You've fallen for the narrative. Irl this story doesn't exist and not with this class or culture. The cases are so rare where a middle class native english boy attacks someone is practically non existent.
This is a hysteria. Low status sensitive boys like these are much more a danger to themselves than anyone else. To be pitied not feared, the stats bear that out too. One at my old school hanged themselves.
What is unspoken is actually the radicalization of young girls. They are told that the system is stacked against them. That their husbands will leave them and thus better not try. Given climate anxiety, that the climate is overheating and that it's all over. And now that there are many gangs of violent incel terrorists out to get them.
There are dangerous people of course and precautions are wise. The case in adolescence is an attempt to distract at the importation of more violent cultures. look at the actual crime data rather than fictional stories.
Yes, I agree that it's far more likely for a low status sensitive boy to kill themselves than someone else. My point was that both of these can be prevented with efforts towards raising status. I will elaborate on this in my next post.
Also, the point of cautionary tales is to warn about both things that happen very rarely (i.e. middle class native boy attacks someone, serial killer, car crash, other freak accident) or don't happen at all but could possibly happen now or in the future (the entire genres of horror and dystopian sci fi).
A story about a girl killed by an immigrant from a far away land is not a good cautionary tale because that kind of risk is obvious. People are naturally xenophobic, they fear people from their out-group, for good reasons - both evolutionary psychology and crime statistics. But a story about a danger within the in-group? That's unexpected and interesting.
This bit doesn't make sense. Norms like 'aa a man, you never hit a woman' were much stronger pre feminism, and if anything male to female violence was even more stigmatized, at least outside domestic relationships. Blank slate feminism got us women in combat remember.
> Due to feminism, male-towards-female violence has become both highly socially stigmatized and fiercely persecuted. If there is any exchange of violence between a man and a woman, the man is always at fault.
I still disagree. Evolution- and culture- wise we went from beating females into sexual submission all the time like bonobos, through treating wives as private properties of their husbands, to whatever we have now. These changes are correlated with the subsequent waves of feminism and women's increasing capacity to speak up.
Marital rape is still legal in some (non-Western) countries, and it was even legal in some US states as late as early 1990's.
Throughout history, both rape and wife beating were more acceptable and prominent in the past, but are no longer now (especially among lower classes - remember that "history is just recorded adventures of the luckiest 2%").
The idea of not hitting women as part of chivalry/codes of honor was an aristocratic/elite thing that the poor and working class men (read: >99% men who ever lived) didn't really care about.
When I hear 'feminism' I think of the 20th century movement, largely in western cultures. So I consider statements attributing changes in culture to feminism to be about changes to 20th century western culture.
Not hitting a woman as part of a code honour was mainstream in western culture regardless of class in the early and mid 20th century. And the concept of 'aristocracy' doesn't even make sense when describing mid century America, or the time period just before feminism wrought significant change
What are you talking about?? It was fairly normal up til about the 70s for men to sometimes hit women/their wives, and it wasn't illegal. Among the working classes it was pretty par for the course. Tons of movies from the 30s through the 60s have scenes with a man slapping a woman. Hell, in The Killers, our later president Ronald Regan slaps Angie Dickinson in the face.
You've fallen for the narrative. Irl this story doesn't exist and not with this class or culture. The cases are so rare where a middle class native english boy attacks someone is practically non existent.
This is a hysteria. Low status sensitive boys like these are much more a danger to themselves than anyone else. To be pitied not feared, the stats bear that out too. One at my old school hanged themselves.
What is unspoken is actually the radicalization of young girls. They are told that the system is stacked against them. That their husbands will leave them and thus better not try. Given climate anxiety, that the climate is overheating and that it's all over. And now that there are many gangs of violent incel terrorists out to get them.
There are dangerous people of course and precautions are wise. The case in adolescence is an attempt to distract at the importation of more violent cultures. look at the actual crime data rather than fictional stories.
Yes, I agree that it's far more likely for a low status sensitive boy to kill themselves than someone else. My point was that both of these can be prevented with efforts towards raising status. I will elaborate on this in my next post.
Also, the point of cautionary tales is to warn about both things that happen very rarely (i.e. middle class native boy attacks someone, serial killer, car crash, other freak accident) or don't happen at all but could possibly happen now or in the future (the entire genres of horror and dystopian sci fi).
A story about a girl killed by an immigrant from a far away land is not a good cautionary tale because that kind of risk is obvious. People are naturally xenophobic, they fear people from their out-group, for good reasons - both evolutionary psychology and crime statistics. But a story about a danger within the in-group? That's unexpected and interesting.
This bit doesn't make sense. Norms like 'aa a man, you never hit a woman' were much stronger pre feminism, and if anything male to female violence was even more stigmatized, at least outside domestic relationships. Blank slate feminism got us women in combat remember.
> Due to feminism, male-towards-female violence has become both highly socially stigmatized and fiercely persecuted. If there is any exchange of violence between a man and a woman, the man is always at fault.
I still disagree. Evolution- and culture- wise we went from beating females into sexual submission all the time like bonobos, through treating wives as private properties of their husbands, to whatever we have now. These changes are correlated with the subsequent waves of feminism and women's increasing capacity to speak up.
Marital rape is still legal in some (non-Western) countries, and it was even legal in some US states as late as early 1990's.
Throughout history, both rape and wife beating were more acceptable and prominent in the past, but are no longer now (especially among lower classes - remember that "history is just recorded adventures of the luckiest 2%").
The idea of not hitting women as part of chivalry/codes of honor was an aristocratic/elite thing that the poor and working class men (read: >99% men who ever lived) didn't really care about.
When I hear 'feminism' I think of the 20th century movement, largely in western cultures. So I consider statements attributing changes in culture to feminism to be about changes to 20th century western culture.
Not hitting a woman as part of a code honour was mainstream in western culture regardless of class in the early and mid 20th century. And the concept of 'aristocracy' doesn't even make sense when describing mid century America, or the time period just before feminism wrought significant change
What are you talking about?? It was fairly normal up til about the 70s for men to sometimes hit women/their wives, and it wasn't illegal. Among the working classes it was pretty par for the course. Tons of movies from the 30s through the 60s have scenes with a man slapping a woman. Hell, in The Killers, our later president Ronald Regan slaps Angie Dickinson in the face.