>
Reason #1538 it’s not such a good idea to spend time online nursing your resentments towards the opposite sex because no one from that sex seems to want to have sex with you: Because that kind of, sort of, makes you a little bit like Jared Loughner.
The Wall Street Journal managed to track down what are apparently some comments Loughner made on a gaming site; they’re full of his usual conspiratorial nonsense (his lunatic theories on grammar and currency) but they’re also, as the Journal notes, “peppered with displays of misogyny.” One posting
titled “Why Rape,” … said women in college enjoyed being raped. “There are Rape victims that are under the influence of a substance. The drinking is leading them to rape. The loneliness will bring you to depression. Being alone for a very long time will inevitably lead you to rape.”
This is the dark side of the “incel” mindset. (That is, those who turn their “involuntarily celibate” state into an identity.)
Another time, the Journal reports, Loughner
started a thread titled “Talk, Talk, Talking about Rejection.” He solicited stories of rejection by the opposite sex. The next day he wrote, “Its funny…when..they say lets go on a date about 3 times..and they dont….go…” Three days later, he wrote, “Its funny when your 60 wondering……what happen at 21.”
There is other evidence that Loughner nursed anger towards and hatred of women and authority figures: he apparently scrawled the phrases “die bitch” and “die cops” on a letter he’d gotten from congresswoman Giffords.
As Amanda Marcotte points out, there are a lot of people out there who’ve responded with anger at the very notion “that misogyny might play a role in the choice of a young man to shoot a powerful woman in the head … .”
But the fact is that misogyny has consequences, and one of its most common and most predictable consequences is violence towards women. Misogyny plays a role, as Marcotte notes, even when the perpetrator of this violence is “crazy.”
What I’m seeing here is that Loughner, mental illness or no, completely absorbed society’s teachings about male entitlement and female sinfulness, that men have a right to have needs filled at women’s expense, and that women give up their rights to bodily autonomy if they do things deemed unladylike, like have sex or drink alcohol.
And just as those who spew hateful political rhetoric — filled with talk of guns and targets and “second amendment solutions” to political “problems” — shouldn’t be surprised when someone takes that rhetoric seriously, so those who spew misogyny online shouldn’t be surprised when someone acts on that misogyny and attacks a woman. As Marcotte puts it,
just because someone has a mental illness rarely means that he’s completely unaware of the world around him. Loughner’s ability with a gun or his thoughts on rape didn’t spring fully formed from his brain, but are the product of an individual interacting with a specific environment.
Those who contribute to that toxic environment — whether they’re Sarah Palin talking about “reloading” or some random woman-hater talking gleefully online about bashing “bitches” — share in the responsibility when someone pulls a gun and shoots down a female politician he’s convinced himself is a “bitch.”
—
If you appreciated this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. Thanks!
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
> Start with those things if you truly want to lessen misogyny. Random Brother I would not call it misogyny, but deep mistrust against the legal system.Misogyny means to hate ALL women, everywhere in this world.
>@ YohanYou're right. Your phrasing of what I was trying to say is more appropriate. Random Brother
>@Richard"You think men will eternally be mocked and disenfranchised and nothing negative will happen?And when something negative does happen you and skirt nation screech misogyny, as if your behavior and your laws and your misandry and your biases and your double and triple standards and your insults don't exist and didn't influence anything else"Even when that something negative is dwarfed by the injustices done to men as a group.Talk about princess whining about a pee 50 mattresses below.
>LexieDi said… Yohan:If all feminism is man-hating, then all MRAs and the like are woman hating. I'm a feminist and have a boyfriend that I love and who loves me.Seriously? Blanket statements are stupid. Your comment is very true, Indeed, in feminism, all MRAs are considered to be misogynists.This is exactly what feminists – see David's blog – are telling us all the time.About myself, I am a straight man, no criminal record, married since 35 years with the same Asian woman, never divorced, 2 daughters university educated in Japan/Canada, 1 fostergirl in Philippines, and I was sharing the same rooms with my mother-in-law for over 20 years until she died.Feminists will never ask 'logical follow-up questions' for example 'how come you are one of the MRAs' or 'what was the reason you join the men's rights movement so actively?' or 'what else is in your forums, except talking bad about women?' or something like that. Feminists are calling me a women-hater, a misogynist all the time. – But they cannot explain me why. It seems to call on any man to be a 'women-hater' is a standard 'shaming language' reply of every Western feminist if a man disagrees with a woman, whatever the reason might be.About the feminist ideology itself so far I failed to see anything which might be seen in a positive way by any man. Feminism is for some certain women only, it's not even for all women and the guideline is give as little as possible and take as much as you can.
>Richard: You think men will eternally be mocked and disenfranchised and nothing negative will happen? Time is a mighty factor and the answer to this question. We have now clearly 2 main-groups of men in these MRA-forums. 1st group are men not so young, ALREADY badly cheated by females and by the legal system.They have to work and to pay, but they are not silent and are sharing their experiences with other men over the internet. For sure, DIVORCE is EXPENSIVE for men, often a financial disaster over many years.2nd group are men who are still young, they like the idea to look for a female partner, they are SINGLE but MISTRUSTING and are willing to listen to men already cheated.Those men who are using MRA-forums, as far as I can see, are very different from each other. White or black, rich or poor, young or old, aggressive or depressive, never been out of the city where they were born or travelling worldwide, living in the US or in EU, high intelligent or really a poor low-life…How will be the future? I think, the number of young, single, mistrusting MEN will rise sharply. The solution against feminism might be 'passive resistence' – About marriage and such stuff, say in a polite way to everybody, sorry, but this is too risky for me…Nobody can force you as a young man to do what feminists wants you to do.It will become more difficult for feminism.
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to MRA women logic, shouldn't this guy have had babes crawling all over him? Reality Check.
>@ booboonationNow he will. The love letters and the women who think they can fix him will flood into the prison.And that's a real reality check.Random Brother
>David Futrelle said… Yohan, …..I think maybe I'll start up a thread just for you, and whenever you feel like posting random assertions about the evils of feminism … I am not the only MRA, who is strongly complaining about your MRA-hater blog.David, seriously, one question to you:What comments did you really expect on your MRA-hater blog? Honestly?Of course you expected comments from feminists, cheering you as their hero. You, the brave man facing the enemy. OK, and what else?Do you really expect all MRAs to remain 'silent in shame' when they are reading your insulting crap? Ordinary men, like we MRAs are not politicians, celebrities or CEOs, and we do not have any privileges for being a man.Ordinary men are not richer than ordinary women, and they do not have a higher income than women. Men are not only in top-positions, but often also present real low-life and poverty..Men who just work and do not own much have not much to offer to a girl.They do not have rich parents and are not into thug-life and they often have a very very difficult time to find any nice girl for them. Yes, I know you are laughing now, but I was one of these lonely young men a long time ago. I speak out of personal experience. As a former target of scorn.But tell me, how can ordinary men offer anything for a girl, if they don't have anything? From where should all this money come from for diamond rings, expensive designer gifts, cars, own horse, etc. and all other stuff what girls demand to receive? Western feminist society is highly materialistic orientated, women are the most spoiled in the world.David, again, honestly, what kind of comments do you expect from me and other MRAs? Shall we pray to you as our savior?
>booboonation said… Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to MRA women logic, shouldn't this guy have had babes crawling all over him? I don't know about USA, but in Europe for sure it's like that…Please read, link belowhttp://www.thelocal.se/24578/20100125/Prison guard pregnant after affair with rapist A convicted rapist considered to be one of Sweden’s most dangerous repeat sex offenders is set to become a father following a secret romance with a female prison guard, one of several inmate-guard love affairs reported to have taken place at a prison in central Sweden……According to Aftonbladet, there are at least three additional known love affairs involving female guards and violent male criminals younger than 30-years-old. BTW, this is NOT a link from the DAILYMAIL, UK.
>@David…Others had suggested I may be able to contribute to what you are doing here.However, after a bit of a look around, it seems you are actually something of a lightweight.I suspect I can achieve far more for women by putting my energies elsewhere.Sorry to take up your time.
>wow, i've never seen anyone take their ball and go home in their first post. well done sir
>Based on Loughner's statements, including the erad3 posts, it seems to me that the misogynistic attitudes that are quoted in the OP reflect his underlying misanthropy and psychopathy. In other words, he had a problem with everyone and everything. Along with the trite, chauvinistic generalizations he put forward about the relationship between the sexes, he also thought that basic shared concepts like the calendar and currency were essentially malicious lies, and had difficulty accepting that reality is fundamentally something different than a dream (and hence, effectively no empathy for real people of either sex). He seemed to be particularly incensed with any kind of authority figure, however minor, and had a weird obsession with NASA (Gifford's husband's employer).I have personal experience with people at this level of delusional ideation, suffering from mental disorders such as mania and hypomania. In those states, people are terrifyingly disconnected from basic notions of reality and are capable of bizarre acts of violence. Now, I'm not diagnosing Loughner. The alienation he projects could result from all sorts of causes and triggers, and I'm not a psychologist. But it seems to me that David is making a very small point–hateful attitudes towards people are associated with violence against those people. That's certainly the case. But the guy's attitudes are so bizarre, and so wide-ranging, that I'm really skeptical about all the discussion that is going on right now that tries to pin down a particular kind of hateful rhetoric as having enabled Loughner to pull the trigger. If his mind is really as warped as his writing suggests, I'm not sure what object lesson we can take from his actions–it's not clear what would have to happen to any of us, however obnoxious we might be when discussing our pet issues, to get us to the same point he was at when he committed mass murder.
>Yohan, It seems to me that you are complaining about a, at most, subset of women who expect a man to provide the finer things in life. You then extrapolate that to mean all women based on no evidence other then the echo chamber of the MRM.Not all women want men to provide for them. Not even a few women. And I certainly hope you did not raise your daughters to expect some man to take care of them.
>Yohan:But tell me, how can ordinary men offer anything for a girl, if they don't have anything?From where should all this money come from for diamond rings, expensive designer gifts, cars, own horse, etc. and all other stuff what girls demand to receive?Please. Women don't "demand" expensive gifts. Some women might, but most women I know would be perfectly happy to receive a gift that shows thoughtfulness, regardless of the price tag. The real problem here isn't whether you have enough money to give lavish gifts but whether you pay enough attention to a person's interests.Anyone who thinks they can give expensive gifts to make up for the fact that they're an asshole has a big problem. That might work in some cases, but it's the exception rather than the rule.
>Joe,But the guy's attitudes are so bizarre, and so wide-ranging, that I'm really skeptical about all the discussion that is going on right now that tries to pin down a particular kind of hateful rhetoric as having enabled Loughner to pull the trigger.There are two separate questions here: (1) Why did Loughner go on a shooting spree at all? (2) Why did Loughner target Rep. Giffords? Misogyny may have nothing to do with #1, but it may be a viable explanation for #2.Specifically, it's not unreasonable to question whether misogyny played into Loughner's decision to target Rep. Giffords given that he wrote "die bitch" (a gender-specific insult) on a letter from her. Just as it's fair to question whether politics played into his decision given that he shot a public official.It is impossible to say that these were the major motivating factors right now. (There were probably a bunch of batshit crazy reasons that factored in, too.) But a lot of folks want to altogether dismiss Loughner's apparent hatred of all/some women, which ignores some key evidence about why he may have chosen the target he did.
>Sal Bro: The real problem here isn't whether you have enough money to give lavish gifts but whether you pay enough attention to a person's interests. I have rarely seen a rich single man without plenty of young women around him. I wonder, who is paying enough attention to whom in such a situation and what these 'interests' might be.About demanding and overdemanding from women, it seems for me to be more the norm than the exception in Western society. Let me say, it's easier for a man if you have a Ferrari – and sure, I'll bet you, the girl next to him is young and beautiful and his looks and age does not matter anyway. And now you tell me, what I say, is not true?Even if you find a nice girl as a poor guy and you really think she is nice, another guy is coming along soon and if he has more than you, then she is gone…with him. No question about that. And there is nothing what you can do about.That might work in some cases, but it's the exception rather than the rule. I don't think so.My observation so far is its more the rule rather than the exception.There is a lot of money etc. moving on, and it's moving from men to women, hardly from women to men.One of the reason I left Western society for always.
>@Raul Groom…wow, i've never seen anyone take their ball and go home in their first post. well done sirLOL. Good point. By way of thanks I'll add a second…In a way I'm trying to protect David. I suspect he might find me a bit difficult and confusing. A long time MRA who is also a board member with a rape crisis and counselling network which serves an area larger than most US states and which is doing ground breaking work in developing preventative strategies.One who marched with feminists, plotted with feminists, grafitti'd for feminists, helped extend maternity leave into the private business sector, voted for affirmative action for women in policy committees which created it in my country, got broad scale publicity for rape activists years before the term "rape activist" was coined. And much more.My toenails have done more on behalf of women than David could achieve in a dozen lifetimes. He'd be seriously out of his weight class. I see nothing productive coming from my stepping on gnats.
>@SalYou can't overlook his misogyny, and it's a reasonable question as to whether or how much it motivated him targeting Giffords. But I don't see anything that suggests that he liked or supported anyone, at all. Which begs the question: how do we make an argument that a single aspect of Giffords–her sex, the fact that she was a government official, her being married to an astronaut–was the primary one that made her his target? And if he was equally willing to murder all the other victims, including the men and the child, then how much sense does it make to construe the killing as a political act against a group, ostensibly on behalf of some other group?Even though the insanity defense (which applies very, very narrowly) might not apply to Loughner, the guy is not right in the head. So what lesson can sane people take from that, other than that we should all watch our mental health and seek treatment if we're having mental problems?
>Joe,Loughner's political views seemed erratic and did not appear to fall in line with those of any large political group–i.e., there's not a lot of evidence that this was conservative &/or Republican targeting Giffords because she's a "liberal" Democrat (I use quotes because Giffords has been accused of being a liberal but actually seems to be more moderate). But this doesn't exclude the possibility that he had political motivations. He did target a political figure, after all, and prior to the shooting posted politically themed videos on YouTube. His politics were, no doubt, distorted by his delusions, but they could have still been a major influence on his decisions to open fire and target Giffords.This is the lesson that I think sane people can take from this incident: When there is a preponderance of violent rhetoric that is directed at a group of people (based on gender or political views or whatever), even if that rhetoric is intended to be metaphorical, there is a small number of deranged people out there who will interpret it literally and act on it. A corollary: The ability of deranged people to act violently is aided by their access semi-automatic weapons and extended magazines (or bomb ingredients, or whatever).I'm not saying we should necessarily legally limit free speech or access to guns based on these events. But they should factor into discussions & decisions regarding our rights; violent rhetoric should be quickly and loudly denounced when used by prominent political figures; and we certainly shouldn't be surprised when events like this happen.
>Yohan,I have rarely seen a rich single man without plenty of young women around him… Let me say, it's easier for a man if you have a Ferrari – and sure, I'll bet you, the girl next to him is young and beautiful and his looks and age does not matter anyway… And now you tell me, what I say, is not true?No, I'm saying that these men–and the women who hang on them–account for a minority of people as a whole. I don't know any women who date a man who drives a car that can be described as anything more than upper middle class. Your observations don't describe a majority of relationships in Western society.Sure, lots of things are superficially easier if you have lots of money. And lots of things are more difficult, too, like finding a partner who's interested in the personality (and not just the cash) of a self-absorbed dude who drives a Ferrari. Even if you find a nice girl as a poor guy and you really think she is nice, another guy is coming along soon and if he has more than you, then she is gone…with him.If your woman leaves you for a guy with "more than you" (money, personality, whatever), then she's a jerk and/or you're a jerk and/or you just weren't compatible with each other. Apparently in your world men don't ever leave women for other women who have "more" and/or all men & women are mutually compatible and interchangeable.And there is nothing what you can do about.There's a lot you can do. You can try to woo her back, or find a woman who isn't a jerk, or figure out why you're a jerk and then look for someone else. But not taking any responsibility for your situation isn't going to get you very far.My observation so far is its more the rule rather than the exception… One of the reason I left Western society for always.Yes, because your observations about Western society from OUTSIDE Western society are so credible. Ditto for your experiences with Western society as a (presumably) foreign-born racial &/or ethnic minority. Ever heard of "white privilege"? You (presumably) don't haz it.Greg Allen: *yawn* Give us a reason to believe you're everything you claim to be or wank your ego elsewhere.
>@Greg:It's kind of ironic, you go out into the world and people really surprise you; they're never what you expect. The exception is people who think they're really surprising and interesting. Those people are pretty much all the same.Weren't you just leaving?
>@SalI don't get it. He targeted a political figure, and he had (incoherent) opinions on politics, but it simply doesn't follow from those two facts that he was motivated to kill by violent imagery in political rhetoric. I'm not saying I know what motivated him; in fact, I'm saying that given what we know, it's not clear at all what motivated him, and about the only thing that is clear is that the way he thinks doesn't make any sense to ordinary people.I think violent rhetoric is much more dangerous than it would be if our primary concern was that it could push people who are already psychopaths over the edge. I'm much more concerned that a much larger group of perfectly sane people use it to rationalize frequent, ongoing acts of violence, and there I think the causal connection is much clearer.The danger in trying to use Loughner as an object lesson is that we really aren't completely out to lunch like he is, and the take-away should not be that violent rhetoric is something that can motivate someone who's not like us, who we can't relate to at all, to commit violence.
>Davey:I notice your posters do not provide any profiles. Many indentify themselves with a letter or a random collection of numbers and letters, that look like they just wiggled their fingers over the keypad, without even looking. How many of these comments are genuine responses? A certain percentage look as though you and a few other die-hards are simply chewing the feminist philosophical cud with one another.
>Joe,it simply doesn't follow from those two facts that he was motivated to kill by violent imagery in political rhetoricPerhaps violent rhetoric wasn't specifically a motivating factor. You're right that no one can prove that at this point. Hopefully interviews with Loughner over the coming weeks can shed some light on this.Even if Loughner's politics were whacked, he still appeared to link (nonsensical) political opinions to the act of shooting and/or his choice of target. I'm calling that "political motivation".I do disagree that mentally ill folks are so completely unlike mentally sane people that we can't relate to them at all or try to understand their behavior. Loughner wasn't 100% insane–he still interacted with society. He bought guns and drugs and tried to enroll in school and the military. He planned and executed (no pun intended) an assassination plan. He also posted about a distaste for women and about political topics, then proceeded to shoot a female politician. It's reasonable to assume that strong negative opinions about the gender and/or Gifford's political actions played a role in Loughner's decision to target her, and now it's up to investigators to determine whether this is true and to what extent.Speculation by onlookers can get irritating, but I don't think it's pointless. It leads to hypotheses that can be tested against the evidence. From that we can figure out what (if any) changes could be made to reduce the future frequency of such events.I'm much more concerned that a much larger group of perfectly sane people use it to rationalize frequent, ongoing acts of violence, and there I think the causal connection is much clearer.Yes, it's downright scary.
>Santo -I know, right? Makes it so hard to troll folks.