The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider sending some bucks my way. (And don’t worry that the PayPal page says Man Boobz.) Thanks! And thanks again to all who’ve already donated.
If anyone was hoping – against their better judgement – that Men’s Rights activists would be inspired by the tragedy in Isla Vista to reconsider any of their beliefs, or even to reflect for a moment on the many striking similarities between passages in Elliot Rodger’s book-length manifesto and comments posted every day by MRAs and others in the manosphere, well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you should not keep that hope alive.
It’s not that they’re not talking about the tragedy. A look through the top 100 posts in the Men’s Rights subreddit, the largest Men’s Rights forum online, reveals that roughly a third of them, including the top stickied post, relate in some way to Elliot Rodger’s rampage and the discussions that have come up online and in the media in its aftermath.
But the message of virtually all of these posts is: “Nothing to see here! Move along!” There are numerous posts expressing outrage that anyone would see any connection between Rodger’s toxic misogyny to the Men’s Rights movement; there are others mocking and attacking the #YesAllWomen hashtag; there’s even one suggesting that Rodger, who wrote about how he longed to watch all the women of the world starve to death in concentration camps, wasn’t actually a misogynist at all.
Take a look. One post, with more than 500 upvotes, complains:
Another post makes a strikingly similar complaint:
One angry MRA asks:
Another wonders:
Sorry to break it to you, fella, but that’s not how defamation suits work. If it were, all of us who call ourselves feminists would be collecting millions of dollars from the Men’s Rights subreddit for all the patently untrue things you guys say about us every day of every week.
Still others make sure that everyone knows that Rodger hated men too – not that this has actually gone unnoticed in the media or in discussions of the tragedy.
And then there’s this fellow, who seems to think that Rodger only hated men, and that his big problem with women was that he loved them too much:
There are, it’s true, two posts that raise the issue of what might be done to prevent tragedies like this from happening in the future. One of them takes on the issue of “virgin shaming.” (Sure, I’m against that, and against slut shaming too. Odd that roughly 100% of the virgin shaming I’ve ever heard in my life has come from MRAs and other non-fans of this blog, even though — sorry to break it to you fellows — I’ve not been a virgin since the early Reagan administration.)
Meanwhile, the other “positive” suggestion — the stickied top post, submitted by one of the forum’s moderators — is pretty transparently intended as a PR move – and an excuse to bash feminists.
Yep, “creep shaming.” That’s the problem! Way to cut through all the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter! The problem isn’t that some men — well, a lot of men — think and act in predatory and entitled ways towards women. The problem is that sometimes when they do, women call them “creeps.”
The problem isn’t that the world’s creepiest and most entitled man just killed 6 innocent people, the problem is “creep shaming.”
After killing his roommates and a friend of theirs, Rodger attempted to get inside a sorority so he could massacre the women inside it. But he couldn’t get anyone to let him in. Probably because, well, whoever was nearest the door thought he looked a bit, well, creepy.
“Creep-shaming” isn’t some insidious form of discrimination against awkward men. It’s a defense mechanism that women develop to protect them against predatory men. And in the case of the Isla Vista murders, I’m guessing that the willingness of women to go with their gut sense that Rodger was a creep literally saved lives.
But the mods of the Men’s Rights subreddit would rather moan about “creep shaming.” They would prefer that women lower their defenses against men like Elliot Rodger — because it hurts their feelings to sometimes get called a “creep.”
Guys, this is why people think Elliot Rodger was an MRA.
EDIT: I added more to the conclusion because I had more to say about creep shaming.
Black Linen Sheets,
You are the most random troll ever. I have no idea what you’re talking about.
How is this the fault of feminism? Nobody here is for bullying adult entertainers.
Ick. No. Nobody is entitled to another person’s body. Masturbation relieves sexual frustration just fine.
I’m guessing by the nym that Black Linen Sheets is a PUA, probably with something to sell? What he thinks porn performers killing themselves has to do with feminists I’m not sure. There are lots of feminists who don’t like porn, but feminists didn’t create the stigma against porn performers, and if you look at cases where former porn performers are being hounded and harassed when they’re trying to move on to new professions then I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that the people doing it aren’t feminists.
Not joke-telling lessons, I hope.
It must be hard to “seduce” women when most people’s response to most of the things you say is “huh?”
Lids: Ew, that guy does sound creepy. I’m sorry that happened. What the hell did he mean “become asexual before something bad happens?” Did he mean, he was going to do something bad? Like some kind of threat?
BLS: Nope, gumdrop, no one’s entitled to sex or attention from anybody else. Not sure what else you’re trying to get at as nothing you wrote makes a lick of sense.
@davis
And thus spoke the ignorance of those in the MRM. See, I read a lot ofmra sites, know thy enemy and what not, and the thing is they dont understand the law or how the family court system is supposed to work. The above actually is one of their concepts but itll never become law bc law is intended to serve a public need and in contentious divorces in which a judge determines final outcome, well, they are best suited to determine if anyone has lied. But why would there be legal punishment for that? One would have to prove it and even if they could, its still not criminal court wherein perjury actually does carry a penalty bc the person is under oath when being questioned. The atty speaking on behalf of their client can technically say whatever they want within reason.
As for TRO hearings which is normally what MRAs mean when they talk about “she lied!” will likely never change. Just like when LEOs arrive at a DV call their job is to err on the side of caution based om the claims of the alleged victim,, so too is the court’s job to initially take the complainant’s word for it and issue TRO. I imagine most divorce related TROs do not get extended though I’m not sure of stats.
Anyway most of the legal changes mrm seeks will never come to fruition bc theyre positions are.largely unconstitutional.
Lastly, do please go your own way and…goodc luck.
Oh one more thing its poor logic to opine that just bc he killed more men that negates ALL the videos and the manifesto TELLING US he did it bc he hated womem and the men they slept wi th. This ks not the deathh toll olympics and I wish ppl would put on their thinking caps when thjnking about this issue bc there is waaaay too much “rationalizing” going on in this country that he “must” have been “crazy” bc no one , especially men, want to talk much less think aboutthe way they and their friends treat women.
On the good side of news coverage, Time has a story about the toxic nature of the MRM, written by a male fitness columnist:
http://time.com/134152/the-toxic-appeal-of-the-mens-rights-movement
The angry misogynist brigade is already out in the comments.
QFT and for emphasis.
“In fact men and women are entitled to sex and attention because guess what, those are natural human needs.”
fuck off, creep
Lea:
At least dog farts are stinky and funny.
cassandrakitty:
Hey cool, I’ve bought stuff on Etsy, does that make me a bad boy alpha? Must tell Mr K, I’m sure he’ll be
baffledimpressed.Lids:
I wondered if it was AVEN. I was on there briefly, a good while ago. Must have been lucky to miss the dudebrodeadbrains.
Black Linen Sheets:
What are you even on about? Your teal deer is just blathering. But this bit:
Wrong. Fail. Needs are for air, food, shelter, healthcare – the things without which you will die. “Death from lack of sex or attention” isn’t actually a thing, and don’t try pushing suicide on that one, it’s not natural causes and you should know it.
You’re pushing the same bullshit line as neuroguy on Pharyngula. Any suggestion that person A is entitled to sex, or has a right to it, means that sooner or later there’s a person B whose right to bodily autonomy is taken away from them. Sure, people have the freedom to pursue sexual and other relationships. They don’t have the right to them. If it’s not mutual, it’s rape.
Does anyone else think that “black linen sheets” sounds anything but sexy, or even practical? Be one thing if we’re talking batiste (can’t recall the English word for it) but otherwise I’m thinking scratchy and showing any hairs, dandruff, cat furs …
Haven’t most of the large media outlets almost *exclusively* said that he hated men, at least in the absence of explicitly stating that he hated women?
There was a particularly egregious example on CNN where they split it into five points “learned” from his manifesto. Not sure if it’s still up but it’s a good example of the media dodging the misogyny topic but fully embracing “vengeance against men”.
The media has opened up slightly since then, but more in inviting editorials that essentially say “a lot of people [we won’t name or invite to speak] are saying we should talk about misogyny, and sure that was there, but this was 100% the fault of untreated mental illness and they are all insensitive and should shut up”.
-_____-
But thanks for the post. More proof that the MRA’s are stuck in their own bubble full of persecution and lacking in facts.
@David Futrelle: Trolling is not the same as argumentative.
@weirwoodtreehugger I didn’t claim any of those things. In fact, my argument is that you people DO NOT represent real feminism. You guys are frauds.
@cassandrakitty I am not blaming feminists for that. I am blaming fraudulent fake feminists as exemplified by this website. And no I am not a PUA, you should know, you talk to them all the time. Do they talk like me? Do their arguments sound anything like mine?
@Ally S Fuck off creep to you right back. Isn’t there someone else you should be telling that to?
@kittehserf Any suggestion that person A is not entitled to sex, or does not have a right to it, means that sooner or later there’s a person B whose right to bodily autonomy is taken away from them.
The same conclusion follows from the opposite assertion based on a different context. So there you go. A bunch of frauds. Because statements such as:
And my post about the two pornstar suicides and the REAL character of patriarchy that we live in?
Are typical of PUA’s. Fuck off. Like last time, I’m not coming back. You worthless losers contribute to problems like Rodger’s and Funke. And it’s funny because all this concern trolling and I’m not even sure this loser blogger even mentioned the latter.
Before you open up your sell out worthless mouthes, maybe repeat a few times, Rodger and Funke, Rodger and Funke, Rodger and Funke.
And don’t talk to me about polite conversation because on this side, we are beyond offended already. So fuck right the fuck off with your fucking profanity bullshit and politeness or whatever. You are only going to get yourself in more shit.
Gotta know when to fold them, prick.
… and that is kind of why I didn’t let you post in a thread in which I specifically banned not just trolls but the gratuitously argumentative.
Yep. You sound like the PUAhate guys too, and like MRAs. It’s funny watching you all jockey for position against each other, because you’re basically all the same.
Care to translate that from Troll to English?
There’s no different context. Saying men are entitled to sex means someone else has to provide it, and that means someone else doesn’t get to say no.
Plus, of course it’s only cis het men you’re talking about, isn’t it? Or are you saying that if a gay dude walked up to you demanding you sex him, because he’s entitled to sex, that you’d be happy to comply? If you said no, you’d be denying him his rights!
But since it’s only het men you think have this right, it doesn’t matter, does it? Because women aren’t actually people to misogynists like you.
Fuckwit.
Oh yeah?
You’ll be back!
Why aren’t we real feminists? You are just spouting nonsense without backing anything up.
Do tell. Who in your esteemed troll opinion is the creep Ally should be telling to fuck off?
No you fuckwitted jackanapes. Bodily autonomy begins and ends with your own body. Nobody ever has the right to sex with an unwilling person. What the everloving fuck are you even talking about?
What side is this? Who is we? This is kind of sounding like a threat.
Seriously, BLS is sounding suspiciously like those creepy ass incels from the Jezebel post I linked to. Ick.
What’s all this we shit? It sounds a bit manifesto-like.
Hang on WWTH, I was telling troll that his ‘right to have sex’ shit means taking someone else’s bodily autonomy away, because person A’s “right” imposes on person B.
PUAHate again would be my guess.
BLS says we’re not real feminists here. And says this:
Which still makes no goddamned sense. I guess “real feminists” can’t make a cogent argument. And I guess “real feminists” think that women shouldn’t have bodily autonomy and owe sex to whatever random man demands it.
Yeah.
Actually, yes, BLS, from what little sense I can make of your randomly strung together words, you sound exactly like a PUA.
Now stick the flounce, please.
Let’s play “spot the inconsistency.”
Like the song says, “How Can I Miss You if You Won’t Go Away?”
I will never drink tea again, which is why I am making another cup as we speak.
I will never have a cat, which is why I’m cuddling one right now.
I’ll never listen to Rihanna again, which is why I’m listening to her right now.