French prosecutors are saying that the co-pilot of the Germanwings Airbus A320 that crashed in the Alps brought the plane down deliberately, after locking the pilot out of the cockpit. If so, this was one of the most horrific cases of murder/suicide the world has ever seen.
At the moment, we don’t know enough about the co-pilot, 28-year-old Andreas Lubitz. to know what motivated him to allegedly crash the plane. French authorities are saying that they don’t think it was an act of terrorism. But that may be because they have a rather simplistic definition of terrorism.
Murder/suicide is an overwhelmingly male crime; studies suggest that men may make up 90% or more of the perpetrators. While most of these cases — excluding suicide bombings — involve a man killing himself and a partner or ex-partner, there have also been cases in which men have resorted to mass murder in order to make some twisted point about what they see as a world unfair to men in general and them in particular. These acts aren’t generally considered terrorism, but they should be.
You know the names: Elliot Rodger, who killed seven, including himself, as part of what he called his “War on Women.” George Sodini, a would-be pickup artist who opened fire on an LA Fitness aerobics class because he couldn’t get a date. Marc Lepine, who killed 14 women at the École Polytechnique in Montreal in an attempt “to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker.” The list goes on.
Whenever one of these horrific massacres occurs, there are always some who rush to excuse or defend or even lionize the perpetators. And there are those who argue that these tragedies could have somehow been averted if women had just treated these poor men better.
In the case of this particular tragedy, reactionary fantasy writer Vox Day — real name, Theodore Beale — is literally suggesting that it could have been prevented “if the sluts of the world were just a little less picky and a little more equitable in their distribution of blowjobs.”
Here’s his, er, argument, from a post on his Alpha Game blog today:
Why he did it, no one knows yet, but it won’t surprise me to learn that Lubritch [sic] was a deeply angry and embittered Omega male. There is a reason Omegas frighten women merely by existing; they are capable of terrible and merciless acts of self-destruction. You can see Lubritch is a small and prematurely balding young man, possibly somewhat overweight, his occupation indicates that he was more intelligent than the norm, and the uncertain smile he has on his face tends to indicate low socio-sexual rank.
Good to know that Vox — who himself has an “uncertain smile” in some photographs I’ve seen of him — can x-ray someone’s personality by glancing at a snapshot.
Now, obviously no one else was responsible for Lubritch’s actions if it indeed was Omega rage at work. He alone bears the blame. But it is somewhat haunting to think about how many lives might be saved each year if the sluts of the world were just a little less picky and a little more equitable in their distribution of blowjobs.
So he alone deserves the blame — but somehow his actions are also the fault of unfair blowjob distribution by the “sluts of the world?”
As a 28 year-old airline pilot, Lubritch would likely have been married in a more traditionally structured society. It’s not impossible that the Germanwings deaths represent more of the indirect costs of feminism.
Oh, and it’s ultimately the fault of feminism.
Now, Vox Day is a famously terrible person, and something of a troll.
But the fact is that similar — if generally less explicit — apologias for male violence are common in the “manosphere” and amongst Men’s Rights Activists.
The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider donating with the button below. (The PayPal page will say you are donating to Man Boobz.) Thanks!
paradox, I have been thinking for a few hours, and will try to summarize my thoughts about Vox. It is difficult, because he has a very weaselly way of thinking and behaving.
Most people who consider themselves to be Christians but eat shellfish or don’t stone women are genuine Christians, but either disagree that certain parts of the bible are actually the word of God, or are too weak to follow all the rules.
The matter with Vox is different. Here is what I think about Vox. Vox *CLAIMS* that the only reason he treats women in an abusive fashion, ONLY is because it is (according to him), required by Christianity. But the evidence suggests that the opposite is what is actually true. Vox is interested in Christianity ONLY insofar as it provides a convenient ‘justification’ or veneer of holiness, for his sociopathic treatment of women. The moment Christianity would disagree with his abuse of women, he disagrees with Christianity. Nor does he follow very much else of what Christianity has to say.
Is Ann Morgan just trolling us?
So, like, Ann Morgan, you probably aren’t hip to this but I’m gonna give you the benefit of the doubt because I’m nicer when I’m drunk (let’s not talk about what this says about me), so here goes…
1. MRAssholes tend to believe that disabled women are easier ‘targets’ and single us out for various control games.
2. They tend to believe that because of being devalued over our disability (ps, here’s a decent definition of ‘ableism’ with useful examples…http://disabledfeminists.com/2010/11/19/what-is-ableism-five-things-about-ableism-you-should-know/) we’re less likely to put up resistance both to their execrable misogyny but also to thinks MRAssholes believe to be their ‘right’ from women, like sex. There’s a saying in the local poly community, one of the worst bunches of fedoras in history, that “r**ards, cr**les, and cows don’t say no”. It’s popularized by one of the cishet white dudes who pretty much runs everything. As a r-word and a somewhat tubby missus, I’m considered low-resistance by MRAsshole theology. I had…other plans.
3.Most MRAssholes either follow a dedicated fedora theology, like that of Paul Elam, W.F. Price, or other similar racist, transexterminationist, and misogynist sorts, or alternately a twisted brand of Christianity which plays up what white fundamentalist Christianity tends to: women as property, heterosexuality as mandatory, and violence is part of punishment. Some mix the two, though Elam and Price, as examples, claim atheism. Yet the end result is the same: it’s white fundamentalist Christianity, with or without God. The atheist set just substitutes “science” and “nature”, the same sort of argument that feeds their hate.
4.If you really want to ponder the actual nature of le MRA, consider that the MRAsshole has become what the Ku Klux Klan was in the olden days: an almost-exclusively-white, almost-exclusively-male group that hides behind anonymity, intimidation, and harassment as its mechanism of terror. I work for an org which, amongst other things, helps disabled women out of abusive residential situations. About 25% of the pulls we deal with are abusive families, which 9 out of 10 times are white fundamentalist Christian families. About one or two a year are bad roommate situations, one or two same-gender partners, together amounting to, charitably, 2%. Annnnnd the other 73%? Abusive men. Almost always spouting some form of white fundamentalist Christian or fundamentalist MRAsshole theology that they have some sort of claim to dominion over the bodies of disabled women. They’re almost exclusively white men. They’re generally highly harassing of the agency and individuals. One of the local MRAsshole types, you know, who lives in Bellingham or sends his shit there, occasionally sends me an envelope full of some kind of feces. This is because my very existence in serving the needs of disabled women is apparently “misandry.”
This is why this is linked, and why maybe it’s not the best idea to joke about women with disabilities being perfect for these folks, since they see us as basically sex slaves because we’re even lower on the ladder than an abled woman in their eyes. I know you meant it in the spirit of humor, and I get it, I step in this kind of thing more than I’d like. But that said, this is a vector by which MRAssholes assert their theology, that disability makes people lesser (look at the claptrap they claim about people with mental disability alone, they demonize us for almost every attack a white man engages in) and makes women even more disposable.
@fakecisgirl, thank you for your patience and fortitude in laying out such a comprehensive array of some of the reasons why ableism such as Ann Morgan’s is so very marginalising and part of the wider socialisation which disappears the selective predation of persons with disabilities because too many people overlook them as people who matter.
@ misseb47
As a criminologist you’ll probably be aware of the “CSI Effect”. That’s were, because of the pervasiveness of television programmes dealing with forensic matters juries assume
(a) that scientific evidence is infallible.
(b) that if a person was at a crime scene there’ll be tonnes of evidence to show this.
Point (a) is pretty useful if we’re prosecuting and (b) if we’re defending.
Of course the effect is a fallacy. It’s quite possible to be intimately involved in a crime and leave no forensic trace whatsoever.
We’ve always had a version of (b) anyway. Where there is no scientific evidence standard questions to the SOCO (English version of CSI) are:
“As a forensic science expert you’ll be familiar with Locard’s Exchange Principle”
“Yes”
“And what is that please?”
“Every contact leaves a trace”
“Thank you” [Sit down and leave the jury to think of the implication. Do NOT give the expert a chance to explain why that’s wrong!]
So here’s why I don’t feel sorry for Vox or his whines about Andreas Lubitz. I don’t think there is an actual shortage of ‘blowjobs’ for most men. In that, they probably could get a blowjob if they really wanted to, but they don’t want to.
Here’s the thing – sex is a commodity on the marketplace. If you doubt this, there was a very good putdown written by the CEO of a major company to a gold digger who wanted to marry a man who earned at least 1 million$ a year. He explained to her that what was wrong with her proposal from a business perspective was that she wanted to trade a depreciating asset – her beauty – for an appreciating asset – his money. Ten years from now, she was not going to be as beautiful as she was right now, but barring some sort of cosmic disaster, he would have more money. And only a fool would trade an appreciating asset for a depreciating one. In fact, from a business perspective, you don’t buy or hold onto a depreciating asset, you lease it and trade it as soon as you can.
Anyway, sex is a commodity, and women are prostitutes. I mean this in a super-technical sense, not an insulting one. All women want SOMETHING in return for sex. In those women we actually think of prostitutes, it happens to be money. In other women, they may want love, fame, intellectual stimulation, good genes for their children, or various combinations of the above. It’s really fairly important that a man know exactly what sort of ‘coin’ a woman is looking for, and not try to offer her a different sort of ‘coin’.
Now like any sort of commodity, some types of commodities may be more in demand than others. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are any ‘better’ or ‘worse’. To use an analogy, the nintendo DS comes with different colored plastic casings. A red nintendo DS is not any better or worse than a black nintendo DS. They both play the same video games. But here’s the thing – if for whatever reason red nintendo DS’s are in greater demand than black ones, they will command a higher price. Likewise, if women with a particular body type are in greater demand than women with other body types, they will (usually) be able to demand a higher ‘price’ (of whatever type of coin they want) in return for sex. At least from those men who are interested in body types rather than something else. This is neither ‘fair’ nor ‘unfair’ to women of various body types, it’s simply market reality.
But here’s where I stop feeling sorry for Vox. He is claiming a ‘market shortage’ regarding ‘blow jobs’ and demanding that ‘sluts’ give more blow jobs to alleviate the supposed market shortage. The problem is, I don’t think there IS a ‘market shortage’. His so-called ‘market shortage’ is self induced by men (more on that in a bit). His claim of a ‘market shortage’ of ‘blow jobs’ is rather as if I wanted a nintendo DS, went into a store, and there were 50 black nintendo DS’s sitting on the shelf, but no red ones. Or the red ones cost $1000 vs only $100 for the black ones. Out of fussiness, I happen to want ONLY a red nintendo DS, but rather than admit that I am fussy and/or can’t afford a red nintendo DS, I claim there are NO nintendo DS’s to be had, even though there are plenty of black ones on the shelf at a price I can afford, so everyone will feel sorry for me.
I don’t feel sorry for men who lack blow jobs in such a situation any more than I feel sorry for those people who starved to death in the Irish potato famine while in possession of silos full of corn and oats, because such ‘animal food’ wasn’t ‘good enough’ for them. There is nothing inherently wrong with corn and oats, and there is nothing inherently wrong with women who have a body type that is in less demand, and there is nothing inherently wrong with black nintendo DS’s. Whining about a ‘shortage’ when the market is full of what you need, but not the exact fussy thing you want, is the act of a spoilt brat.
Most men can probably get a girlfriend, at least if they are not sociopaths like Vox. Unfortunately, Vox teaches men to be snobs, and that they are somehow ‘entitled’ to a particular body type of woman. But as I said, women of a particular body type are in high demand, and most women will demand the highest price of whatever coin they are looking for. If they want money, they will go with the man who earns $1 million a year, rather than $50,000 a year. If they want intellectual stimulation, they will go with the man with 150 IQ rather than the 110 IQ. If they want love, they will go with the man who loves them more, rather than less.
As I said, most men can probably get girlfriends, if they are not sociopaths like Vox, and are willing to pay SOMETHING (not necessarily money, as I stated above), to some woman. But Vox has taught them that they can pay NOTHING, or less than nothing (being abusive) and are still entitled to a girlfriend, because ‘Christianity’. And not just any sort of girlfriend, but a girlfriend of the sort who is in the highest demand on the market place.
Paying a negative price of abuse does not get you high demand goods of ANY sort on the market place. Or any sort of goods at all. That is not how a market works, the goods will be sold to someone who is willing to pay SOMETHING for it. The man who pays a penny will get the goods before the man who pays nothing and insults the seller on top of it.
Rather than resort to a free market solution for his self-induced problem, such as proposing that prostitution be legalized (which would lower the price in money of blow jobs), Vox resorts to the act of a criminal and rapist. He demands that ‘sluts’ – by which he means women of the particular body type that he demands – provide men with blow jobs, regardless of whether the men are able to meet the price that the sluts demand or not. In fact, he insists that the men not only pay NO price, but that they retain the right to be insulting and abusive.
In other words, according to Vox, men have the right to be as selective as they wish on the sexual market place, but women have no right to be selective (even though in biology the exact opposite is true and necessary), and must provide a valuable commodity (sex) in exchange for a NEGATIVE price (abuse).
And if they won’t?
Then – according to Vox – men will crash airplanes into the ground.
In other words, they will point a gun at someone’s head and demand what they want.
Starting to get the picture yet? Vox’s entire post was basically a threat of armed robbery and rape.
Gosh, where to start. Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch; as someone once said.
I’m sure other folks will be along shortly to make the points better than I; but I’ll start the ball rolling.
“All women want SOMETHING in return for sex”
No they don’t; I think you’ll find that most of the time they just want the sex.
“black nintendo DS’s”
So women who don’t conform to conventional mainstream ideals of attractiveness are on a par with cheap consumer goods?
“‘animal food’”
Ah, and haylage.
“those people who starved to death in the Irish potato famine while in possession of silos full of corn and oats,”
Of which Irish history is littered with examples. Some people are just so stubborn eh? Watching their children die in agony and then they themselves just out of snobbery. The irony of course that corn and oats are staple human foodstuffs anyway. Ha, joke’s on them right?
Ugh, just no. Human interaction is not a transaction. People are not commodities and you’re gross for treating them as such.
I was so happy the day that my husband decided I was the Nintendo DS for him (olive drab case, if you’re wondering. Limited edition). He used to be more of a PC gamer, if you catch my drift. But that all changed the day he saw me! If I keep my processors running smoothly and don’t let my screen get scratched, I hope he’ll decide to play Pokemon for a long, long time. Maybe even until the new models start rolling out before Christmas.
Wow. Fatphobic, ableist, AND misogynist. You’ve hit the trifecta there, Ann Morgan.
@misseb47:
Thanks for the fascinating essay. Much useful data in it.
Since we are on the subject of crime, gender, and legal responsibility, I’d recommend an interesting article by neuroscientist Dan Eagleman, “The Brain on Trial.” (You may have seen it already and/or know of Eagleman’s work?) It presents the attenuated “nature” side of the argument, in an eye-opening way, along with its implications for criminal justice.
Here’s one fragment that pertains to the topic at hand (though the whole essay is excellent and well worth reading), and one that chimes in with the data you listed:
“MANY OF US like to believe that all adults possess the same capacity to make sound choices. It’s a charitable idea, but demonstrably wrong. People’s brains are vastly different.
Who you even have the possibility to be starts at conception. If you think genes don’t affect how people behave, consider this fact: if you are a carrier of a particular set of genes, the probability that you will commit a violent crime is four times as high as it would be if you lacked those genes. You’re three times as likely to commit robbery, five times as likely to commit aggravated assault, eight times as likely to be arrested for murder, and 13 times as likely to be arrested for a sexual offense. The overwhelming majority of prisoners carry these genes; 98.1 percent of death-row inmates do. These statistics alone indicate that we cannot presume that everyone is coming to the table equally equipped in terms of drives and behaviors.
And this feeds into a larger lesson of biology: we are not the ones steering the boat of our behavior, at least not nearly as much as we believe. Who we are runs well below the surface of our conscious access, and the details reach back in time to before our birth, when the meeting of a sperm and an egg granted us certain attributes and not others. Who we can be starts with our molecular blueprints—a series of alien codes written in invisibly small strings of acids—well before we have anything to do with it. Each of us is, in part, a product of our inaccessible, microscopic history. By the way, as regards that dangerous set of genes, you’ve probably heard of them. They are summarized as the Y chromosome. If you’re a carrier, we call you a male.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/07/the-brain-on-trial/308520/?single_page=true
This essay is particularly relevant in light of the Germanwings tragedy and the developing background story of its perpetrator, whose true motives will likely never be known.
**Ugh, just no. Human interaction is not a transaction. People are not commodities and you’re gross for treating them as such.**
Sorry, but yes, they are. If you think they’re not, are you willing to prove the point by working for free? No? Then let’s start dealing with reality, rather than your sad feelies. Some sorts of looks and skills are in greater demand than other sorts of looks and skills. And this can, btw, change depending on the place and time. At one time in England, red hair or having a widow’s peak probably would have put a rather low demand on a woman who had them. Now, they have a rather high demand.
@Flying Mouse
Men see me as a mint gold Nintendo DS Lite Zelda edition so my SMV blows you out of the water. It’s not bragging if it’s true.
@Ann Morgan
Oh, it’s more than very good, it’s true classic putdown that I know and care about deeply, as does everyone I know. My nephew studied it in school, he even wrote a paper about it and got an A+! Nothing beats the valuable wisdom of a probably imaginary rich guy taking down a stuck up bitch who doesn’t realize she’s gonna get all old and not pretty and stuff.
Thanks to Ann Morgan I now know what it would be like if Dalrock’s blog assumed human form and posted here.
I guess we got our answer as to whether or not Ann Morgan is a troll.
What say you Mammotheers? Red pill woman or sock posing as a woman?
For fuck’s sake, people are not commodities. It’s always so baffling to me that people think like that.
Oh, and citation needed on Irish people starving to death because they were too snobby for corn and oats. That sounds more like something out of an anti-Irish editorial written by an Englishman during the potato famine than anything resembling reality. The human body wants to eat and survive. Any animal will eat things they don’t usually like during famine times. Even people with severe eating disorders will break down and binge eat. Because your brain will make you eat.
So fucking stupid.
Okay first I thought Ann Morgan was gross, now I just feel sorry for zie. You literally have never done anything for anyone without wanting something in return? What a terrible way to live.
I see troll dropped another poo.
Expecting a fair wage does not make a human a commodity. Workers sell their labor, not their entire selves.
I pity you Ann. Apparently, you are unable to connect emotionally to other people. Don’t assume the rest of us are that way.
Ninja’d by Isidore!
She seems nice. On a more serious note, the far out ignorance and inhumanity at work here is genuinely jaw dropping. It’s tough to pack victim blaming famine victims, an analogy between a lack of blow jobs and mass starvation, and an enormous amount of misinformation about the Irish Potato Famine into one sentence.
Oh, Ann Morgan is a troll after all. What a surprise. I am shocked, shocked I say.
Hm, I think I’m going to place my bets on male redpiller troll thinking that we’ll all agree with someone who has a female name.
Sure I will. That strange human behavior is referred to as ‘volunteering’ and people do it because they want to help other people. For free. Fancy that.
Now sod off, would you?
This could go either way, TBH. I haven’t seen any returning champion tells yet, but the night is still young.
See, I prefer to think of it as a trade. He gets sex, and I get…sex with someone I like and am attracted to. Then we go for waffles!
I vote sock. Maybe because I prefer that to a woman believing that she has to use sex as currency.
I’ve just read “Ann’s” musings, and, FWIW, my vote is on non-Ann.
You know what they say: if it walks like a non-Ann and it talks like a non-Ann, it is Andy The Sock.
@Flying Mouse:
“I was so happy the day that my husband decided I was the Nintendo DS for him (olive drab case, if you’re wondering. Limited edition).”
You’re so lucky. 😉 I hope you thanked The Invisible But Ever Holy Hand of the Free Market.
@brooked:
“Thanks to Ann Morgan I now know what it would be like if Dalrock’s blog assumed human form and posted here.”
LMAO!
I don’t think Dalrock’s could assume human form even if it really, really, reeeaaaalllyy tried.