Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Violence as an Issue of Men

  1. #11
    Senior Member pbisque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    A midwest state in Murica
    Posts
    1,874
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    36
    How are we defining violence? If it is limited to the physical use of force, then the answer is obvious. Men are more violent because we are the ones who acquire resources. First for the family, then for the tribe and then for the nation. It is how we evolved.

    On an individual level it can come out in unacceptable ways, especially today since traditional masculine roles have been demonized. A poorly socialized male is going to have the same internal drives as any other male, but will for various reasons lack the skills to deal with those drives.

    Let me posit this scenario however. We are all familiar with the type of woman who will try to get her boyfriend in a fight at a bar just to see if he will defend her. Is instigating a fight a violent act? I would say yes. As soon as we start including soft violence like this, I suggest that women are at least as violent as men, possible more. I say possibly more because women are the ones demanding the resources that males are acquiring. I think we would all agree that the demand is seemingly limitless.

    A man will mug a guy to get some money to buy his baby food but there is a woman at home saying, "I don't care what you do, but this baby needs food", yet only one of these individuals is viewed as violent.

    A man will also mug a guy to get money for drugs. A woman is more likely to use sexual persuasion to get those same drugs. Is one better or more noble than the other?

    For better or worse, men have and always will own the most in your face forms of violence. We are a literal punch to the face. Women own poison and the knife in the back. They are more subtle and use more cunning than men, but they inspire most of the demand for violence.
    I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

    It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

  2. #12
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,374
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    You've chosen to ignore evidence and arguments that challenge that. You've failed to realise you need to separate things out, in order to reach a position you can discuss, and you've lumped things together.
    This might be true, though if so, it hasn't been purposely or with any agenda or intent to slant the topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    Here's a simple fact: most of everything is done by men, good, bad, indifferent - men do more of everything than women. Men are out there doing things far more than women ever will. Why? Because men are more inclined to take risks.
    Certainly they do, and I have stated as much and allowed as much repeatedly both in this thread and in others. Men are the "doers" in society, and the "builders". We're the ones who have been called upon to "find it", "figure it out", and "bash it into submission' all throughout the history of humankind.


    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    And that takes us to the fundamental difference in male and female violent crimes e.g. larceny vs robbery. Let's just take male and female criminals motivated by greed. Here the simple effect shows, if we can possibly agree one logical basis. Their motivations are the same for this class of crime.
    Earlier I observed / wondered whether or not "violence" is even the right word. And then I expanded upon it in a later post:

    "And perhaps there's another whole way of examining this issue altogether. Is it really "violence" that is the issue here, or the propensity / requirement to *exploit* (something) in order to succeed, prosper or even just survive. Is violence really just an extension of the act of exploitation and what they cannot get / accomplish through cunning and guile*, they take through sheer dominant force. Would women therefore be just as apt to resort to violence if they had the same responsibilities and did not have to deal as much with the realities of gender dimorphism? Women do commit child abuse and elder abuse at a higher rate. So is it simply an issue of opportunity and they can get away with?"

    *I changed it from 'deceit' to 'guile' which I think is the more appropriate word.

    But I'll also note that these are also only concerning issues of "crime" and declared (codified) "anti-social" / aberrant behaviors. And are only relevant to one aspect of the overall subject and question of "violence". "War" is another class of violence, and even if it *somewhat* mitigates the individual responsibility for violent actions, we still cannot ignore that these actions are still overwhelmingly meted out at the hands of Men, most often initiated by men-- though certainly not always-- and several studies have shown that female rulers have tended to be every bit as ruthless and war-happy as their male counterparts. Some studies suggest that the women have even been more ruthless. Perhaps because they themselves have never had to face the violence they send forth directly, nor to commit it directly with their own hands.

    But, by way of reflection, wars cannot happen if the men charged with prosecuting it just say "No". So why don't they? We all understand the obvious first answer, and maybe the second-- because the ones that say "No" will be punished and/or replaced until the boss finds one that says "Yes". But at the same time, if the ones who say "No" simply turn on and capture / punish / kill the one who says "Yes", then that particular avenue is shut down. But then don't generally. Perhaps a few do-- but the majority of Men do not. They go along with it and follow the orders. They suit up and go out and commit the acts of violence which correspond to their directives. And not only that-- sometimes in the commission of those acts, they add a little "something something" for themselves. Why do they do that? Are they petty? Are they getting revenge? Are they caught up in the moment? Are they allowing themselves a little bit of peevish evil? Whatever the answer-- it is yet Men being violent again. And moreover, adding their own additional level of violence on top of the amount of violence they've been sanctioned to commit. This fact is a perennial issue among armed forces-- how to deal with the bad actors and "atrocities" committed alongside of the sanctioned violence?


    Certainly it goes without saying that Men (as a whole group) have learned how to kill things in order to defend themselves, and to provide meat for their families and tribes and such. And in the inimitable manner of men, they have taken these haphazard actions of violence and turned them into entire institutions of violence-- albeit generally abstracted and understood to be for the "common good" of the society in general, and thus sanctioned and approved-- but nonetheless, still violent actions which are generally performed by men. Such that they are conditioned by their daily work to be violent in this manner without reflection. How far away from that mindset do they have to travel before they can be violent in other ways and in other situations? (Just a question. And I certainly think women are capable of the same type of mundane violence, they just aren't as often called upon to do it. I know my grandmother used to wring the neck of chickens, for instance. Certainly a violent act, but one she performed mundanely and without further thought or consideration.)

    And men have created enormous industries devoted to the commission of violence. Everything from hunting knives to small arms to assault rifles to tanks and mortars and artillery pieces to bunker-busters and atomic bombs. The breadth and range of industries devoted to violence is staggering-- as is the amount of money they take in annually. To say nothing of the business of sending "contractors" and "mercenaries" (hired guns) to out-of-the-way places in unheard of countries to do unspeakable things to people without voices. The people who carry out those businesses and operations are also nearly entirely staffed and operated by men.


    Are sports violent? Stylized violence? Is competition violent? Or is violence a form of competition? Are the two related? Or is it simply accidental that one sometimes includes the other? Or is competition a form of "abstracted violence"? Violence which hasn't been fully rendered / realized into actual harmful action...?? Is "competition" a precursor element to violence? Is the action which occurs during competition simply "abstracted violence" on the very low-end of the overall continuum of violence? One can consider games of Tiddly-Winks and Monopoly all the way up to Football, Rugby, Hockey, and Soccer-- to games played with human heads wrapped in leather, where the losing teams are summarily executed.


    Or is violence about exploitation? A means to an end?



    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    So how does this risk factor influence things?

    Female criminals will look for lower risk strategies (risk averse) with maximum gain, such as deeper set ups, embezzlement, work on getting inside the target by getting a job in a target establishment or getting into a relationship with a target victim. They aim to take on less personal risk and less consequence risk. The preferred strategy is camouflage, aim to avoid detection and if caught aim to avoid consequences.

    Male criminals will be more risk taking, willing to chance more dangerous immediate outcomes and consequences for higher gains. They assume they will likely face more violent resistance and are more mentally prepared for it. If you actually observe male behaviour during the act of carrying out a crime, it does actually aim to force the victim into submission with a very big display of willingness to do violence, gesturing, shouting, smashing inanimate objects.
    Okay, but you are sort of inadvertently making my points here-- why are men "more risk taking" and more "willing to chance more dangerous outcomes" than women? Why are women content to not take the "big risks" or go for the "big score"?? Is it because men have historically done it and are socially "evolved" for it? (Conditioned by women who "reward" them for their risky / violent behavior) And is it then because women historically haven't had to do it-- because they can use their "cunning" and "guile" to convince their men to do it for them. Women have a role / function / place in the pantheon of violence. They are not without blame. Even if their primary contribution to it is in "egging it on" and rewarding their men for the spoils of their violence, women are still very much complicit in the commission of the violence-- if we're being totally honest here.



    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    That is actually about reducing the amount of bodily violence needed, but regardless for victims, it builds up the experience of violence by victims, terror is real either way when you are convinced someone will harm you. Also criminals pumped up on adrenaline are in immediate risk of losing control, which should be compared the actual numbers who don't, nor those who when challenged, even though they have clear advantage, such as being armed, will run away rather than escalate the violence.

    Mr. E if you really want to understand the question you are going to need to go into some dark places of human psyche, and if you even mistakenly start looking at it through a gender identity lens you will fail to understand anything about it.
    Sure, let's go. But realize that the bulk of what you just said you unconsciously and with inherently bias, cast the men into the role of being the "more violent" ones, all the while excusing / disguising their behavior for various reasons.


    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    There are distinct gender differences in how things play out, there are massive gender differences between exposure to violence and expectations to use violence (don't forget boys who don't hit back against bullies - are the ones slated and insulted by society for being cowards, that isn't done to girls.)
    Again, you're making my points for me. Thanks! ;-)



    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    But the birth of a violent mindset itself IS NOT gendered, no more than the birth of criminal mindset.
    So then why don't we see more aggressive females? Why are there not large roving gangs of female drug lords and street gangs warring over turf with the boys? Yes, I understand that female crime and aggression is on the rise, but still it is nowhere near the level-- in either rate or severity-- as that committed by males. Moreover, female crimes tend to be crimes of opportunity rather than out-and-out strong-armed robbery, for instance. Petty larcenies for example, where violence is not needed or required. In fact, females are often used as "mules" or decoys by males committing crimes simply because females are *NOT* as associated with crime or violence.


    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    Females have a lot more safe options than males for dealing with poverty, if males could sell sex to females as a way to make money, how many would rather do that than other forms of 'wrong' ways. Society decriminalises or never even criminalises female options for using their own basic assets for gain. A male's basic physical asset is his strength, if he can't shift to desk based or information sector work, or there is none around and the ability to sell his labour is gone, he's really low on options. It's a driver of crime, and as the pickings get more scarce it favours escalation and that favours the greater risk takers.
    Yes, I have pointed that out in several of my posts. Moreover, society generally *looks* for reasons and ways to brand a Man as violent, while they generally go out of their way to find reasons to *avoid* having to say the same about a woman. And if they are pushed into it, they then do their damnedest to find a way to let her off the hook for it-- such as blaming it on some previous interaction with a "bad" man.


    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    Most men alive will never ever see a man's world.
    I assume you meant that to say "Most *women* alive..."


    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    You know what a man's world is? A raw world where natural resources are taken by work and effort, where taking a risk leads to bigger reward, but hard work can lead to a consistent and increasing reward. Where each day the food on the table and the stuff for life are themselves evidence of a man's own engagement with the world. Stepping into the challenge of building against the rigours of nature, forged the masculine identity, and that mentality and skill set made a modern world possible. Even now the challenges to get into space, build a higher skyscraper, explore the oceans, or even solve every last nagging complaint from women, drives male endeavours.
    In other words, necessity and exploitation. Yup, got it. Said it. ;-)


    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    Do you think that mindset comes for free?

    We want men to be soldiers, miners, steeplejacks, riggers etc... a massive range risk taking work. Stuff that women only like to do, once the technology has rendered it safe but the kudos and uniform as a badge of honour can remain.

    None of what our species has demanded of it's males comes for free. As much as it excels and has put the human race on top of all species, it has put a man in a box on a crowded street, and make his life about begging for a welfare check, whilst the world around him makes it abundantly clear he ain't wanted but he has no where else he can go. Seriously what do you expect will happen with his instincts. You know what is amazing, that so many men only ever consider peaceful options, that they adapt and keep on seeking to adapt.

    But this world aims to turn everything tame, even the world of business is being refashioned to be a political correct safe space, you can't even indulge in free speech without being slammed. Simple male assertiveness and masculine competitive aggressiveness is being treated as a violent crime, aspects of inner male psyche that all of us as a species have used and abused for own benefit, and will do so again at the drop of a hat. All of this talk about what is wrong with masculine, risk taking, his willing to take a knock and deal out a knock (i.e. propensity for violence, as it's fashion called now), will disappear when a calamity comes along so that once again we need to use men to take on monstrous challenges that will kill a good proportion of those we throw at it.

    Men are not more violent, men are expected to change themselves to be more violent when their society demands it of them. When that society isn't making inhuman demands of men, instead of letting them be themselves, giving them opportunity to use their drive and strength for their own benefit - and to the benefit of what they choose - society then wants to define them as flawed, put them in cages and let them quietly die off. People who want to swan around in the comforts of a modern world, whilst condemning where it comes from, quite frankly make me disgusted - but I still wouldn't be violent to them.

    I agree with much / most of what you said. But I think you made a very good argument for the observation that Men are violent and Women tend not to be. You've planted some bushes around it-- society expects this and that-- to dress it up a bit. But when you pull all that away, it's still the Men who are being violent. And Women, even when faced with many of the same need factors-- tend not to be. But then, at the same time, they don't have to be-- because typically society finds ways to extend aid and assistance to women to forestall that outcome.

    Perhaps part of the answer to the question is that Men are violent because society-- and *WOMEN*-- need for them to be. But does that makes us inherently prone to violence or not? If we were not prone to violence, don't you think we would be more often saying "No" ??
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  3. #13
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,374
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by pbisque View Post
    How are we defining violence? If it is limited to the physical use of force, then the answer is obvious. Men are more violent because we are the ones who acquire resources. First for the family, then for the tribe and then for the nation. It is how we evolved.

    On an individual level it can come out in unacceptable ways, especially today since traditional masculine roles have been demonized. A poorly socialized male is going to have the same internal drives as any other male, but will for various reasons lack the skills to deal with those drives.

    Let me posit this scenario however. We are all familiar with the type of woman who will try to get her boyfriend in a fight at a bar just to see if he will defend her. Is instigating a fight a violent act? I would say yes. As soon as we start including soft violence like this, I suggest that women are at least as violent as men, possible more. I say possibly more because women are the ones demanding the resources that males are acquiring. I think we would all agree that the demand is seemingly limitless.

    A man will mug a guy to get some money to buy his baby food but there is a woman at home saying, "I don't care what you do, but this baby needs food", yet only one of these individuals is viewed as violent.

    A man will also mug a guy to get money for drugs. A woman is more likely to use sexual persuasion to get those same drugs. Is one better or more noble than the other?

    For better or worse, men have and always will own the most in your face forms of violence. We are a literal punch to the face. Women own poison and the knife in the back. They are more subtle and use more cunning than men, but they inspire most of the demand for violence.

    I would like to point you to my two previous posts as replies to your post as well. I think what I said in those very much applies to the situations you posit here. But while it addresses some of the questions as to the reasons behind men are violent, it still doesn't really address the question of why men are more violent in the first place. Why doesn't a guy shit test a girl to find out if she will fight for him?
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  4. #14
    Senior Member pbisque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    A midwest state in Murica
    Posts
    1,874
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    36
    I think it answers it just fine. Men are the providers of resources. The nature of human reproduction requires this to be true.
    I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

    It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

  5. #15
    Senior Member voidspawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,167
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    This might be true, though if so, it hasn't been purposely or with any agenda or intent to slant the topic.

    Certainly they do, and I have stated as much and allowed as much repeatedly both in this thread and in others. Men are the "doers" in society, and the "builders". We're the ones who have been called upon to "find it", "figure it out", and "bash it into submission' all throughout the history of humankind.

    Earlier I observed / wondered whether or not "violence" is even the right word. And then I expanded upon it in a later post:

    "And perhaps there's another whole way of examining this issue altogether. Is it really "violence" that is the issue here, or the propensity / requirement to *exploit* (something) in order to succeed, prosper or even just survive. Is violence really just an extension of the act of exploitation and what they cannot get / accomplish through cunning and guile*, they take through sheer dominant force. Would women therefore be just as apt to resort to violence if they had the same responsibilities and did not have to deal as much with the realities of gender dimorphism? Women do commit child abuse and elder abuse at a higher rate. So is it simply an issue of opportunity and they can get away with?"

    *I changed it from 'deceit' to 'guile' which I think is the more appropriate word.

    But I'll also note that these are also only concerning issues of "crime" and declared (codified) "anti-social" / aberrant behaviors. And are only relevant to one aspect of the overall subject and question of "violence". "War" is another class of violence, and even if it *somewhat* mitigates the individual responsibility for violent actions, we still cannot ignore that these actions are still overwhelmingly meted out at the hands of Men, most often initiated by men-- though certainly not always-- and several studies have shown that female rulers have tended to be every bit as ruthless and war-happy as their male counterparts. Some studies suggest that the women have even been more ruthless. Perhaps because they themselves have never had to face the violence they send forth directly, nor to commit it directly with their own hands.

    But, by way of reflection, wars cannot happen if the men charged with prosecuting it just say "No". So why don't they? We all understand the obvious first answer, and maybe the second-- because the ones that say "No" will be punished and/or replaced until the boss finds one that says "Yes". But at the same time, if the ones who say "No" simply turn on and capture / punish / kill the one who says "Yes", then that particular avenue is shut down. But then don't generally. Perhaps a few do-- but the majority of Men do not. They go along with it and follow the orders. They suit up and go out and commit the acts of violence which correspond to their directives. And not only that-- sometimes in the commission of those acts, they add a little "something something" for themselves. Why do they do that? Are they petty? Are they getting revenge? Are they caught up in the moment? Are they allowing themselves a little bit of peevish evil? Whatever the answer-- it is yet Men being violent again. And moreover, adding their own additional level of violence on top of the amount of violence they've been sanctioned to commit. This fact is a perennial issue among armed forces-- how to deal with the bad actors and "atrocities" committed alongside of the sanctioned violence?

    Certainly it goes without saying that Men (as a whole group) have learned how to kill things in order to defend themselves, and to provide meat for their families and tribes and such. And in the inimitable manner of men, they have taken these haphazard actions of violence and turned them into entire institutions of violence-- albeit generally abstracted and understood to be for the "common good" of the society in general, and thus sanctioned and approved-- but nonetheless, still violent actions which are generally performed by men. Such that they are conditioned by their daily work to be violent in this manner without reflection. How far away from that mindset do they have to travel before they can be violent in other ways and in other situations? (Just a question. And I certainly think women are capable of the same type of mundane violence, they just aren't as often called upon to do it. I know my grandmother used to wring the neck of chickens, for instance. Certainly a violent act, but one she performed mundanely and without further thought or consideration.)

    And men have created enormous industries devoted to the commission of violence. Everything from hunting knives to small arms to assault rifles to tanks and mortars and artillery pieces to bunker-busters and atomic bombs. The breadth and range of industries devoted to violence is staggering-- as is the amount of money they take in annually. To say nothing of the business of sending "contractors" and "mercenaries" (hired guns) to out-of-the-way places in unheard of countries to do unspeakable things to people without voices. The people who carry out those businesses and operations are also nearly entirely staffed and operated by men.

    Are sports violent? Stylized violence? Is competition violent? Or is violence a form of competition? Are the two related? Or is it simply accidental that one sometimes includes the other? Or is competition a form of "abstracted violence"? Violence which hasn't been fully rendered / realized into actual harmful action...?? Is "competition" a precursor element to violence? Is the action which occurs during competition simply "abstracted violence" on the very low-end of the overall continuum of violence? One can consider games of Tiddly-Winks and Monopoly all the way up to Football, Rugby, Hockey, and Soccer-- to games played with human heads wrapped in leather, where the losing teams are summarily executed.

    Or is violence about exploitation? A means to an end?
    So now you are going on about war... and arms manufacture. Conflating even more together. You apparently want to have this discussion with yourself. You've got some blinkered notion in your head, which ain't going no where. So you might as well just say it, instead of being such a contrary waffler.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Again, you're making my points for me. Thanks! ;-)
    Somebody has to offer some points, because you clearly don't have thing to say about this, just waffle on without saying anything. Do you even know what you are talking about?

    If you have a point to make, just say it.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    So then why don't we see more aggressive females? Why are there not large roving gangs of female drug lords and street gangs warring over turf with the boys?
    Seriously it's like your brain sees every dumb movie as reality. If you want to discuss fantasy go right ahead, but say so.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Yes, I understand that female crime and aggression is on the rise, but still it is nowhere near the level-- in either rate or severity-- as that committed by males. Moreover, female crimes tend to be crimes of opportunity rather than out-and-out strong-armed robbery, for instance. Petty larcenies for example, where violence is not needed or required. In fact, females are often used as "mules" or decoys by males committing crimes simply because females are *NOT* as associated with crime or violence.
    Don't ask questions Mr.E, just state your answers as points to start with. You ignore what others say anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    Yes, I have pointed that out in several of my posts. Moreover, society generally *looks* for reasons and ways to brand a Man as violent, while they generally go out of their way to find reasons to *avoid* having to say the same about a woman. And if they are pushed into it, they then do their damnedest to find a way to let her off the hook for it-- such as blaming it on some previous interaction with a "bad" man.
    Finally you've made a point about something. So what does that mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    I assume you meant that to say "Most *women* alive..."
    Nope, I meant men. Most men alive are going to have to conform and will do so to a world that has decided to throw away valuing what they are. Boys are being born to be socialised to resent their own manhood. Because some small minded type choose to brand maleness as violent and dangerous when they don't understand a thing about it, and then impose constraints on males, using ritalin and other drugs. Are you going join the chorus condemning boys for liking rough and tumble play? Is that going to join the huge conflation of all the violence in the world?

    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    In other words, necessity and exploitation. Yup, got it. Said it. ;-)

    I agree with much / most of what you said. But I think you made a very good argument for the observation that Men are violent and Women tend not to be. You've planted some bushes around it-- society expects this and that-- to dress it up a bit. But when you pull all that away, it's still the Men who are being violent. And Women, even when faced with many of the same need factors-- tend not to be. But then, at the same time, they don't have to be-- because typically society finds ways to extend aid and assistance to women to forestall that outcome.

    Perhaps part of the answer to the question is that Men are violent because society-- and *WOMEN*-- need for them to be. But does that makes us inherently prone to violence or not? If we were not prone to violence, don't you think we would be more often saying "No" ??
    You've lost me, I don't what you are trying to argue or point you are trying to make. You seem committed to arguing with yourself. You want to say one thing, then say another. You want to make a huge deal about males do most of the acts of violence as if its some shocking mystery, then ignore sensible suggestions as to why that is apparently what happens, then say aha it's what was said...

    In a prior job, three times I've had to step in, as a teacher to stop young males either fighting, attacking, or just plain out killing another. Each of those situations was very different, each young guy was facing different challenges, about parts of their nature where they needed help and guidance. The one thing that was consistent, was they weren't going to get any assistance. They had no decent role models or guidance. At the institutions I worked in, they just wanted them out asap, just shove them away with all their problems. They were pre ordained as broken.

    That closed minded attitude runs large, and it sees young lads killing each other, and then uses that as the reason they don't deserve help. Those lads don't need a big conversation that compares them with females. Females don't face the same problems, they don't need the same assistance and in general the help they need they can access.

    One young man that I stopped throwing another down some stairs, was a solid young man, fresh out of prison and wanting to get some skills for an honest life. He saw a guy who had knifed him in a street attack, and he lost it, he went for him. I was interviewing him for a place on a course, and was walking him out. He sees this guy and bang, a rage takes over. I don't think people have a clue what lives these young guys are living.

    That there are guys who do their best to drag themselves out and away from what has been done to them. Yeah that guy was going to kill another, but he was not violent. He was going to beat him, throw him down some stairs and kill him. But he wasn't violent. You know why? He didn't do it. All I had to do was stand between him and his target, and tell his target to run away. Which he did, he called out insults, but he ran. The young man in a rage, wasn't going to turn on me, he wasn't going to hurt me to get through to his target. Despite what he went through, despite the goading, despite 3 years in prison for a street fight that saw the three guys who attacked get away with it, he was not going to do as much as push me. And I was weaker than him, he could have easily pushed me out of the way. He was angry, and had right to be, he was in rage and understandably so, he was more than capable of violence, but he wasn't a violent person. Yet because of that little show, which was witnessed by students and other staff his chance of going to college was tainted. Other staff ignored that he brought himself under control, they weren't interested in what he'd been through, just judged because they were scared of him. He never came back to college, something I regret. But reality is whilst this dominant narrative is being imposed on these young men, who are going through utter confusion about their place in this world, there is no patience for them, just fear of them. And they see it, they see how they are regarded and those who are ready to leave it behind, retreat from the opportunity. They internalize society's hatred of them, these guys have the potential to become the bulwark against the social rot in their communities, to become mentors and role models to kids who've been without proper role models, guidance or opportunity all their lives. The more these attitudes build barriers around the more deeply trapped they get, and instead of being able to do something to turn the problem around they will become part of it perpetuating.

    There are layers of darkness that are damning on all of us, in the real exploration to this issue. And one of those layers are all the so called decent non violent people, who in order to live their own happy illusion of their moral superiority, would rather see young male people damned. Who form a large cowardly wall to condemn and blame kids, and push them away, so they can keep their safe place to themselves.

    Who is more violent Mr.E? A person who recognises and attempts to control the rage inside them and is attempting to become a better human being, or a bunch of people who will call for police and have anyone excluded who doesn't immediately meet their standards for safety, whom they tag outsider because he isn't as cowardly as they are.

    If you want to worry about violence, worry about the sort that lets someone dehumanize others and sanctions acts of violence against them. If you want to do something about the issue, you are going to have to take an honest look around you, and who is trying to challenge that narrative imposed as reality, and who is just blatantly and short sightedly imposing it. In that young man's life, which one was fighting against violence defining their nature, the young man who got excluded, or all those people who just knee-jerked to wanting him gone, without even thinking or caring about his reality, because they felt safer.

    Do you see what I'm getting at? Which is using violence as a tool when it's nice, tidy and done by hired help, and which is trying to defy it?
    Last edited by voidspawn; 07-29-2017 at 12:56 AM.
    "...especially when it comes to communication, it can be observed, if it is not a negotiation it's a war."
    Quote Originally Posted by menrppl2 View Post
    Can't live with em, life is great without them.

  6. #16
    Senior Member mr_e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Eastern USA
    Posts
    7,374
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by voidspawn View Post
    Nope, I meant men. Most men alive are going to have to conform and will do so to a world that has decided to throw away valuing what they are. Boys are being born to be socialised to resent their own manhood. Because some small minded type choose to brand maleness as violent and dangerous when they don't understand a thing about it, and then impose constraints on males, using ritalin and other drugs. Are you going join the chorus condemning boys for liking rough and tumble play? Is that going to join the huge conflation of all the violence in the world?
    No, I recommend no such thing. Furthermore you seem determined to pidgeon-hole my questions and musings into some sort of agenda. Can't one have questions and want to talk about them without the usual loaded rhetoric and bullshit? However, I-- like you and probably everybody else-- am a product of a society which does aim to disparage men and hang an albatross around their neck with respect to violence. So to suggest that many of the things I have as starting points or thoughts to begin with are like what society pushes down on us doesn't seem all that surprising to me. How else am I supposed to be able to figure things out unless I start with what I know and have been exposed to and try to flush out the fallacies? I think you're being a little too cynical, IMO. But that's your right I guess.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

  7. #17
    Pht, women are plenty violent when it suits them so I personally couldnt give a flying fuck whether they wanna get all rhetorical on men for generally being stronger and more prepared to either protect shit, or simply take shit.

    Personality Deranged people have a habit of presenting Damned If You Do/Dont situations.
    Right now you mens, are being told that there are only either macro or micro aggression with nothing in between ... and, the problem is yr dick.
    just remember theyre trying to take yr stuff.
    The answer, is of course...get the fuck outta my face you blue-haired little shit.
    If and when they touch you ...well, then obviously they must prefer the macro-violent response instead of the former milder version.

    pbisque's made the point that men are the resource getters?
    Well, at a fundamental level that means unless we are collaborating then we are in competition.
    Then goes to make the point that there are all sorts of violence (echoes of Foucault et al)
    In not so many words, pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter too.

    See, this is the thing...its all about getting, and how to go about it socially.
    Meh, sometimes things break down.

    I get MrE likes to pose big questions...its his way. I dont think he believes anything is, or isnt.
    Really enjoying Void poking fun at it too.

    Speaking for myself, I'm reconciled to the whole micro/macro violence bullshit.
    Come near with a baseball bat AntiFa and I'll take it off you and stick it up yr arse so fast you wont even know what happened

    It may not be everybody's bag but it is mine, I started martial arts when I was very very young and I may not actually be an invincible ninja but if y'all look at me and see nice soft middle-aged man who you can take shit from (either by force, or by proxy force), you'd be wrong.

    be like picking up a cat by the tail.

    It aint because I own a dick ... its because people like you exist.

    Walk softly but carry a big stick.
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

    "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
    "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

    "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

  8. #18
    Men may be portrayed as more violent, just as women are portrayed as more nurturing, but the facts don’t support this:

    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01...han-kings.html

    A 27% increase in wars under European queens vs kings, maybe because they were sending men to their deaths. And it is still true today:

    https://www.quora.com/Are-female-lea...y-to-go-to-war

    And it’s not just world leaders:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...dy-622388.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relat...tionships.html

    http://time.com/2921491/hope-solo-women-violence/

    As time goes by I believe there will be further increases in female violence because it’s become more acceptable and less accountable. Violence is situational and as women continue to gain more power, they will use violence more.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by unheard View Post
    As time goes by I believe there will be further increases in female violence because it’s become more acceptable and less accountable.
    Bring it and see what happens
    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one" - Charles Mackay

    And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee. - Donne

    "What we are seeing in this headless misandry is a grand display of the Tyranny of the Underdog: 'I am a wretchedly longstanding victim; therefore I own no burden of adult accountability, nor need to honor any restraint against my words and actions. In fact, all efforts to restrain me are only further proof of my oppressed condition.'
    "It is the most perfect trump-card against accountable living ever devised." - Gladden Schrock

    "What remains for most men in modern life is a world of expectation without reward, burden without honor and service without self" - Paul Elam

  10. #20
    Senior Member Manalysis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    4,422
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by mr_e View Post
    I read an article this morning that got me thinking about men and violence.
    Good. However, I would advise to begin at the beginning.
    "Violence" is a value loaded term; before going there, it's useful to try to find out waht a thing is, as such.
    Differentiate it from other, perhaps similar, even overlapping phenomena, concepts, and terms.
    Analysis: Define it, describe it, find its component parts.
    Synthesis: Describe its place in its environment, its function, its consequences, its contribution to the overall system.

    I'll leave you to pursue the subject with whatever tools you choose - a choice based on your purpose.
    But just to put my keyboard where my mouth is ... some thoughts in random order of appearance:

    Is "violence" "bad"?
    Homo Sapiens S. is an animal; animals exhibit aggression.
    Aggression can be intra-species, as in e.g. rivalry for food, territyory or mates, or inter-species, as in e.g. predation.
    Aggression technically serves to bring about the maximum spread of individuals over available territory.
    Predators kill and then eat prey; else they die.
    Parasites eat and then kill prey; else they die.
    If this is "evil", it is perhaps the very definition of "necessary evil".

    Limits to the Freedom of Man
    Imagine a man able to live life exactly as he wishes. This is very rarely the case.
    What things, apart from physical laws, can limit his freedom?
    Being physically stopped by other men - but also being socially limited (laws, rules, customs, manners) and psychologically limited.
    Anyone who thus limits a man is detracting from his life, but only the use of physical force is labelled "bad" - the other is labelled "civilization".

    Force, violence, crime
    These are often used interchangeably.
    Force is simply an expenditure of energy.
    Where to energies are opposed, the stronger force prevails.
    Force is often used for good.
    Some people break into houses to steal. Some break into houses to prevent fires or rescue patients.
    Some people use force to commit crime. Some people use force to prevent crime.
    Some people use force to destroy things. Some people use force to construct things.

    Violence is a subset of force, defined by it being a transgression of some kind.
    The result of force may be damage, but the results of violence also include "violation".

    If that which is violated is a social rule of legal force, then the result of violation is a "crime".
    Now, some people want to make _all_ use of force a crime.


    M

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •