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.
…I probably should too. Not the mom’s basement part, the sun part. My vitamin d levels are in the “good thing I’m done growing or I’d have rickets” range, and maybe the robin eggs have hatched.
Also, I have an ikea children’s tent to fix, my mosquito netting is all twisted and I need to tape up a waterproof door.
Pecunium — one more plant thing before I go, how’s the crassula doing? Remember when I dropped the terrarium lid on the parent plant? The top did root, I have a small, but well rooted, one if yours went blah.
Ok, time to get some sun, more whack a troll later!
re plants. I have one crassula left (the other suddenly quit). I need to try to root some forsythia for you, before we whip it out.
Yes, we did videotape it, but you were a trifle overt in the writing. I wasn’t surprised by the inclusion just for me.
It kind of appears to me that gdgdurden is the one with a problem with dissenting opinions, since he’s running away to avoid them whereas we carry on discussing them and refuting the ones we disagree with.
But hopefully he’ll stick the flounce.
Wow. This is the stupidest thing I’ve seen on this thread so far. Considering the huge volume of trolls we’ve had lately, that’s a tough bar to clear. Congratulations.
Charles Manson is a racist. He killed white people in an effort to frame black people and start a race war. Does it mean he’s not racist because he had his family kill white people? So much logic fail on your part. Elliot Rodgers explicitly told us his motive. It was so explicit that you don’t even need critical thinking skills to figure that out. Yet that is still too much for our trolls to manage.
While we’re on the subject of Hitler. He was thought to be mentally ill. He supposedly heard voices. Does that mean his anti-Semitism is irrelevant? Does that mean he wasn’t anti-Semitic at all? No. It doesn’t mean that all.
Hmmm… there’s a 4WD Jeep in my driveway, I have the key to a gun cabinet with a deer rifle and my husband’s practice work side arm in it, and some sheathed hunting knives in the garage. Somehow this morning, instead of killing those who don’t echo my exact opinions, I’ve managed to make my kids strawberry pancakes and pay the electric bill. Could it be that feeling passionate about an issue and expressing it thusly is not the same as being homicidal?
I get that there are people out there arguing in good faith for better mental health care and gun control (and yes, my husband and I are gun owners, and I’d be happy to melt them all in a furnace if it meant that no one else in our country was hurt or killed by a firearm ever again). That’s fine, I hope they succeed in getting better mental health care and better firearm regulation.
That, however, does not mean that I’m going to sit idly by while people try to dismiss the misogyny in this killing and the toxic undercurrent of it in our culture at large. Those kids who left a big syrupy mess on my kitchen table are a boy aged 3 and a girl aged 6. I don’t want to send my son into a world where my son feels that a lot of his worth is tied to how much sex he’s had, or whether he has a “hot” girlfriend, or where he believes that he has to follow some kind of script where he’s always up for it and can never say no in order to be a man. My daughter shouldn’t have to spend her life being harassed to fit someone’s else’s standards for femininity or beauty, to be forced into the role of the costar in someone else’s life, to be demonized for her sexual choices no matter how she makes them, or to be encouraged to give a guy a “yes” despite her gut saying “no,” and then to be scolded if he does something dangerous or violent because she should have seen it coming.
So no, I’m not dangerous. I’m angry. I’m still trying to figure out what I can do to make things change, and I’m not going to shut up about it in the interim.
Actually the only ones who have been using violent threatening language on this site are the misogynist trolls that have been coming in here lately.
I’m not sure what point you are trying to make.
I might just be extra suspicious of trolls right now, but I’m getting a hint of sock smell. Gdgdurden is reminding me of the early minutes of Erin and Davis’ trolling careers when they were pretending to be reasonable and rational. The mom’s basement comment has me wondering.
We’ll see if the flounce sticks.
And I remain convinced that you and people like you who are working so hard to deny that Rodgers hated women even when it’s right in your face are irredeemable shitheads who should just stop feeling the need to spread your gross apologia all over the fucking internet.
gdgdurden is reminding me of the early minutes of Erin and Davis’ trolling careers when they were pretending to be reasonable and rational. The mom’s basement comment has me wondering.
He has a blog, which is boring as fuck (no sense of how to develop a topic, and a lack of understanding on what makes a reminiscence interesting) but implies he’s not a sock.
I say implies because it’s possible he bashed out 20,000 words or so, and did some back-dating for verismilitude, but the subject matter is coherent to it’s theme, and not the sort I’d credit one of our trolls to be introspective enough put up as a false front.
So garden variety clueless about how his, “it’s all too big for use to deal with, and we ought to be polite as we work it out” nonsense actually works to perpetuate the things he decries.
@Gdgdurden and all other wannabe-neutral ignorants who feel like tone trolling or some shit:
Sorry to burst your bubble, but our society is not value neutral. Claiming neutrality in issues of opression and inequality is siding with the oppressors. By waggling your finger at people who are criticising an unjust social practice, you are not being neutral, you’re choosing the side of those who’d like injustice and inequality to continue unaddressed.
In other words, by claiming neutrality, you’re choosing to become part of the problem. Stop it.
Boring as fuck is accurate. I skimmed far enough to get to the post about Elliot Rodgers and it turns out he’s one of those people who thinks that in the good old days people were less violent. I hate that attitude. It’s demonstrably false.
People in the past were LESS violent? WTF? Is this another manifestation of “In the good old days, ALL families, without exception, were the Cleavers.”?
Pecunium — damn! As for the crassula, try putting it in a terrarium of some sort, or keeping it indoors and only watering via the dish of water method. And yes, you owe my mother her dreaded yellow blooms!
Also, I picked up Tito vodka when my regular was sold out. As always, you have excellent taste in booze. Damn that shit is smooth!
I’m normally fairly placid. But this drumbeat of “you’re demonizing male sexuality!” is making me testy. There is nothing inherent in male sexuality that demands that men abuse, objectify or kill women. It is both possible AND desirable for men to express their sexuality without any negative consequences for women. Why is this so challenging for some men?
I am, once again, deeply impressed by the collective bravery of women, and moved by the depth of their love for the men in their lives.
So you’re going to completely ignore the biased perspective that comes with your self-righteousness? I see.
I’m not interested in any principle of “human kindness” that prohibits the expression of contempt for others and polices people’s emotions in general. We have contempt for you because you’re being a sanctimonious jerk, and it is entirely justified.
Oh, and you should probably drop your disingenuous remark about us silencing dissent. We have been criticizing a great deal of the dissent, not silencing it. Unless you’re one of those insecure people who think that criticism of any kind is censorship, I don’t see how you could say such a thing without some degree of dishonesty on your part.
Like I said: get off your high horse.
Lemme guess: you’re one of those people who thinks that your “freedom of speech” means everyone else should be silent. No irony there, nope.
OT: Ever since I woke up this morning, I’ve had Loverboy songs stuck in my head, especially “Turn Me Loose”. It’s not a bad song, but hearing the chorus play constantly in my head is more than a little grating. Woe is me…
gdgdurden:
Oh, you wanted the human kindness blog. Well, see, that is not this blog. This is the blog where we mock misogyny. Next time make a left turn by the parked waaaaaahmbulance and drive a bit up Manly Tears Lane, you’ll see it.
We can always dream.
I am honestly a tad disappointed in the article. Before reading it, I already quite assumed Rodger was a misogynist. The statement I hoped to read some arguments for, was: “Why Elliot Rodger’s misogyny matters”. Perhaps I haven’t read well enough?
I do think that most men specially young men see their entire existence dependent on having a woman in their lives. Perhaps its the dependance on having a woman figure that resembles their childhood. Doesn’t our culture validate a mans worth by the concept of family?
Being a single man is frowned upon by society. In some countries single men cant go to certain restaurant and social environments that are labeled family only. Even here singles night in clubs or bars is a desperate attempt to get single women to attend to attract customers.
I think all this peer pressure from society forces men to validate their self worth by having a women in their lives. In other words its not a feeling of entitlement but an obligation to prove you are worthy of having a family. If this is not a factor at play please feel free to explain why.
Darn you! I HATE that song!
Do the trolls relate to ER’s rants? Are they horrified they they relate to his rants?
Is it too much like having the public see inside their heads and realizing their hateful thoughts inspire collective disgust. Maybe that’s jarring some of them, I dunno.
Or is it the idea that when people say things like, “Women are already equal, we don’t need feminism.” Someone will reply, “What about Elliot Rodgers?” That’s driving them here.
You duders who keep saying “He was crazy! He didn’t hate women.” I can’t tell if you believe that or not. It’s seems very important to you that we believe this, but we don’t. Many people don’t. And you don’t represent all men, though sometimes I think you do. We’re going to have to assume you can’t read or don’t understand that words mean things. In short, don’t be so fucking dumb, guys.
Or maybe Amanda Marcotte right:
“Instead, for some reason, I’m seeing another response coalesce. I call it the “How dare you besmirch the good name of misogyny?!” gambit. The idea is to deny and deny and deny that Rodger was motivated by misogyny. Which is weird. Since 95-99% of misogynists deny they are misogynists, what’s it to them to admit that he was motivated by misogyny? The only reason I can think to deny he’s a misogynist is that you secretly know damn well you are a misogynist, and you want to deny that your misogynist ideology played any role in the killings.”
Her article is here: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/category/pandagon/
Hey dudes, switch the gender on ER
Nice piece. It’s ludicrous to say misogyny didn’t come into play because he killed men. If anything, it shows another reason why misogyny is bad for men too.
I don’t know if you saw this yet (sorry if it’s already in the thread somewhere) but Chris Gethard had a great piece about seeing his high school self in Elliot Rodger and how to overcome that programming and become a better man: http://thechrisgethardshow.tumblr.com/post/87041806996/overcome-your-programming-and-be-a-better-man
I’ve noticed that this happens in every -ism and -phobia there is. The response always seems to be “this is not what you think it is. That’s not racism or sexism or homophobia . It’s obviously this_____, and these are not the droids you’re looking for…”
It seems to be the philosophy of what I like to call The Lazy Ass. They will come up with any other reason for what happened that requires they either get up off their ass and do something about it, or stop thinking about themselves for longer than 30 seconds. They will say or do whatever makes them feel good and causes them the least amount of inconvenience.
Has anyone els noticed this trend in the Manosphere of saying ” Well girls, you better give us sex or there will be some more shootings just like this.” I’m guessing that they don’t realize or refuse to realize that when said on a one on one basis, ( you know, threatening women into having sex with you) that that’s called rape. That when they make statements like that it sounds like “Fuck us, or we’ll kill you.”
Jules — in epic short, you’ve explained what social programming goes into them feeling entitled to a
familywoman. It’s still a sense of entitlement though.