French prosecutors are saying that the co-pilot of the Germanwings Airbus A320 that crashed in the Alps brought the plane down deliberately, after locking the pilot out of the cockpit. If so, this was one of the most horrific cases of murder/suicide the world has ever seen.
At the moment, we don’t know enough about the co-pilot, 28-year-old Andreas Lubitz. to know what motivated him to allegedly crash the plane. French authorities are saying that they don’t think it was an act of terrorism. But that may be because they have a rather simplistic definition of terrorism.
Murder/suicide is an overwhelmingly male crime; studies suggest that men may make up 90% or more of the perpetrators. While most of these cases — excluding suicide bombings — involve a man killing himself and a partner or ex-partner, there have also been cases in which men have resorted to mass murder in order to make some twisted point about what they see as a world unfair to men in general and them in particular. These acts aren’t generally considered terrorism, but they should be.
You know the names: Elliot Rodger, who killed seven, including himself, as part of what he called his “War on Women.” George Sodini, a would-be pickup artist who opened fire on an LA Fitness aerobics class because he couldn’t get a date. Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal in an attempt “to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker.” The list goes on.
Whenever one of these horrific massacres occurs, there are always some who rush to excuse or defend or even lionize the perpetators. And there are those who argue that these tragedies could have somehow been averted if women had just treated these poor men better.
In the case of this particular tragedy, reactionary fantasy writer Vox Day — real name, Theodore Beale — is literally suggesting that it could have been prevented “if the sluts of the world were just a little less picky and a little more equitable in their distribution of blowjobs.”
Here’s his, er, argument, from a post on his Alpha Game blog today:
Why he did it, no one knows yet, but it won’t surprise me to learn that Lubritch [sic] was a deeply angry and embittered Omega male. There is a reason Omegas frighten women merely by existing; they are capable of terrible and merciless acts of self-destruction. You can see Lubritch is a small and prematurely balding young man, possibly somewhat overweight, his occupation indicates that he was more intelligent than the norm, and the uncertain smile he has on his face tends to indicate low socio-sexual rank.
Good to know that Vox — who himself has an “uncertain smile” in some photographs I’ve seen of him — can x-ray someone’s personality by glancing at a snapshot.
Now, obviously no one else was responsible for Lubritch’s actions if it indeed was Omega rage at work. He alone bears the blame. But it is somewhat haunting to think about how many lives might be saved each year if the sluts of the world were just a little less picky and a little more equitable in their distribution of blowjobs.
So he alone deserves the blame — but somehow his actions are also the fault of unfair blowjob distribution by the “sluts of the world?”
As a 28 year-old airline pilot, Lubritch would likely have been married in a more traditionally structured society. It’s not impossible that the Germanwings deaths represent more of the indirect costs of feminism.
Oh, and it’s ultimately the fault of feminism.
Now, Vox Day is a famously terrible person, and something of a troll.
But the fact is that similar — if generally less explicit — apologias for male violence are common in the “manosphere” and amongst Men’s Rights Activists.
The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider donating with the button below. (The PayPal page will say you are donating to Man Boobz.) Thanks!
Oh, brooked, that gold is so…obvious. You’re just trying to trick men with your fancy finish and brighter display. Just wait until that shiny case starts to nick and scratch. Then those guys will see the boring lines and how fake-blue your screen really is. They’ll realize that their Hot Console 10 is really nothing more than a 5 with good paint.
Alas, Aunt Edna, what the benevolence of capitalism has given, biotruths taketh away. I know it’s only a matter of time before my husband starts longing for some newer, sleeker model. Hypergamey is in the male nature.
Hypergamey!
Good one 😀
misseb47 : Funny thinking about that time has brought back a lot of memories.
There were interesting facets of behaviour there (Glasgow) and then (late 60s to mid 70s).
Firstly there was an incredible social prohibition against males being violent to females ..in public (naturally private domestic violence was high). A male who was seen to hit or threaten a women would be automatically classed as ‘scum’ and lose what ever social points they had (or quite likely be beaten up by other males). And it was really powerful.
Even the ‘hair trigger’, prone to violence males (thug for short) stuck by that social rule….in public of course.
Because I spent time with quite a few from primary right through to secondary school I saw several types of ‘thugs’ over about 8 years, from pre puberty through to late adolescence.:
The ‘thug’ who was one pre puberty (and naturally a bully) and stayed the same through puberty in quite a few cases getting worse and moving into criminality (including murder).
The non ‘thug’ (one I knew was the exact opposte in fact and was a close friend early on) pre puberty, then became one during puberty, mainly by mixing with ‘thugs’.
The ‘thug’ pre puberty, who changed for the better in late adolescence, one I knew actually became a really nice guy in the end (and a good friend) and he was a total swine pre puberty.
So there are a lot of complex issues here. For the last two cases it was the groups they got involved in. The ‘non-thug’ got in with a bad lot and became one (or at least acted like one). The ‘thug’ got in with a good lot (my group) and steadily improved over time.
Another interesting thing, the most capable at violence (if they got into a fight they would win just about everytime) were far less ‘hair trigger’. Alert yes (everyone was there back then). By and large they would avoid violence if they could, though if attacked they would quickly turn into extremely capable and brutally violent people. My group was like that and in the violence ‘pecking order’ we ruled the school from 15 onwards…and we were acedemically the A class (and total non bullies) .
Very few were misogynists. Oh yes they had a full set of male prejudices of the time, but they didn’t hate women at all. Oh sex was on everyone’s minds all the time and the ‘race’ to lose your virginity was incredibly competitive. There were hearts broken, lusts unfulfilled, the relationships that should have been but never happened, the relationships that should never have happend but did, and all the rest of that time of life.
But, just about every male from about 16 onwards aspired to having a regular girlfriend, rather than just ‘roots’ with strangers. There was this real desire to have relationships (within the role and attitude limitations of the time).
Funny things. I remember being given a piece of sex advice when I was about 14 by an older friend, which was ignorant, silly and crude but somehow in a strange way was sort of sweet. It was “give her a good root and if you do it well she will give you a blow job” (modern terms, we used different ones then, like gammies). Yes crude and wrong, but even then then was a recognition that the female’s pleasure was important and if you wanted more of it you’d better shape up as a man, disappoint her and there it goes.
Of course there was showing off to other males involved, but the girlfriends very quickly got accepted into our social groups and became a major part of them, ever more so as we grew up. From 14/15 when females rolled in and out within our group, by 17 there was a high precentage of (semi) permanent boyfriend/girlfriend couples (even a couple of marriages).
My group was all working class. The working class women that I knew were as tough as nails with hearts of gold and wouldn’t take any nonsense from any males, anywhere, anytime. Any of them that became girlfriends very quickly sorted out bad behaviour of their male partners…lol.
So it was an interesting time.
The real misogynists I met then were few and were much older men (as were the peodphiles who were Catholic and in the Conservatve party) funnily enough the majority if misogynists I met were much later in my life.
Also funnily enough, the ‘nerds’and ;geeks’ of that time (I was one,duh), though they started out a bit later usually, very quickly got into sex and girlfriends…and did very well too as many ‘nerd’ females really liked them (also duh). So there was never that bitterness you see with modern ‘nerds’.
Unlike now, male and female ‘nerds’, after a slow start, very quickly got together (match made in heaven). Neither of them (by and large) did that well in sexual/relationship/etc at school but by university days they were hooking up big time and again, there was this real male desire for relationships. Being smart their prejudices were really low, all of us males at that time thought femininism was great and vastly overdue. So lots of strong relationships were created then.
So differerent then, Computer Science…when I did that (my major was physics but I did a two years of it as well) 50% of the class were females. And when I started work the IT world (in the UK) was full of females and at very senior levels too.
So in some ways (but not in others of course) there was a better balance between the sexes and a real hope, expectation, by so many males and females of a better life for both, where you were equal people together, sharing a life.
***Downside***
On the down side of that time: ‘poofs’ (gay males), lesbians and (like me) TG people were hated and hunted down viscously, if we survived we would be jailed or put into psychatric care…that is locked up and with endless ECT until our brains ran out of our ears.
*** Bad but accepted***
Paedophiles got a pass back then, because many were ‘connected’ to power centres, in the UK it was the Catholic Church and the Conservative .party (watch the UK media as all the stories come out though, and the Australian Royal Commission into this, in our case it was all religions).
***Strange thought that I cannot understand** why are so many rich and/or powerful males, who have a huge potential for sex wth young adult females, into paedophilia? Makes no sense to me as an ex-male or as a now-female, This is sick.
http://i.imgur.com/uAqFAme.jpg
I see Ann Morgan is continuing to dig herself deeper in this thread.
That “CEO letter” (usually attributed to some wealthy investment banker at JP Morgan) is an urban legend. It originated as an anonymous response to a Craigslist ad: http://www.snopes.com/love/dating/golddigger.asp
The letter you cite so approvingly contains a lot of faulty assumptions. For starters, it conflates beauty with youth. Yes, women get older. (So do men.). However, it’s not a given that beauty diminishes with age. Some people need to grow into their looks, while others acquire wisdom, self-confidence, and a host of other age-related things that enhance their outer appearance. At my 25th high school reunion, the most dazzling beauty in the room was a girl who’d been plain, overweight, shy, and teased as a teenager. She would have been regarded as a “poor investment” (to use your crude terminology), yet she blossomed in her late twenties.
Secondly, if beauty truly is a “depreciating asset”, then why do so many older, wealthy men still go for young trophy wives? Wouldn’t it make more economic sense for them to focus on non-depreciating assets such as remarkable intelligence or cooking ability? What exactly would represent a solid romantic investment for our hypothetical banker? What kind of woman do you imagine he’s looking for? And keep in mind that wealth can evaporate, too – it’s not the dependable, guaranteed asset that the letter seems to assume.
Third, you see beauty as a commodity that women can trade for a seat at the poker table; except they aren’t players, they’re the chips that men use to play their own game. All that beauty still comes with a heavy price (sexism, objectification, negative judgements, the possibility of getting dumped for a younger model). Who has the power in this scenario? It’s not the woman. Therefore, it’s not an equal trade.
Fourth, that letter reflects society’s tendency to view men’s sexuality as enduring, and women’s as fleeting and disposable. That attitude is neither healthy nor true. It’s blatantly sexist.
And finally, it’s pretty sad and crass to reduce human relationships to mating, commodities, and bargain-hunting shoppers. It ignores the complexities of attraction, and the fact that love very often precedes the cataloguing of assets, not the other way around. People fall in love all the time with people who are totally unremarkable physically and not outstandingly wealthy or intelligent, but all of a sudden there’s a “zing” and they start to notice a delightful sense of humor, the color of the other person’s eyes, the way they play with kids or make coffee or any of a thousand intangible traits. If everyone went around coldly negotiating their laundry lists of traits, and demanding concessions because of their own higher “market value”‘ no one would ever fall in love. You may denigrate “feelies”, but what else is love about if not irrational “feelies”?
As the Cohen brothers once said, “It’s a fool who looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.”
… Well, that explains where Ann Morgan got their sock name from.
@ Lisa
It’s interesting what you say about certain Glaswegian men and the fact that the genuine ‘hard’ guys tend not to be the ones starting things; it’s usually the weaker ones who do. Just wondering if you’ve read “Trainspotting”? The description of Begbie in the book very much fits into that description. I suspect he’s modeled on a lot of real life characters.
Interestingly, both dramatised versions that I’ve seen cast very different physical types. In the stage version – sadly, I forget the name of the actor – he was an authentic man-mountain skinhead type, physically intimidating to the max, which is pretty much how I’d visualised the character when I read the novel. By contrast, Robert Carlyle was much smaller and slighter – equally effective in terms of dramatic impact, but a decidedly different take.
It’s 2015 and “Google” has been in the dictionary for years now. If you don’t know what a term means you have the tools to fix that.
Employment is not me trading myself for money, it’s me trading my labor for money. Do you really not understand the difference?
False. I renounced prostitution in all its forms last time Tom Martin was here.
Oh wow, I missed the troll. I actually posted a bit of research in another thread that SUPER applies to their views. Article titled “Gender and Sexual Economics: Do Women
View Sex as a Female Commodity?” Short answer; NO.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/03/27/internet-incels-celebrate-andreas-lubitz-the-alleged-killer-co-pilot-of-germanwings-flight-9525-as-a-legitimate-slayer-and-an-incel-hero/comment-page-3/#comment-734367
tl;dr for the above link: stop shooting yourself in the foot.
Alan Robertshaw: Trainspotting was a set in later time than my adolescence, in Edinburgh and in the heroin/AIDs culture of that era, that being said there were definitely character types I recognised when I saw it. Robert Carlyle nailed it in so many ways.
Another thing I remember was that the real ‘hard men’ (as we called them then) were seldom big people. Many were fairly short and/or thin. In fact the most dangerous (but also one of the nicest) person I ever met was a friend if my father’s and he was ex-SAS. And he was quite small and very thin.
Skinheads started about my time and were largely treated with derision. Wannabees basically that no one respected or feared much (though you had to keep a close eye on the idiots in case they did something stupid).
Humour, the more black, bent, bizarre and twisted the better, was our constant companion. It is no accident we all became Goon Show and Monty Python nuts as well.
In fact having a good sense of humour was a major factor in how many social points you got and how well you were regarded. Billy Connelly was a.pretty average comedian by the standards of the time.
The thing here is “allegedly”. There is no proof that he deliberately crashed the plane. Anyone can allege anything. And in air crash investigations, they always try to blame the pilot.
That said, it was only a matter of time before some misogynist dickbag tried to pin the blame on women.