When Liberals Attack or What Happens When Men Are Supposed To Be Girls
Recently there was an incident, perhaps you heard about it, where a young man (Stone) searched out another young man he'd never personally met (Reed Pannell) to orchestrate a confrontation. Follow these links for details.
This is my explanation.
Personally I think it's a reaction to modern (and liberal) ideas of manhood completely unrelated to any specific political issue. Firstly, men aren't supposed to be manly anymore. They're supposed to be like girls but with man-parts. Some people reject that balony but others, generally of the progressive and liberal feminist sort rather than the conservative and neanderthal sort, accept the view that all the man-things are bad... competitive, confrontational, physical, stuff is bad. Womanly virtues, conversation and connection, are good.
(The cultural reaction to that is the soaring popularity of fight shows, martial arts schools, and some awesomely funny local radio commercials for Giant gas and convienience stores.)
Okay, so what counts for a 6 foot plus guy physically assaulting a 5 foot nothing female ROTC student or this fellow Stone who takes the time to find someone, goes to his house, and begins a physical confrontation? If you asked either of them, would they identify with the sort of hick who watches NASCAR, buys beer at a Giant gas station, and views bar fights as a great night out?
Fighting for fun isn't progressive. It's not civilized. I don't understand it, but guys seem to like to fight for fun. It's all external posturing, chest pounding, and a contest to see who the big dog is, but fun. But in order to be with their group liberal men have to reject that sort of primative BS.
But what if they have a cause? An excuse? Look at Stone. Follow the links. The guy expressed incredible violence. Why was that okay in his mind if war, if the military, is bad?
Partly it's because the human ability to be violent is denied. Something denied isn't and can't be under control. Partly it's identification with the group over the individual. Ones own actions aren't an issue for identity so the fact that he's a violent fruitcake doesn't impact the virtue of his group membership.
Why do "peace" protestors vandalize recruiting offices? Why do "liberal" students shut down the speech of others and prevent access to other students. Why would a college teacher in Colorado kick someone in the leg because he expressed different politics than she liked?
So two things. Group membership identity trumping responsibility for one's own behavior, and denying, therefore not dealing with, human nature.
(BTW, men being like women is bad because women don't fight for fun. We're freaking scary, scorched earth neverforgotten vindictive. It comes with physical vulnerability. Our solutions have to be final.)
(And because I'm sure I have to actually say it... all gender stereotypes I've expressed are proved in the exception... of course.)