Current Events > Women Don't Murder Men Who Turn Them Down

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://10daily.com.au/views/a190719ufvcq/clementine-ford-incels-and-the-dangers-of-male-fragility-20190722

During the course of writing my second book, I spent a not insignificant amount of time in incel forums and communities, quietly observing their interactions with each other. I encountered distressing levels of violent misogyny and fury towards women, and made myself sick reading the descriptive fantasies of murder and revenge these men felt emboldened to share with each other. But what surprised me was how sad these men made me too. Most of them began as unformed children, desiring the basic human needs of love, care and physical touch. Yet they have also grown up in a world whose patriarchal, homophobic values demonise platonic intimacy between men to the point where touch isolation becomes paramount. The men who are able to form intimate, romantic relationships with women (or other men) are somewhat shielded from this state of touch isolation. And of course there are numerous women for whom touch isolation is also real, and romantic relationships (if desired) seemingly out of reach. But the difference between how we have all been socialised under patriarchy is that women have not been taught to despise men for rejecting them -- weve been taught to despise ourselves.

This is why its rare to hear of women committing mass murder and pointing to endless romantic rejection as a justification for their crimes. Its also why we dont hear of young girls taking weapons to school and murdering boys who turn down their invitations to prom, or following men into the carparks of bars and shooting them at close range because their invitations for a drink were denied. Incel ideology is the dark and twisted endpoint of a much larger problem that positions womens attention and love as something men are entitled to. We need to be talking to boys and young men in particular about healthy expressions of intimacy, healthy expectations of their relationships with women and healthy esteem in themselves. It hurts to be rejected and it hurts to feel unloved -- but we need to seriously intervene with young men and their understanding of intimacy if we want to stop some of them turning that hurt on other people.


---

She's not wrong
---

You see because that's an absolute, I only have to find one specific instance of around 3.5 billion people to prove it wrong.
---

guydude21 posted...

You see because that's an absolute, I only have to find one specific instance of around 3.5 billion people to prove it wrong.

Cool
---

shockthemonkey posted...

teepan95 posted...

She's not wrong

---

Anteaterking posted...

guydude21 posted...

You see because that's an absolute, I only have to find one specific instance of around 3.5 billion people to prove it wrong.

Cool

I mean i'm not gonna because I agree with the general sentiment
---

Women have killed men who turned them down.
---

TC can you tell me the greater takeaway about life I'm supposed to be getting from this topic? What viewpoint or thought were you trying to express when you made it?
---

EbonTitanium posted...

Women have killed men who turned them down.

---

guydude21 posted...

You see because that's an absolute, I only have to find one specific instance of around 3.5 billion people to prove it wrong.

TC made the title an absolute. But the writer doesn't. She states that it's rare, but not that it never happens.

EbonTitanium posted...

Women have killed men who turned them down.

Its also why we dont hear of young girls taking weapons to school and murdering boys who turn down their invitations to prom

Can you give example of that happening?
---

guydude21 posted...

You see because that's an absolute, I only have to find one specific instance of around 3.5 billion people to prove it wrong.

Semantic people like you are why we can never get anything done around here.
---

BlueTigerLion posted...

EbonTitanium posted...

Women have killed men who turned them down.

Its also why we dont hear of young girls taking weapons to school and murdering boys who turn down their invitations to prom

Can you give example of that happening?

Even the writer said it was rare.
---

CommonStar posted...

guydude21 posted...

You see because that's an absolute, I only have to find one specific instance of around 3.5 billion people to prove it wrong.

TC made the title an absolute. But the writer doesn't. She states that it's rare, but not that it never happens.

My title is the article title. I just removed the authors name. Don't shoot the messenger for their poor title.
---

Deadpool_18 posted...

guydude21 posted...

You see because that's an absolute, I only have to find one specific instance of around 3.5 billion people to prove it wrong.

Semantic people like you are why we can never get anything done around here.

What major progressive breakthrough would occur on a gaming forum anyways
---

She is wrong insomuch as she attributes aggressive tendencies in males (and everything else she's talking about) to something called "patriarchy" instead of "evolutionary psychology".

[Full disclosure: I only read the quote, not the link]
---

Lebronwon posted...

. Yet they have also grown up in a world whose patriarchal, homophobic values demonise platonic intimacy between men to the point where touch isolation becomes paramount.

this is baloney
---

shockthemonkey posted...

teepan95 posted...

She's not wrong

---

Solar_Crimson posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

teepan95 posted...

She's not wrong

---

She's not wrong.
I love the people taking 5 words and saying "THAT'S WRONGO!!"
---

Zodd3224 posted...

Solar_Crimson posted...

shockthemonkey posted...

teepan95 posted...

She's not wrong

---

nothing to disagree with there, though I don't think the simple solution of 'talking to boys and young men' is the right tactic. Truth spoken without an observable demonstration of value is nearly worthless, we must show them the way in a form that shatters their bitter illusions directly.
---

sevihaimerej posted...

nothing to disagree with there, though I don't think the simple solution of 'talking to boys and young men' is the right tactic. Truth spoken without an observable demonstration of value is nearly worthless, we must show them the way in a form that shatters their bitter illusions directly.

With a poster along with Ugandan Knuckles and Fortnite Guy?
---

No but sometimes they mutilate their penis.
---

guydude21 posted...

sevihaimerej posted...

nothing to disagree with there, though I don't think the simple solution of 'talking to boys and young men' is the right tactic. Truth spoken without an observable demonstration of value is nearly worthless, we must show them the way in a form that shatters their bitter illusions directly.

With a poster along with Ugandan Knuckles and Fortnite Guy?

Yes, with the power of Ebola and meme dances
---

For claiming that all males must be taught not to be violent with women (as if that's in their nature), the article is clearly generalizing and maligning men in a horribly sexist way.
---

Lightwarrior11 posted...

She is wrong insomuch as she attributes aggressive tendencies in males (and everything else she's talking about) to something called "patriarchy" instead of "evolutionary psychology".

[Full disclosure: I only read the quote, not the link]

Evo psych is pseudoscientific bs foh
---

women can be violent too but men commit the vast majority of violent acts

was I supposed to learn something new here?
---

hyperpsycho posted...

Lightwarrior11 posted...

She is wrong insomuch as she attributes aggressive tendencies in males (and everything else she's talking about) to something called "patriarchy" instead of "evolutionary psychology".

[Full disclosure: I only read the quote, not the link]

Evo psych is pseudoscientific bs foh

No, it's actually the most logical and consistent articulation of a human psychology that fully explains the phenomenon of human sexual behavior and the existence of gender-determined personality differences.

Its relevant assertion is that evolutionary pressures resulted in significantly different brain architectures between men and women, the results of which can be predicted and understood by reference to the exigencies of survival present during the Paleolithic era, and that furthermore these difference will exert effects on modern society.

It's honestly just basic neuroscience to state that testosterone increases aggression, and basic population biology to state that males produce higher levels of testosterone; so statistically it should be assumed that more males than females will commit violent acts in anger.

Ipso facto, it's not patriarchy - it's evolutionary psychology.
---

Lightwarrior11 posted...

hyperpsycho posted...

Lightwarrior11 posted...

She is wrong insomuch as she attributes aggressive tendencies in males (and everything else she's talking about) to something called "patriarchy" instead of "evolutionary psychology".

[Full disclosure: I only read the quote, not the link]

Evo psych is pseudoscientific bs foh

No, it's actually the most logical and consistent articulation of a human psychology that fully explains the phenomenon of human sexual behavior and the existence of gender-determined personality differences.

Its relevant assertion is that evolutionary pressures resulted in significantly different brain architectures between men and women, the results of which can be predicted and understood by reference to the exigencies of survival present during the Paleolithic era, and that furthermore these difference will exert effects on modern society.

It's honestly just basic neuroscience to state that testosterone increases aggression, and basic population biology to state that males produce higher levels of testosterone; so statistically it should be assumed that more males than females will commit violent acts in anger.

Ipso facto, it's not patriarchy - it's evolutionary psychology.

I'm gonna have to call in an expert @COVxy
---

EbonTitanium posted...

Women have killed men who turned them down.

This. She's literally wrong. I've seen a show about stalkers and female stalkers are actually MORE likely to kill their victims in the end than male stalkers.
---

I thought this was a joke at first.

Reminder that it is overwhelmingly the responsibility of men to protect the women, and other male civilians. Females make up about 16% of our armed forces... if that search result I looked up is accurate. And how much out of that percentage have seen front-line combat?
---

Pepys Monster posted...

EbonTitanium posted...

Women have killed men who turned them down.

This. She's literally wrong. I've seen a show about stalkers and female stalkers are actually MORE likely to kill their victims in the end than male stalkers.

Women overwhelmingly experience more violence towards them from men than men do from women.
---

teepan95 posted...

Lightwarrior11 posted...

hyperpsycho posted...

Lightwarrior11 posted...

She is wrong insomuch as she attributes aggressive tendencies in males (and everything else she's talking about) to something called "patriarchy" instead of "evolutionary psychology".

[Full disclosure: I only read the quote, not the link]

Evo psych is pseudoscientific bs foh

No, it's actually the most logical and consistent articulation of a human psychology that fully explains the phenomenon of human sexual behavior and the existence of gender-determined personality differences.

Its relevant assertion is that evolutionary pressures resulted in significantly different brain architectures between men and women, the results of which can be predicted and understood by reference to the exigencies of survival present during the Paleolithic era, and that furthermore these difference will exert effects on modern society.

It's honestly just basic neuroscience to state that testosterone increases aggression, and basic population biology to state that males produce higher levels of testosterone; so statistically it should be assumed that more males than females will commit violent acts in anger.

Ipso facto, it's not patriarchy - it's evolutionary psychology.

I'm gonna have to call in an expert @COVxy

Eh, the difficulty here is that there's truth and bullshit mixed into one lovely shitpie. Evolutionary psychology, as typically referenced, is bullshit. Observing behavioral differences today and assigning the cause to unfalsifiable evolutionary just-so stories is not science, it's narrative.

But it is the case that testosterone plays a role in aggression, and that testosterone plays a bigger role in setting the tone of the CNS in men. But it is also the case that aggression is extemely complicated, mediated by numerous neurochemical systems and extremely sensitive to environmental influence. So, like, you probably can't look at sex based differences in aggression and simply attribute it to biology/testosterone/evolution.

This is not my area of neuroscience though, so disclaimers there.
---

COVxy posted...

Observing behavioral differences today and assigning the cause to unfalsifiable evolutionary just-so stories is not science, it's narrative.

It's not just behavioral differences today that evolutionary psychology predicts - it's behavioral differences persistent across time and culture, and specifically the subconscious impulses that cause those behavioral differences. It can be field-tested through introspection and socialization, and legitimizes itself through the consistent accuracy of its predictions and the perfect symmetry that exists between its proposed psychological mechanisms and the logic of evolution through natural selection.

Evolutionary psychology is an explanatory framework, just as are all systems of psychology, and just as is the theory of evolution. It rests on the same claims as does the theory of evolution itself, and is therefore just as falsifiable as evolutionary theory - and just as scientifically defensible as well.
---

I guarantee at least 1 woman murdered a man for turning her down.

GioUrshela posted...

I guarantee at least 1 woman murdered a man for turning her down.

There was a woman who wanted a married man, and she stalked him, and when he wouldn't leave his wife for her, she killed him. So yes.
---

Lightwarrior11 posted...

It rests on the same claims as does the theory of evolution itself, and is therefore just as falsifiable as evolutionary theory - and just as scientifically defensible as well.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution/modern synthesis.
---

the point the article is trying to make is that it isn't women who gun down dozens of innocents because they were spurned

that's not to say women never commit murder on the basis of being rejected, it's just they don't go in guns blazing. they're more subtle/stalker-y

though whoever titled the article clearly wanted clickbait
---

There are certain things men and women will do differently, including shitty, horrible men and women. I'm sure if you narrow down a crime to "people who drown their children," it's probably in favor of women. That's not to say the phenomenon is a non-issue, but this framing seems dumb.

Sounds like youve never watched the show Snapped. Its series about real life stories of women who end up killing their husbands/boyfriends/ family members
---

COVxy posted...

Lightwarrior11 posted...

It rests on the same claims as does the theory of evolution itself, and is therefore just as falsifiable as evolutionary theory - and just as scientifically defensible as well.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution/modern synthesis.

How?
---

Lightwarrior11 posted...

She is wrong insomuch as she attributes aggressive tendencies in males (and everything else she's talking about) to something called "patriarchy" instead of "evolutionary psychology".

[Full disclosure: I only read the quote, not the link]

I agree that patriarchy isn't the best term to describe what she is talking about, but the problem isn't as much based in biology like you suggest. It is mostly a cultural and social problem. What she describes is more an issue of toxic masculinity, which effects men negatively just as much if not more than women.

It is true that men have more testosterone and are usually more aggressive, which is a biological issue. However the idea that some of the problems she is talking about involving the the incel community are caused by what she describes as "touch isolation" makes sense.

And the touch isolation that we know of today is definitely caused by our current trends of toxic masculinity. Most of the problems with toxic masculinity are actually much more recent than people think. Everyone always assumes that men are men and they have always been men, so that means all the attributes we associate with men have been the same forever. That is in fact not true. The modern idea of masculinity is actually a fairly recent phenomenon, existing since no more than 150 years ago, and iirc has been closer to around 100 years. The idea that all men should be constantly stoic, and hiding their emotions is new, in older times it was very normal to talk about your feelings with your fellow men, as well as being much more platonically intimate with them.

The main thing that caused the shift was the intertwining of the sexes. Previously men and women lived almost completely separate lives, men would always be around other men, and the women would be around other women. Without the need to show off to impress the women around them, the men were much more open with eachother because there was no competition. The decline of arranged marriages also played a part of this, in the new system all the men are now seeing eachother as competition, where as before the men you went to school or worked with would be seen as something like your brothers.

You can see evidence of this in early pictures, men working in the same company together would take a photo together with all their coworkers, often sitting in each others laps, hugging eachother, and even kissing eachother. The modern idea that men can't touch eachother intimately comes from a fear of being seen as gay. But in the past, the idea of being gay wasn't even seen as a possibility. They weren't worried about looking gay because the thought just didn't cross their mind. This let you and the men you would be spending the most of your time with to connect and help eachother without any worry of it being seen negatively.

People have heard about how close Abraham Lincoln was with his bodyguard and best friend, whose name escapes me at the moment. They would hug and sleep together and send each other letters bemoaning how they hate spending time a part. Often people think this means they could have been in a homosexual relationship, which is technically possible, but really this was a much more common occurrence of the times. Men were just closer with eachother, and no one saw it as making them less of a man, because they idea that they had to compete to prove they were a man was a more ridiculous idea.

So, yes aggressiveness does have roots in biology, but for the most part the current trend of incels hating women and wanting to hurt them has more to do with the social climate of the time than it does with some inherent evolutionary traits.

So pretty much, toxic masculinity is real and a modern trend, and hurts everyone involved.
---

There's much less reporting for female on male crime though.

OctaviaMeIody69 posted...

There's much less reporting for female on male crime though.

lol. not when it comes to murder
---

Lightwarrior11 posted...

COVxy posted...

Lightwarrior11 posted...

It rests on the same claims as does the theory of evolution itself, and is therefore just as falsifiable as evolutionary theory - and just as scientifically defensible as well.

You misunderstand the theory of evolution/modern synthesis.

How?

Biologists aren't saying "this species evolved into it's current form because of X", they are saying "these are the mechanisms for slow population shifts in the species". There's a process that is both biologically specified and mathematically modeled and can be observed with controlled experimentation.

This is different than speculating (which is all it could ever be) about the evolutionary basis for modern traits.
---