Chechen Republic country

On terrorism, feminism and A Voice for Men

As I write this, Boston police and others are scouring the Watertown area for a second suspect in the horrific bombing of the Boston Marathon that left three dead and over 100 injured.  Last night they shot one of the suspects and are reported to be closing in on the other.

What’s most noteworthy at this point is that the two are brothers who seem to be of Chechen origin.  Now, what we don’t know about the two far surpasses what we do.  We don’t know if these two young men planted the bombs at the marathon or, if they did, why.  We’re not certain that they’re even from Chechnya and we certainly don’t know if they’re members of a Chechen separatist group.  After all, exactly what do Russia, Chechnya and the independence movement there have to do with the Boston Marathon?

What intrigues me though is that the backpack bombing of a public gathering place is very much the modus operandi of Chechen separatism.  That movement, that combats with terrorism the overwhelming force and brutality of the Russian military, long ago took its fight into Russia sending suicide bombers into cafes, airports, schools and the like.

Whether or not the young man sought by the Boston police is a Chechen separatist, the unfolding drama put me in mind of a piece I did for Glenn Sacks’ blog back in 2010. (1)  It was occasioned by the report by three researchers at the University of Chicago who’d just completed years of research into every single terrorist incident perpetrated by Chechen separatists since 2000.  There were 42 such incidents involving 63 perpetrators studied by Robert Pape, Lindsey O’Rourke and Jenna McDermit, and they revealed some interesting things that bear directly on some of A Voice for Men’s primary messages.

First, female terrorists turn out to be “deadlier than the male” variety.  Second, that’s because people generally see women as harmless and therefore allow them far greater freedom of movement than they do men, a fact that benefits any woman bent on mayhem.  Third, female terrorists and their families use shaming tactics against men to goad them into becoming terrorists.

Pape, et al have studied far more than just Chechen terrorism.  They’ve also studied terrorism in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, the West Bank, Sri Lanka and elsewhere.  Among Chechen terrorists, some 40% of the perpetrators were women.  Here’s what I wrote back in 2010.

[A]ttacks by women are deadlier than those carried out by men. Female terrorists kill an average of 21 people per attack versus only 13 for men. The bloodiest attack ever in the Chechen’s terrorist war against Russia – the coordinated bombing of two passenger flights that killed 90 people- was carried out by women. Plus, their deeds seem to be more effective at inspiring others. Pape, et al show that female terrorists use their femininity to shame males into participating in terrorist acts. They’ve also started a group called the “black widows,” in which women who’ve had a husband or other loved one killed or injured goad others to join the fight.

That people’s sexist attitude toward women – they’re harmless – allows female terrorists to be far more deadly than males was graphically illustrated by a Russian newspaper and reported by Pape, O’Rourke and McDermit.  In 2003 a Chechen suicide bomber walked into a Moscow café at peak hours with a bomb-laden pack strapped to her back.  Her attempt to detonate the device failed, the police were called and she was arrested.  So the Russian newspaper carried out a little experiment, described by Pape in the pages of the New York Times as follows:

[F]emale suicide attackers have one more advantage: They can often travel inconspicuously to their targets. A July 2003 investigative report by the Russian news magazine Kommersant-Vlast found that a potential female suicide bomber could easily avoid public suspicion. Just days after a Chechen suicide bomber, Zarema Muzhakhoyeva, tried but failed to blow up a Moscow cafe in 2003, one of the magazine’s journalists — wearing a niqab, tightly clutching a black satchel to her chest, and behaving in a nervous manner — was able to get a table at the same cafe without ever being questioned. Perhaps not surprisingly, Chechen women have carried out 8 of the 10 suicide attacks in Moscow.

Each new act of terrorism in this country renews public debate about the phenomenon.  We’re led to believe by the establishment that combats terrorism that we’re doing everything we can to keep Americans safe from those who would destroy innocent life to attempt to advance a political ideal. But the research done by Pape, O’Rourke and McDermit show that we’ve overlooked one important aspect of the problem.  As long as we see only men as society’s violent actors, we open ourselves up to the violence and destruction committed by the half of the population who’ve proven themselves men’s equals in violence.  We’ve known this in the context of domestic abuse for decades; now we know it about terrorist violence.

Perhaps less important but still worthy of note, the researchers also show that the shaming tactics used by women in all walks of life to manipulate men to act in accordance with their wishes are used by women to recruit male terrorists.  “C’mon, be a man!  Blow yourself up and a café too!”

In short, the type of gender awareness promoted by A Voice for Men must be adopted wholesale if we’re to truly combat terrorism.  Women must be seen for what they are – just as violent and deadly as men.  Men must adopt methods for blunting the shaming tactics employed against them by women.

As a postscript, my original piece about the Pape/O’Rourke/McDermit study came with a bit of luck attached.   You see, a mere six days before my article about their work, an Israeli researcher, one Anat Berko, was reported by the newspaper Ha’aretz as entirely exempting female Palestinian terrorists from any responsibility for their murderous ways.  Here’s what I wrote back then:

Amazing as it may seem, Israeli researcher, Anat Berko has managed to ascertain that female suicide bombers aren’t responsible for their acts of terrorism. Indeed, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz quoted Berko as saying,

[W]omen are pushed to carry out a terrorist attack and never choose to do so out of their own free will. There are always personal problems hidden in the background.”

You read that right. Women who blow up others never do so of their own free will. That’s because they have “personal problems.” What are some of those personal problems? Well, divorce is one. A Palestinian woman who’s gotten divorced because she’s unable to bear children has no free will and, according to Berko, has no power to resist the clarion call of terrorism. What Berko thinks about the fact that countless Palestinian women resist that quite nicely, we’re left to guess. For that matter, what she thinks of the Palestinian terrorist woman who’s briefly profiled in the Ha’aretz piece and who clearly has a very strong will, also goes unexplored.

Given her opinions about female terrorists, it must be only a matter of time before Berko’s called as an expert witness in a criminal case against a female terrorist. I can hardly wait. I mean, imagine the scene; a Palestinian woman attempts to detonate a bomb at a crowded bus station in Tel Aviv, but fails. She’s arrested on a variety of charges, but her defense attorney calls Dr. Berko to the witness stand and elicits testimony that the woman had no free will and is therefore innocent of the crime charged. I wonder what the Israeli jury would do with that handy-dandy bit of information. Would they kill her or laugh her out of court? As I say, I can’t wait to find out.

But if that’s her opinion about female killers, what’s her take on the male variety? We didn’t have to ask. Berko is ready with the answer:

“When men become terrorists, the ideological motive is dominant.”

No problem with free will there. Men who do wrong have it; women who do wrong don’t. Simple as that. (2)

Do I have to tell you that Berko’s a feminist?  I thought not.

Remember, this woman’s an Israeli.  She and her countrymen have been subjected to decades of terrorism.  To say the least, it’s a very touchy topic in Israel.  For Berko to pretend, against all that recent history that women, but not men, who kill Israeli civilians in terrorist acts should be given a free pass because they’re upset about their divorce gives an all-new meaning to the term chutzpah.

To be clear, feminists like Berko promote terrorism.  They ask us to understand women in exactly the way Pape, O’Rourke and McDermit show to an absolute certainty we shouldn’t.  They tell us that women aren’t the agents of their own behavior.  They encourage us to believe that women are harmless, not to be feared, not to be suspected.  And it is exactly that mindset that allows female terrorists to kill and maim more effectively than do males.

Aside from the disgraceful dishonesty of that mindset, does it get any worse than that?

 

(1)    http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4727

(2)    http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4726

  • FullyAwake

    …to hell in a hand basket. Don’t mess with mother nature. Screw nurture. That’s how we got here.

  • 86

    Re: Anat Berko, Once again contemporary feminists make a claim that women are frail, not agents of their free will, and need protection.

  • externalangst

    The Australian public TV broadcaster, SBS, pushes the line during reportage of terrorist acts that males perform terrorism to get sex from ‘dark-eyed virgins’ in the afterlife; but women commit terrorism to help their families and communities. SBS editorializes during the reporting that females do it for the best reasons.

    SBS also chooses the describe e.g. a 18 y.o. male terrorist as a ‘man’ but the same aged female terrorist as a ‘girl’. Thanks for this piece Robert. It’s important stuff.

    • JinnBottle

      When they were still gathering the first facts, a (male) correspondent at WCVB TV announced that “one of the victims was an eight year old boy”.

      A couple of hours later, with no new contradictory info, that same station had decided to call the 8 year old a “child”.

      Only when the child’s name could be released was he a “boy” again.

      Who you suppose said what to produce that little-but-significant interim neutering operation?

  • Peter Wright (Tawil)

    Very interesting article, Robert. It is articles like these that undermine the basis used for shaming of males. I hope to see a lot more like this one.

  • Near Earth Object

    Thank you for a fascinating read, Robert.

  • Clarence

    This article is useful in some ways, but rather disgusting in others.

    First off, I’m glad for the research that was pointed out. That research might be useful if some feminist tries to claim that only men commit suicide bombings or other acts of terrorism, though I suspect many on here were already aware of female suicide bombers being employed by the IRA (a distinct minority), the PLO( a minority) and the Chechans.

    However, when you take out the link and writeup about the useful research you are left with two things:

    A. Hey, American Police State? Please be equally as likely to violate a woman’s rights as you are a man’s due to your suspicions. Thank you. Of course such a call for increased surveillance is disgusting in and of itself, rather few men are terrorists, so blaming the whole group for the actions of a few…hey, what’s that called again? Profiling?
    Besides, far as I know there are plenty of paranoid places where men, women, 80 year old grannies and 4 y ear old children are treated exactly the same security-wise: go to one of your local airports and watch the needless harassment.
    B. Wondering how this is applicable to the USA since pretty much every one of our terrorist attacks for the past 30 years or so have either been all men or a single man. For whatever reasons our current culture seems to be one where pretty much all terrorism is committed by men.

    Just like most of our suicides are men.

    Denying these things in the interests of ‘equality’ doesn’t make them go away.

    • Kukla

      “Hey, American Police State? Please be equally as likely to violate a woman’s rights as you are a man’s due to your suspicions.”

      That’s what I call EQUALITY. WEEEEEEEEE!

      • Laddition

        A bit more equality like that and women might be a bit less keen on a police state. Bring it on.

        Women, I’ve heard said, have a tendency for putting security over freedom. The biggest shame is that they’re on the path to neither. And worse? they’re hell bent on taking us with them.

        • Kimski

          Upvoted with vigor!

          • Laddition

            thanks mate

    • http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=451 dhanu

      “A. Hey, American Police State? Please be equally as likely to violate a woman’s rights as you are a man’s due to your suspicions.”

      Well, no. Equality can be done positively also, even though some people have to always lean toward something negative. How about, “Hey, American Police State? Please be equally as likely to respect a man’s right and privacy as you are a woman’s due to your feminist bias.”? Makes sense?

      “Besides, far as I know there are plenty of paranoid places where men, women, 80 year old grannies and 4 y ear old children are treated exactly the same security-wise: go to one of your local airports and watch the needless harassment.”

      Why bring those cases up when they’re not being discussed in a gender-specific way here? Because there are places where everyone is treated equally, does that make it wrong to discuss any places where there’s discrimination?

      “B. Wondering how this is applicable to the USA since pretty much every one of our terrorist attacks for the past 30 years or so have either been all men or a single man. For whatever reasons our current culture seems to be one where pretty much all terrorism is committed by men.”

      How about taking your own advice: “rather few men are terrorists, so blaming the whole group for the actions of a few…hey, what’s that called again? Profiling?”

      “Just like most of our suicides are men.”

      And still no support for them.

      “Denying these things in the interests of ‘equality’ doesn’t make them go away.”

      Pointing out the other side of the coin does not hide the first side. Where in the article is it claimed that men cannot be terrorists or lack agency or free will to be the ones? Hint: It’s not.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      “For whatever reasons our current culture seems to be one where pretty much all terrorism is committed by men.”

      “For whatever reason” seems to be as deep as you run, which puts you in line with most gender ideologues.

      Newsflash, the article gave you an open door to help elevate your understanding way above “for whatever”

      Looks like you blew it.

  • Umfweto

    Personally I just feel for my friends in the USA who are just normal powerless people living their lives.

    They are amazing loving people who, from time to time, have to contemplate living in a domestically violent society that is at war with itself and a violent world that is at war with them.

    My heart goes out the the average Joe or Jane American who is just trying to live a good life but is continuously faced with the fall-out of crap they had nothing to do with and are personally against.

    I feel for people who’s cities are blown up for reasons they don’t understand. People who hurt from these experiences but at the same time feel the need to censor their true feelings amongst their foreign friends for fer of being labelled a dumb American.

    I would say, let’s forget the MHRM on this one and just give a warm hug to our friends in the US who are continuously being thrown crap they neither understand or could be blamed for.

  • Rad

    What’s most interesting to me is in all that recent whitey hating speculation, people ask the question: “Why?” They look for answers, they push for controls and protection. They are interested in motive.

    But when it’s a Muslim in the “crosshairs” the same people stop asking “Why?”. In fact, they act as if they’d prefer that things get swept under the rug as soon as possible.

  • August Løvenskiolds

    I’m writing this shortly after the capture of the 2nd suspect. CNN is claiming “the hunt is over”.

    In the two video clips of the suspected male bombers, there is third person, a woman in a yellow shirt walking in lockstep a few feet behind them. She is also wearing a backpack. She appears in every clip, turning corners with the suspects, and keeping a uniform distance.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbW8gqTN7O0&feature=player_detailpage#t=87s

    As far as I can tell, no one is seeking to interview her because women aren’t considered dangerous. Oh, and the two suspects are brothers, and they have two sisters.

  • http://gloriusbastard.com/ JJ

    Awesome article, I can’t agree more.

    The female sentencing discount is not a uniquely American phenomenon. Nor is it original to our American shores. For centuries, the Potiphar’s wives and “Black Widow’s” of the world have created ruin for the drama inspired romance of violence many women seem to possess a yearning for. Soap Operas in reality.

    To articulate how a woman’s womanly machinations can manipulate men to do horrible thing’s has been well documented; and yet we men failed to see it.

    A common Herodias is Berko. The original Queen of Hearts, hating the condemnation of her divorce by a possibly historic figure ( I believe John the Baptist and Herodias were real and existed), claimed “off with his head!” and Herod acted to have a good/great man beheaded.

    A KING, the ideological, and metaphorical Eunuch to her mental phallus. It is the same today. The feminist narrative that women are powerless, horribly abused victims of men is as false as my saying there is no such thing as gravity.

    Female Deceit is like a law of the theory of Hamstertivity.

    We saw it with the White Feather campaign, and our Great Grandfathers were powerless on their way to their deaths in war. We saw it early last century with false testimony, and obvious guilt in a heiresses murder of her husband, and still those country boys could not bear to see a woman hang.

    For centuries, millenia even, woman have possessed a free ride because everyone thought “she could never have done that, look at her!”

    Due to their own handy work, their free ride is likely to come to an end for all time.

    Feminism is NOT the liberation of women!

    It is their enslavement, and subsequent freedom of the darker side of masculinity. All the statistics on fatherless “youth” can attest to this fact.

    When women run the whole shebang, the whole place may come down with them.

  • Clarence

    “Pointing out the other side of the coin does not hide the first side. Where in the article is it claimed that men cannot be terrorists or lack agency or free will to be the ones? Hint: It’s not.”

    The article is a thinly veiled whine for women to pick up their slack over the past 30 years and start committing acts of terrorism so the writer can pretend that men and women are exactly equal in the propensity to commit certain crimes, esp, for whatever reason in our society.

    Seriously, the Women of America for whatever reasons (both good and bad) have hardly committed any terrorism in the USA over the past 30 years. But they all have to be suspected ANYWAY.

    It’s just like when an alleged rape occurs but the alleged perp has not been caught and suddenly all men nearby find themselves getting the Evil Eye.

    Seriously, other than this site, can anyone link me to a feminist article about THIS ATROCITY that brings sex into it?

    Fine. Bring sex into this. And men will lose. And rightfully so. Most mass murderers and most political terrorists have always been men. Of course the vast majority of men have been neither, but it’s not here or there.

    I’d rather keep sex out of it. I’d also rather not become fascists and help the government get more power. Most of the legal stuff that A Voice For Men does will either be opening up services to men or trying to reduce the scope of laws that empower the state.

    At least if they want my help.

    • http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=451 dhanu

      “The article is a thinly veiled whine for women to pick up their slack over the past 30 years and start committing acts of terrorism so the writer can pretend that men and women are exactly equal in the propensity to commit certain crimes, esp, for whatever reason in our society.”

      That’s the way YOU see it, because that’s the only way you WANT to see it. What’s being tried to point out here, as I see it, is that a criminal or a terrorist must be held accountable for that person’s actions, without bringing that person’s gender/sex into the equation. Since women are claimed to be less violent (as you did above), the article presents some examples that women can be more violent too. What is your point actually? Do you mean to say that the laws must be unequal because more men have committed such acts? At the same time, most of the positive things and inventions have also been done by men. Do you demand more positive laws for men and negative for women for that as well? Or it’s a typical case of double standards? How about same treatement for same crime or act of goodness regardless of the sex/gender?

      “Seriously, the Women of America for whatever reasons (both good and bad) have hardly committed any terrorism in the USA over the past 30 years. But they all have to be suspected ANYWAY.”

      Where did you pick that up from? No one here thinks in a collective mentality. That seems to be YOUR nature. Here, it’s all about individual responsibility and accountability.

      “Seriously, other than this site, can anyone link me to a feminist article about THIS ATROCITY that brings sex into it?”

      Read the article completely. You’ll find a reference (Anat Berko).

      “I’d rather keep sex out of it.”

      You may, feminists won’t. The article is for them who do not.

    • Near Earth Object

      “Seriously, the Women of America … have hardly committed any terrorism in the USA over the past 30 years.”

      Many men would disagree with you on that one, Clarence.

      I would like to draw your attention to:
      Was David Ainsworth driven to suicide?
      http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/domestic-violence-industry/was-brian-moore-driven-to-suicide/#comment-154759

      I would especially like to draw your attention to the comment by ‘All Contraire’.

  • Clarence

    Read the article completely. You’ll find a reference (Anat Berko).

    YOU should read the article.
    That was a reference to an idiot who was talking about BOMBINGS in Palestine.

    The Boston event happened in the USA, and I haven’t seen a SINGLE FEMINIST SITE bring the sex of these men into it. I’ve seen some racial and political stuff(people wishing that the bombers were white or NRA members or leftwing radicals, jihadists, etc) , but no sexual stuff. And the only site where I can find such an article – one that brings sex into this tragedy – is A Voice For Men.

    Color me disappointed at the bad taste.

    Anyway, in so far as the US has a terrorist problem, it has a MALE terrorist problem.

    Anyone want to guess why?

    • http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=451 dhanu

      One example: Women are especially the victims of males and terrorism (not bothered to look into the male victims or female perpetrators), men are the only ones who are perpetrators and terrorists, masculinity is the cause of repression and killings: http://www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Terrorism,%20sexism,%20racism%20and%20other%20lethal%20-isms.htm

      What exactly is a “male terrorist problem”? In what ways is it different from a more inclusive “terrorist problem”? What solution do you propose for the former? Why cannot a solution to the latter be sufficient for the former? Sexist attitudes like yours are the reason for the article.

      Seems like you forgot you said in your last comment that you’d keep sex out of the problem, as in the very next comment you explicitly included it. This article is written specifically for the types of you, who bring up sex even while claiming that they’re egalitarian. Now you see the need for it?

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      If you were not so obviously serious, I would ask you if you were fucking joking. Then I would cringe in awaiting your answer.

      From the shooting of congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to the Sandy Hook Elementary School to the Virginia Tech disaster, feminists have brought their ideas about gender into the mix on violent tragedies, always angling for an “examination of masculinity” as part of discussion they think we should be having.

      They just ID’d the suspects, killed one and made one arrest, like hours ago. And you are already crediting feminists for not bringing gender into the equation? Give them time, they likely will. And if they don’t it will be the exception and not the rule.

      Please at least tell me you are aware of that.

      As with a million other things, feminists tend to bring up almost the right question, for less than the right reasons. They look at gender roles and say they need to change because the male role is about power and hegemony, and that the female role must change because it is disempowering; the exact opposite of the truth in both cases.

      This article shows us how to start off a real discussion, by asking the right questions for the right reasons.

      Perhaps, if you can stretch your imagination past the myopic position you seem tethered to, you might see that if men cannot be shamed into taking on the burden for all violence with a white ribbon, or shamed into committing violence with a white feather, then maybe, just maybe, they won’t be conned into proving anything by blowing people up in the street, either.

      Robert has given us a real opportunity to discuss masculinity and violence, from a perspective that reflects a nuanced understanding of the issues, as well as reminding us that women are also part of the worlds violence and that we too often give them a pass. It is an important discussion.

      Your objections are just blue-pill nonsense.

  • Clarence

    Oh, and my main point?
    This event had nothing to do with sexism for or against men. Sex isn’t even relevant, but if we want to be stupid and bring it into this conversation then we better be prepared to answer questions about terrorism committed against the US (both homegrown and foreign) has been an almost entirely male preserve for 30 plus years since the last of the radical leftist movements went down. You can find a few isolated female terrorists here and there over the past 30 years (particularly in animal rights and environmental groups) but even then, in almost every case they killed no one and/or weren’t the leaders of the those committing the illegal or terroristic acts.

    Once again, this article is talking about a US event. I find the very idea of bringing sex into this offensive ethically and strategically stupid insofar as the argument is applied to the USA.

    • Never Blue Again

      Ok… you said enough stupid shit.
      Let me tell this straight to you.

      Let’s for a moment put aside all the female terrorist attack and let’s talk about the Men terrorism.

      Consider the following hypothetical story.
      You have a family of father, mother, one sister and you. And consider I’m a powerful rich man with deep reach in law and business.

      Someday I killed your father. (Well because he was responsible for the whole family’s earning as usual and ran into my path someday and I had to kill him. It was just good for my business … !! Nothing personal…. !!)

      Well consider You and your family know that, it is me who killed your father. But you failed prove it in the court. It must be outrages for you and your family to see me walking freely in the street.

      Consider every person in your family wants to punish me, even kill me. But if someday there is any incident happens that someone from your family killed me who will it be ? Your mom ….. ?? Your Sister ….. ?? or You …. ??

      It’s true that most likely it would be you. Although your mom and sister have a much better chance to get to me. But why YOU …. ?? Ask yourself.

      Let me tell you why. It’s because your mom and sister will look upon you to take the revenge, if they want revenge. You will took it yourself , because society will tell you it’s men’s job to do shit like these. You should be ashamed of yourself if you can’t do anything about it.

      Now here is the important part. Everyone knows terrorism or assassination is a severely punishable act. And you may not be lucky or powerful enough to get away with my murder. But nonetheless your family will send you if they really want a revenge.

      So, there you have it ….you male Privilege
      Proxy Violence + Male Disposability + Male Violence Tag

      So, be happy about it.. because someone like you will write an article about Men Terrorism and Violence at the end.

      Terrorism and Violence don’t happen just out of nowhere. It’s people like you who don’t give a damn about the cause and brag about the effect.

  • Clarence

    dhanu:

    You are not a US citizen, it’s obvious.
    You also don’t know my posting history here, or indeed all over the web over the past 12 years.
    You should understand why I would find this article -attempting to make a silly sexual argument over a terrorist tragedy – disgusting.
    I’d find it disgusting if feminists WERE doing it due to this tragedy – but I don’t see them doing so. I see A Voice for Men doing so, however.

    And it’s a losing argument for American MRA’s.
    Because pretty much all terrorism in America (for whatever reasons ) is committed by men.

    That’s all I’ve said.
    I would have hoped “our side” was above trying to use tragedies for political gain.
    IF we can’t do that AT LEAST we could be smart about it.
    The study linked in the article is useful. The rest of the article -to me at least – is obnoxious and stupid.

    And yes, like it or not in America – terrorism is gendered. We aren’t going to get past that by whining about how women in some other countries do bad things when women in America aren’t doing those things. It might be an interesting question about what in American culture has led to this or it might not. But now is not the time to discuss it anyway.

    I’ve asked for people to link me to feminist articles that are attacking men in general or men in America for THIS tragedy (The Boston Marathon Massacre). I’ve received no answers just a bunch of cowards anonymously ‘downvoting’ me.

    • http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?tid=451 dhanu

      I’m not a US citizen? So? I’m ineligible to respond?

      Why must I know about your posting history? Personally, I don’t keep a record of anyone’s postings to determine their intent for a particular post. That, to me, would mean that a person wants to take advantage of the person’s clout to make a point, which to me is not objective. You need to state your intent rather than depending upon my knowledge of your past posting. You did now, so okay.

      As you wrote, terrorism is gendered, and you believe it. The “violence is gendered” meme has resulted in the laws like VAWA. The “terrorism is gendered” meme would result in similar discriminatory laws and policies (harsher sentencing to the males for the same crimes is already well-known and proved). So it needs to be refuted.

      As for the link, you continue to be more and more specific. First you shrinked it to be within the US, and now you’re demanding a link to exactly this event. Well here’s one I could find; the title says White but the article mentions White men and White+Male privilege, exempting women: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/

      But if you include other events of this nature (mass school shootings etc), you will find feminist articles holding male aggression as the cause.

      • Peter Wright (Tawil)

        “Why must I know about your posting history?”

        Exactly my thoughts. In his very short career at AVfM he’s mentioned his history a few times already, as if it matters to anyone, and like you I personally don’t give a fuck about him or his background… all we know is he’s a johnny-come-lately whose desperately looking for attention and, judging by the large number of downvotes, is creating a new history for himself – the only one we need in order to make a judgment. (perhaps this is the kind of forum history he has had wherever he turns up?).

        My advice is to ignore… the best thing you can do with an attention seeker.

    • Volchonok

      heh, hell yeah, it’s gendered and this is the reason why people are afraid of women in hijab in the underground here in Russia, especially after this [1].

      why are you trying to excuse these female terrorists by using a stupid argument that most terrorists are men? what kind of logic is it? it reminds me one russian feminist who said me that male victims of rape don’t matter cause most of them were raped by other men.
      [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Moscow_Metro_bombings

  • MRAnon

    Probably the worst part of these bombings and spree killers aside from the obvious of the actual events and those killed in them are the vultures that use them as a platform to launch political screeds, often racially-motivated and/or sexually-motivated to push their agenda.

    Here’s one such example that permeates the mainstream media:

    http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/)

    David Sirota, one of the sycophants of the Tim Wise school of thought “anti-racists” (read: racists) bravely attacking the only group that he can in the mainstream media without being fired and people calling for his head on a stick, the white male, by hoping that the bomber is a white male and saying a lot of things with not a lot of proof.

    Let’s try a thought experiment here to test the premise he puts forth, though.

    What publication do you think would publish an article entitled, for example… “Black men have much to discuss about rape.” or maybe… “Women have much to discuss about paternity fraud.”

    Drawing a blank? I am too. No editor in their right mind would OK either of those, even if “statistics show” that those groups perpetrate those actions the most, which is the justification that these “anti-racists” use in their screeds. The same kinds of justification by the way that, say, neo-nazis use when talking about black crime and how the statistics totally justify their prejudice. It’s the same thing.

    Now how about an article entitled “White men have much to discuss about mass shootings”– http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/white-men-have-much-to-discuss-about-mass-shootings/2013/03/29/7b001d02-97f3-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html — Yes, that actually happened, but don’t let inconvenient facts like that stop self-styled luminaries like Tim Wise and his sycophants such as David Sirota writing for Salon.com from saying factually incorrect things and being what they accuse others of being guilty of: racists.

    There are of course other glaring examples in the MSM that disprove what these kinds of people say: How about the months of MSM anti-white male screeds and commentary after the Adam Lanza shooting rampage at Sandy Hook? The blame and calls for profiling of and collective guilt and accountability for white males were heavy there.

    Remember the “Beltway Snipers”? Everyone assumed that they were white before they were identified and caught–the profile was supposedly a fat white guy that looked a lot like Drew Carey–but then they weren’t. They were black nationalists and their killings racially motivated.

    How about the Fort Hood killer? The mainstream media wanted to argue over whether the light-skinned Palestinian-American, Major Nidal Hasan could be classified as “white” or not because then it would be politically correct to hate on him and go on writing anti-white male shit in their papers.

    Yet these people would have us believe there’s no such thing as racism against whites and especially white males. If you’re competely deluded and buy into made-up definitions of racism and sexism that even most sociologists will tell you are bullshit (the synthesis of these made-up definitions originate in a 1970 book “Developing New Perspectives on Race” by Pat Bidol) maybe you agree with these people, but if you’re a normal person who uses, say, the Oxford dictionary for their definition of those words, then the double standards, racism, sexism and hypocrisy cannot get any more obvious.

  • Clarence

    dhanu:
    You are the one that, on the basis of not even understanding what I was saying (hint: saying something “is gendered” in a particular case is not proof of sexism unless I also was to believe that it was some inherent flaw in men ) accused me of being sexist.

    I’ve pointed out that 99 percent plus of all major (ones that resulted in one or more deaths and were declared terroristic by the authorities )terror events in the US over a 30 year period in the USA were committed by men. I’ve pointed this out since the beginning – if you’d read my posts more carefully you would have seen that I specifically mentioned this (Boston Massacre) event more than once.

    My whole point is that MRA’s in the US will NOT be able to bring this up as a sexual issue precisely because people (rightfully in this case) will not see female participation in terrorism in the USA as any kind of problem.

    This used to be somewhat different – back in the days of the Weathermen and Patricia Hearst and all. But since then something changed in American culture and so no one has had to seriously worry about female suicide bombers or such in the US (heck, female serial killers are rare but you hear more about them) for a very long time.

    Anyway, I’m done with this for now. It’s a disgusting conversation, it’s not important (99.999 percent of everybody aren’t terrorists) and I don’t want to participate in trying to fan even more hysteria to help the US police state than the current authorities are already doing. John Freaking McCain has already said the second suspect should be held as an “enemy combatant”…and we don’t even know if he is connected to any international terror cell yet!

    • Xayadvara

      Clarence,

      I think you are missing the premise on what this article is built on. What you said is true, men do form majority of the bad guys BUT at the same time the very same men ARE the majority of the good guys too.

      But what feminism did is selectively ignore the efforts of the good guys and magnify the bad guy stuff – they try to expand it unto the whole concept of Masculinity itself. It is this myopic assertion combined with the fact that they rationalize the equivalent rotten female acts away which is tackled here. The terrorism aspect just gives a flavor here – this is the crux of the equation dealt with.

      It is this basis that you need to address – as of now you think that the article tries to whitewash away the actions of men which it clearly does not do so. It actually addresses the whitewashing of female actions & does not tip into those of the men.

  • Clarence

    Peter Wright:
    I’ve posted on here before. I’m not a “Johnny Come Lately”. Big deal I don’t spend every day posting on thread after thread like you do.
    You don’t like my opinions? That’s one thing.
    But as for your accusations – go to hell.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      Yawn.

      • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

        My sentiments exactly. He’s an idiot.

  • Clarence

    By the way, I bring up my “history” because I got called a sexist.
    It’s so fucking goddamn easy to insult, isn’t you two stupid twits?

    I could probably pull some names out of my ass and throw around to prove my bonafides to you dipshits, but really I shouldn’t have to.

    I trust there are ADULTS in this forum, and that means handling disagreements, CLARIFYING things, and not jumping to conclusions of a personal nature. You’ll notice I’ve attacked this article but I haven’t attacked the man (Robert Franklin who does good work at F&F) who wrote it.

    • Peter Wright (Tawil)

      “I could probably pull some names out of my ass and throw around to prove my bonafides to you dipshits, but really I shouldn’t have to.”

      What dont you understand about my previous statement that I personally don’t give a fuck about your background? Let me spell it out for you: we dont want to know about your “names” and your boner fides.

      Is it sinking in yet?

      Conversation finished here.

    • Near Earth Object

      “I could probably pull some names out of my ass…”

      And should you find your head, while doing that, I hope that you pull that out as well.

      This is an incredibly insightful article—currently, lost on you.

  • Clarence

    “They just ID’d the suspects, killed one and made one arrest, like hours ago. And you are already crediting feminists for not bringing gender into the equation? Give them time, they likely will. And if they don’t it will be the exception and not the rule.

    Please at least tell me you are aware of that. ”

    I see, Paul. So , you admit they haven’t done it yet, but they might – so we have to do it first?

    Point out to me when they do and I’ll be sure to get on their case.

    As for “blue pill” and “red pill”…please. I’ve been aware of that terminology since 2008 or thereabouts. I’m as red as they come, but that doesn’t mean I let ideology get in the way of facts.

    Not all types of crimes are equally ‘gendered’ and trying to push THIS meme will backfire in the USA.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      You are missing the broad side of the barn on everything.

      I will be happy to let others debate you. I am not wasting my time with a fool.

  • Clarence

    I find it ironic:
    A. Don’t refute my statistics about these types of things in the USA.
    B. Don’t even begin to address my argument that this strategy is not well suited to the US
    C. Resort to name-calling and accusations of bad faith.

    Tell me how this is different than the typical feminist website again?

    • Bewildered

      I think you missed the gist of what the post was trying to convey.

      It’s dangerous to let stereotypes based on gendered perceptions to sway your decisions regardless of what the statistics say,for statistics deals with probabilities not certainties.
      OK! as per our recent experiences most of the terrorists have been male so the probability[according to our assessment based on our experience] is very high that the next terrorist is going to be male.
      Can you with any degree of assurance definitely say that the terrorist will be a male ? [probability=1]
      The reasons why those female suicide bombers joined those missions is immaterial, the fact remains, statistically they were more successful than the male suicide bombers, why?

      As illustrated by that under cover Russian journalist, within days of an actual incident,she was able to easily access a public place which was supposed be under surveillance and could have easily emulated that female bomber.
      What do you attribute this security lapse to?

      If the security agencies followed your logic it would be a piece of cake for that rare female bomber to cause maximum damage in the US !

      It’s a wonder that Jihad Jane was caught at all !

    • Astrokid

      Re: C, Resort to name-calling and accusations of bad faith
      you reap what you sow. You semi-started it with how this article is “disgusting” to you. When you react emotionally, dont get surprised when others react the same, or even up the ante. I personally am not happy with the name calling either, but this seems inescapable wherever men congregate, so I hope you will shrug it off.
      You seem to be somewhat pleased that feminists havent linked this event to masculinity.. which they have done for all the previous acts. They should be consistent and link this one to masculinity as well.. if they dont, then they are the cowards, arent they? Why wouldnt they do it? Would it have something to do with them not wanting to tread on people from Islamic countries?

      Re: A. Don’t refute my statistics about these types of things in the USA.
      Well.. to me, this article explored terrorism in a different part of the world..a part where circumstances are different and both men and women are used in terrorism. When the goal is targeted assassinations of certain important public figures, and one needs to get very close to the target, women are better suited to that task.. for e.g Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated by a female Sri Lankan rebel.
      The terrorism in the US so far is different.. requiring more physical strength.. for which males are better suited. If the terrorism here morphs into a different form well suited for women, dont be surprised if women are used. I see that message as the takeaway of this article.

      The Mumbai terrorist attack a few years ago was carried out by young men who “embraced death, as opposed to embracing life”. As the documentary by Fareed Zakaria showed, these young men were typically low status males who had no prospects..of a job or a mate.. and such males are socially shamed as losers. Their farewell contribution to their families was the money they got in exchange for this operation/their lives. Thus looking deeper into the problem reveals some of the conditions that results in male terrorism.. and this article covers the shaming aspect of it.

      Re: B. Don’t even begin to address my argument that this strategy is not well suited to the US…
      I’d rather keep sex out of it. I’d also rather not become fascists and help the government get more power.

      This reminds me of some of the people who argue that the current MRM is doing harm because it increases Govt size. Sheer nonsense. The key thing I see the MRM doing is FTSU and changing the cultural narrative, by shining a light on female agency, showing how it works. If and when we get a critical mass, and the Govt is willing to negotiate.. thats when we cross the more-power-to-Govt bridge. I for one will stand with you on that day.

  • donzaloog

    Great article. Thanks.

  • bruce_loco

    I like the content of the article, however to use the Boston bombings to introduce your article on how women are equally if not more dangerous than man at extremism is a bit despicable.
    These were apparently “caused by 2 guys”(this is not yet proven, since the FBI apparently had only 2 suspects and told everyone to focus only on those two).
    If they were raised in a fatherless family by a single mom, then you would have something to go for, but this article uses the same tactics at feminists.

    • http://www.genderratic.com Typhonblue (Asha James)

      Using any terrorist activity to paint an entire gender as evil is despicable.

      The terrorist is one of the most powerless players in all this, ironically. He is just the most visible manifestation of someone else’s threat narrative. And you know it’s someone else’s threat narrative because he’s the one doing the bleeding and dying along with the killing.

      It makes as much sense to blame terrorism on him as it does to blame a mining pit on slaves.

      • Bewildered

        Yeah!the mining pit is a prop created by the puppet masters for a narrative that fools the poor ideologue.
        For him a cyclone or a typhoon is more dangerous than a tsunami.

    • Bewildered

      “..on how women are equally if not more dangerous than man at extremism is a bit despicable.”

      No crime investigator worth his salt will adopt this line of reasoning.
      The imperatives of a thorough investigation demands that you consider all possibilities and give equal weightage to each one of them.He’s not a lawyer to be concerned about precedents. Each case begins from ground zero.In his default position everyone is a sinner ie. “guilty until proven innocent” because he is going from the general to the particular.In his books innocence is solely determined when the evidence he has before him eliminates the possibility of the guilt of the person beyond a reasonable doubt and not by the whims of an ideologue.But ultimately the onus is on him to prove that he has got the right person. So we are back to ” innocent until proven guilty” again !
      This would be the modus operandi of security agents too.
      Otherwise we could have grandmas,crippled people,young women,blind people,god fearing people,kids,ethical leftists,righteous rightists,divine feminists,enlightened atheists successfully smuggling drugs,gold,weapons etc. with impunity.
      When ‘feelings’ start troubling a butcher it’s time for him to retire and become an ideologue perhaps!

      • bruce_loco

        Uau, talk about taking my comment out of context there
        “..on how women are equally if not more dangerous than man at extremism is a bit despicable”
        You have made my comment look like a mangina comment and distorted what I said.
        Let me break it down for you in simple terms.

        1 – I like the content of the article,
        2 – however
        3 – to use the Boston bombings to introduce your article on how women are equally if not more dangerous than man at extremism is a bit despicable.

        Explained:
        1 – refers to my opinion about the article and how I agree with it’s content.
        2 – Oops, I reached a contentious point
        3 – Here is my contention point – A tragic event was politically used to bring out something totally unrelated.

        I hope I was clearer this time.

        • Astrokid

          Re:3, What is the problem using the Boston event?
          The author explains clearly why the event took him to Chechen terrorists.. which comprised of female terrorists.
          What intrigues me though is that the backpack bombing of a public gathering place is very much the modus operandi of Chechen separatism.

          • Bewildered

            Bingo ! Thank you !

            If nothing else is at hand you can always rely on emotions to nitpick on the trivial things in the opposition’s case—– STRAWMAN WHORING !

            This friggin pussy pass is omnipotent !

  • stagbeetle655321

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Sometimes terrorists are almost purely political (Weather Underground), or are motivated by profit (the protection racket), but sometimes there is a cult element (Japanese sarin cult).

    I thought some readers might be interested in looking at some acts of cult violence which are in many ways similar to terrorism, but are done not to frighten the public but to satisfy the perverse magical-thinking psychologies of the criminals.

    Occult Female Serial Killers
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/04/occult-female-serial-killers.html

    Mwerinde’s (2000) killing was in quantity the greatest, Barnabet’s (1911) was among the most gruesome.

    What’s sex (“gender”) got to do with it? — The only reason I ever studied this topic was as a response to the stratospheric scale of the lies about the non-aggressiveness of the female sex being perpetuated by the gender ideology utopian cult.

    • Bewildered

      ” The only reason I ever studied this topic was as a response to the stratospheric scale of the lies about the non-aggressiveness of the female sex being perpetuated by the gender ideology utopian cult.”

      Wilful ignorance is one of the tools in the bag of tricks of ideologues. It gets rid of whatever that spoils their narrative.
      But you are a ‘despicable’ character, a rape enabler,a rape apologist, a woman hater, a mother fucker,……….. for bringing this to light !

  • James Williams

    This article is a welcome one. It is not bad taste to discuss terrorist incidents and the prevalence of them. It is important to understand the psychology that works inside a young person’s mind that so alienates them from the society that they are living in that they are driven to kill, maim and destroy and not even bother about their own wellbeing.

    I am saddened for the loss of life and the injuries so many have suffered, but I am also saddened that two young men were prepared to waste themselves too.

    True, the terrorist profile, in the US and the UK does include a heavy male element, but there is also a high preponderance of youth.

    Young males are the most common group that have been used as warriors throughout history. At every point in social conflict, it is the young men who take up arms and oppose regimes whether their cause be ‘righteous’ or otherwise. They are often passionate with a sufficient level of naivety that makes them open to control. As we have and do see, young men will die in their millions for that passion to protect their loved ones and their society.

    The feminists miss no opportunity to castigate men at every level. To be silent about this matter is to do what they do – ignore female failings that undermine their claims. For us to discuss the issue here is a demonstration of compassion which we all seek.