Was Marysville school shooter Jaylen Fryberg trying to exact revenge on a girl who had rejected him? Various news accounts suggest that Fryberg was reeling from a recent breakup; a number of angry, anguished, and frustratingly enigmatic recent comments on Fryberg’s Twitter account seem to back this up.
So it may be that the shootings on Friday were yet another reworking of an old story.
It’s no secret that many men, for an assortment of reasons, react badly and often violently to romantic and sexual rejection. This can range from self-described “nice guys” of OkCupid sending vicious messages to women who say no all the way to angry men who stalk and harass and sometimes kill ex-wives and girlfriends. Women who leave abusive relationships often suffer greater violence at the hands of exes unwilling to let them go.
I’ve written before of the striking ways that Men’s Rights Activism recapitulates the logic of domestic abuse; it’s no coincidence that so much MRA “activism” consists of harassment of individual women. So the question naturally follows: does the rage that drives so many MRAs come from the same dark place in the psyche as the rage that so many romantically and sexually rejected feel towards their exes?
Think of the fury many divorced MRAs feel towards their exes and women at large. Think of the self-pitying rage of “nice guys” MRAs in their teens and twenties who feel they’ve been unfairly “friendzoned” by stuck-up women.
As I pondered the tragedy in Marysville, I found myself thinking again about a disturbing short story written by A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam several years ago (and which I posted about recently).
In the story, you may recall, a jilted husband tells the other men in an anger management group session just what had landed him there. His story, as rendered by Elam, is a melodramatic and often mawkish tale of a man betrayed by a narcissistic “hypergamous” wife who left him for his business partner while he had been out of town at the funeral for his father. Oh, and she stole all his money, to boot. (Elam is not what you’d call a subtle writer.)
When the story’s hero finally confronts his ex, whom he finds ad his business partner’s house, she comes to the door in a nightie and tells him she left him because he just wasn’t cutting it in the sack. Then she makes a point of refusing to kiss him goodnight (and goodbye) because, she tells him sadistically, he probably wouldn’t like “the taste of another man’s cock on her lips.”
And so, the hero tells the other angry men in his group, he punched her in the nose so hard he broke it.
It’s clear Elam identifies wholly and completely with the hero, and we are supposed to see his punch as a form of righteous justice administered to his sadistic, emasculating ex.
There are a lot of angry divorced men in the MRM – including some with several divorces in their past. The standard MRA explanation is that these men come to the Men’s Rights movement after being “raped” — their word, not mine – in divorce court, or kept apart from their children by angry exes.
But I don’t think that’s it. Many of the angriest don’t even have any children. I suspect that the rage they feel is more like the rage of Elam’s hero – a rage borne out of a deep sense of sexual humiliation and the loss of control over the women who have rejected and abandoned them.
The anger of many younger MRAs seems to have a similar psychosexual source. These are the young men who rage against “friendzoning” and wax indignant about “false rape accusations” and “yes means yes.” In their mind, women are the “gatekeepers” of sex, and this frustrates and sometimes enrages them.
On some level they feel that women are collectively depriving them of the sex that they deserve, and they feel resentful they have to, in their mind at least, jump through so many hoops to get it. Some, I suspect, think that there’s no way they can actually “get” sex without cutting a few corners, consent-wise, and resent feminists for making this harder for them.
The self-righteous rage of the rejected is a dangerous thing. It’s dangerous when it’s directed at individual women. And it’s dangerous when it’s directed at women at large.
Just in case John has been ignoring because he feels insulted by my excessively accurate understanding of him.
Good point, cassandrakitty. Yup. Gave it a good think, I did, and came to the same conclusion. You know, I get the feeling that the MRA-challenged think that because we want freedom and political/economic parity, we must be just.like.them.
Weird, because I have yet to meet women who think just.like.them.
@ sarahrocco
A great deal of what you say is correct, Sarah.
“he might actually not be the best choice to raise the kid. That is not even conceivable, therefore vast feminist conspiracy”
That’s good. That’s very close to how I have been thinking. Please allow me to express that thought EXACTLY though, in my OWN words, though, even though it does create another “wall of text”, because I think we are getting somewhere at last.
The state and my son’s mother have agreed that I might not be the best choice to raise “the kid”. [tick]
It is not even conceivable to me that the state could be right about that [tick] …
… but not for the reason you seem to think, which I will come to in due course.
Therefore, there may well-be be a vast conspiracy, or a cock-up, or something on the conspiracy – cock-up continuum, on the part of the state and/or those with influence who, at least in the UK, include feminist groups (email me if you want a citation). How is that conspiracy perpetrated? The idea that some feminist-inspired attitudes have been instrumental in all this isn’t random and off-the-wall. (Mallory Millet’s whistle-blowing piece, if not fabricated, lends credibility to this.) [you can have another tick for getting this right too, basically – you are *good*!]
So, you are basically right in everything you say, but …
You are dead wrong about WHY it is inconceivable to me that I am not “the best choice” to raise my own child (jointly with his mother of course), even if that requires a certain amount of commuting (which it doesn’t in his case.)
My position is aligned 100% with the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, Purpose 6. This says that every child has the right to be brought up by his OWN NATURAL PARENTS (plural), i.e. BOTH of them, “where possible”. (“His or her” right, that is, although the UN declaration just says “his”, because that is what legal documents in English do say, instead of “his or her” every time.)
Only where it isn’t POSSIBLE for BOTH parents to play a part in raising their child, should the state even *consider* making a “choice” at all (let alone trying to make the “best” choice) about who is going to bring up a child. The (British) state should honour its treaty obligations to the international community, by adhering to the UN declaration.
Give me credit for this: For all my legion faults, it isn’t something I merely *believe*, it is something that I KNOW, that those faults of mine – at which people here have tried to guess – don’t render it IMPOSSIBLE for me to play any part in bringing up my son. There are very few mothers or fathers in the world who are so bad that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a caring society to ALLOW their children their UN declaration RIGHT, to be brought up by BOTH their parents JOINTLY. All four of the children whom I have ALREADY brought up agree that I am not one of THOSE parents. Nobody who knows me thinks that there is anything wrong with me that makes it IMPOSSIBLE for my son to have the right that the UN declaration says is his.
As I searched for understanding what had gone wrong, that the state did not uphold my son’s UNDRC Purpose 6 right to be brought up by his own mum and dad, but instead set about making a “best choice” (as you put it) BETWEEN his parents, I discovered a reason that is wholly unconnected with “the rage of the rejected” why some men and women are attracted to the MRM. Female MRM enthusiasts include grandmothers who never see their grandchildren, and who see their sons heart-broken, because their son’s never see their children. I have met several, albeit as clients, not as MRM activists, because I would not call myself a MRA.
If I was misguided in thinking that anything good – for my son – would ever come out of the MRM, I am willing to be re-educated. If there are also feminists who are devoted to joint parenting even after relationship breakdown, except where this isn’t “possible”, then I am in sympathy with THOSE feminists on THAT point.
My quarrel is with *anything* and *anybody* who stands between my son and his UNDRC Purpose 6 right to be brought up by both of his parents, even after his parents stop getting on well together. It is that discontent, for him, that attracted me to the MRM, and nothing else at all.
It does not matter whether it is true or not that the family court system favours mothers more often than fathers, as I have now been asked to “prove”. The state shouldn’t be favouring the mother *or* the father in *any* individual case. It should *always* be upholding the *child’s* right to *both* parents, except where this isn’t “possible”. It should not be making the “best choice”, or *any* “choice” at all, as a rule. THAT is where I’m coming from. That is not a “misogynistic” position on my part.
Unless it misogynistic of me to respect the embryo and the foetus equally with any other human – girl, boy, woman or man – (and I don’t see how that commitment to equality is “misogynistic”), then you will not find anywhere on the internet an expression of misogyny on my part. I *love* women. I *prefer* their company to that of men, most of the time.
If equal, shared, joint parenting, even after parents separated, was the norm, as it should be in any country that has signed the UNDRC, then the MRM would lose a great deal of the support it has.
“It does not matter whether it is true or not that the family court system favours mothers more often than fathers, as I have now been asked to “prove”. The state shouldn’t be favouring the mother *or* the father in *any* individual case. It should *always* be upholding the *child’s* right to *both* parents, except where this isn’t “possible”. It should not be making the “best choice”, or *any* “choice” at all, as a rule. THAT is where I’m coming from. That is not a “misogynistic” position on my part.”
Abusive and neglectful parents should have access equal to that of nurturing parents y’all!
Dude! Not every comment needs to be 3000 words long. Learn to edit.
Raising a child without you is not abusive.
The admitted homophobe is referring to the UN’s Declaration of the Rights of the Child. The same Declaration that in its 10th point says:
http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/child.asp
If I remember, I’ll try to make a seahorse meme when I get home. I’m not going to try to do it on my phone.
“Raising a child without you is not abusive.”
QFT
Oh John, John, John. So much teal. So deer.
And if you were “attracted to the MRM”, how does that make you not consider yourself an MRA? Terms, they mean things.
“I also discovered that the state routinely withholds from fathers more often from mothers, the privilege that is in the gift of the state, of being allowed to bring up one’s children.”
“It does not matter whether it is true or not that the family court system favours mothers more often than fathers, as I have now been asked to “prove”.”
Hey, you bigoted, conspiratorial, self-righteous, duplicitous, manipulative, abusive waste of bandwidth? Don’t take a dump on our floor if you don’t have the guts to own your shit.
(Can you tell that I don’t like this guy? =P)
“In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.”
“The best interests of the child shall be the guiding principle of those responsible for his education and guidance; that responsibility lies in the first place with his parents.”
In each case, the best interests of the child. I actually don’t see anywhere where it says what you claim it says, John.
You know what? It’s actually okay that you’re angry that it was decided you’re not the best choice to raise your youngest child. I get that completely. It hurts. I can see how it could be impossible to accept that, especially since you’ve raised and loved other children. Anger is a perfectly valid emotion. I can’t speak to why they came to that conclusion. We’ve had a very short exchange here, but I will say that you have reminded me of my own father from the beginning which is why I’ve been as engaged with you as I have. I actually believe you loved your other kids and you love this child, and you are absolutely flabbergasted that anyone would say you shouldn’t have responsibility for him. I’m sorry. It sucks when you feel like you’ve been wronged, especially when it comes to your child.
Maybe you got a corrupt judge who did you wrong. Maybe they thought that a 61 year old man wasn’t the best choice to raise an active toddler (which would be ageism, by the way). Maybe the judge was honest, really looked at both your arguments, looked at both your pasts, looked at both your futures, and decided against you for entirely fair reasons you’re overlooking.
Here’s another maybe: Maybe you got a judge who thinks that any given mother is naturally more caring, more nurturing, and more willing to do the dirty parts of parenting than any given father. This is the traditional view of femininity and motherhood, of masculinity and fatherhood. Mom’s always the active parent, dad’s always the passive parent. You know where that traditional view comes from? Patriarchy, as an institution.
John, you flounced hours and hours ago. You very intelligently decided then that you and we absolutely disagree on just about everything, and since we find most of your comments noxious, ludicrous, and utterly lacking in any intellectual value, you would be wasting your time continuing to post here. You have now become the worst non-sticker of flounces in the time I’ve been following this blog. You have nothing relevant to say to us. We’ve heard it all before, and everything you say sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard. This time, JUST STICK YOUR FLOUNCE. You do not belong here.
sarahrocco, in the UK they have a third party agency who make recommendations to the court which are almost always heeded because that’s why they have the third party agency. This agency always acts in the best interests of the child based on which parent takes time off work for sickness, field trips, soccer games etc, which parent is more capable of providing a stable and nurturing environment, which parent it is, bottom line, in the best interests of the child to be raised by, and sometimes that is both parents. If a man has been denied all contact, well…I’m going to guess that it is impossible to be the work of a corrupt steeped in patriarchy judge. There are too many people involved for it to be left at that.
Shaun, thank you, fair enough, I didn’t know 🙂 There you go, John. It’s no one’s fault but yours, however hard that is to accept. Please, do stick the flounce.
Nope. Uh uh. You seem so…peaceful and shy….:) 🙂 🙂
What I have been suspecting, John, is that it may be impossible for you to be involved in the child’s upbringing, because of your demonstrated behavior — meaning you may well be the *anything* or *anybody* that stands in the way of your son having two parents involved in his life. As people have noted, your blogs, past and present, provide compelling evidence to that effect.
sarahrocco, you’re welcome. I love the UK system and think it should be implemented everywhere. It’s possible that it can be abused and manipulated just like any system, but there are so many more checks and balances in place that it is much harder to do. And working in the best interests of the children is the only viable starting point. I really hope they also implement measures for when neither parent can provide a nurturing stable environment.
By the way, I could be wrong — possibly very wrong — about this, but I’m going to guess that John’s ex was very young, submissive, and unconfident at first, but several years with him and the experience of being a mother caused her to grow up, gain confidence, and be no longer will to take the same kind of shit. I can’t guess John’s precise reaction to her growth as a person, but I can guess that he REALLY REALLY didn’t like it and conducted himself as a major ass.
cassandrakitty
“If nobody makes “seahorses have gender roles” into a meme the internet will have officially failed us all.”
http://imgur.com/5YpLtRK
Yeah, I think someone can make a better one
Oh! Hugs and kisses for M, Shawn and everyone with bad lives
So is explaining UK family law enough to count as my daily act of misandry? Or do I need to beat a man at Scrabble?
Can I just…my life isn’t bad. My childhood really sucked and bad things happened. Bad things still happen. I love life, I love living, I love my life. It took a long time to grow into that.
I will gladly accept hugs and kisses, though.
Shaun
Sorry I mean past life and I’m glad you love life.
Thank you for clarifying.