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.
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.
Dude.
DUDE.
That was only the tiniest sliver of Fibinachi’s point.
If you expect to be taken seriously, you have to actually address the rest of that.
Jules: I dont blame you for being upset about the shooting but I never insulted you
You’ve been insulting our intelligence from the get go. You did come in and say, “men suffer more, because society tells them they need a mate. Women don’t get that”.
So either you are so clueless about the culture you live in that we can’t really trust you to know up from down, white from black, shit from Shinola, or you are a dishonest hack with an agenda we’ve seen more times in the past week than you have years in your life.
In either case you don’t really deserve much in the way of deference. If the first someone needs to clue you in; which ain’t our job. Some people here tried to do that. You blew them off. From there what you get is on you. You made the bed, you lie in it.
If it’s the second case… well you’ve not yet seen the level of insult that deserves.
We interrupt this nature documentary to draw your attention to a miraculous thing. Behold, a misogynist troll actually admitting that he wants women to be his mommy!
And now, back to our program.
RE: Howard Bannister
If you expect to be taken seriously, you have to actually address the rest of that.
But Howard, we’re being meeeeean to him! Look at him, being all polite and saying I’m upset and yet don’t care! Saying that men are attracted to women because of bullshit Freudian reasoning! Isn’t he just so LOGICAL?
RE: cassandrakitty
Behold, a misogynist troll actually admitting that he wants women to be his mommy!
How Oedipal.
What does this even mean? It’s not really known what causes sexual orientation, which by the way isn’t always so binary. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Are you saying a boy raised by a single father or two fathers will be gay? Are you saying a boy raised by a weak woman will be gay?
I really don’t know what you’re trying to say and am going to need a citation. Unlike most of the internet, unbacked bullshit claims don’t fly here.
That is not the definition of “entitled.” This is
In this context, this is the definition we are using:
We are saying that Rodger felt that he had a right to sex and attention from a young, white, blond woman and thought he was being unfairly denied when one didn’t throw herself at him.
Yes, Lot’s of men feel entitled to a woman. Women are considered to be prizes for the deserving hero. Women aren’t taken seriously when they say “no.” Rodger was just a lot more extreme in his sense of entitlement.
“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?”
I didn’t see this response before.
What do you mean wanted them at all cost? I never meant men will not try to get the woman they want. of course they will try everything because they are desperate.
I’m sorry to hear about your past experience. Would it make you feel better if I said I was also subject of rape when I was a child?
Are you suggesting that mens entitlement justifies their rape? I’m sure for some it does. Im sure entitlement justifies murder for some as well. Theft and so much more. Do most men in our society today feel entitled to women to the extend to rape them? Significance on MOST!
I dont believe that. How come Im not like that? How come none of my male friends are like that. Ive never even heard them ever mention havingt feelings of being entitled to someone else.