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.
So nanoJoules is arguing that religions predate societies. LOL wut?
Ally — clearly masculine attitudes are ones displayed by male chimps!
Those are very small variations of the religion. In Shia, Sunni, Hannafi sects Gender roles and misogyny is very common.
How far back do you care to go to find the origin? I mean how is this useful? I think the current trend is enough to say those specific religions are misogynist.
Oh hey Jules’ back! I am… nope, not even a little bit shocked. Also not shocked that he’s arguing with straw feminists. Jules, if you can find *one* commenter on this thread who has said women are incapable of violence or violent behaviour (quote & link please!) I will… I dunno, give you a cookie I guess.
The issue here is that *men* are often violent, and that their violence is generally motivated by misogyny and entitlement. That is what’s *meant* by “toxic masculinity”. Masculinity isn’t inherently bad (although umm, what is masculinity? Not a biological thing, let me tell you), but when it’s mixed with entitlement, a belief that violence is inherent in masculinity and a disregard for others’ feelings, then yes it is fucking gross.
Also, the misogyny in religion is, as myoo said, a *direct result* of misogyny in the culture around it. If misogyny *was* inherent in religion and a result of religion, then atheism would be the least misogynistic space ever! And, um, the public atheist movement is ridiculously misogynistic. (Not to say that there aren’t a lot of atheists and atheist spaces that are women-friendly, just to say that there are a lot that are very public and very misogynistic.)
Hanafi isn’t a sect – it’s a school of thought (the one I belonged to, incidentally). Shia and Sunni Islam are sects, though – and very diverse ones as well. That the most misogynistic Islamic discourses enjoy an academic hegemony reflects none other than the institutionalization of misogyny.
In the beginning, there were the various holy books. People came later.
(Still not quite sure why anyone is bothering to seriously engage this fool.)
Yes India does have Muslims. It has Christians too. That doesn’t mean either religion was the most dominant in shaping their culture. Are you making the claim that Islam is responsible for any misogyny and patriarchy that occurs in Hindu or Sikh communities?
I’m not interested in that question. All I’m saying is that misogyny has always existed outside of religion – and also without its support. There are numerous secular folks who perpetuate misogyny. I also have heard of plenty of male rapists who are atheists. There are also male aggressors within even political environments often considered antithetical to religion, like anarchist/socialist spaces.
@cassandrakitty We pity the fool. 🙂
…Jules has literally gone from “violence is 100% genetic and male-specific” to “violence is 100% cultural and women do it too!”
Christianity and Islam totes caused the misogyny in Confucianism. Jesus and Mohammed both went to visit Confucius in the time machine that they co-owned and made us of via a nifty timeshare arrangement.
I’m picturing this, but with a giant bible monolith.
I am pretty sure we are on 183.
OMG, you guys, he finally said something true! Women are indeed much less likely to have an interest in trolling, in a general sense.
Oh, and let me turn your argument on its head. Let’s accept your assumption that is sufficient to say that religion is misogynistic today, regardless of any past non-religious influences. Can we then not also say that society, influenced by religious misogyny, exists on its own despite any past religious influences? If not, then your argument about religion being the root of patriarchy makes no sense.
@cassandrakitty practice? For me at least this seems like a good time to practise. And I’ve got to catch up to the rest of you somehow! Even if it is by banging my head against a particularly stupid wall.
Gah. This place is way too fast for me. I didn’t actually realise how much more had been written. Jerks spreading their fail all over science makes me cry.
You’re all awesome, non-trolls. Just saying.
184
Also I just realized how much that part of 2001 looks like a Monty Python skit.
Wait, is this actually verified?
Or am I just missing a joke? >_<
RE: Lea
Cyborgs can’t eat burritos.
I’m a cyborg, and I can eat burritos! (This is actually true; we have a metal prosthetic stapes bone to replace the bad one. It doesn’t WORK, but still, we’re totally a malfunctioning cyborg!)
somebody talented and smart make that alt history fiction happen!
Is that a prompt? *eyebrow waggle*
RE: Jules
because I am male I must be trying to convince myself that violence is okay otherwise
I’m male. So’s pecunium and Howard. Note how nobody’s coming after US. It’s you, Jules. And it ain’t ’cause you’re male.
Im saying HUMANS are violent
That’s funny, seeing as you’re saying this on an Elliot Rodgers post. Your pages and pages count boil down to… “well women kill people too”? Well, congratulations Jules, here’s your gold medal of Obviousness.
Why bring up 3 days ago? So if I was wrong on generalizing primates all my argument must be wrong?
No, we bring it up because you’re wrong on a ton of things. Like I said, Jules. You’re stupid and short-sighted and painfully unaware of both.
No I meant masculine physical labor and generally masculine attitudes.
My generally masculine attitude is that you’re stupid and short-sighted. Anyone care to shame me for that?
True, even though it says they punish violence in their children from an early age. I didn’t say violence was all inherited. Obviously it can be influenced by culture.
What about the lack of entitlement or misogyny in Semai culture?
Im beginning to think that the more materialistic a culture the more occurance of violence and aggression in general. What if materialism is the motive?
I dont know, recently every group of feminist online is providing me with different reasoning. Its not universal and while I know beliefs vary, its hard to outline exactly what feminism is or is trying to accomplish.
Not long ago I was told about the hormone Testosterone being the main factor behind male violence and aggression and that men were inherently violent due to that. I was told this by a group of educated feminists so now its hard for me to outline the ideology.
LOL XD
RE: cassandrakitty
Jesus and Mohammed both went to visit Confucius in the time machine that they co-owned and made us of via a nifty timeshare arrangement.
This sounds like the start of a joke…
RE: Jules
What if materialism is the motive?
no1curr
its hard to outline exactly what feminism is or is trying to accomplish.
It’s hard to outline exactly what YOU’RE trying to accomplish. Oh wait, it’s to bore us to death. Don’t worry Jules, you’ll succeed any year now.
I was told about the hormone Testosterone being the main factor behind male violence and aggression and that men were inherently violent due to that.
Sure, buddy, I totally believe you. *eyeroll* I’ve been on T. Didn’t get aggressive unless my dose was too LOW. But yeah, you totally were told that by educated feminists, uh huh.
I will if it’s this woman.
185