Men’s Rights activists and others in the manosphere often complain that it’s unfair to link their movement to killers like the virulent antifeminist mass murderers Marc Lepine and Anders Breivik, even though the antifeminist, anti-woman ideology of these killers is oftem indistinguishable from MRA thought.
But the plain fact is that they make the links themselves. Whenever there is some sort of mass killing by someone who is driven at least in part by the hatred of women, it seems like it’s only a matter of time before some MRA steps up to, if not explicitly endorse the killer, at least suggest some sort of sympathy or empathy with him and/or to suggest that the killing in some way is an understandable or justifiable or even praiseworthy reaction to the the alleged oppression of men.
This time it seems to have happened with record speed. Over on the A Voice for Men forum, one commenter, GregA, compares the mass killer in Newtown today — whose motives are still completely unknown — with oppressed people rising up against tyranny in the Middle East:
So far the only reply he’s gotten challenges this odious comparison, so that’s a tiny bit comforting.
Naturally, the MRAs will say that this commenter is some sort of feminist troll. But he’s made dozens of comments on the AVFM forums that are standard-issue MRA stuff – he seems to be a bit obsessed with the notion that feminist commenters online are being paid for commenting – and his comments in the past (at least those that I looked at) seem to have been generally well-received there.
EDITED TO ADD: If you would like to discuss the Newton shootings without having to think about this horrible comment of GregA’s, I’ve set up a separate no-trolls, no MRAs, thread for that.
EDITED TO ADD MORE: Meanwhile, over on A Voice for Men itself, one of the first commenters in a thread on the subject blames the shootings on, you guessed it, misandry:
Meanwhile, AVFM “managing editor” Dean Esmay complains that feminists “will find some way or other to blame us in specific for this.” In case Esmay is reading this, I am not blaming the Men’s Rights movement for this shooting, mainly because we have absolutely no idea what motivated the shooter. What I am doing is pointing out that someone on AVFM’s own forum, someone who has previously posted there extensively, is comparing this murderer of children to some kind of freedom fighter, and another in the very thread you are posting in has decided (based on absolutely nothing) that “misandry” is to blame.
You may also recall the numerous comments from MRAs justifying or at least excusing, the Seal Beach shooter.
Here are some more MRA comments on the Seal Beach murders which I chose not to post at the time. These are from A Voice for Men. (In the original thread they weren’t next to one another; there’s more horrible stuff in the thread besides these two comments.)
Are these guys “feminist trolls?” No. They are both long-time commenters at AVFM.
But again, pointing out these horrible comments is not the same as blaming the MRM for that shooting, or for the shooting today.
In the case of Lepine and Breivik, people linked them to MRAs because they had (or in the case of Breivik still has) virulently anti-feminist worldviews virtually identical with much of the stuff posted regularly on Men’s Rights sites, and other “manosphere” sties generally.
Presumably we will learn more about this shooter’s motivations, and then we can decide if anyone besides the shooter himself is to blame.
EDITED TO ADD ONCE MORE: Elam has now shut down the thread on A Voice for Men; as I write this the thread on the A Voice for Men forum is still up. I suggest you take a look at it and make screenshots. Elam says it’s because I’m “using comments from the thread in order to push his lies.” It’s not clear how quoting his followers (in full, without edits) is a “lie.” Apparently he’s unwilling to let his followers continue to post comments because, we can only assume, he knows they will say more horrific things, and people outside the AVFM cult might see what those inside it actually think.
Not, at this point, that there’s much doubt about what they think.
EDITED TO ADD STILL MORE: Meanwhile, over on The Spearhead:
As most of the readers here will know, the shooter was 20 years old, wasn’t a father and the shooting had nothing to do with any custody battle.
Pretty much. She was a walking illustration of logic fail, among other issues.
Let me tackle this first because it’s easier — “Your father thinks all Frenchmen are gay? How’d he get his wires so crossed, given the usual Frenchman = great lover trope?” — because they have a sense of fashion and a taste for good food, which no MANLY MAN would (dude would be an MRA if he could work a computer).
Now onto kysokisaen —
“Argenti I know you want to keep your guns…” — not really my guns for one, for two (TW: suicide</strong), no, I don't, I'd probably just blow my brain out, I'm not really all that stable at my worst.
"…but if the gun-having people can’t be trusted to keep dangerously unbalanced people away from dangerous guns, then the government will step in." — Most of us "dangerously unbalanced people" are only a threat to ourselves, but that's not really on topic. What is on topic is that there's no reliable way of determining who might be a danger at some point in the future (and hell, my latest psych med change had me half way to dangerous, so let's not go around thinking that properly medicating the mentally ill is the be all and end all solution)
"They have to, because there are clearly enough careless people willing to pass legally-obtained semi-automatics to people who absolutely should not have them." — Except a blanket ban on semi-auto guns would prevent that without having to bring the mentally ill into it.
"Will they do a shitty job? Almost certainly!" — Yep.
"Is our mental health system in any sort of shape that such a rule could be fairly and reasonably enforced? No." — Agreed.
"Does ‘keep medicated people away from guns’ sound like the kind of simple solution voters would love? Yes, yes it does." — Yeah, and it wouldn't work any. In most cases, once a proper set of psych meds is worked out, medicated psych patients aren't dangerous to anyone, including themselves. It's the people who refuse to seek treatment at all that you really need to worry about — the people with the sort of delusions that make them think that the gov'n wants to take their guns and thus they might need to go to war.
"You’re a mentally ill person who will defend the rights of gun nuts to have guns, but are you completely sure the gun nuts would do the same for you?" — I'm defending the idea that trying to repeal the second amendment is never going to work, for a variety of reasons, the "gun nuts" just being the loudest opponent.
And hell no I don't think they'd defend the rights of the mentally ill. Please try not to take this personally, but the problem I'm having here is that I don't think the people saying that the solution is keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill would either.
Fuck! I broke my tags, sorry y’all!
I should have guessed!
@Jeff — “Unlike Australia, America has borders with 2 other countries, Canada and Mexico. So instead of criminals going to the corner to buy crack, they will be buying a box of 9mm ammo.
See my point?”
That’d still make procuring ammo similar to procuring drugs, since most of them are imported. It’d drastically reduce the amount of ammo available, while increasing the cost (and, if it did work out like drugs, decreasing the reliability of said ammo).
Personal anecdote time! So, I’ve taken drugs in the past. If I could have bought them for cheaper, and without having to interact with sketchy people, and without breaking the law, I might still indulge at parties, etc. So the illegality of, say, cocaine, actually does impact the usage of it in at least some cases. Doesn’t stop everyone from getting their hands on it, but if you could walk into your corner store and just buy cocaine? Well, that was the case in the past, and people did indeed use it a lot more.
(Please note that I am not endorsing the War on Drugs in general or stupidity like jailing people for possession in particular.)
Also! In some parts of the world you can legally by amphetamines in pharmacies. I bought them in Thailand – you literally asked for “pink and white amphetamine”. Does that mean that they’re used more in those countries than they are here, where they’re more heavily restricted and more expensive, and harder to get? Yep!
(Before anyone gets the wrong idea, in Thailand they were marketed as a weight loss product.)
(By which I mean, I wouldn’t advise attempting to procure or move through border control drugs of the not-legal variety in Thailand unless you have a burning desire to be executed.)
Oh hell, I’ll let people get the wrong idea — I’d rather enjoy doing acid again, if I could get it here, ‘cept my very few connections for such things are all in PA.
Actually, I will clear up one wrong idea — (TW: suicide) it doesn’t make me more nuts, years ago when I was debating suicide, I decided to at least do the tab of acid I had first, because hell, I wasn’t going to waste good acid…clearly I didn’t off myself.
And MDMA? That’s the only thing that’s ever let me actually talk about the causes of my PTSD (hey guys? I’m officially Dx’ed!)
“…unless you have a burning desire to be executed.”
Should we just TW: suicide this whole thread at this point? (Totally my fault, I know, but still)
I meant I don’t want people to get the wrong idea about Thailand and be stupid and get themselves in trouble while there. If people assume that I indulged in various recreational chemicals in my youth then that would in fact be the right idea.
(I’m such a perfect illustration of the PUA idea of how evil women fuck around with those terrible alpha males in their youth and hang out with disreputable people in general, no wonder it pisses them off so much that I don’t regret it.)
“I’m such a perfect illustration of the PUA idea of how evil women fuck around with those terrible alpha males in their youth and hang out with disreputable people in general, no wonder it pisses them off so much that I don’t regret it.”
Lol, take that, stir in bisexual and genderqueer, and *hello!* (oh the drunken flirting I used to do, damned)
By MRA standards I “got what I had coming” though…so yeah…still don’t regret most of it though. And oh boy was the weekend of debauchery fun, all the pot anyone could smoke, a shit ton of cheez-its and other munchies, hot wings, ouzo and vodka — that was the weekend I got a bit of a reputation for bring the party with me. Oh to be 19 again huh?
Eh, I still do the drunken flirting, and then sober flirting too actually. 19 was fun, but honestly so is 39.
I would not have guessed you were that much older than me (27 here) — and I still flirt too, just only with people I already trust (all of whom seem to be asleep already! And I’m working on drunk! *sigh* it is ~4 am here)
This convo is sort of relevant though — 21+ is better as there’s no need to find someone to buy your booze. That is, with the drinking age in the US set at 21, those under 21 have to find a way to buy booze, which does discourage a certain amount of drinking. Thus, logically, making ammo harder to obtain would discourage a certain amount of shooting.
I doubt I’ll ever stop being flirty. It’s a personality thing, I think. Also funny that I come across as that young – not sure whether I should be amused or offended.
Our friend from the other thread will probably respond to the second paragraph with “but then only really determined teenagers will get booze!”, which, well, yeah, that’s kind of the point, trying to deter at least the people who aren’t absolutely determined and willing to plan their attacks out long in advance. The ones who are very determined and possessed of long term planning skills I’m not sure there’s any way to stop.
“Also funny that I come across as that young – not sure whether I should be amused or offended.”
Be amused — I was thinking we were fairly close in age, not that you were immature or anything (and people tend to guess I’m older than I am when they speak to me, I’ve seen more pain than anyone should…so it might be me and not you)
Back “on topic” — yeah, only really determined teens will get booze, that’s the flippin’ point. I’m not sure there’s any way to stop the ones with long term planning skills either — they tend to be loners, thus allowing them to plan without fear of discovery, but we can’t go around assuming that every loner is a mass murderer in the making, most are just introverts.
“I’ve seen more pain than anyone should…”
On that topic, I cannot imagine what these parents must be going through — it’s not just grieving, but all the questioning (should they have kept their kid home? but why would they have? but if only we had! — trauma is called such for a reason)
My heartfelt sympathy to them, it’s truly unfortunate that such evil exists in the world. I’m not the religious sort, but evil really is the only word for it. It’s bad enough to have the just world fallacy shattered, but to have it happen because your small child was killed? I really can’t imagine the pain they must be feeling.
Haven’t flirted in ages. I miss it. Someday soon.
RE: teens with grog, teenagers where I grew up generally (not necessarily – I look older than I am and found walking into bottle shops with an air of confidence easier than nerve-wracking bus trips with weed on me – anxious kid) found it much easier to get their hands on weed, which was mostly a net win for middle-class kids (less risky drug, cooler stories to tell, can make a bit of dosh selling) but a bit of a disaster for kids more likely to get caught
Also LOL at the fuckwit in the other thread suggesting Americans, if gun control licenses are tightened, will get their guns in notoriously gun-friendly Canada.
“teenagers where I grew up generally … found it much easier to get their hands on weed, which was mostly a net win for middle-class kids (less risky drug, cooler stories to tell, can make a bit of dosh selling) but a bit of a disaster for kids more likely to get caught”
Seconding all of that. Hell, I had an easier time getting MDMA and acid than booze for awhile. And, thankfully, those sorts of dealers are hippies, not gangsters.
@Argenti
Yep, same in Aussie suburbs, though there was an eccies drought for a bit.
See, the MRAs are not only malevolent, they’re dumbos! Tacking this on to some father’s rights or custody rights issue, when the shooter wasn’t a father, really? What was the shooting supposed to be, preemptive? So it’s ok for angry guys to shoot OTHER people’s children? Welcome to the MRA universe! Near where I live, last fall, a 17 year old boy abducted a 10 year old girl on her way to school, and assaulted and dismembered here. Good thing the MRAs haven’t heard about that yet – I’m sure I’d cringe to hear their retelling. These MRAs, especially some of the commenters, are just vile people. Remember how they defended Josh Powell?
The mere fact that they speak French would be a case for the prosecution in some mindsets.
More generally, I can’t help but recall the reaction to the 1996 massacre at Dunblane in Scotland, the UK’s closest equivalent to what happened yesterday. Unsurprisingly, this led to widespread hysteria and lots of knee-jerk overreaction – Warner Home Video withdrawing Natural Born Killers from its then-imminent video release being one well-publicised example – and later on the government, desperate to be Seen To Be Doing Things, banned private ownership of handguns altogether. Which, amongst other things, effectively banned the UK’s Olympic target pistol shooting team from being allowed to pursue their chosen sport.
But there was a massive elephant in this particular living room, which became very clear during the official inquest into the tragedy, after which the Chief Constable for the region quite rightly resigned – and that was that already existing laws should have prevented the killer from legally owning guns, and they simply hadn’t been applied.
I still think banning the things makes it easier to prevent tragedies like this and Dunblane than hoping that complex laws are correctly applied 100% of the time. If legally owned guns are lying around, someone who’s not supposed to can still get their hands on them.
I mean I saw a statistic today saying that last year in the UK, 8 people were killed by guns – there were over 10,000 in the US. Allowing for difference in population you’re still looking at 40:10,000 or 8:2000 depending on which way you do it.
Let’s not forget that the USA isn’t supposed to be a massive firearm free for all, there’s supposed to be quite strict rules about who can and can’t have guns, but they just don’t work.