One of my best commenters, a gentleman by the name of stonerwithaboner posted the following on one of my recent articles
if you’ve had the misfortune of reading feminist’s hateful screeds against “Nice Guys”-you’ll see that they hate these socially inept men far more than “men” like Warmachine that have severely beaten women or Hugo Schwyzer who almost killed an ex-GF in a drug fueled rage. My best guess as to why this is so is that a violent man may hurt a woman but he can also be manipulated into dealing out violence against men that feminist’s don’t like. They merely see a few beaten women as acceptable “collateral damage.” MGTOW’s and “Nice Guys” are completely useless to them. MGTOW’s because they cannot be manipulated by shaming and “Nice Guys” because they are powerless and openly complain about their situation….
This is spot on. Despite what they say, women despise timid or softspoken men that they perceive as weak or as nice guy™. The only way these men get any kind of recognition is if they go the Futrelle route and supplicate to women in an extreme and humiliating way and they certainly don’t get any sexual attention in return, just a lowly place on the feminist totem pole where they are wheeled out as the token feminist friendly man from time to time. Schwyzer was a bit of a different animal in this regard, distinct from Futrelle in that he used his feminist influence to bed his students on several occasions, including the aforementioned sexual rendezvous turned attempted suicide he is now infamous for. The most important part of the comment is this bit.
“My best guess as to why this is so is that a violent man may hurt a woman but he can also be manipulated into dealing out violence against men that feminist’s don’t like.”
I agree but with one distinction, it’s not simply feminists that do this, but women as a whole. I believe that women are obsessed with their safety on both the individual and collective scale. Women demand government programs of exorbitant costs designed to keep them safe at the expense of the male tax payer, they demand hyper-vigilance from every level of society expecting them sometimes to do the impossible, demanding that society and law enforcement “teach men not to rape” and other ridiculous requests, insisting that they should not be told to not venture into high crime areas after a night out, inebriated and stumbling in order to lessen the chances of becoming victimized by a rapist.
Anyone in touch with reality understands clearly and immediately that this is not rape apology, or rape culture but simple common sense. Even women know this themselves, as evidenced by the precautions women have taken on American streets when a high profile serial killer is on the loose in an urban setting. Serial killer David Berkowitz, aka the son of sam, targeted unsuspecting couples in new york city while they made out in their cars in typical lovers lane fashion. All but one of his female victims were long haired brunettes, a woman who lived through son of sam’s reign of terror made the following observation in reaction to Berkowitz’s modus operandi.
My girlfriends and I pinned our hair up when we went out at night. Some girls dyed their hair blond.
Gasp! rape culture! rape!! Violence against women! Patriarchy!
Or, these women knew a psychopath was on the loose and took precautions to lessen their chances of becoming one of his victims. This is not putting the onus of responsibility on women to avoid being raped or killed by a serial killer any more than telling women to try to avoid dressing a certain way or going out at night into high crime areas in order to lessen their chances of being victimized equates to a manifestation of rape culture, there are still entire police departments dedicated to stopping crimes from happening, but common sense would tell you that they cant be everywhere at all times.
So then, we have proven that women know and understand that slutwalks are giant, magnificent smoldering strawmen. They understand that a police department telling women that they should consider not engaging in behaviors that can increase their chances of being victimized, is never followed by some mass refusal by law enforcement to prevent and/or prosecute rape crime as evidenced by the fact that when women are scared enough, (they should be scared when a psychopathic murderer is killing among them, as should men) they drop this pretense, and start altering their appearance so as to avoid the serial killers preferences. They understand that police cannot stop all crime,
Despite this, they slut walk anyway… why? It’s about maximizing female safety, it’s a litmus test to see just how much reckless stupidity they can engage in, and just how much extra resources the mostly male police departments they rail against will devote towards them, while men are simply expected to exercise common sense and take precautions to avoid crime on their own. This is part of the reason why a man can call the police, bloody and bruised claiming that his girlfriend assaulted him and be told simply to sleep it off at a relatives house, while a woman can call the police, not a scratch on her person, and have a man thrown in jail on the mere accusation of domestic violence.
Women WANT primary aggressor laws, they want VAWA they want a hyper-fixation on rape that isn’t extended to men, and they want it all courtesy of the mostly male tax payer. They are ok concerned first and foremost with their safety and anyone who is competing with them for the resources used to provide that safety (men who are the overwhelming victims of violent crime for example) take a backseat to their safety and security.
Why then do some women pursue violent men like Warmachine as stoners comment mentions? Well, you see, it is not enough to simply have law enforcement and government and society as a whole hyper-fixated on your safety at the expense of depriving everyone else of the same amount of safety, these women seek out men that are ready and willing to spit in the face of that hyper-fixation, men that are more than capable and ready to exert violence against women– real physical violence against women, as an added layer of protection. This may sound counter intuitive at first, that a woman would want a man capable of inflicting violence against women despite the robust legal protections we have in place to discourage it.
The logic behind it is the same one would employ when buying a large canine, capable of causing him severe damage, in hopes of training it to only attack others. These women understand the potential danger they incur when embarking on a relationship with the likes of a man like Warmachine, yet they are banking on their sexuality and its ability to control men to modify the behavior of the man in question so that he will never attack her, but will attack any man that she wishes to inflict violence on. It’s textbook female mediated proxy violence. On top of this, the female gets a chance to measure the potency of her sexuality in the same way a lion tamer measures the potency of his training regimen…by sticking her head in the maws of her trained beast knowing that via reward based operant conditioning, the animal can no longer form the thought to bite down. This can backfire and often does as Warmachines case demonstrates, but often times it works, flawlessly giving the female another tool in her toolkit with which she pursues her relentless instinctual quest for safety and provision.
I sometimes liken this process to the cultural expectation women have of being presented by a potential suitor with a diamond ring if he wishes to propose marriage. The value of a gold ring capped with a chiseled and polished diamond is very little to nonexistent, yes, there is an associated cost with mining the gold and the diamond, and this costs is translatable to a dollar amount, but the actual diamond when arranged for ornamental purposes will never go into drilling rock a mile below the surface of the earth, the gold will never be used for its catalytic properties in industrial chemical applications, in it’s ornamental setting it is in fact useless, but simultaneously valuable in terms of its symbolic value, women compare wedding rings because it is a measure of her mans wealth, as well as how much that man is willing to uselessly squander on goods mined in the Congo by modern day slaves. Does the woman care that these jewels have no tangible use and are acquired through questionable practices?
She has determined all she needs to know, that she has value, that her sexuality has value, and that she can use this value to make babies and garner resources, comfort, and security by the poor sap who impregnates her.