Only The Weak Liberally Threaten Violence
If women think they have it hard now, they’re in for a rude awakening when the revolution they clamor for does come.
When we talk about political violence, we almost always assume that its perpetrators are young men. That makes sense: men are statistically more likely to engage in physical aggression and get arrested for violent crimes at higher rates. At the same time, many are dealing with rising unemployment, declining educational achievement, and growing social disengagement. Given all that, researchers may reasonably assume that young men are driving greater tolerance for political violence.
New data complicate that assumption. A recent survey by the Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers found that under certain conditions, women were more likely than men to express support for political violence. The findings were so counter to the prevailing narrative that they surprised even the researchers.
It makes sense, though, when you start to recognize where these women’s impulses come from. The rise of what I call “punitive femininity” is downstream of the toxic political culture online, a culture that is transforming the sex long viewed as more restrained and less prone to violence.
Not long ago, I shared my seething anger over the fact men are being blamed for the growing political instability throughout the West, when the data clearly shows it was never men this entire time. Nor was it the Right. It’s so very far from a “both sides” thing. First, I don’t ever recall a time in my life when the Right wasn’t widely-derided, even when America wasn’t as liberal as it is today. Don’t let liberals gaslight you - Mitt Romney, John McCain, the Bushes, Ronald Reagan, they were all Nazis of their day. If they were Nazis back then, then they ought to be Nazis today. Otherwise, liberals are proving it’s just a convenient slur they throw around when they hear something they don’t like.
And yet, it was the Left that shifted more radically, not the Right, these last three decades:
What’s more, the biggest shift came during the early-to-mid-2010s:
Why such sudden and drastic shifts? Women and leftists explain it by saying their increasing radicalization is the result of millions suddenly experiencing a mass “awakening” (hence the term “Woke”), where everyone became kind and decent all that once, and they all happened to become far-left liberals in the process. This is absurd and patently false on its face, of course. The real reason is that women, young women especially, were doing what they’ve always done: conform. They conformed to the messaging transmitted through social media, which they now had 24/7/365 access to via smartphones.
Ironically, the far-left radicalism of women is one big effort at conformity. The reality is that the only way this many people become radicalized is because they’re allowed to or they’re made to. The Nazis gained so many adherents not because their message was that appealing, but because they came to power. Once they came to power, it was kind of hard not to be a radical right-winger. It was the way to get ahead in life.
Once you align yourself with powerful forces, you yourself begin to feel powerful. Hence, women are increasingly threatening violence, because they feel empowered and invincible. Unfortunately, feeling powerful and being powerful aren’t the same thing.
Sacrificing Men For Emotional Satisfaction
In her Substack, liberal commentator Hannah Cox explains how it’s the Left, not the Right, which currently exemplifies the virtues of masculinity, citing the courageous sacrifice made by Alex Pretti in defense of a woman shoved to the ground by federal agents and of illegal immigrants.
The essay is paywalled, but a pair of X posts got to the gist of her point. The first:
MAGA men are yelling “I am the boot!” into their podcast mics and singing Heil H*tler in stretch limos - cosplaying the masculinity their movement is devoid of.
Meanwhile, on the left, men (and woman) are taking to the streets to fight back against the government, protect the vulnerable, and live out their values with true bravery.
In a society where few sacrifices really have to be made any longer, people will eventually forget what it actually means to be brave. They’ll forget what fighting really looks like. It entails sacrifice. Neither Renee Good nor Alex Pretti did what they did with any idea they might get killed in the process. They both probably had plans for the evening, and, judging by their level of resistance, probably didn’t even expect to get arrested. If they were truly prepared to make a sacrifice, they probably would’ve done something more direct than play the I’m Not Touching You game.
Nor does attending a protest constitute an act of bravery. Protest is legally-protected activity, and there’s literally no risk in attending protests which have both elite and popular approval. If anything, being a counter-protester or challenging a protest is the real act of bravery these days. The power of leftist protest isn’t in its message and certainly not in its values, which most Americans already agree with. No, the power of leftist protest is in the mob. Its ability to cow Americans into silence or submission is what makes protest powerful, unfortunately.
We typically don’t describe such people as “brave.” We usually call them “oppressors” or something. Call liberals oppressors and you fatally wound their egos because their entire identities are built around the belief they could never be.
You don’t have to agree with Pretti’s beliefs or even his tactics to be impressed by him. How many people ever do anything to actually fight back?
In reality, a lot more of us should have strapped up and taken to the streets a long time ago over the things our government is doing to us.
Fight back against what, exactly? Enforcement of immigration laws? Someone I know has been telling me, ad nauseum, that the law isn’t always right. So? Though laws shouldn’t be divorced from morality, laws themselves aren’t meant to be any exercise in it. We can’t legislate morality, anyhow, a core belief among liberals. The purpose of law is order. It’s why obeying the law is important. When people get to decide on their own which laws to follow and not follow, that’s anarchy.
I don’t consider myself a statist. But I also know all societies need government, a system of order. People like Hannah Cox have a relentlessly immature attitude towards government, towards laws, regarding them as impediments to their happiness rather than the reason why they don’t spend their days constantly thinking about survival, where their next meal will come from, being constantly ready to fight for their lives. It wounds their pride to admit they depend on the system, probably more so than others, in large part because of their inability to assume personal agency.
It’s also impossible to take anyone seriously who says things like we should’ve taken up arms to violently resist the government, as Cox does. First off, she’s a woman. I don’t mean it in a misogynistic way, though I know many people will take it like that. But it’s just a scientific fact that women didn’t evolve in such a way to understand violence and all its implications. If an armed rebellion did occur, most of the fighting and dying would be done by men. Women might participate early on, but as their casualty numbers rise and the reality of violence becomes impossible to deny, women will progressively choose to stay home. It’s just not their arena.
Look at what she said about Alex Pretti:
And what’s Cox, if not a keyboard warrior? If we should’ve rebelled against the government a long time ago, where the hell was she all this time? If a man decides to take it upon himself to be neighborhood watch and defend his community from criminals and intruders, is he a hero, too? Or is he a fool who needs to mind his own business? I think we know enough about people like Cox, who’s not as unique as she thinks she is, to know what the answer would be.
It’s easy to fantasize about dying for a cause when you’re utterly incapable of violence. The fact is, Cox and other women like her will sacrifice absolutely nothing for their cause. If they end up getting killed, it won’t be out of heroism, but out of delusion. By honoring people like Alex Pretti and praising his actions, all they’re showing is that they expect men to still do the fighting and dying on their behalf. Their expectation of men is that they become radicalized to take up their causes and sacrifice themselves the way Pretti did.
It really is that simple: liberal women view men as expendable. To them, the ultimate act of manhood is to lose his cool, get his ass kicked, then come back a week later with a loaded gun, and die for a stupid political cause. Hence, we have an increasing gender divide, because men smartly want no part of the insanity, and most men don’t view someone like Pretti as any kind of hero. They correctly see him as stupid.
Most men are not only not radicals, they also don’t have any desire to sacrifice themselves on behalf of people who don’t think much of them anyway. The frustration with many men today has nothing to do with male radicalization, but everything to do with female radicalization. Likewise, the frustration with many women today has everything to do with the fact men are simply not going along with their wild machinations. No revolution can ever be successful without young men. The frustration among women is rooted in the realization their political movements are destined for failure. We live in a moment where women have, really for the first time, established a political platform all their own, but it doesn’t hold appeal to men and political movements which are lacking male support cannot succeed.
It’s unfortunately paywalled, but scholar Rob Henderson recently had a conversation with Louise Perry where she explained that if SHTF happened and politics led to large-scale violence, the side with most young men would win. I’m unfortunately not confident that side is the Right. Yes, most young men aren’t radicals of any kind. But even then, most young men trend leftward politically. Both the Left and Right have played up the supposed rightward shift among young men for different reasons.
Doesn’t this contradict what I said in the paragraph before last? Maybe, but my point is that radical women cannot win on their own. If young men don’t side with the Left, radical leftist women will lose. They’ll have a chance if young men do side with them, but I doubt it’ll be a preponderance of them. Young men will probably be split roughly 50-50 between Left and Right. When it comes to a physical clash, there’s no substitute for young men.
The False Promise of Empowerment
Women feel brave and empowered today, but that’s only because they exist in a civilizational context. Civilizational breakdown affects us all negatively, but women are completely exposed due to their incapacity for violence. I always think back to what Bosnian War survivor Selco Begovic said about how gender roles reverted to traditional norms once fighting began. Bosnia wasn’t some feminist paradise like the U.S. is today, but like most modern countries, women weren’t oppressed, either, and gender norms were progressive, if not radically so.
In his book SHTF Survival Stories: Memories From The Balkan War, which I can’t recommend enough, Selco interviewed a woman named Una who survived the war:
I thought of myself as a strong woman before, but that was before being without food and losing normal control of my life. I was a teacher before everything, and of course, I lost my job just like almost everyone. Nothing worked like it was supposed to work. I did not even have the idea to continue to teach my kids at home or try something similar. To just survive took all my energy.
If women think they have it hard now, they’re in for a rude awakening when the revolution they clamor for does come.
Ironically, even in war, being a woman does come with privileges:
For me I think it was better because I was a woman. I mean, I was in a way protected from some of the hardest things, like finding food, resources, or fighting. The hardest jobs were done by men, it was a matter of luck for me.
War, terrible as it is, does accentuate male and female biological capabilities and limitations:
Woman are just more useful for certain kind of job like taking care of kids or wounded or sick people. The women also have more feelings so some things like using violence do not come easy.
Killing or even hurting someone is hard for anyone. But it’s easier to get a man to cross that invisible line than it is for a woman. Feminists cannot, on one hand, claim women are as strong and capable of violence as men, while on the other hand raise the point that most criminals, most violent people, are men. The capacity for righteous and wrongful exercise of violence are two sides of the same coin.
The harsh reality is that nobody, not even women, are entitled to protection. They’re protected for their usefulness:
I was protected, guarded in a way because I was a woman.
It was not a matter of some kind of gentlemen thing, I believe it was mostly about fact that I do my part of duties, like taking care for kids, preparing food, trying to keep things clean etc.
In other words, you need to offer something beyond your mere existence in order to enjoy the benefits of being part of a group. Women today think they deserve protection just because they’re women, but that’s not how things actually work. You have to socialize men into protecting women simply as a matter of course. Even then, most men aren’t going to stick their necks out for someone who offers nothing to them, who resent them, who think they’re oppressors, as we see today.
Women do fight in war, but it’s entirely a matter of necessity, not empowerment:
When I had to shoot, nobody would tell me: you are a woman you can’t do that. Everyone in the group had to function and people treat you good if you do.
In other words, women don’t receive any special recognition for fighting, because when it’s a matter of survival, what else would you do? Even children take up arms in war. Nobody thinks that’s a good thing. But it happens because the alternative is death. So all the women who think they’re all rough and tough now should probably chill out, because it’s easy to be brave when people aren’t trying to kill you, when you live your life with the assurance you’ll wake up the next morning.
It’s also easy to want leadership roles when things are fine, but in crisis, being domestically-oriented comes with benefits:
When my husband was thinking and worrying about when everything would come to an end, and what are the chances for that, or trying to find some useful information about that, my biggest concern was how to make dinner or to warm the kids.
It was not about “men in the house” thing. It was that he thinks about the big issues and I do not. I am an educated person, but worrying about small, everyday things I think helped me through all of that, without going crazy maybe.
Remember that most men aren’t fit for leadership. But men’s relationship with violence, specifically, makes them a better fit. This is because leaders need to understand cause-and-effect, make people do things they don’t want to do, and see a wide range of consequences before making a choice. Men are constantly aware that violence is a potential outcome, while women tend to be dismissive of it. Someone dismissive of violence cannot be a leader.
Here’s one final, profound passage:
But yes, I think my kids and caring for my kids gave me some will and strength to survive and live somehow normally. I think the point of taking care of someone is really important in all this.
There’s a separate discussion to be had about the role declining rates of parenthood is having on the political divide, not just between men and women, but between Left and Right overall. People who have only themselves to take care of (plus maybe a dog) simply don’t see the world the same way as those who have someone depending on them. No matter one’s political views, you can’t help but be more pragmatic about things when you have a family to worry about. It’s not good for the kids being a radical, for one. Ironically, parenthood, realism, pragmatism, these are the biggest acts of radicalism today.
Una’s testimony is proof that men need someone to protect and women need someone to care for. In many ways, that’s what keeps people sane, that’s what keeps people going through the hard times, the knowledge that someone depends on them for survival. Our radicalization problem today very much stems from the fact that men and women are running out of someone to protect and someone to care for. They’ll direct those energies elsewhere, towards things like politics. Get enough of those people in a society and destabilization will ensue.
It’d be understandable if our society was facing a truly existential crisis. But it’s not. The fact is, women today are taking on the causes popular culture tells them to take on. Historically, women were more worried about more practical concerns like crime because they understood their vulnerability to violence. We live in a safer society today than we did before, so women have to direct their concerns somewhere else, often the plight of the “under-privileged.” They’ll also direct their energy towards breaking down the very structures which provide safety and prosperity for them, viewing them as limits on their freedom. When your stomach is full, eating tends to feel like a burden.
“You Have No Idea What’s Coming”
Looks like it’s women’s turn to issue empty threats of backlash and mass violence:
Sigh. There will be no mass uprising of women. It’s not even clear there’s going to be a mass uprising of men. The most they’ll do is protest, which they can safely do now. Was there to be a mass violent uprising of women, the only way they’d win is if everyone surrendered to their demands. You’ll notice that women often speak of being given power, not taking it. That’s because women know, intrinsically, that they cannot take power, not by sheer force of arms. Hence, they bank on acquiescence, hoping they can shame men and the rest of society into simply standing aside as they carry out their revolutionary takeover. After all, they’ve been given almost everything else they’ve asked for. What do you call someone who gambles on the capitulation of others?
In fact, when women do become violent, this is how it typically goes down (watch until the end):
This is probably why most women will resort to bullying and intimidation instead, like a mob of White liberal women did in Minneapolis:
These yoga students are getting hot over ICE.
Enraged spandex-clad customers at a Minneapolis CorePower Yoga studio berated staffers for being “complicit” in the federal immigration crackdown during a caught-on-camera clash last weekend — demanding that they immediately condemn ICE.
Video of the clash posted to social media by Heather Anderson, who claims to have been a regular at the location for nearly a decade, shows at least 13 women “spontaneously” facing off against two female staffers inside the studio’s lobby after a Sunday class let out.
In response to the incident, the Denver-based yoga chain banned Anderson — but otherwise caved to the mob and is putting up anti-ICE signs in its studios.
There’s nothing more powerful than a mob. It’s the mob, not women, who intimidates. It’s the mob which gives authoritarianism and totalitarianism staying power. And it’s women who are often a dictator’s biggest supporters. That’s because women are drawn to power. The belief that men are more drawn to authoritarianism than women is yet another feminized distortion of our times. If anything, more men have fought against authoritarianism than women have, giving their lives in the process.
They call mob actions like protest bravery, yet these same women never display this bravery towards criminals, nor do they even expect men to stand up to them. When was the last time you saw a mass of women march towards an armed criminal the way they march towards ICE agents? They never do nor would, because they know who actually poses the threat to them. I’ll say it as many times as needed: to whom you submit is who holds authority over you. Standing up to people you know aren’t likely to hurt or kill you requires little bravery. Standing up to those who would does require lots of it. That’s why we call those who do heroes.
In closing, in the interest of being constructive, I’ll share this great thought from a woman named Meghan Murphy:
You don’t *have* to jump on every bandwagon. You don’t *have* to post every hashtag. You don’t need to demand people who are not exactly like you unfollow you. That is childish and dumb, and people who are not exactly like you, you’ll notice, don’t do that to you. They don’t tell you you are bad, just because you have bad opinions, which you do. You just don’t know it, because you don’t bother to consider that alternate views might be legitimate. Even though those views aren’t in your friends Instagram stories! Imagine.
Imagine just not posting something stupid and hyperbolic on your social media feed every single time your friends do it. Imagine not posting a black square because everyone else is.
Stop being retarded. Use your brain. Maybe give it a minute or two. Maybe look beyond your algorithm. Maybe learn from history. Recall that the mob isn’t always right. And your emotions, stirred up by flashing lights, are also not always right.
Recall that the mob isn’t always right. It’s probably one of the more true lessons we’ve been taught in school, yet it’s also the one most people fail to learn.
Let’s talk about it. What do you make of the increasing support for political violence among women? Are the threats of violence from women to be taken seriously? Or are they idle? Share your thoughts in the comments.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!
The first "random cognitive misfire" upon reading this, was to speculate about how promiscuity became "hookup culture" and how that becomes an incentive.
There was a time, in the not-too-distant past, when bestowal and withholding of amorous favors, was an incentive to provide and protect within a permanent pair-bond.
The juvenile version of that, was what a certain generation experienced in adolescence. Beginning (it appears) in the seventies, that adolescent flirtation no longer held the promise of practicing for a pair-bond; marriage was to be deferred.
When you wrote of the "left," my thoughts went to quid pro quo. Youth, not yet understanding the mechanism of social contract, does lean "left." When it comes to sacrifice, what forms the incentive for young men to avoid bestowal of "the white feather" by the females seeking to exercise manipulative power when serving their own self-interest?
These things are always multivariate, Mr. Remington, so I offer only a speculation on one possibly-contributory element.
Women goad the men then watch the results, unaffected by whatever pain or injury is inflicted. Women feel they are not allowed to be affected by their actions because America is very permissive and indulgent with women. Look at the behavior of so many Congresswomen behaving like foul mouth high school girls. They use obscenities, lies, screaming, costumes. Essentially throwing tantrums. Someone should send them to their room for a time out.