game books are about… they’re not about how to meet a woman to be equal partners for sex or a relationship, but about taking something from one of them by guile… I love a good con movie but I abhor con men IRL). The book itself was actually written *after* her first book on how to get women to give great sex to men (she was, after all, actually giving courses on “How to please your man”) as a second thought because she realized there was a market for the book on “the other side”.

*Maybe* some of the PUAs pick it up (in which case, that’s at least some comfort for their marks, maybe it won’t be completely subpar sex), but my impression is they rarely care about the woman’s orgasm and are not shooting for repeat business with any individual woman. I would suspect most of them would find it a waste of time when they could be reading more field reports instead.

That is indeed what is healthy and one can see by reading what Pecunium, Howard Bannister, Bob Goblin and the others feminist allies write, the way they always need to attack other men in order to prove that they’re not creepy, to be accepted by female feminists, to please them,


The funny thing here (besides the obvious) is that I actually do cop to having a kneejerk “attack” reaction to certain male anti-feminists.

Not out of a desire for acceptance–though I owe a great debt to feminism and specific feminists who really set me free from a chain and shackle I didn’t know was there.

It’s because certain attitudes remind me rather excessively of what I used to think and believe, and you would not believe the poison that I found in there when I lanced that boil.

(of course you would–you read the OP, up top, right?)

I react like I do because I used to live there, and it was a terrible place to live.

His diagnosis not only insults me, it’s dead wrong. Which should surprise nobody, at this point. Frankly, if he claimed water was wet I’d start to have my doubts on that score, with his track record.


Contempt is respectful.

Platitudes are funny

Disingenousness is a noble virtue

Talacaris, if you were addressing that @ Pro-Patria Truthteller, it may be the closest I’ve ever seen you get to an insightful trolling.

If you weren’t, and it was directed elsewhere, do please let me know so I don’t accidentally give you credit .

Beakhead: ‘All men are rapists’ is a feminist slogan- not a MRA slogan.

Prove it. Find the feminists who use it. (note, you have made a postive statement: “all men are rapists is a feminist slogan”. This means it’s a widely accepted idea, being actively promoted by, “feminism”).

I’d argue it’s an MRA shibboleth that feminists think this, which is very different.

To cite the tail end of a conversation as the complete statement is indeed selective editing.

WTF? So only a complete re-posting of an entire thread counts an an honest quotation?

Wow. So, we can expect looonnnnng examples from you of the falsity of misogyny, as well as the same in the “proofs” of how feminists hate men, and want to castrate them, just for being men.

Or shall we trust your probity; given how clearly you understood the entire thread TB was in, what with all the feminists attacking the victim, and calling for him to be castrated and all… you know the ones that weren’t for the former, and the total lack of the latter.

How: “Talacaris, if you were addressing that @ Pro-Patria Truthteller, it may be the closest I’ve ever seen you get to an insightful trolling.”

Well,it was, but it’s so easy yomake mistakes when you are drunk 🙂

Talacaris: between that and the ‘self-kino’ comment on the other thread, you have officially posted more wit in the past week than I’ve seen from you in the last year.

I just wanted to put that out there because in the other other thread I put a blanket condemnation on your head. So, y’know, just letting you know I don’t find you completely without merit. Just some of your overall life choices.

Click the blue “Why are men more violent” underneath the illustrative image, it’s a link to the full article hosted off-site.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.