The terms Muslim and sociologist in the same sentence is freakish enough to be an article all itself, but anyway…
Now before we react, let’s ask dispassionately: is he wrong? Do females like violent men?
Many have come to the conclusion that females prefer violent men because those are the kinds of men who are never incel, and conversely, all incels are never those kinds of violent, alpha men. The thinking goes that if females always go for men who beat them, they must like the beating. Maybe…but then again, isn’t that kind of like saying that smokers like lung cancer and emphysema, and drinkers like car accidents and cirrhosis of the liver? Or, do they hate the side-effects, but withdrawal from the buzz is not an option?
I’ve looked at this issue for a while, and I’ve come to the conclusion that is more of a matter of females taking the bad with the good – that is, they don’t want to be beaten by
their males the males who own them, but they’re willing to deal with it, in order to secure the genes of males who are violent and dominant generally. The biological goal for the female is to get a male who beats up other, less attractive males – restraining himself when it comes to her – and sires offspring with her in the form of sons who will do likewise against less attractive males in their own peer group; that’s the ideal, but it doesn’t always work out that way. Often times, she will also become the target of his angry, uncontrolled fists…but if she can’t find the rare ideal, what else is she going to do? Accept the genes of a more docile man, who can’t defend himself against the “real men”, and have sons who will become genetic failures in the face of the same circumstances, producing no grandchildren for her? That’s simply not an option for the human reproductive imperative. Thus, you could say that [gasp] “violence against women” from their romantic/sexual partners is merely a nasty side-effect that they’re willing to deal with, in order to secure the genes of generally violent and domineering men, in order to have violently-successful offspring. And just when you thought humanity was past that kind of thing… Nope, it’s the same as it was in the stone age: violence = success.
So, was it wrong for western civilization to give today’s behaviorally-ballistic females full sexual autonomy, and control over their own reproductive destinies? After all, the reason that we’ve shifted back to the stone age model of reproductive success is because western culture decided to put females in the driver’s seat of reproductive choice and protocol, right? You can be the judge of all that. All I’m doing here is stating the not-so-obvious, yet undeniable: for better or for worse, the result is the devolution of the species. Cavemen are able to reproduce, civilized men aren’t. This is how females want it. They’re the ones in control now.