Why Elliot Rodger’s misogyny matters
A chart posted by Elliot Rodger, giving his chilling spin on a manosphere meme depicting supposed female “hypergamy”
When a white supremacist murders blacks or Jews, no one doubts that his murders are driven by his hateful, bigoted ideology. When homophobes attack a gay youth, we rightly label this a hate crime.
But when a man filled to overflowing with hatred of women acts upon this hatred and launches a killing spree targeting women, many people find it hard to accept that his violence has anything to do with his misogyny. They’re quick to blame it on practically anything else they can think of – guns, video games, mental illness – though none of these things in themselves would explain why a killer would target women.
In the case of Elliot Rodger, who set out on Friday night aiming, as he put it in a chilling video, to “slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up, blonde slut” in a popular sorority house at the University of California, Santa Barbara, some Men’s Rights activists and other manospherians are doing their best to convince the world that misogyny had nothing to do with it.
On A Voice for Men, for example, Janet Bloomfield (who goes by the name JudgyBitch), notes that Rodger killed more men than women, and thereby declares that
Elliot was an equal opportunity hate monger, torn between wanting to kill women and wanting to kill men. …
Jessica Valenti proclaims that “misogyny kills”, blithely unconcerned with the fact that more men than women were killed. Killing men is misogyny? That’s an interesting interpretation.
Bloomfield ignores the reason more men were killed than women: Rodger’s planned massacre of sorority women failed. He was unable to get inside the sorority house. And so he was forced to improvise.
On Twitter, meanwhile, cultural commenter Cathy Young, long sympathetic to Men’s Righsters, seems to think that Rodger’s rampage was entirely due to “mental illness” and argues that connecting Rodger’s rampage to a wider culture of misogyny is a form of “anti-male hate speech.”
Even more strangely, the proudly racist Steve Sailer – a hero to Heartiste and others in the “alt-right” wing of the manosphere – has declared that Rodger wasn’t motivated by misogyny but rather by “anti-Blondism,” and that his targeting of “ blonde sluts” in a popular sorority house was “an extremely intentional racial hate crime.” Never mind that the half-Asian Rodger idolized blonde women as superior (even as he hated them) and that his comments online are littered with rather crude, rather traditional racism against people who weren’t white.
But Sailer’s claim is little more than an attempt at a derail.
The fact is that Rodger made his misogyny very clear — in his videos, in his internet postings and most of all in his 140-page “manifesto,” which is filled with angry denunciations of women and elaborate fantasies of violent “retribution” towards them. As with many misogynists, his misogyny was largely driven by thwarted sexual entitlement: he desired women intensely but they (wisely) wanted nothing to do with him.
Consider the following passages from his manifesto. I’ve put some of the most disturbing bits in bold.
The most beautiful of women choose to mate with the most brutal of men, instead of magnificent gentlemen like myself. Women should not have the right to choose who to mate and breed with. That decision should be made for them by rational men of intelligence. If women continue to have rights, they will only hinder the advancement of the human race by breeding with degenerate men and creating stupid, degenerate offspring. This will cause humanity to become even more depraved with each generation. Women have more power in human society than they deserve, all because of sex. There is no creature more evil and depraved than the human female.
Women are like a plague. They don’t deserve to have any rights. Their wickedness must be contained in order prevent future generations from falling to degeneracy. Women are vicious, evil, barbaric animals, and they need to be treated as such. … All women must be quarantined like the plague they are, so that they can be used in a manner that actually benefits a civilized society. …
The first strike against women will be to quarantine all of them in concentration camps. At these camps, the vast majority of the female population will be deliberately starved to death. That would be an efficient and fitting way to kill them all off. I would take great pleasure and satisfaction in condemning every single woman on earth to starve to death.
I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds just a little bit like misogyny.
Rodger saw his “Day of Retribution” as part of a war against women. Elsewhere in his manifesto he wrote:
Women’s rejection of me is a declaration of war, and if it’s war they want, then war they shall have. It will be a war that will result in their complete and utter annihilation. I will deliver a blow to my enemies that will be so catastrophic it will redefine the very essence of human nature.
Now, there is no question that he also hated certain kinds of men and boys – the “obnoxious brutes” he so often saw with the “pretty blonde girls” he simultaneously desired and despised. His manifesto is dotted with denunciations of them, as well as with denunciations of humanity as a whole. At one point, he posted a fantasy on PUAhate about killing all the men on earth with a virus so he could have all the women for himself. But he thought about, and wrote about, killing women all the time.
Indeed, even when he was bullied as a youngster, he directed most of his anger not at the bullies themselves but at their girlfriends.
Remembering one bullying incident from high school, he wrote
Some boys randomly pushed me against the lockers as they walked past me in the hall. One boy who was tall and had blonde hair called me a “loser”, right in front of his girlfriends. Yes, he had girls with him. Pretty girls. And they didn’t seem to mind that he was such an evil bastard. In fact, I bet they liked him for it. … The most meanest and depraved of men come out on top, and women flock to these men. Their evil acts are rewarded by women; while the good, decent men are laughed at. … I hated the girls even more than the bullies because of this.
Rodger was not only a misogynist; he was explicitly an enemy of feminism. While he doesn’t seem to have ever identified as a Men’s Rights activist per se – the only “rights” he seemed to be interested in were his own – his postings online echo the extreme and ignorant denunciations of feminism seen amongst MRAs and other manospherians.
This, too, has been denied by Men’s Rights activists. On AVFM, the “non-feminist” would-be “philosopher” Fidelbogen declares that
We have no evidence yet that Elliott Rodger was anything but apolitical in regard to feminism as such. He was not outspoken about feminism … He was only a sexually frustrated chump with mental issues, who apparently “hooked up” with PUA literature, and websites like “the Manhood Academy”.
In fact, Rodger attacked feminism explicitly in a number of comments on PUAhate, where rabid antifeminism is essentially the default ideology. In one comment, he declared bluntly that “feminism must be destroyed.” In another he predicted that
One day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system.
Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.
And while he saw PUAhate itself as “a putrid pit of despair,” he argued that
it does give a view of what the world is really like, what women are really like, and the evils of a feminist society.
Every male should read the posts here so that they can be awakened. There are too many delusional males worshipping women who would only spit in their faces.
There is no question that Rodger was a very disturbed man. I’m not a psychiatrist, nor do I have access to his medical or psychiatric records. But I would not be shocked to find that he was struggling with some sort of mental disorder or disorders. He was seeing several therapists, and a psychiatrist prescribed the antipsychotic Risperidone for him; he refused to take it. This prescription in itself doesn’t prove he was psychotic; psych meds are often prescribed for off-label uses, and Risperidone is also used to reduce irritability in people with autism. (Rodger was reportedly diagnosed as having aspergers.)
But, as someone who has himself dealt with depression for decades, I cannot help but think, reading through his manifesto, that his thinking was, as mine has sometimes been, distorted by depression.
He was also clearly a narcissist, in the colloquial sense if not necessarily in the clinical sense, whose resentment of others was driven by narcissistic rage. And some of his pronouncements, particularly towards the end of his life, were so grandiose it’s hard to know whether these reflected his tendency towards melodrama, fueled by his love of fantasy literature and video games, or if they are symptoms of a delusional disconnection from the real world.
I don’t think, given the considerable evidence there is of his troubled state of mind, that raising these issues detracts from the main point, and that is:
Rodger was a misogynist through and through. In many ways his misogyny was his life. If you watch his videos and read his manifesto, you’ll see that he related anything and everything in his life to what he saw as the grand tragedy of his rejection by “girls,” a state of affairs he blamed entirely on the girls of the world and not on his own “magnificent” self.
He was utterly consumed by his sexual obsession with “pretty blonde girls” and their utter lack of interest in him, and, increasingly, by his elaborate fantasies of “retribution” against them, which ultimately led to his killing spree on Friday night.
To deny that he was driven by misogyny makes as little sense as denying that Hitler was driven by anti-Semitism.
The evidence is as clear-cut as it can be on this point. Anyone who can’t or won’t admit this is either an ideologue or a liar – or both.
–
Thanks to Melody and several other readers for pointing me to some of the examples used in this post.
Posted on May 25, 2014, in a voice for men, ableism, advocacy of violence, alpha males, antifeminism, armageddon, creepy, empathy deficit, entitlement, evil sexy ladies, evil women, FemRAs, FeMRAsplaining, fidelbogen, grandiosity, hypergamy, imaginary oppression, incel, irony alert, judgybitch, lying liars, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, narcissism, oppressed men, playing the victim, PUAhate, racism, taking pleasure in women's pain, terrorism and tagged a voice for men, antifeminism, elliot rodger, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, racism, santa barbara, twitter. Bookmark the permalink. 1,920 Comments.
FTFY.
You seem blissfully unaware of all the cultural applauding of the playboy, of the encouragement of “sowing wild oats”, of “playing the field”, the digs at having been “trapped” by “the ball and chain” which positively laud the sexually active single man.
vs the SPINSTER-shaming, “when are you going to find a man”, poor lonely old woman with cats, slut-shaming scorn, pity and derision for the single woman.
And SFD doubles down with the largest teal dear in the history of THTM. I got as far as
before going “No.So much no!”
I
Citation needed because you have no evidence that he was either a misandrist or that he ws a purple unicorn that shits rainbows).
Oooh, what other bigoted hatreds cancel each other out? Is it like there’s only so much room for hatred in me or is it more some weird mathematical equation? Can i not be racist and transphobic at the same time? Or maybe not sexist and homophobic?
And what does it say about your whole argument that misandry is as mythical as that unicorn I mentioned?
I see what you say. Someone who hates a lot of people actually doesn’t hate anybody but is just a “violent, sick, dangerous lunatic”.
Yep, some of the things this all tells us about you:
1. You are an MRA
2. You are boring
3. You are ableist
4. You are misogynistic
5. you neither understand logic nor feel empathy.
6. you are so full of self-importance, you think that coming onto a thread talking about the violent murder of people and the threat of the mass murder of women, and spouting your bullshit as if this is some abstract debate is a really good idea.
7. We would not feel safe with you IRL
8.You should probably fuck off now before the heavy hitters get here, read your crap and tear you to shreds.
SfD: 1: Don’t flatter yourself that getting a reaction means you are doing something right. If someone burns a bag of dogshit on a porch they get a reaction too.
2: f he was a misogynist then if we look at his actions we have to conclude he was also a misandrist to AT LEAST the same extent.
No, we don’t. To take an extreme parallel. Hitler started a war. In the course of it at least 20 million Russians died. He also had concentration camps. In them somewhere between 11-13 million people died.
Of those some 6 million were Jews.
So we can conclude, based on the numbers, that Hitler wasn’t really that much of an anti-semite.
Rodger’s motivation was an anger at women because he felt they had wronged him. His intent was to kill a lot of them. That happenstance prevented this doesn’t remove his motivation, nor his aim.
The men he murdered were murdered because of his hatred of women, just as the whites The Order murdered were because of their hatred of blacks. They needed money for the race war they wanted to start, and the whites were in they way.
The whites who were killed because they were agitating for civil rights were killed because the bigots hated blacks, and they saw the whites as threats and traitors.
3: You are viewing Elliot Rodger’s actions through the lens of patriarchy, not gender equality.
Nope. I am viewing them through the lens of the words and actions of Elliot Rodger; in toto. I am not taking one circumstance (the ratio of the death he managed to cause) but his writings, his videos, and the history he had with others.
. I’m not saying you *have* to view his crimes through the lens of gender equality
Yes (for the values you are assigning those words in this argument) you are. You are trying to argue any other interpretation of his actions is invalid.
If you want to make an argument, own it. You may be wrong, but you won’t look dishonest (of course it’s hard to hide a dishonest argument. The mental gymnastics required to support it tend to give the game away).
I would not have objected to him being labelled a misogynist if he had been labelled a misandrist at the same time.
Of course not. That abolves you, and us, of having to look at the pervasive damage misogyny does to women (and men). If he was both in equal measure than he can be dismissed.
Mighty convenient that. Nothing to see here, move along.
But you’ve summed yourself up nicely:
There are only two reasons to misrepresent the reality of an event with inaccurate terms.
1. You made an honest mistake because you haven’t thought about the subject deeply enough
2. You are being dishonest and are deliberately trying to mischaracterise the event for some ulterior motive
It’s pretty plain that you are doing the second. In addition to the facile nature of the claim you are putting forth (and that you are ignoring Rodger’s attempt to kill more women than he managed to do), you are repeating, in only slightly modified language, the same arguments, at least three times, in the same comment.
That implies a basic lack of faith in the persuasive power of the argument. It makes it look as if the person you are trying to convince is yourself. Which leads to the conclusio that you are being dishonest, and trying to browbeat others in accepting the lie.
As to the farrago of nonsense about “the majority of the ruling classes”, that’s so painfully inept (and stupid) as to merit no detailed response. You have attempted to wash them free of motive, agency, and action by declaring them all to be damaged goods.
I do wonder, however, at the allegation they were created to be so by intent: you soon realise the childrearing practices of the *aristocracy* as well as the *elite school system* and *the military* have ALL been purposefully designed to create sociopaths and psychopaths of varying degrees.
So who designed this and why? And if it’s the intent, and the societal norm, how can you call it an aberration?
<Anybody who just cries
‘misogyny!’ instead of asking‘How the hell did his mother and father treat him as an infant and child to cause him to turn out such a mess?” instead of asking how socidety could foster the level of hatred toward one half of the world has already shown they have zero interest in understanding how this event happened or how to prevent another similar event from happening again.FTFY
Crap. HTML Fail.
Anybody who just cries
‘misogyny!’ instead of asking‘How the hell did his mother and father treat him as an infant and child to cause him to turn out such a mess?” instead of asking how socidety could foster the level of hatred toward one half of the world has already shown they have zero interest in understanding how this event happened or how to prevent another similar event from happening again.FTFY
Ok, actually went back and looked at the last few paragraphs of SFD’s screed.
Apparently, women are failing to take responsibility for turning ER into the
“violent, sick, dangerous lunatic” by the way we “broke” him in his childhood.
I struggle to adequately describe the contempt I feel towards SFD. What a waste of oxygen.
Off to work. Have fun with the chew-toys.
Can’t believe you read that whole screed, @Pecunium. Enjoy your day.
(I am very sorry that this will be super long, I’ll cut out repetitive parts)
What? What actions prove he’s a misandrist? Also fuck off with your ableism.
Hot is cold! Up is down! Hate is caring! Are you seriously this fucking stupid? Jesus Christ. By your logic Hitler hated freckle-havers more than Jews because he was apathetic to them.
What?
The fuck??? So if I understand someone’s motives, I agree with the motives??? Go fuck yourself.
Are you seriously suggesting that we lie about the shooters motives just so men feel better about themselves?
With the Mississippi murders, more whites were murdered by the racists, but by your logic it’s insulting to say the murderers were motivated by racism because that erases the white victims.
He originally planned to shoot up the sorority you dumbass.
No one is suggesting it wasn’t awful for him to kill men.
Again, by your logic, it’s anti-white to suggest that the Mississippi murderers were motivated by racism. If someone had reacted to those murderers the same way you have been reacting to these, then yes they are a racist asshole. This isn’t hard logic.
Citation needed. Also who is “we”? Oh right, I forgot women weren’t included in humanity.
Wat. Um, no. Point out where anyone here has suggested that the female victims deserve more sympathy. No one has said anything like this.
Again, wat. Rodger didn’t view men as “disposable” just because he was apathetic to them. Seriously wtf is with this apathy > hate nonsense?
Show where anyone here has suggested that the male victims don’t deserve sympathy, you piece of shit.
Again, provide evidence that Rodger shot people due to mental illness.
Misogyny – like racism, xenophobia, homophobia etc – might be irrational and abhorrent stances to take from moral / philosophical point of view, but they ARE based on well defined principles and in THAT sense are logical (ie they have internal consistency).
Did you even read his manifesto? How in the fuck was that not consistent?
WAAT. WAT. WTF. Are you fucking serious? So by your logic, Hitler wasn’t racist. Nor were the Mississippi murderers. Wow. Again, go fuck yourself asshole.
Citations needed. Also sociopathy and bigotry are not mutually exclusive.
Citations needed for this steaming pile of WAT.
Whut.
It’s funny how women are responsible for all these peoples horrible actions because they didn’t raise their kids 100% correct, but when you admit that men hardly do any of the child rearing it doesn’t occur to you to blame men at all for being absent.
Also citations needed. Good lord.
Has it ever occurred to you that women are people, and not the male population’s mummy/scapegoat? It’s funny how you’re essentially saying women are responsible for all the horrible things men have done, and you’re doing nothing to blame the men who are, ya know, the actual people responsible for those actions.
Again, go fuck yourself. You are a disgusting misogynist.
Uh, his parents did what the could. In the end, people are responsible for their own actions. Oh sorry I forgot, us silly ladies are at fault for everything.
TLDR,
-Rodger hated men more because he was apathetic to them, so they’re bugs or something.
-No one is bigoted, society just told you that because everyone is psycho.
-There have never been structural inequalities, it’s all just sociopaths telling you that.
-Its all women’s fault (shocking!) for apparently raising sociopaths.
Yes he really is that stupid.
Oh also biotruths. We love protecting women because they’re more valuable for reproduction or something.
Applauds Augzz for actually reading all of that ghastly teal dear.
Elliot Rodgers wanted to put all women in concentration camps and starve us to death. That’s how much he cared about. I feel so flattered!
By your logic Hitler hated Christians more than he hated Jews because he was sort of indifferent and waffling when it came to Christianity but he cared enough about Jews to round them up and put them in concentration camps.
This is one of the few times in the history of all internet comment sections in which Godwinning is appropriate. That’s how fundamentally illogical you are. Congratulations!
Can we give out an award for least logical troll at the end of the year? Spinning is the leading contender so far.
As for the rest of your teal deer, citations need. You’ve ranged from biased assumptions to outright lies without backing any of what you said up.
By the way, I studied forensic psychology in college. You have a lot of misunderstandings about sociopathic murderers. That’s what happens when you derive most of your information from pop culture.
The two disorders most commonly linked with sociopathy are anti-social personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. Neither of these are considered mental illnesses so much as they are considered a fundamental part of the personality. They are on axis II. Mental illnesses are on axis I.
People with APD or NPD are not “insane.” They are completely capable of logic and planning. As far as I know, nobody in the field of forensic psychology actually suggests that psychopaths should be absolved of any bigotries.
Of course, Rodgers’ doctors or family have not actually told the media that he was diagnosed with either of those personality disorders so you’re just armchair diagnosing and making assumptions. Stop pretending you know he was mental ill and speaking with authority on the subject. You know fuck all about it.
So, women should take responsibility for men’s actions and that’s how personal responsibility works?
Anything else is demeaning and disempowering to women?
*sips coffee*
This is by far the stupidest, most morally bankrupt, convoluted thing I’ve read in a while.
Considering what I’ve read lately, that’s really saying something.
I’d like to present this rabidly misogynist troll with The Golden Fedora award for outstanding assholery and bigoted mental wankery.
Way to go, butt barnacle. You’re the worst.
Misogyny + misandry == mental disability? What kind of fucking equation is that? o_O Even outside the scope of an equation your words make no sense. There is no such thing as prejudices cancelling out each other. And even if such a cancelling-out effect existed, there is no obvious way to reach the conclusion that it produces a mental disability – and not only a mental disability, but also one that makes someone violent and dangerous. You have literally no firm ground to stand on here – all you are spewing out is speculation.
He never cared about women. He felt entitled to them, and therefore hated men who took away his opportunities to fulfill his entitlement by being in relationships with those women he was interested in. The men were an obstacle to his male entitlement, and that’s why he killed them (alongside his strong racism).
You have it totally backwards. Disablism serves those in power because it obscures systemic factors that lead to violence such as this. You have no reason to make the assumption that the nebulously defined “ruling class” has comprised of sociopaths and psychopaths. You do know that quite a few sociopaths and psychopaths don’t actually hurt people, right? There is no strong relation at all between mental disability and violence. You keep making that shit up. On top of that, you say that this mass sociopathy/psychopathy is a product of abuse through dysfunctional parenting and schooling. Even if you could prove such a thing, where the hell does the abuse come from in the first place? Does it just arise from some vaguely defined humanistic notion of human beings just choosing to be bad? Do you really want to engage in such a ridiculous, shallow analysis? I guess you do.
90% of mothers abuse their own children? Working away from home and hiring babysitters is willful child neglect? Feminist women actively defend abuse? Feminists deny the importance of mental health issues? Yeah, time for you to go fuck yourself. You not only lack comprehension and stick to made-up statistics, but you also are a genuinely awful human being. Go fuck yourself.
There is only oppression based on sex, not oppression based on gender. So there’s no reason to say “the sexes”. Moreover, sex is a social construct, not a natural biological category that exists outside of modern society.
Actually, feminists do argue that men are molded and defined by childhood experiences – but their socialization goes far beyond that. They are socialized by the media, their peers, and so on. Many women do play a role but ultimately the system is upheld by men. Your emphasis on the role of women is baseless and without any meaningful analysis of gender.
Yes, because childhood socialization is the root of all development. Yeah, right. Learn to sociology, dipshit.
|@SfD
Please stop talking. Every post you make reveals more about your misogynist mindset, and I think everybody has had quite enough of entitled assholes defending their fucked up worldview. People here don’t disagree with you because they don’t understand what you mean; we disagree with you because you’re wrong.
I will not go into your post very deeply, since others here have it covered. Not that you would ever try to read and understand their arguments, of course.
Nope. First off, misandry is not an institutional problem like misogyny. Society does not hate men and tell women that men exist for their pleasure, and that if they fail to cater to women’s wishes, women are entitled to ‘correct’ them. You should see the absurdity of your claim by the second sentence – who exactly is oppressing whom, if both misandry and midogyny exist as equal phenomena? Secondly, saying something does not make it true, so you can stop repeating your inane points. Thirdly, ableism again. We still have no reason to believe mental illness caused his rampage.
You got it backwards. Women were objects to him, something he thought he deserved; they were not people with their own minds and agendas. His attitude to men was entirely dependent on whether or not they had one of these objects that he coveted. They were the measure by which he judged his own success. Men were people to him alright, women were the prize they were stealing from him. Women deserved to die because they would not act like the automatons that he felt entitled to.
Wait, so are you defining misogyny as active hatred of women or not? Because suddenly, you claim misandry means not making men the focus of your hatred. By doing that, aren’t you equating women’s right to safety from bodily harm with… men’s right to be the center of attention? I have trouble following your logic, here. But I guess that applies to the whole manosphere.
But that’s what they were to him. Collateral damage. He killed his roommates because they were in his way. Stating facts is not hateful.
No. You’re ignoring all arguments and insisting we’re the ones with the logical failing. Stop being willfully obtuse and actually read what people have written.
Isn’t it funny how you deny the existence of institutional misogyny, yet use words that carry a misogynistic meaning set up by historical institutions?
Now hold it right there. The ”men are disposable gender” bullshit doesn’t fly here. It’s a sad attempt to blend together different factors from misogyny to classism, and to make it gendered. Don’t even try. And you can quit the ”hard-wired”, ”women are protected” etc. crap as well. We all know they’re not true. And again, you’re equating a woman’s right to safety and autonomy with a man’s “right” to not be ignored in any discourse ever. That’s really the main problem with all misogynist arguments, I think.
When it’s convenient for you, you throw out the ”well, he was just nuts” argument and start claiming it was due to misandry. What exactly is your argument? Because you’re all over the place.
And here’s the crux of the problem. You think his actions can be viewed through a lens of gender equality, when he performed those acts motivated by a hatred of women, in a society where gender equality is not the default setting. There is no equal amount of misogyny and ”misandry” in our society; in terms of gender, things are heavily skewed against women. Whether we ”want” to view things from that perspective or not is irrelevant, it doesn’t change the reality of the situation.
You cannot grasp the full extent of the problem before you stop assuming we live in a value-neutral culture.
Claiming that misandry and misogyny are comparable forces in society is pretty fucking stupid, for this exact reason.
But you’re ignoring that misogyny, racism and homophobia are deeply ingrained in our society. They are the standard settings. They are institutional. The same is not true for misandry, reverse racism and heterophobia, which are not backed up by our culture, and which is why those terms are never used by people who actually understand how power manifests itself in our society.
I think if you took one step back and took a long look at the historical fact that straight white men have never been oppressed as a group, you might understand why it’s frankly embarrassing that grown-ups compare a non-issue such as misandry with the institutional and cultural problem that is misogyny.
Wow. Projecting much? If you think social phenomena can be analysed as individual cases, without context, you’re the one not thinking about it very deeply.
Go away, okay? Nobody wants an ableist shithead here.
Yeah, that’s some very deep thinking there, buddy. ”There were no institutional problems! The leaders were just crazy and evil! Let’s not think about it anymore! Who wants ice cream?”
Yeah, let’s just blame the parents (read: mothers) and not think about how misogyny just happens to pop out everywhere, with no relation to each other and no context whatsoever!
I’m through with your shit. I’m going to go vomit now.
Well, Spinning For Difficulty managed to hit all the MRA talking points.
It’d been great if ze’d managed to do it in few less words. Or, y’know, not at all.
But yeah, funny how when a man kills people because he hates women, and explicitly states this, it’s not misogyny, but is in fact women’s fault. Because mothers who work are bad. So are women teachers. In fact, no man is ever at fault for anything, and if a man does do something bad, it’s because he’s “crazy” because the women in his life made him that way.
I don’t even.
It’s not that we don’t value their status as men – it’s just that they weren’t actually victims of misandry. Of course their gender mattered, but they weren’t killed because of misandry. Fuck off with your manipulative bullshit.
Women, stop hitting yourselves with our fists!
Also, for fuck’s sake, don’t come back here clarifying your arguments for the umpteenth time. We understood you from the start. We just also know that you’re full of shit and you’re a bigoted asshole. So, like, just leave already.
You know who doesn’t value the male murder victims?
Misogynists using their deaths to try to ‘splain away their killer’s reasons for killing them and others. You don;t give a rats happy ass that these men were murdered. You only care about exploiting their deaths to draw attention away from misogyny’s roll in them.
Once again, MRAs show exactly how much they care about male victims.
This whole “he didn’t hate men but actively hated women, therefore he wasn’t a misogynist” thing is completely illogical. No, Elliot Rodger didn’t care about men because the only person Elliot Rodger cared about was Elliot Rodger. But he actively hated women. Women weren’t people to him, they were objects, they were prizes, they were toys. That’s why he was pissed off at women. That’s why he hated women so much. He thought he was entitled to have a woman-thing just be given to him to be used as he pleased. And when women (at least, the kind of women he wanted) didn’t automatically throw themselves at him, he decided to shoot them.
He fantasized about putting all women into a concentration camp and starving them while he watched from a tower. He fantasized over fucking genocide of women.
Really, this is at out victim blaming.
You are disgusting and really need to fuck off, Spinning For Difficulty.
My favourite (not really) part of SFD’s latest shitfest:
Such disingenuousness!
Troll to English engaged
Oooh, look, I got a reaction. Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!
You disagreed with my brilliance. You must be so stupid. I shan’t read your comments and respond. I shall just tell you The Truth that is my brilliance in more detail.
Silly hysterical womenz getting so emotional about this fab discussion I’m having.Anyone would think you were actually affected by misogyny and violence and stuff. How ridiculous you are, getting angry when I’m just being so brilliant and clever.
Look at me! Aren’t I so clever! Look at me!
I know this is going to hurt and upset you but I’m going to do it anyway and make a big joke about how stupid you all are to be upset by the horrible things I’m going to say. See, look at me being clever AND funny! Here I go!
Troll to English disengaged.
I want to share this.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/30/1303118/-Dear-Men-STFU#
Jesus, SFD, if you’re so butthurt about not being on Rodgers’ hitlist, I’m sure the women of the world will gladly trade places with you.
P.S.–Misandry is not a thing.
Um. DId I read the troll right? At one point he claimed ER cared enough about women to go through the trouble of murdering them? Eeesh.
@Lea
That was beautiful. I disagree that child custody cases are actually a men’s issue, but still a beautiful article.
Obviously Hitler wasn’t an anti-Semite, he was really against freckle-havers. He loved Jews! He wrote about them all the time! But freckle havers? They were NOTHING to him. Also it’s all the Jewish people’s fault that Hitler created the Holocaust.
Sung to the tune of I’ve Got the Golden Ticket from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
I never thought my his manifesto could be
Interpreted so inaccurately
But suddenly I begin to see
A bit of stupid trollishness in me
‘Cause I’ve got a golden fedora
I’ve got a golden twinkle in my eye
I never had a chance to blame it all on women
Never an ableist song to sing
But suddenly I realize the victims of misogyny are truly men
What an amazing thing
‘Cause I’ve got a golden ticket
[Spoken]
It’s yours, Spinning for difficulty!
[Sung]
I’ve got a golden fedora up on my head
I never thought I’d see the day
When I would face the world and say
Good morning, I see not misogyny
I never thought that I would be
Slap in the lap of blaming misandry
‘Cause I’d have said:
It couldn’t be done
But it can be done
I never dreamed that I would climb
To the heights of irrationality
But nevertheless, it’s there that I’m
Always going to be
‘Cause I’ve got a golden fedora
I’ve got a golden chance to misogyny away
And with a golden fedora, it’s a golden day
[Spoken]
Good morning, look at only the sons!
[Sung]
‘Cause I’d have said,
It couldn’t be done
But it can be done
I never dreamed that I would climb
To the heights of irrationality
But nevertheless, it’s there that I’m
Always going to be
‘Cause I’ve got a golden fedora
‘Cause I’ve got a golden fedora
I’ve got a golden chance to misogyny away
And with a golden fedora, it’s a golden day
WWTH,
Bravo!
Reblogged this on Pistosaurius.
@wwth
Well done.
@jules
See, I would care about this a lot more if it weren’t something women get told way moreso. Where’s the dude-equivalant to ‘you’re going to be alone with all your cats’?
like why is this whole thread either a)ableist garbage or b) waht about the men?
Applauds to everyone who managed to read spinning whatever’s tl;dr.
@SFD
Your logical anysis is poor. You’re engaging in way too much rationalizing and confirmation bias in order to reduce your cognitive dissonance. Better get that checked.
Best example to refute your “logic”:
That dumb anti semite who recently shot up a jewish center, think it was retirement home. Anyway he cleay intended to kill jews and yet NONE of the three people (I believe it was 3) were jews. However NO ONE tried to rationalize away the fact that he was an anti semite despite him having killed non-jews only.
The KKK really care about black people, man. Can’t you just feel the love when they burn a cross on someone’s lawn? Neo-Nazis, now there’s another group that really cares. About Jewish people, specifically. Yep, nobody cares about Jewish people quite as much as a neo-nazi.
This one has broken my “trolling or just stupid?” meter. I think I should be allowed to send him the repair bill.
@enhancedvibes
um, Idk about this shooting, but I know the last anti semite shooting I heard about some people did try to deny it was anti semitism, so can we not be doing this thing again?
There are still people in the here in Southern US who claim The Civil War was not fought over slavery.
Anything but the truth…
@maried
I meant the last one in the US, see link below. I dont recall reading anything where anyone tried to rationalize shooter was not anti-semite, despite his kills, bc he was a known white supremacist and ex-kkk. This will likely be considered a hate crime per the law.
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/27/5049065/new-charges-filed-in-overland.html
Bah, I ninja’d myself again, stupid sensitive phone!
@lea
I live in the south and originally from mid-atlantic region. I find it especially funny whenever someone down here says “the war of northern aggression.” Even some (right leaning) politicians still call it that. So sad, but makes for lots of laughs.
@enhancedvibes
I couldn’t tell if you meant always, or just the last one.
But either way, usually ‘it wouldn’t have happened to a different oppressed group’ makes me pretty uncomftorable.
Reblogged this on Soph Chesterman.
“You seem blissfully unaware of all the cultural applauding of the playboy, of the encouragement of “sowing wild oats”, of “playing the field”, the digs at having been “trapped” by “the ball and chain” which positively laud the sexually active single man.
vs the SPINSTER-shaming, “when are you going to find a man”, poor lonely old woman with cats, slut-shaming scorn, pity and derision for the single woman.”
Women are more prone to say these things to single women. I’m sorry but I dont see this being pressured on single women by men. Maybe 50 years ago it was different.
Magazine covers do anything to sell you a dream doesn’t mean thats how it is in real life. Fair enough, plenty of pressure on single women as well specially when they are young. I’m not here to try to value anyone’s needs over others. That’s the definition of selfish.
All I intended to say was that ‘entitlement’ isn’t exactly the cause of men trying to be with women. Its their psychological dependents and what society pressures on and expects from men.
@Jules
…wow…
True, entitlement doesn’t make men try to be with women.
Entitlement is what makes them explode in monstrous ways when they don’t succeed.
RE: Jules
I’m not here to try to value anyone’s needs over others. That’s the definition of selfish.
And yet, here you are on a post about a mass shooter, making it all about you and your feelings on sexism. That’s not selfish at ALL.
Get out, asshole.
“Psychological dependents”
So, those would be children? Can you claim an exemption for psychological dependents on your taxes?
”
@jules
I think all this peer pressure from society forces men to validate their self worth by having a women in their lives.
See, I would care about this a lot more if it weren’t something women get told way moreso. Where’s the dude-equivalant to ‘you’re going to be alone with all your cats’?
like why is this whole thread either a)ableist garbage or b) waht about the men?
”
The equivalent can be so many. ” you will die alone”, ” you aren’t worthy of a family”, “what about your legacy”
Not justifying it and honestly I agree. Its probably 50/50 as women are under the same pressure. I mentioned this because I dont think most men feel ‘entitled’ to women. They just hope they end up with a good one. That’s most men I know. They dont approach this subject with confidence and they dont talk about it like they are entitled to it. Everybody is acting like all men feel ‘entitled’ to having a women like in the dark ages.
“@Jules
…wow…
True, entitlement doesn’t make men try to be with women.
Entitlement is what makes them explode in monstrous ways when they don’t succeed.”
So are you saying all straight men feel entitled to having a women? I know Eliott felt entitled but are you saying every single man is the same?
RE: Jules
I dont think most men feel ‘entitled’ to women.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHA
HAHA
Oh, you’re cute. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
“RE: Jules
I’m not here to try to value anyone’s needs over others. That’s the definition of selfish.
And yet, here you are on a post about a mass shooter, making it all about you and your feelings on sexism. That’s not selfish at ALL.
Get out, asshole.”
How is this exactly about me? I’m sorry but last I checked the argument was that this guy represented misogyny in society as a whole. You sound upset
RE: Jules
So are you saying all straight men feel entitled to having a women?
Look, buddy, as one man to another, let me explain this to you in small words.
Straight men are encouraged to believe that they DESERVE women. ALL of them. Different straight men deal with this differently, but it is a part of my culture, so much so that it is completely unquestioned. Any man, as long as he is “nice” deserves a woman.
Back before I transitioned, I faced this. I had guys who felt they deserved to fuck me purely because they weren’t being outright cruel to me — and sometimes even if they were. I was raised in a family of incest and rape, because my grandfather believed he was entitled to fuck his daughter.
This is a widespread thing. My experience is not unusual or special. It is depressingly commonplace.
Of course all men aren’t the same. Nobody said that. YOU said that. What we’re saying is that when a society encourages men to believe they deserve women just because they’re men, that a lot of men will believe it.
That’s a very clumsy assessment of the argument. No surprise there, though. It seems the whole thing has gone over your head.
Hark at the melodious birdsong of the try-hard troll!
RE: Jules
You sound upset
THIS IS A POST ABOUT A MASS SHOOTER. Why WOULDN’T I be upset? Would you prefer I have absolutely no emotion at all and argue with you like a robot? I can, but I see no reason why you deserve the effort.
RE: cassandrakitty
I know, if I were a REAL man, I would be completely unmoved emotionally by this horrible crime. Because REASONS.
*eyeroll*
@Jules,
Thanks for dismissing women’s experiences, Jules. Just because you are blind to what happens to others doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Here. On this blog.
”
RE: Jules
I dont think most men feel ‘entitled’ to women.
AHAHAHAHHAHAHA
HAHAHA
HAHA
Oh, you’re cute. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Perhaps your definition of entitled is different than mine.
Entitled as in claim by any means possible.
doesn’t sound like you care much
I don’t mean to quibble with this particular kibble but I do want to pick a bit of a nit
so, to get on with it:
if it’s not entitlement but social pressure and expectation
how is that any different from the abject ministration
that “I am expected to have a woman, fancy and fun
with a body touched by none and a partner count of one”
Social pressure on a single person is still other people telling that
well, I guess guy
that to be super-fly, he must get a gal
Which in turn is his entitlement of the expectation of one
based on all those nebolous others telling him how it’s all done
Second! I must insist that “Psychological depedents” was probably meant to be
“psychological depedency”,
which is a rather different sort of beast
and not in the least a rather disparate kind of concept to grasp…
Only if they’re psychologically dependent on having a woman, then you’d find that to be the entitled expectation that their worth as a human being is measured in female-stock in their portfolio of pretty lasses in knee high socks, so, either or, the same thing…
which leaves us at the beginning.
RE: Jules
doesn’t sound like you care much
And yet just a moment ago, you were saying I was upset. Which one is it, buddy?
Also, love how you just ignored my entire experience where I talked about men who DID “claim by any means possible.” Family of rape and incest, remember?
So your definition of entitlement would basically require all straight men to be constantly raping all women all the time. Anything less is just… I dunno. Whatever it is you believe.
Why are you here, Jules? If I wanted decent male company, I’d go back to Pride.
”
RE: Jules
You sound upset
THIS IS A POST ABOUT A MASS SHOOTER. Why WOULDN’T I be upset? Would you prefer I have absolutely no emotion at all and argue with you like a robot? I can, but I see no reason why you deserve the effort.
”
I dont blame you for being upset about the shooting but I never insulted you yet I get insulted ten fold. I dont expect anyone to agree with me just trying to have a conversation.
SfD: I was thinking about this subject while I was at work and realised what it is about your argument which most fails to address the issue; and why it is fundamentally flawed; it’s your attempt to define Rodger by his “effect” while ignoring what the effects are, and the causes were. You have thus redefined effect to mean, “action”.
Moreover you have (quel surprise) done this in such a way as to make it impossible to look at context, or motive. By assuming a priori he did exactly what he wanted, you can erase the question of why he did it by saying, “He killed more men than women, ergo he hated men at least as much as he hated women”.
It appears (from his manifesto) Rodger had two goals. One was to punish all women because they, “get to choose whom they breed with” and because the specific subgroup he thought he “deserved” hadn’t chosen to breed with him.
The other was to punish the men whom those women did choose, and so make an example of how a “True Alpha Male” treats, “lesser Betas”. He wanted to kill all women, and some men.
So, even inside the ignorantly designed metric you propose his misogyny is far greater than his anger at men. In fact he doesn’t really have any anger based on the maleness of the people he killed. He hated them purely because of how women chose to interact with them (which he colored with the racist beliefs he had in parallel with his misogyny).
So the argument, “he hated both men and women so it all balances” fails. But the other aspect, the one you don’t even pretend to address (despite it being the core of the conversation) is the question of the intended effect Rodger meant to achieve. Rodger was engaging in terrorism. He knew he couldn’t actually kill all women, but he intended to make those who didn’t “know their place” (i.e. as the rightful property of Alpha Males) know that if they didn’t shape up and start treating men like him with “respect” they would be killed.
If you look around you will see the discussion, on both sides of the divide, is about women.
Those who see Rodger for the misogynist he was say the society needs to address the structures which fed his sense of entitlement to the point he thought women who didn’t throw themselves at him were so criminal he could justify killing them. The other side says women need to be nicer to men, or there will be more attacks like this one.
That is where your claim of his “equal hatred” completely fails to match the facts. If you look around the manosphere; the area where his attacks are most likely to be called, “misandrist”; the place the ratio of dead women to dead men is most like to be played up, you will also find men cheering Rodger. You can also find men who encourage others to take up his banner, and make more attacks like his.
Which means those men aren’t actually afraid of being targeted. They know the real target was women. They know that the males who were killed were singled out for “crimes” of commission, while it was open season on all women.
They know what you want to deny. He did it because he hated women. . He wasn’t an equal opportunity killer. He wanted to kill more women, but they prevented him. There were men who enraged him buy only in the context of his misogyny, which was the driving force his actions.
RE: Jules
I dont blame you for being upset about the shooting but I never insulted you yet I get insulted ten fold.
Tenfold? Wow. All because I called you dumbass once. Imagine if I was really trying!
Also, you DID insult me. By talking about how men aren’t entitled to women, when I have a lot of experience proving otherwise, and then completely ignoring what I said about it. You HAVE insulted me, Jules. Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean you didn’t.
I dont expect anyone to agree with me just trying to have a conversation.
On a post about a mass shooter. About how men aren’t REALLY entitled to women. Because that’s totally appropriate.
Do you wander into people’s funerals and demand to talk about your problems too?
Do you hear that sound? This is the song that the troll-bird sings while happily building itself a nest. This is, sadly, usually an indication that it’s planning to take up long-term residence.
“Thanks for dismissing women’s experiences, Jules. Just because you are blind to what happens to others doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Here. On this blog.”
Then correct me if I’m wrong. Nothing men like more than single women. They hardly ever object to a woman being single.
RE: Jules
Then correct me if I’m wrong.
I did. You completely ignored me. I keep telling you, I have encountered men who did “have me at all costs.” My female relatives have ALL encountered men who wanted them at all costs. You’re ignoring that, because I think that makes you uncomfortable.
Nothing men like more than single women.
My mom was seven when she was raped. I was sixteen when I was raped. Yes. I’m sure men liked us very, very much.
You don’t understand anything about what you’re talking about, do you?
But of course you don’t. You’re just “trying to have a conversation.” You don’t actually care. If you cared, you’d listen, and you don’t.
” don’t mean to quibble with this particular kibble but I do want to pick a bit of a nit
so, to get on with it:
if it’s not entitlement but social pressure and expectation
how is that any different from the abject ministration
that “I am expected to have a woman, fancy and fun
with a body touched by none and a partner count of one”
Social pressure on a single person is still other people telling that
well, I guess guy
that to be super-fly, he must get a gal
Which in turn is his entitlement of the expectation of one
based on all those nebolous others telling him how it’s all done”
Yes but the result is so many unhappy marriages. Do you not agree that most of these pressures on young males comes from their mothers. Mothers telling you to get married and have a family?Their is difference between what society expects of you and what you expect of yourself.
“Second! I must insist that “Psychological depedents” was probably meant to be
“psychological depedency”,
which is a rather different sort of beast
and not in the least a rather disparate kind of concept to grasp…
Only if they’re psychologically dependent on having a woman, then you’d find that to be the entitled expectation that their worth as a human being is measured in female-stock in their portfolio of pretty lasses in knee high socks, so, either or, the same thing…
which leaves us at the beginning.”
Yes that was a typo. I meant it because most males have a strong female figure growing up being their mom. Its only logical that most desire a female figure later on. Not all men but most.
@Jules, well aren’t you the cute one. All “I can’t be a misogynist, I love women”. Having your lovely little discussion all objective and above it all.
Let me explain it in short words so that even you can understand:
You are wrong, troll. Read my comments up above where I already corrected you, you utter ass-wipe. Then fuck off back to whatever rock you crawled out from under.
…I said ‘makes men explode in monstrous ways.’
I didn’t specify just Elliot, because he’s one example.
Ask women for more examples. Really quickly you’ll find out that all women have examples.
What is the “friend zone,” if not a concept to punish women for saying no?
Male entitlement is endemic. Look around. Examine the world.
I meant it because most males have a strong female figure growing up being their mom. Its only logical that most desire a female figure later on.
How Freudian of you. Are you trying to say that gay men exist because of lack of strong mother figures?
Yes sexism disappeared in the 1960’s! *eyeroll*
There is a long history of men telling feminists that they are only feminists because they are too ugly to get a man. It still happens today. It happens here all the time. Male trolls love to come in here and call us spinsters and inform us that no woman over 25 is worth anything at all (and women under 25 are only good for fucking).
If you think men never mock women for being single or for not being conventionally beautiful you really haven’t been attention.
Logic. Yet one more thing that Jules does not understand.