# Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbara



## techmom

I wanted to post this, much has been said about this tragedy that happened in UC Santa Barbara. Elliot Rodger was obviously a very lonely young man who was hurting for love and affection. Like many men, he yearned for love and affection (sex) from women. He was rejected often and became resentful.

Link to his writings: 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-document.html?_r=0

He frequented MRA and PUA web sites, I feel that this had a lot to do with his hatred towards women. Had he had proper guidance and support, people would not have lost their lives.


----------



## ntamph

I posted my own thread but no one responded.

I think this is the perfect example of how twisted the MRA community is that he found a home in them. He obviously had huge problems. He didn't just fail with girls but didn't have any guy friends either. When I was caught up in being an MRA dumb-ass I still had friends who were guys and girls.

He is 100% responsible for his actions. The girls who rejected him are having their faces thrown around by the media when they shouldn't. It's terrifying and enraging that they show pictures of the Monette girl who is barely a legal adult (how pretty she is).

I'm ashamed of having even been distantly related to his ideas.


----------



## whostolethesoul

his sense of entitlement is repulsive


----------



## ntamph

whostolethesoul said:


> his sense of entitlement is repulsive


He's 22 and driving around in a new BMW while I'm 28 and driving an Elantra.

Not fair.


----------



## TiggyBlue

He had been seeing a therapist since he was 8, it sounds like whatever problems he had ran a lot deeper than purely resenting women .


----------



## techmom

Just to be fair to the TRP community on Reddit, the majority of posts condemned this young man's actions and viewpoint:

'Omega man' kills 6 and commits suicide : TheRedPill

Not that I agree with everything they say, but I just wanted to post that so I can display all sides of the blogospheres. 

Or whatever.


----------



## Pamvhv

It inspired a great hashtag on Twitter #YesAllWomen to which men apparently took offense and started their own #NotAllMen well okay duh mother fvcker but your #NotAllMen hashtag is part of the problem.


----------



## techmom

Lol @ the #notallmen, maybe if they spent their time educating their sons on how not to feel entitled to women's bodies instead of debating women when they speak their truth, then we would'nt have these problems in the first place. The #yesallpeople started up as well, anything to shush the ladies up about what goes on in their daily lives.


----------



## LongWalk

MRA and PUA did not create his mental illness. Some people with Aspergers cannot understand or communicate when it comes to emotions. They are like color blind people when it comes approaching others with their needs. They have needs but the needs of others they misinterpret and misconstrue.


----------



## manticore

For me this case in particualr is consequence of the mental illness he was suffering, maybe even the vision he thought others had of him was not even real.

taking just the general knowladge about him that everybody has an watching the video you can collect the following data about him (in a very superficial way):

- the kid was not ugly or visually unattractive (some may even say that he was good looking).
- He had a nice ride (BMW valued in 30k Euros).
- He had money.
- His Dad had a cool job.

let's be honest here, with all of these things, being "cool" and "getting chicks" shouldn't have been a challenge (as shallow as it sound at that age things work like that), so maybe his problems came from his selfimage and a distorted world view (for cause of his illness), that in the end drove him (in his mind) to make that terrible decission.


----------



## techmom

LongWalk said:


> MRA and PUA did not create his mental illness. Some people with Aspergers cannot understand or communicate when it comes to emotions. They are like color blind people when it comes approaching others with their needs. They have needs but the needs of others they misinterpret and misconstrue.


I would agree, if this guy didn't have detailed manifestos on how women were evil and rejected him so they must suffer. He wanted women to suffer pain for rejecting him. He was high functioning enough to convince the police officers that he was a nice and well adjusted guy.

He chose to go to these web sites because he was already hurting and looking for a reason why he was so isolated and alone. If you read his manifesto, he was already fearful and rejected by women before he visited these sites.

I don't feel that they are totally to blame, but he found solace in their ideology for a reason.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

There are so many murders with guns and other means of women who have rejected men that it's difficult to tally it all up. This guy went public, but it's nothing new. Nor is mass murder in our country.

This happened in my town. The family knew something was not right with him but could not prove danger to self or others.

Sun Journal - Google News Archive Search

Even in my own family my nephew had a mental illness and killed his sister. She knew something wasn't right and had been planning to move out with her kids to go live with her mother, but too late.
Apparently she called for help to my brother a few times but he preferred to not respond and told her to 'deal with it' herself. 

I don't know why people are surprised when stuff like this happens. 

In 1995 I was picking up my son at Kindy and a plow came up the road, it hit a lot of frost heaves and sounded like gun fire so I took cover with my son. Another parent laughed at me, said I was over-reacting. Next week he apologized to me, that was when there was a mass killing by gun at a Scottish preschool.

People need to understand that we don't live in an amusement park with round the clock security. It's the real world, where bad stuff happens. Jeffrey Dahmer, etc.

The safest I have ever felt in my life was Beijing during Martial Law, with a diplomatic passport. There are tradeoffs to safety. 

We are already living in what's close to a police state and it's not really doing much good.

Iceland is a close second for safety, which beats martial law.
But as someone pointed out, even the Nordic countries are prone to mass shootings (Norway.)

Like it or not, no matter where you live you owe it to yourself to become aware of the various signs of mental illness, and also to be constantly aware of (but not paranoid about ) your personal safety and your escape plan. Even going to a movie theater I check the people around me and make sure I'm aware of where the exit is.

There never was a time when people did not 'go off'. 

If you have a peaceful day that's 100% violence free, you should consider yourself lucky, and lucky if you wake up the next day.

I do think it's getting worse. But the critical mass of worse is not in the mass killings, it's in all the violence that lies just below that.


----------



## Happyfamily

The stench of PUA rubbish is strong enough without need of this fellow's taint.

Although we could indeed say that it is self-selection bias in action. That is, men who are successful in relationships don't frequent PUA sites. It is a loser's club.


----------



## techmom

This young man was very selective in who he wanted attention from, he preferred blondes. So, we don't know if he actually received attention from women, but maybe they were not his type?


----------



## soccermom2three

whostolethesoul said:


> his sense of entitlement is repulsive


I agree. When I watch his 7 minute YouTube Video, I couldn't put my finger on what it was but this describes it. Sense of entitlement and inflated self worth, (better that everyone else).

ETA: Also, I think people are focusing on the "hating women" thing but he killed 4 men.


----------



## EleGirl

ntamph said:


> I posted my own thread but no one responded.
> 
> I think this is the perfect example of how twisted the MRA community is that he found a home in them. He obviously had huge problems. He didn't just fail with girls but didn't have any guy friends either. When I was caught up in being an MRA dumb-ass I still had friends who were guys and girls.
> 
> He is 100% responsible for his actions. The girls who rejected him are having their faces thrown around by the media when they shouldn't. It's terrifying and enraging that they show pictures of the Monette girl who is barely a legal adult (how pretty she is).
> 
> I'm ashamed of having even been distantly related to his ideas.


Apparently the incident that he claims happened between him and this young lady happened when he was in elementary school. She was 10 years old at the time. He was 12. He claims that she said..

He rejected Rodger’s claims that Monette had teased him, saying: “How can a girl of 10 bully a 12-year-old boy? Maybe the girls she hung around with did poke fun at him, but they were kids.”

He also planned to kill his step mother and her 6 year old son.

This guy was completely deranged.

I feel very badly for Monette. How horrible to have the media splashing her face around and her having to deal with being blamed by the deranged madman for this.


California shooting: Model blamed by Elliot Rodger for his murder spree ''devastated'' at ''ridiculous'' claims - Mirror Online


----------



## NotLikeYou

techmom said:


> I wanted to post this, much has been said about this tragedy that happened in UC Santa Barbara. Elliot Rodger was obviously a very lonely young man who was hurting for love and affection. Like many men, he yearned for love and affection (sex) from women. He was rejected often and became resentful.
> 
> Link to his writings:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-document.html?_r=0
> 
> He frequented MRA and PUA web sites, I feel that this had a lot to do with his hatred towards women. Had he had proper guidance and support, people would not have lost their lives.


I'm almost positive that his hatred of women had a lot more to do with his being rejected by women than it did what he read on the internet. Generally, guys visit PUA sites to try to learn how to get not-rejected by women. Obviously, in this guy's case, the forces of womandom were dead nuts on to reject him because he was insane, and women have instincts, too.

"Had he had proper guidance and support" is empty language that gives someone the illusion of control- "if only 'x,' then 'y' wouldn't have happened."

Bad things happen to good people. Philosophers call this "evil," when the bad thing is caused by other people.


----------



## EleGirl

NotLikeYou said:


> I'm almost positive that his hatred of women had a lot more to do with his being rejected by women than it did what he read on the internet. Generally, guys visit PUA sites to try to learn how to get not-rejected by women. Obviously, in this guy's case, the forces of womandom were dead nuts on to reject him because he was insane, and women have instincts, too.
> 
> "Had he had proper guidance and support" is empty language that gives someone the illusion of control- "if only 'x,' then 'y' wouldn't have happened."
> 
> Bad things happen to good people. Philosophers call this "evil," when the bad thing is caused by other people.


The supposed rejection (and ridicule) that he sites happened by a 10 year old girl when he was 12.

My bet is that he never even tried to approach any girl in high school or in college.


----------



## notmyrealname4

techmom said:


> This young man was very selective in who he wanted attention from, he preferred blondes. So, we don't know if he actually received attention from women, but maybe they were not his type?


I got the same impression. I saw one mention of him admiring a picture of a "pretty brunette white girl". Every other girl he hankered after was tall and blonde. If a short, cute Asian girl had liked him, would that have been good enough? Why not?

I think men in our culture develop their young sexuality, masturbating to images of *mostly* white, blonde women. I think that's how the fixation develops.

But, his problems obviously were much deeper. He was physically attractive; he shouldn't have had any problems getting girls.


----------



## EleGirl

intheory said:


> I got the same impression. I saw one mention of him admiring a picture of a "pretty brunette white girl". Every other girl he hankered after was tall and blonde. If a short, cute Asian girl had liked him, would that have been good enough? Why not?
> 
> I think men in our culture develop their young sexuality, masturbating to images of *mostly* white, blonde women. I think that's how the fixation develops.
> 
> But, his problems obviously were much deeper. He was physically attractive; he shouldn't have had any problems getting girls.


Why do you think they masturbate to mostly white blond women? Porn is full of pictures of women from all races.


----------



## LongWalk

Mental illness frightens people. Few people want to donate money to research schizophrenia and wear a pin or ribbon on their lapel.


----------



## notmyrealname4

EleGirl said:


> Why do you think they masturbate to mostly white blond women? Porn is full of pictures of women from all races.


That's true perhaps on the internet. I was thinking more of the Playboy ideal. Usually a prevalence of peroxide blondes. I might be showing my age; guys in my generation have been greatly influenced by these images. I did say "mostly", not all.

But this Elliot Rodgers guy was born in 1991, and he too has this fixation. Interesting.

What about you, Elegirl, do you fixate on what color a man's hair is? I NEVER have. Good looking is good looking. I think it's partly because women don't spend so much of their teenage years masturbating to visual images of one certain type of guy.

It's just an observation on my part.


----------



## lifeistooshort

I think men are often sent the message that they are entitled to hot women regardless of what they bring or how hot they are. That's the impression I got from this piece of garbage, that he was entitled to particular women. I'm teaching my sons that they are not entitled.

Hopefully he'll have lots of company in prison.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Omego

lifeistooshort said:


> I think men are often sent the message that they are entitled to hot women regardless of what they bring or how hot they are. That's the impression I got from this piece of garbage, that he was entitled to particular women. I'm teaching my sons that they are not entitled.
> 
> Hopefully he'll have lots of company in prison.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He's dead. But something went very badly wrong with him way before the women issues arose, in my opinion. Yet another tragedy where these deeply disturbed people are not identified BEFORE they can do irreparable damage.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I imagine this is what happens when parents don't let their children experience rejection and failure when they're young. They grow up to be ill equipped emotionally for the real world.


----------



## unbelievable

If it wasn't rejection by women, it would have been some other perceived slight or insult. This "man" was the product of a culture that taught him that he was special, that he should never be offended, never experience disappointment, in short, that he was a king. In a world where everyone is a king, everyone else commits treason against the crown. THAT is the common denominator with these mass shootings committed by our young people. They are incredibly violent responses to perceived offenses due to an irrational expectation that they should never have to experience offense or disappointment and those who dare commit treason against their specialness deserve death.


----------



## Jellybeans

The good 'ol MRA...


----------



## Miss Taken

I concur his issues went way deeper than misogyny and PUA tripe. 

I tried to read some of that memoir... but it is quite boring. (Look at me and my whopping 22 years of really interesting life experiences). Not saying you can't have an interesting life in 22 years but come on... _most _aren't worthy of 140 pages by then lol. It was just more of the same narcissistic hogwash.

What I did note, was that he DID HAVE positive relationships with some women, at least in the beginning - his mother, his best friend Maddie from childhood, a nanny Tracy another one I can't remember the name of and he spoke lovingly about them. Also ironic is that some of those women were people of colour as were some of the friends he mentioned but later ended up hating. He himself was a person of colour as he was biracial... but he's been quoted on other forums for being upset seeing white girls with men that weren't as white as he was. Still, all of those positive relationships with women in his formative years were overshadowed by the negative ones. He goes on and on about the one Nanny he didn't like and how unfair she was (like grounding him to his room for misbehaving). It was gag worthy.

One more of the things I did find interesting was he spoke about his jealousy and admitted it. He couldn't stand not to be the center of attention whether he was playing with a male friend or his best friend Maddie and would cry if they were paying more attention to another friend instead of him during a play date. Whether it was from a male or female, he needed undivided attention and to feel significant.

I've read that he had Aspergers and that's something that worries me. Autism spectrum disorders are already so stigmatized and I don't like the idea of people believing that is why he did what he did instead of psychopathy or something like it.


----------



## EasyPartner

MT,

I don't buy the Aspergers explanation either... people with that or other autistic syndromes are less likely to show emotions or empathy.

This guy seemed pretty able to identify his own emotions... unluckily they came from a place of low self-esteem and lack of confidence. He already felt like a failure at his age and focused this general emotion on women (and more successful men also BTW). 

The fact that woman didn't spontaniously jump in his bed, in spite of him being whitish and his BMW, was the ultimate proof that he was a failure in life.

IMO THAT is the issue worth of focus here...

With all due respect, but these kind of shootings seem to happen a lot in the US, more than anywhere else in the world.

Is it the highly competitive surroundings American kids grow up in? Where often kids, by their peers (and adults also?), are labeled as winners or losers at a very young age already?

IDK.

But the root of the cause is not misogyny, that's for sure.


----------



## Lionelhutz

Mentally disturbed young man feels that Group X is responsible for how he feels and his real or imagined lack of acceptance and success in life. He then lashes out violently.

In this scenario I think it rarely matters what Group X actually did and if wasn't Group X it would be Group Y. There is no meaningful sense in which Group X is actually responsible. Any discussion about what could have or should have been done should be about how to deal with mental health issues.


----------



## Catherine602

This sick young man was alienated from his male and female peers and the adults in his life. That was a direct consequence of his mental illness. He was unfit for a matting and was rightfully avoided. The rage was out of an unrealistic expectation that his desire to have sex with hot girls superseded their wishes or his ambiguous sexuality.

His parents and therapist had the responsibility to anticipate the problems his illness would create with puberty and should have planned accordingly. They plied him with luxury and bravado as if that would help.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## sinnister

Sorry but this goes way beyond misogyny. This young man was flawed from seemingly the beginning.


----------



## Lloyd Dobler

techmom said:


> Lol @ the #notallmen, maybe if they spent their time educating their sons on how not to feel entitled to women's bodies instead of debating women when they speak their truth, then we would'nt have these problems in the first place. The #yesallpeople started up as well, anything to shush the ladies up about what goes on in their daily lives.


You know, there are men who teach their sons just that. I'm one of them.

I'm not sure that would have made a difference in this case, given the mental illness that the shooter/knifer displayed.


----------



## Cubby

My son, who's 18 and I have been discussing this issue the last couple of days. From watching the videos, this guy has been desperate for love and sex. He wants a girlfriend, and wants to be loved and desired. His whole world, his whole reason for being is tied up in the search for love and sex. There are videos of him driving around in his BMW wistfully listening to 80's love songs. 

I pointed out to my son not to get hung up on being obsessed with finding a girlfriend. Instead concentrate on developing a wide range of interests and friends, along with keeping up on studies, and being a fun and pleasant guy to be with, and everything else will tend to fall in place. Girls will find a guy with interests, hobbies and friends attractive. Girls will find a guy who's only obsessed with finding a girlfriend creepy.


----------



## Bridge

Video games! Rap music! Pickup artists! Misogyny!



> If it wasn't rejection by women, it would have been some other perceived slight or insult. This "man" was the product of a culture that taught him that he was special, that he should never be offended, never experience disappointment, in short, that he was a king. In a world where everyone is a king, everyone else commits treason against the crown. THAT is the common denominator with these mass shootings committed by our young people. They are incredibly violent responses to perceived offenses due to an irrational expectation that they should never have to experience offense or disappointment and those who dare commit treason against their specialness deserve death.


Coddling our children! Protecting them from cyber bullying! Making them think they are KINGS! Entitlement, the brand new invention of the naughts!

Why, it could never be that he was just CRAZY


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cubby said:


> *I pointed out to my son not to get hung up on being obsessed with finding a girlfriend. Instead concentrate on developing a wide range of interests and friends, along with keeping up on studies, and being a fun and pleasant guy to be with, and everything else will tend to fall in place. Girls will find a guy with interests, hobbies and friends attractive. Girls will find a guy who's only obsessed with finding a girlfriend creepy*.


I told my 19 yr old nephew this , [whom I took custody of ever since he was little ], many years ago when he was just 12 years old.

I told him to focus on his school work, develop himself , get interested in a sport, and when he's successful the girls will come around.
Even back then , girls were around him.

Today, he has a great job , pursuing his engineering degree part time and also plays football with a professional club.
And the ladies are on to him.
Funny thing is, he still doesn't pay them much attention, he already has one steady relationship with a girl as ambitious as him.

Recently we were hanging out at our favorite sport bar , shooting pool , when he told me that the best advice I'd ever given him was to take responsibility , stop blaming others for his mishaps , and that nobody owes him one sh!t in life. Whatever he wants , he must get up and fight for it.

He then proceeded to beat me four straight games of pool...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> I told my 19 yr old nephew this , [whom I took custody of ever since he was little ], many years ago when he was just 12 years old.
> 
> I told him to focus on his school work, develop himself , get interested in a sport, and when he's successful the girls will come around.
> Even back then , girls were around him.
> 
> Today, he has a great job , pursuing his engineering degree part time and also plays football with a professional club.
> And the ladies are on to him.
> Funny thing is, he still doesn't pay them much attention, he already has one steady relationship with a girl as ambitious as him.
> 
> Recently we were hanging out at our favorite sport bar , shooting pool , when he told me that the best advice I'd ever given him was to take responsibility , stop blaming others for his mishaps , and that nobody owes him one sh!t in life. Whatever he wants , he must get up and fight for it.
> 
> He then proceeded to beat me four straight games of pool...


You let him win. You old softie.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

I know less about the guy than many here do. but many posters description of him make him sound like he was NOT mentally ill at all....much more that he had extreme narcisistic or perhaps sociopathic tendencies. i.e. not a mental disorder per se, more a character disorder.


----------



## Catherine602

Bridge said:


> Video games! Rap music! Pickup artists! Misogyny!
> 
> 
> 
> Coddling our children! Protecting them from cyber bullying! Making them think they are KINGS! Entitlement, the brand new invention of the naughts!
> 
> Why, it could never be that he was just CRAZY


What more needs to be said? 

There are lots of young men and woman who will not have easy transitions to adulthood. There are many parents of such children on TAM. Human sacrifice was never on the horizon for them. This man was not just sick he was evil.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## michzz

I feel sad that that clearly mentally disturbed person played out his psychosis on innocent people.

And further, why in God's name was he allowed out in the world of the unsuspecting innocents?


----------



## Cosmos

Narcissism, egocentricity and a pathological sense of entitlement gone haywire.

At a guess I'd also say that he possibly had some deep rooted unresolved homosexual tendencies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why Elliot Rodger’s misogyny matters | we hunted the mammoth

quote from linked article:

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.


----------



## Sandfly

techmom said:


> I wanted to post this, much has been said about this tragedy that happened in UC Santa Barbara. Elliot Rodger was obviously a very lonely young man who was hurting for love and affection. *Like many men, he yearned for love and affection (sex) from women.* He was rejected often and became resentful.
> 
> Link to his writings:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-document.html?_r=0
> 
> He frequented MRA and *PUA *web sites, *I feel that this had a lot to do with his hatred towards women.* Had he had proper guidance and support, people would not have lost their lives.


But we should look at where his hatred comes from. 

As you say, it's a lack of guidance. But: Male guidance. 

Women can't substitute for a good male role model. They keep imagining that single motherhood is an equal option, and it isn't. It produces men who are literally and metaphorically "Bast*rds".

They require real-life adult male friends who are not 'good' in the sense of 'obedient', 'harmless', 'compromising', 'a good earner' 'husband material'... but good as in 'properly masculine' - independent, non-materialistic and stoic.

It doesn't surprise me that your typical non-religious, non-nationalist mass-murderer is a teenaged boy with no proper and upstanding real-life male role models.

PUA are _bad _role models. They exacerbate the problem. 

MRA is an entirely separate issue, I don't think they should be mixed up so casually.

You all need to do something drastic about the unrealistic expectations which come out of gangsta lifestyle, celebrity, porn, army-hero worship etc.

It's pollution, and it mostly comes from the States, let's be direct about it. Under the banner of 'free market' and 'free speech' a lot of low quality and harmful sh*t has come out of the US and spread across the globe. Shall we do something about it ?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Sandfly said:


> But we should look at where his hatred comes from.
> 
> As you say, it's a lack of guidance. But: Male guidance.
> *
> Women can't substitute for a good male role model. They keep imagining that single motherhood is an equal option, and it isn't. It produces men who are literally and metaphorically "Bast*rds".*
> 
> They require real-life adult male friends who are not 'good' in the sense of 'obedient', 'harmless', 'compromising', 'a good earner' 'husband material'... but good as in 'properly masculine' - independent, non-materialistic and stoic.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that your typical non-religious, non-nationalist mass-murderer is a teenaged boy with no proper and upstanding real-life male role models.


.


He had a father though :scratchhead:
I don't know how this situation has anything to do with women imagining that single motherhood is a equal action or a lack of male guidance, we have no idea how much guidance he did or didn't have from his father.


----------



## techmom

Who knows how involved his father was in his upbringing. He was a movie director, that lifestyle is very busy and involves many hours away from home. 

Sometimes an absent dad is worse than having none at all. In the NMMNG book, it is stated that boys need to be around their father a lot during the formative years. Maybe his dad would have been able to talk to his son and guide him when he was having difficulty with socializing, especially with girls. Maybe he would have been able to say, "this is what I went through when I was young", so the boy wouldn't feel isolated and alone with his feelings.
He felt isolated, as if no one else was going through what he went through. Then he found the worst possible medium to identify with. His father should have been more involved in his life. Bottom line.


----------



## Sandfly

TiggyBlue said:


> .
> 
> 
> He had a father though :scratchhead:
> 
> ...we have no idea how much guidance he did or didn't have from his father.


No he didn't. and: Yes we do.

Since seven years of age, he had no real father. He was brought up with no male influences.



> "...shortly after my seventh birthday, the news came. I believe it was my mother who told me that she and my father were getting a divorce; my mother, who only a few months before told me that such a thing will never happen. I was absolutely shocked, outraged, and above all, overwhelmed. This was a huge life-changing event. My father was to stay at the round house, and my mother would move to another smaller house in Topanga. It was arranged that *me and my sister will mostly be living with our mother.*"


His "father" might have been able to try to compensate for this. Instead:



> "During father’s week, I would mostly be *looked after by our two new nannies*, Rosa and Amparro."


In fact, his "father" sounds like a completely selfish cad, who didn't care what his son was going through - and not the only poor male role model either:



> "*After only a couple of months* since my seventh birthday, a new and very important person would come into my life. After father picked us up from school one day and took us to his house, I saw a woman with dark hair and fair skin standing in the kitchen, and she introduced herself as Soumaya. She would become my stepmother. Father told me she would be living with us from now on. At first I thought she was just another friend who was temporarily staying with father, *similar to what Uncle Dan was doing*. My father having a girlfriend so shortly after divorcing my mother didn’t even occur to me. I couldn’t understand it. Soon enough, though, I realized that Soumaya was, in fact, his “girlfriend”, andthey were together just like how my father and mother were together. It was the first time I learned the concept of a “girlfriend”, and it was hard to grasp. Before that, I always thought a man and a woman had to be married before living together in such a manner, and that it would take a long time for such a union to happen. Father finding a new girlfriend in such a short amount of time baffled me. I was completely taken aback."


Completely in accord with what I was saying about the importance of the _quality _of male role models, this:



> "Because of my father’s acquisition of a new girlfriend, my little mind got the impression that my father was a man that women found attractive, as he was able to find a new girlfriend in such a short period of time from divorcing my mother. I subconsciously held him in higher regard because of this. It is very interesting how this phenomenon works… that males who can easily find female mates garner more respect from their fellow men, even children. How ironic is it that my father, one of those men who could easily find a girlfriend, has a son who would struggle all his life to find a girlfriend."


He came to think that masculinity is measured by how attractive one is to bimbos, rather than how well one compliments the opposite sex. By being a man, not a boy, not effeminate/popular/rich etc etc.

Being a man is easy. Unfortunately, he was surrounded by fake people who never provided the pattern.


----------



## Cosmos

TiggyBlue said:


> .
> 
> 
> He had a father though :scratchhead:
> I don't know how this situation has anything to do with women imagining that single motherhood is a equal action or a lack of male guidance, we have no idea how much guidance he did or didn't have from his father.


From his 'manifesto' it's evident that his parents exercised joint custody.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> From his 'manifesto' it's evident that his parents exercised joint custody.


Quite the opposite. Did you look at it?


----------



## TiggyBlue

Sandfly said:


> No he didn't. and: Yes we do.
> 
> Since seven years of age, he had no real father. He was brought up with no male influences.


 I apologize I hadn't read his full transcript.


----------



## Sandfly

TiggyBlue said:


> I apologize I hadn't read his full transcript.


Me neither. I graciously condescend to accept your apology however, though to be honest, none were necessary.

It took me five minutes to locate what I knew I should be looking for.

Divorce. Boy living with mum. Dad messing around with bimbos.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Quite the opposite. Did you look at it?



Yes. Rodgers states that [from 8 years of age]:-
_
"I was quite annoyed with the recent decision between my mother and father to extend my stay at father's by two days of the week. *From that point on, me and my sister would only be at mother's house from Monday to Thursday, and on Thursday night we would go to father's house until the following Monday*."
_


----------



## TiggyBlue

Cosmos said:


> Yes. Wherein Rodgers states that [from 8 years of age]:-
> _
> "I was quite annoyed with the recent decision between my mother and father to extend my stay at father's by two days of the week. *From that point on, me and my sister would only be at mother's house from Monday to Thursday, and on Thursday night we would go to father's house until the following Monday*."
> _


I really need to read the transcript lol


----------



## notmyrealname4

Sandfly said:


> Me neither. I graciously condescend to accept your apology however, though to be honest, none were necessary.
> 
> It took me five minutes to locate what I knew I should be looking for.
> 
> Divorce. Boy living with mum. *Dad messing around with bimbos*.


Sandfly,

I waded through most of the manifesto. After the dad takes up with Soumaya; he apparently never has another female relationship. He marries Soumaya and eventually has another child, Jazz.

I'm just trying to keep things clear. Mr. Rodgers may have been a very poor father and male role model as you suggest; but at least he doesn't seem to have been bouncing around from bimbo to bimbo. At least as far as I could tell from Elliot's writings.


----------



## Cosmos

intheory said:


> Mr. Rodgers may have been a very poor father and male role model as you suggest; but at least he doesn't seem to have been bouncing around from bimbo to bimbo. At least as far as I could tell from Elliot's writings.


It's my guess that, in the scheme of things, he wasn't a particularly poor father - if at all.

It's dangerous for society to simply dismiss people like Rodgers as 'mentally ill.' Poisonous idealogy, like misogyny, kills...


----------



## unbelievable

Bridge said:


> Video games! Rap music! Pickup artists! Misogyny!
> 
> 
> 
> Coddling our children! Protecting them from cyber bullying! Making them think they are KINGS! Entitlement, the brand new invention of the naughts!
> 
> Why, it could never be that he was just CRAZY


Expecting to live in a world without disappointment is insane. Crazy people have always existed but we are deliberately manufacturing them. Sit a bunch of little kings and queens down in classrooms and tell them daily how their world is unfair, dirty, rotten, hopeless, let them spend hours every day listening to violent music, let them kill hundreds of people every day in graphic detail on video games...and then look astonished when they kill someone. Most soldiers in the Civil War couldn't bring themselves to actually kill, even in close combat. Those were people who grew up in a world where a gun was as common in their life as a pencil or a hoe. If it was our intention to create killers, we would pursue a course of instruction very similar to the one we give our average kid right now.


----------



## Jellybeans

This kid was a crazy fvck who cleary hated women. I don't doubt reading those MRA sites only fueled the the bullsh*t in his head. All they do is talk about how women are some evil/inferior object and dehumanize them. It's revolting. 

It's too bad he didn't only take himself out and instead took out many innocent lives along with him.


----------



## Cosmos

Jellybeans said:


> This kid was a crazy fvck who cleary hated women. I don't doubt reading those MRA sites only fueled the the bullsh*t in his head. All they do is talk about how women are some evil/inferior object and dehumanize them. It's revolting.
> 
> It's too bad he didn't only take himself out and instead took out many innocent lives along with him.


At the very least, sites like that help 'normalize' and condone potentially dangerous idealogies.


----------



## Jellybeans

:iagree:

It is sickening to me that people think that way about women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

One good thing is coming of this tragedy...the public now knows what MRA and PUA mean and are aware of these hate groups building up all around us. I have known of it for awhile (sadly) and have been shocked that more people aren't outraged. Going by what I'm seeing on twitter, millions of people now really get why they should be shocked and outraged. They had never heard of these fringe hate groups before...but now they have. They didn't know that hundreds of them sit huddled over their computers, fantasizing publicly (ie: posting) about raping women and killing them. 

David Futrelle (author of article I linked) said that they actually make these raging murderous statements all the time. Perhaps now they will be investigated and taken seriously as the hate group they are so we might prevent a future rampage.

The FBI will be reading those boards now, for sure. Finally.

I'm sure that going forward, decent men will want to distance themselves from the acronyms MRA and PUA, which is also a good thing. I mean, I can't imagine admitting to being one of these, now that this completely crazy train has been exposed. It doesn't matter that this killer was on the fringe of these fringe groups. The main public will always consider them the same thing from now on.


----------



## Faithful Wife

#YesAllWomen in the wake of Elliot Rodger: Why it’s so hard for men to recognize misogyny.


----------



## Lionelhutz

This discussion reminds me of all the talk after Columbine about what did or did not motivate the killers and who else might be responsible. Human nature requires that big scary tragic events have greater meaning and larger causes and not simply the terrifyingly unpredictable aspects of human nature. In the case of Columbine a closer look reveals one kid who very likely predisposed to be a violent psychopath and another kid who was deeply depressed and suicidal. There is little basis to say that the parents were more deficient that most parents and there was little basis to claim the killers were actually bullied or intentionally marginalized.

Perhaps in a world of absolute social and economic equality there would be no more episodes of spree killings but I very much doubt it. There will always be people who are paranoid, psychopathic and outright sadistic. There will be people who are unhappy with themselves or their life and those people will need someone or some group to blame.


----------



## Jellybeans

Faithful Wife said:


> One good thing is coming of this tragedy...the public now knows what MRA and PUA mean and are aware of these hate groups building up all around us.
> 
> They had never heard of these fringe hate groups before...but now they have. They didn't know that hundreds of them sit huddled over their computers, fantasizing publicly (ie: posting) about raping women and killing them.


:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Honestly, I was only aware of all this stuff because of TAM and the men on here who advertise that kind of lifestyle on those sites. You are so right to call them HATE groups because that is exactly what they are.


----------



## Eqili

It seems that Roger's activities were focused on body building forums that have little to do with dating, and the site PUAHate, where PUA tactics are disparaged. It seems that equating PUAHate with pro-PUA sites would be like equating the NAACP with the KKK because they both deal with minorities.

Also, Roger's hatred wasn't just focused on women who, as a sex, rejected him. It was also focused on the men who were getting the dates he couldn't. Roger killed more men than women. Given that, it's curious how some women are claiming to be the main victimized group.

If we really must blame something for the violent actions of a deranged killer, why not the culture of therapy where self-esteem is the most sacrosanct value? In that culture, Roger was completely comfortable. He viewed himself as sophisticated, elegant, and supremely worthy of everything life has to offer. To him, anyone who challenged his self-worth deserved a violent death.

Could Therapy Culture Help Explain Elliot Rodger's Rampage? - Reason.com


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> Yes. Rodgers states that [from 8 years of age]:-
> _
> "I was quite annoyed with the recent decision between my mother and father to extend my stay at father's by two days of the week. *From that point on, me and my sister would only be at mother's house from Monday to Thursday, and on Thursday night we would go to father's house until the following Monday*."
> _


Once again:

Quote:

"During father’s week, I would mostly be looked after by our two new nannies, Rosa and Amparro."

Pretty selective reader aren't you! 

Though I do accept that hanging around with one Bimbo is not many Bimbos as I exaggerated. I do suppose that living where he lived, and in the industry and lifestyle he found himself, there was however no shortage of shallowness and un-masculine ponces (including such as PUA types, but also metrosexuals and the like)

And I see FW has purposely mixed up MRA and PUA again, hoping that they are taken to be the same thing.

I don't think trying to get custody of one's children or alimony from an absent mother is quite the same thing as the shady, grotty practices of a Pick Up Artist. 

If the MRA acts as a counterweight to the circus which is radical feminism, then it's a net positive!

If it treats feminism-in-ordinary the same as radical feminism, then it's negative... but I think to oppose any men's equality movement without distinguishing supremacists from egalitarians smacks of the same sin as misogyny!


----------



## Omego

Sandfly said:


> Though I do accept that hanging around with one Bimbo is not many Bimbos as I exaggerated.


Just curious: why do you describe his step-mother as a bimbo? :scratchhead:


----------



## Sandfly

Lionelhutz said:


> This discussion reminds me of all the talk after Columbine about what did or did not motivate the killers and who else might be responsible.
> 
> There will always be people who are paranoid, psychopathic and outright sadistic. There will be people who are unhappy with themselves or their life and those people will need someone or some group to blame.


Maybe it's because to be a hitlerite is acceptable in the US, or indeed, an extremist of any flavour - so long as you're not a commie:

http://www.biography.com/people/eric-harris-235982#awesm=~oFzIehMXU0fxLz

That's my theory, borne out recently by the US mercenaries in Ukraine fighting along side Svoboda (Second division Panzer SS) and Right Sector paramilitaries.

Don't have to even go that far actually, we all know that a huge proportion of prison murders are carried out by a tiny minority of Aryan Nation gangsters. 

When this kind of magical ability to assassinate freely under the gaze of guards occurs, it raises questions about collaboration.


----------



## Sandfly

Omego said:


> Just curious: why do you describe his step-mother as a bimbo? :scratchhead:


Because I like the word! (real reason.) 

In essence, moving in with a married man and his kids so soon after separation is not the actions of a clever woman - If she'd fallen pregnant and they'd split up a month later, you'd be agreeing with me! (justification hamster reason.)


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Sandfly said:


> Because I like the word! (real reason.)
> 
> In essence, moving in with a married man and his kids so soon after separation is not the actions of a clever woman - If she'd fallen pregnant and they'd split up a month later, you'd be agreeing with me! (justification hamster reason.)


Letting a woman move in with you and your children while you're still married and just barely separated is not the actions of a clever man. If he had gotten her pregnant and they'd split up a month later, you'd be agreeing with me.


----------



## Omego

Sandfly said:


> In essence, moving in with a married man and his kids so soon after separation is not the actions of a clever woman


Can't argue with that! I skimmed the manifesto so I missed that part. Assumed they had been divorced/separated for a while. I also agree with Scarlett Begonias that both were a bit careless in this respect.


----------



## jld

FW, the ideal would be for men to not even feel drawn to these groups, right? What would it take, in your opinion, for this to be prevented?

Maybe my underlying question is, How, in your opinion, can men develop true inner security? 

Because, at least in my opinion, a man who loves himself, and truly loves women and children, would never want to hurt them, or encourage any hurting of them.


----------



## Cosmos

Sandfly said:


> Once again:
> 
> Quote:
> 
> "During father’s week, I would mostly be looked after by our two new nannies, Rosa and Amparro."
> 
> Pretty selective reader aren't you!


How do you work that one out?:scratchhead: I quoted directly from the manifesto. 



> "I was quite annoyed with the recent decision between my mother and father to extend my stay at father's by two days of the week. From that point on, me and my sister would only be at mother's house from Monday to Thursday, and on Thursday night we would go to father's house until the following Monday."


 Just because the guy's father employed nannies to supervise his children whilst he was working doesn't mean that he was a bad father! Would you have preferred him to have been a SAHD?

It's my guess that, as usual, you're just here to argue so I'll leave you to argue with yourself.


----------



## Lionelhutz

I just read the Washington Post article by Ann Hornaday in which she says among other things

"How many men, raised on a steady diet of Judd Apatow comedies in which the shlubby arrested adolescent always gets the girl, find that those happy endings constantly elude them and conclude, 'It's not fair'?"

It is hard to know where to begin to respond to such staggeringly stupid unadulterated crap. She should have just said is simply that this incident made her angry, and by the way, she also don't like Judd Aptow movies. Instead she says something like 'it bothers me when ugly guys get good looking girls. Movies have a social responsibility to only depict ugly people matching up together because to do otherwise upsets the social order and provokes violence.'


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cosmos said:


> It's my guess that, in the scheme of things, he wasn't a particularly poor father - if at all.
> 
> It's dangerous for society to simply dismiss people like Rodgers as 'mentally ill.' Poisonous idealogy, like misogyny, kills...


What is more dangerous is seeing calling someone mentally ill as a "dismissal". So is the dismissal of the mentally ill which is rampant in the US. When someone is physically ill, we help them. When someone is mentally ill, we castigate them.

I don't have much time or use for discussions of evil. God did not deliver anyone from this dude. But if this guy had gotten help, a whole lot of people might still be alive.


----------



## Cosmos

NobodySpecial said:


> What is more dangerous is seeing calling someone mentally ill as a "dismissal". So is the dismissal of the mentally ill which is rampant in the US. When someone is physically ill, we help them. When someone is mentally ill, we castigate them.
> 
> I don't have much time or use for discussions of evil. God did not deliver anyone from this dude. But if this guy had gotten help, a whole lot of people might still be alive.


It's my understanding that Rodgers had been offered an abundance of help and had received extensive therapy from multiple therapists. Neither they nor the police who interviewed him managed to see the depth of his problems.

Whilst mental illness would certainly appear to be a factor with Rodgers, there was a lot more going on with him.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cosmos said:


> It's my understanding that Rodgers had been offered an abundance of help and had received extensive therapy from multiple therapists. Neither they nor the police who interviewed him managed to see the depth of his problems.


Which I guess is going to happen when there is no will to research mental illness. We know next to nothing about mental illness.


----------



## Fozzy

Lionelhutz said:


> I just read the Washington Post article by Ann Hornaday in which she says among other things
> 
> "How many men, raised on a steady diet of Judd Apatow comedies in which the shlubby arrested adolescent always gets the girl, find that those happy endings constantly elude them and conclude, 'It's not fair'?"
> 
> It is hard to know where to begin to respond to such staggeringly stupid unadulterated crap. She should have just said is simply that this incident made her angry, and by the way, she also don't like Judd Aptow movies. Instead she says something like 'it bothers me when ugly guys get good looking girls. Movies have a social responsibility to only depict ugly people matching up together because to do otherwise upsets the social order and provokes violence.'



This is what bothers me about the aftermath of these situations. Everyone uses it as an excuse to paint some group/activity/political affililation etc as the "cause". 

It's video games--it's guns--it's movies--its MRA--it's junk food.....

It's mental illness, plain and simple. Do crazy people play video games, go to movies and join MRA websites? Sure do. They also probably do all kinds of other things that NORMAL people do. Then they do crazy stuff, like kill people. Because they're crazy.

I think it's kind of sad when people use tragedies like this to get their hate on for whatever social problem du jour grates on them. It's so easy to do, and so misses the real point.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry Fozzy...but due to the fact that hundreds of men are proclaiming the same threats of violence directly at women like me, I tend to take notice when one actually follows up on these threats. I don't think I am missing the point at all.

If you aren't aware that these people exist and really are threats to women, you should be. This applies to everyone.


----------



## norajane

Fozzy said:


> This is what bothers me about the aftermath of these situations. Everyone uses it as an excuse to paint some group/activity/political affililation etc as the "cause".
> 
> It's video games--it's guns--it's movies--its MRA--it's junk food.....
> 
> It's mental illness, plain and simple. Do crazy people play video games, go to movies and join MRA websites? Sure do. They also probably do all kinds of other things that NORMAL people do. Then they do crazy stuff, like kill people. Because they're crazy.
> 
> I think it's kind of sad when people use tragedies like this to get their hate on for whatever social problem du jour grates on them. It's so easy to do, and so misses the real point.


It's also sad when people use their hate to create tragedies for other people, like killing other people because you hate women and men who date women.

He was mentally ill, but he wasn't ranting about killing murders, child molesters, or rapists. He was ranting about killing _women_ because he couldn't get a date, and about killing men because they could get dates with women.


----------



## richie33

He was a threat to all genders.


----------



## Happyfamily

It is instructive that the sheriff's office was called in April because of the frightening YouTube videos he had made. It was his therapist who called a mental health hotline who in turn called the Sheriff's office. 

They sent six officers to his house, and he told them everything was okay. They did not look at the videos, because after all - all six heard him say everything was OK. 

Kind of reminds me how the cops were called to a gang fight, pulled over a car that was identified as pivotal in the incident, but let the extremely drunk driver go, who promptly t-boned my husband's car and put him in the hospital, injuring his spine permanently.


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> Sorry Fozzy...but due to the fact that hundreds of men are proclaiming the same threats of violence directly at women like me, I tend to take notice when one actually follows up on these threats. I don't think I am missing the point at all.
> 
> If you aren't aware that these people exist and really are threats to women, you should be. This applies to everyone.


I agree these people do exist and are threats to EVERYONE. I'm just saying that mental illness is the cause, not whatever the mentally ill person ends up latching on to to give vent to their violence. 

I'd never expect you to take a threat as anything less than serious. I think all threats SHOULD be taken seriously. I'm just saying that all of the things that always get blamed for these events are red herrings. Crazy people do crazy things. 

I think we have a tendency to want to try to make sense of senseless things, and the easiest way to do that is to find some behavior from the perpetrator that we don't like and blame that. I've already heard JUST this event blamed on MRA, movies, and World of Warcraft. All of those things came along for the ride, but the CAUSE of his violence was mental illness. You could remove any or all of these other factors from the situation, and you'd still be left with a mentally ill, potentially violent man.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sadly Fozzy...men like you are actually our only hope for eradicating this nonsense. But if you don't see it, you can't help.

When men will not associate or condone the misogyny behind this crap when they see it, when they will stand up to and put other men in their place on our behalf, when they will stop excusing it and see it for the hatred it is, when they are more invested in protecting human rights than they are in protecting the men who are misogynists, then we will make some progress.

I'm thankful there are actually millions of men beginning to do this right now as a result of this tragedy. So much awareness has happened that I feel we might actually see some progress now.


----------



## Machiavelli

I think its amusing how y'all conflate the opposing world views of MRA and PUA, particularly with regards to our shooter. Rodgers was enough of a pillar in the anti-PUA forum "PUAHate" that they took down the forum after his rampage.

Rodgers was a wannabe white knight, but he was so creepy no girls would take him up on his whiteknighting. Rodgers hated women because he was told things like "be yourself and girls will like you for who you are." Of course, girls were universally repelled by who he was; an effeminate featured, slight, low testosterone, aspergers, narcissist, with delusions of grandeur. 

He thought being the "supreme gentleman" was the way to get girls and he blamed women for preferring high-testosterone "douche bags" and their PUA imitators. He was mad at women, because they refused to play by HIS rules, and not the rules of Mother Nature.

At some point, he was exposed to "game" concepts, even if it was only negatively at PUAHate, yet he rejected those concepts even while seeing women positively respond to them everyday. Maybe that's why he killed 2X more men than women.

But again, this is trying to make sense of the senseless. Anyway, you slice it, his parents get my nod for the "Parents of Year Award - Hollywood Class."


----------



## Cosmos

Fozzy said:


> I agree these people do exist and are threats to EVERYONE. I'm just saying that mental illness is the cause, not whatever the mentally ill person ends up latching on to to give vent to their violence.
> 
> I'd never expect you not to take a threat as anything less than serious. I think all threats SHOULD be taken seriously. I'm just saying that all of the things that always get blamed for these events are red herrings. Crazy people do crazy things.
> 
> I think we have a tendency to want to try to make sense of senseless things, and the easiest way to do that is to find some behavior from the perpetrator that we don't like and blame that. I've already heard JUST this event blamed on MRA, movies, and World of Warcraft. All of those things came along for the ride, but the CAUSE of his violence was mental illness. You could remove any or all of these other factors from the situation, and you'd still be left with a mentally ill, potentially violent man.


I do agree with you to a large extent, but where do we draw the line with such things... Do we, for example, categorize war criminals as mentally ill and, therefore, not responsible for their actions? 

What I'm saying is that not all angry, violent people are necessarily mentally ill, the same as not all mentally ill people are angry and violent.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Here are the pictures of Rodgers victims;



If his motive was that he hated women and that MRA / PUA anti female websites influenced him, then why did he kill four men compared to two women?
Clearly , if they were even trying to influence him to kill women , it didn't quite work out that way.
Also why would his various posts on their websites be flagged and removed?

Sorry, this whole anti MRA / PUA angle by blogger David Futrelle sounds like a massive projection top me, and I find it downright repulsive and borderline paranoid.

I think David Futrelle needs to stop begging women for donations online to support his crappy online blogs and get a real job like a man


----------



## Machiavelli

Cosmos said:


> I do agree with you to a large extent, but where do we draw the line with such things... Do we, for example, categorize war criminals as mentally ill and, therefore, not responsible for their actions?


The SCOTUS has ruled that those with an IQ of 70 or less do not have full agency.



Cosmos said:


> What I'm saying is that not all angry, violent people are necessarily mentally ill, the same as not all mentally ill people are angry and violent.


The mentally ill are more violent than the sane, but the vast majority of violent people are not mentally ill. Some people are just bad.


----------



## michzz

That crazy kid killed more men on his way to killing women.

He may have articulated more hatred of women because of his perceived deprivation. However, he hated everyone.

Very disturbed mind with no rational thoughts or empathy for anyone.

A coward and a creep.


----------



## Fozzy

Cosmos said:


> I do agree with you to a large extent, but where do we draw the line with such things... Do we, for example, categorize war criminals as mentally ill and, therefore, not responsible for their actions?
> 
> What I'm saying is that not all angry, violent people are necessarily mentally ill, the same as not all mentally ill people are angry and violent.


It's a good question that I don't have an answer for. Yes, there are some violent people who are just plain bad, but i think the majority of mass-killer types are legit crazy.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fozzy said:


> It's a good question that I don't have an answer for. Yes, there are some violent people who are just plain bad, but i think the majority of mass-killer types are legit crazy.


All mass murderers fall under certain types of behavioral clusters.
They are sociopaths.

Trying to make sense of their behavior outside of that , imo makes no sense.

This young man was the son of a movie producer.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> If his motive was that he hated women, then why did he kill four men compared to two women?


Probably because he perceived them as successful with women... They reminded him of his own lack of success and he despised them for falling prey to the evil wiles of the enemy - women.


----------



## Cubby

Machiavelli said:


> I think its amusing how y'all conflate the opposing world views of MRA and PUA, particularly with regards to our shooter. Rodgers was enough of a pillar in the anti-PUA forum "PUAHate" that they took down the forum after his rampage.
> 
> Rodgers was a wannabe white knight, but he was so creepy no girls would take him up on his whiteknighting. Rodgers hated women because he was told things like "be yourself and girls will like you for who you are." Of course, girls were universally repelled by who he was; an effeminate featured, slight, low testosterone, aspergers, narcissist, with delusions of grandeur.
> 
> He thought being the "supreme gentleman" was the way to get girls and he blamed women for preferring high-testosterone "douche bags" and their PUA imitators. He was mad at women, because they refused to play by HIS rules, and not the rules of Mother Nature.
> 
> At some point, he was exposed to "game" concepts, even if it was only negatively at PUAHate, yet he rejected those concepts even while seeing women positively respond to them everyday. Maybe that's why he killed 2X more men than women.
> 
> But again, this is trying to make sense of the senseless. Anyway, you slice it, his parents get my nod for the "Parents of Year Award - Hollywood Class."


Agree. He was a prime example of "what not to do" if you want to pick up chicks. At least according to the Manosphere and the red-pill crowd.

I can remember in college being frustrated and befuddled with the observation that hot, popular girls seemed to prefer the guys on the football team who typically weren't the nicest guys. Actually they seemed to be a fun-loving bunch and were kind of casual in their interactions with girls. Like they assumed there's always going to be girls hovering around them, no matter what.

Mostly I did fine with girls, at least the girls I didn't care one way or the other about. But the ones who I put on a pedestal and wanted for a girlfriend, those are the ones who weren't interested in me. I suppose you could say I might have seen myself as a white knight with those girls. I thought the nicer you are, the more you'll score. When I was more laid-back and concentrated more about having fun, that's when the girls would be attracted to me. 

Looking back I should have paid more attention to my real-life observations instead of trying to ramp up the niceness in the presence of girls I truly had interest in.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol,

This young man thought that he was better than , and deserved better than everybody else.

Full stop.


----------



## Happyfamily

> Rodgers hated women because he was told things like "be yourself and girls will like you for who you are."



As stated upthread, people without scruples are going to use this tragedy to "prove" their own point and there is a perfect example: if only he could have been a creepy pick-up artist con man labeling women as "targets" and extolling the virtues of deceiving woman for the purpose of sex... then all these lives would have been saved.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Probably because he perceived them as successful with women... They reminded him of his own lack of success and he despised them for falling prey to the evil wiles of the enemy - women.


So are you saying that if he was successful with women , this wouldn't have happened?

There are serial killers and mass murderers who were very successful with women.

I think that if he was successful he would have still killed for the exact , same reason.

He is mentally ill.


----------



## Cubby

It was probably worse for Rodgers that he wasn't a bad-looking guy. True he didn't seem to be particularly athletic and he seemed a little effeminate, but he surely wasn't ugly. 

If he were flat-out ugly, he could at least make sense of the fact that he wasn't scoring with women. But with his looks, he probably felt he deserved to get love. After all, he considers himself good-looking. So he's thinking he's doing the right things. Being a supreme gentleman, being nice....so he's racking his brain trying to figure out what the problem is and unfortunately came up with the popular women being to blame.

If he's an ugly guy, maybe this doesn't happen.


----------



## Happyfamily

Cubby said:


> I can remember in college being frustrated and befuddled with the observation that hot, popular girls seemed to prefer the guys on the football team...


Exactly. Successful guys. So instead of understanding what you just said - guys who make the team are admired by everyone including both girls and other guys - you draw the false conclusion that you need to be a jerk to attract women. 

The thing that is most revolting about pick-up artist creeps is the dishonesty. For example, being "nice" is a bad thing in this world, when it is being a doormat without any self-respect that women loathe. Why would someone on purpose conflate the term "nice" with "doormat"? Because the operative emotion involved is disrespect for women, who are called "targets" in this arena, and who are only good for one thing: sex, not companionship. You certainly would never want to be nice to a woman, being subhuman as they are.


----------



## norajane

Cubby said:


> It was probably worse for Rodgers that he wasn't a bad-looking guy. True he didn't seem to be particularly athletic and he seemed a little effeminate, but he surely wasn't ugly.
> 
> If he were flat-out ugly, he could at least make sense of the fact that he wasn't scoring with women. But with his looks, he probably felt he deserved to get love. After all, he considers himself good-looking. So he's thinking he's doing the right things. Being a supreme gentleman, being nice....so he's racking his brain trying to figure out what the problem is and unfortunately came up with the popular women being to blame.
> 
> If he's an ugly guy, maybe this doesn't happen.


He believed he deserved whatever he wanted, including the hot blondes. Maybe if he weren't so set on demanding that hot, blonde white women all fall for him, he wouldn't be as disappointed. Maybe if he didn't feel so _entitled _to them or anyone else, this wouldn't happened.

He called himself a supreme gentleman. That in no way means he actually was a gentleman of any kind to anyone.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> So are you saying that if he was successful with women , this wouldn't have happened?
> 
> There are serial killers and mass murderers who were very successful with women.
> 
> I think that if he was successful he would have still killed for the exact , same reason.
> 
> He is mentally ill.


I don't believe anyone has any way of knowing that, CM.

His hatred of women certainly seems tied in to how he felt about his own appearance and his perception of the power that being sexually successful would have given him. The source of his thwarted desires eventually became pathologically abhorrent to him - as did the men they associated with.


----------



## EleGirl

The talk here speculating on why he killed more males than females is missing an important fact. He apparently planned a masacre at a sorority at a time De when the girls would most likely be there. But the sorority's door was locked. He banged on the door for some time. But none of the girls opened the door. So he gave that up, went around the side of the building and just shot wjo ever was out I there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## norajane

EleGirl said:


> The talk here speculating on why he killed more males than females is missing an important fact. He apparently planned a masacre at a sorority at a time De when the girls would most likely be there. But the sorority's door was locked. He banged on the door for some time. But none of the girls opened the door. So he gave that up, went around the side of the building and just shot wjo ever was out I there.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


He killed his male roommates first, and a friend of his roommates' who was visiting - that's 3 of his male victims. Once he'd cleared that room, he went off on his rampage with the intent to start with the sorority. Glad those girls were smart enough not to open the door to him.


----------



## As'laDain

it seems like the guy spent the second half of his life entertaining the idea that he deserved everything he wanted, and the world is wrong if it doesn't give it to him. 


i doubt anyone he actually cared about in life looked at him and told him that he DOES NOT DESERVE A GIRLFRIEND!!! 

that entitled piece of crap could have ordered the prettiest blond Russian mail order bride he wanted. im pretty sure daddy would have paid for it too. but nope, he decided instead to punish the world for not bending down and kissing his royal ass.


----------



## EleGirl

Yes he killed his roommates first so that they would not stop him. If he could have gotten into the sorority we would be talking about all the girlsI he had killed. The higher number of male victims was not his plan.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> Yes he killed his roommates first so that they would not stop him. If he could have gotten into the sorority we would be talking about all the girlsI he had killed. The higher number of male victims was not his plan.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So then the four men who got killed were just " _collateral damage ?_"

The reality is that four men got killed and in his manifesto, he also blamed men who he thought were more successful with females than him.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Why Elliot Rodger’s misogyny matters | we hunted the mammoth
> 
> quote from linked article:
> 
> 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.


Had to quote this again. 

Yeah, the guy was definitely suffering from mental illness, but there are plenty of people who suffer from mental illness and don't go on killing rampages. PUA culture is all about misogyny. All you have to do is go to those sites and forums, and you see it _everywhere_. Adding a hatred of women to an already unstable mind equals disaster.


----------



## Happyfamily

nothing more alpha than killing off the competition.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> It's my guess that, in the scheme of things, he wasn't a particularly poor father - if at all.
> 
> It's dangerous for society to simply dismiss people like Rodgers as 'mentally ill.' Poisonous idealogy, like misogyny, kills...


QFT.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> At the very least, sites like that help 'normalize' and condone potentially dangerous idealogies.


Look how common it is to see PUAs and MRAs here! And how defiantly they try and justify the things they do to make it look harmless. IMO, the justifying might as well be a warning: "Hey, if you don't respond positively to me treating you like a jerk, you could wind up dead." Instead of being a creep, be a normal effing human being who can handle rejection.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> One good thing is coming of this tragedy...the public now knows what MRA and PUA mean and are aware of these hate groups building up all around us. I have known of it for awhile (sadly) and have been shocked that more people aren't outraged. Going by what I'm seeing on twitter, millions of people now really get why they should be shocked and outraged. They had never heard of these fringe hate groups before...but now they have. They didn't know that hundreds of them sit huddled over their computers, fantasizing publicly (ie: posting) about raping women and killing them.
> 
> David Futrelle (author of article I linked) said that they actually make these raging murderous statements all the time. Perhaps now they will be investigated and taken seriously as the hate group they are so we might prevent a future rampage.
> 
> The FBI will be reading those boards now, for sure. Finally.
> 
> I'm sure that going forward, decent men will want to distance themselves from the acronyms MRA and PUA, which is also a good thing. I mean, I can't imagine admitting to being one of these, now that this completely crazy train has been exposed. It doesn't matter that this killer was on the fringe of these fringe groups. The main public will always consider them the same thing from now on.


Yup! And from the forums I've seen, "fringe" has come to mean "most" of the people who post on them.


----------



## Cubby

I don't think the guy hated "women." He hated the certain sorority, popular women that he felt he deserved to have. It was all about what he wanted, all about his desires that weren't being met, and something was seriously wrong with the fact that he wasn't getting what he deserved to have, according to his deluded thinking.

I think he also hated the popular guys who were having success with these women. It was all about what was being denied to him, when he was doing the right things (in his mind) and therefore deserved what he wanted.

The Plain-Jane girl nobody notices, he didn't hate her. He certainly didn't want anything to do with her and certainly felt he was above her, and deserved better, but seething hatred towards this type of girl? I don't think so.


----------



## Caribbean Man

I find the _" well, four guys got murdered so what , look at the bigger picture, he frequented PUA/ MRA sites "_ logic on this thread kinda mind boggling.


----------



## JCD

TiggyBlue said:


> He had been seeing a therapist since he was 8, it sounds like whatever problems he had ran a lot deeper than purely resenting women .


Quoted for Truth!

You get some imbalanced nut job and he picks up "Silent Spring' and poof! The Unabomber.

You get the same nut job rejected by a few women and he discovers MRA and poof! He's a misogynist.

If he'd run into a socialist or a fundamentalist, or an animal rights 'messiah' and he'd be, at turns a Weatherman, an Abortion Clinic bomber or a Earth First type.

BECAUSE...MILLIONS of men read these tracts and messages.

Where is the huge spate of women shot in drive bys? There isn't one. Why? Because it was the crazy doing the shooting, not the message. BECAUSE he seems an isolated outlier, it's fair to blame the crazy instead of the message he used to out his brand of crazy.

Please note: I am not denying that MRA doesn't make some men inordinately angry at women...just like Feminism sometimes makes some women inordinately angry at me.

Oh...you think the feminists have a point? Funny...


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> nothing more alpha than killing off the competition.


I heard on the radio this morning that on one of the sites he frequented he asked the men there if they could kill every other man on the plan(by releasing a virus only they themselves were immune to), would they do it? He said they would have their pick of every woman in the world, and wouldn't have to worry about competition.


----------



## Created2Write

I don't buy that he didn't hate women. Not one bit. And I don't understand why any man would want to call it anything else.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> Quoted for Truth!
> 
> You get some imbalance nut job and he picks up "Silent Spring' and poof! The Unabomber.
> 
> You get the same nut job rejected by a few women and he discovers MRA and poof! He's a misogynist.
> 
> If he'd run into a socialist or a fundamentalist, or an animal rights 'messiah' and he'd be, at turns a Weatherman, an Abortion Clinic bomber or a Earth First type.
> 
> BECAUSE...MILLIONS of men read these tracts and messages.
> 
> Where is the huge spate of women shot in drive bys? There isn't one. Why? Because it was the crazy doing the shooting, not the message. The message was just a lightning rod for his anger to spark out of.


You forgot Anderson Breveric, the guy in Oslo Norway who said he trained himself to kill all those helpless kids on that island by playing Call of duty " Black Ops", WOW and other online games.

So now I guess online gamers are also potential mass murderers.


----------



## wilderness

The biggest problem with this world right now is misandry, not misogyny. I believe that anyone that has a problem with equal rights for men (read: MRAs), and especially those that call MRAs misogynists, are the real problem with this world.


----------



## wilderness

Created2Write said:


> Yup! And from the forums I've seen, "fringe" has come to mean "most" of the people who post on them.


It is not 'fringe' to fight oppression. Divorced men are the most oppressed group of people on this planet.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> I find the _" well, four guys got murdered so what , look at the bigger picture, he frequented PUA/ MRA sites "_ logic on this thread kinda mind boggling.


NNo one has said four guys were murdered, so what. Instead the point is that he intendid a blood bath in a sorority and was not able I to pull it off. It is valid to consider what his intent was when trying to figure out his motive.

All of I the deaths are horribly tragic, especially I since this was preventable.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## As'laDain

i cannot sympathize with someone with his level of entitlement. 

i guess it was too many years dumpster diving for clothes, toys, and electronics. i never got the idea that anyone owed me anything. 


his parents failed him.

and he failed himself. the guy executed innocent people for his own problems. 

he could have dealt with his issues with just one bullet.


----------



## Happyfamily

Caribbean Man said:


> I find the _" well, four guys got murdered so what , look at the bigger picture, he frequented PUA/ MRA sites "_ logic on this thread kinda mind boggling.


Hey, all the deaths are tragic and I think it actually useful to point out the misguided envy and jealousy the Pick-up artist creeps have for successful men. 

I think it wrong to say that golly, only an insignificant portion of them actually kill women instead of being nasty pricks and perpetuating misogyny. 


And boy do I agree with feminism being chock-full of misandry. I am not a feminist: _because I believe in equality_.


----------



## wilderness

Happyfamily said:


> Hey, all the deaths are tragic and I think it actually useful to point out the misguided envy and jealousy the Pick-up artist creeps have for successful men.
> 
> I think it wrong to say that golly, only an insignificant portion of them actually kill women instead of being nasty pricks and perpetuating misogyny.
> 
> 
> And boy do I agree with feminism being chock-full of misandry. I am not a feminist: _because I believe in equality_.


Why are the PUA and the MRAs being grouped together in this thread? I don't really have a problem with either group, but they are not related at all.


----------



## EleGirl

The girl who he mentions... the one who was 10 when he claims that she rejected him and laughed at him. This now young lady is in hiding and in fear of her life. She is getting death threats from like minded males... hate is an infection that spreads faster than any bio agent and causes far more damage.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cubby

Created2Write said:


> Had to quote this again.
> 
> Yeah, the guy was definitely suffering from mental illness, but there are plenty of people who suffer from mental illness and don't go on killing rampages. PUA culture is all about misogyny. All you have to do is go to those sites and forums, and you see it _everywhere_. Adding a hatred of women to an already unstable mind equals disaster.


If I'm not mistaken, he was anti-PUA, wasn't he? His methods and beliefs were certainly the opposite of what the PUA guys teach. And I thought he was a big forum poster on that PUAhate website.


----------



## Created2Write

Wilderness, with respect, this isn't about male oppression. This is about a total creep who, yes, hated women. He believed(as PUA teaches) that he was entitled to have sex with any woman he wanted, and when he wasn't getting it(because he was a creep) he went on a killing spree. 

Anyone who says this wasn't about misogyny is fooling themselves. IMO, that only serves to downplay the seriousness of the PUA culture; and yeah, I get why so many men are eager to downplay this...a lot of men have been involved in PUA in some fashion and don't want to be tainted by association. *I don't think that every man who has been involved in PUA is a ticking time bomb who hates women.* But that doesn't mean that PUA culture isn't, at least, a major part of the issue. Not calling this out for what it is will only lead to more of these killings.

And, for the record, MANY MRAs hate women, wilderness. I don't believe in oppressing _anyone_, male or female. *I support the rights of women, as well as the rights of men, and I see both men and woman as equals. What I've seen of MRA websites, is too many men who see women as inferior which, as we've seen here, leads to the murdering of innocent people.*


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> Hey, all the deaths are tragic and I think it actually useful to point out the misguided envy and jealousy the Pick-up artist creeps have for successful men.
> 
> I think it wrong to say that golly, only an insignificant portion of them actually kill women instead of being nasty pricks and perpetuating misogyny.
> 
> 
> And boy do I agree with feminism being chock-full of misandry. I am not a feminist: _because I believe in equality_.


I agree. It's too much men vs. women, and not enough humanity as a whole. Oppressing men isn't any better than oppressing women, and to have _real_ equality, the rights of one can't be infringed by the rights of the other.


----------



## Happyfamily

wilderness said:


> Why are the PUA and the MRAs being grouped together in this thread? I don't really have a problem with either group, but they are not related at all.


I don't know much about the men's rights movement. But not having a problem with pick-up artist bunk that labels women as "targets" and values them only for sex at the core of their philosophy is a huge signal to me.


----------



## Created2Write

Cubby said:


> If I'm not mistaken, he was anti-PUA, wasn't he? His methods and beliefs were certainly the opposite of what the PUA guys teach. And I thought he was a big forum poster on that PUAhate website.


I don't think so, especially with what I've seen of PUA websites. The views this guy had, his entitlement to sex, coincides exactly what I've seen PUAs say on here and on other forums. 

He felt the PUA sites mislead him since he hadn't gotten lucky using their "tactics", but the hatred of women is still there in the underlying theme of PUA.


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> I don't know much about the men's rights movement. But not having a problem with pick-up artist bunk that labels women as "targets" and values them only for sex at the core of their philosophy is a huge signal to me.


Yep! Just read this threads for a few minutes and you see exactly what kind of jerks/creeps fall into PUA. I don't get how someone _wouldn't_ have a problem with this.

Welcome To PUA FORUMS | The Official Site

Forums - The Venusian Arts Forum

And this guy is just...a charmer. I mean, who _wouldn't_ want to lay a guy who lived with his parents?
Punching Myself - The Venusian Arts Forum

And this is only a few of many.


----------



## Sandfly

ScarletBegonias said:


> Letting a woman move in with you and your children while you're still married and just barely separated is not the actions of a clever man. If he had gotten her pregnant and they'd split up a month later, you'd be agreeing with me.


A thousand times yes!

This too is not clever - for this reason I call him a 'cad'. He's just come out a long-term marriage, and he's not just dating - which is fine - but he's moved her in and made her 'mum' in two months!

No wonder the little psycho was confused!


----------



## Happyfamily

Cubby said:


> If I'm not mistaken, he was anti-PUA, wasn't he? His methods and beliefs were certainly the opposite of what the PUA guys teach. And I thought he was a big forum poster on that PUAhate website.


He hated them for being con-artists that took money from losers like him.

I've debated pick-up artist losers before and the primary feature in dealing with them is deception. It's like trying to grab a bar of soap, where you start with women being labeled as targets and clearly nothing but objects, but then they morph into "Oh, no we're all about proper diet, exercise, and self-improvement..." kind of like toastmasters, lol. Despite all of the vile stuff that is actually in their books and websites.

I was a former pin-up calendar girl and I am here to tell you that I find pick-up artist groupies revolting. One of the most repugnant things is stupidity. For example, not knowing a thing about evolution. **** Sapiens (wise man in latin) won the evolutionary battle for supremacy against other primates by virtue of his intellect and social organizational skills, not because he hit the weights. But that's what you see with these ignoramuses - appealing to a barbaric past that lives in their minds, not reality. They're the Neanderthals that were outsmarted by the real men.


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> He hated them for being con-artists that took money from losers like him.
> 
> I've debated pick-up artist losers before and the primary feature in dealing with them is deception. It's like trying to grab a bar of soap, where you start with women being labeled as targets and clearly nothing but objects, but then they morph into "Oh, no we're all about proper diet, exercise, and self-improvement..." kind of like toastmasters, lol. Despite all of the vile stuff that is actually in their books and websites.


Deception is definitely accurate. It's all fake. They pretend to be confident, successful, ****y, funny...and they try hard enough that they may fool some women. But they're still the insecure guys they were before PUA. Reject them, or question their success, and the insecurity is evident. I've seen PUAs here say one thing on this forum, and then on a different website actually own to the fact that they fake their confidence. One guy even said, "If women paid more attention to the nice guys, [email protected] like me wouldn't exist."

And they wonder why they don't get laid?


----------



## Machiavelli

Created2Write said:


> Had to quote this again.
> 
> Yeah, the guy was definitely suffering from mental illness, but there are plenty of people who suffer from mental illness and don't go on killing rampages. PUA culture is all about misogyny. All you have to do is go to those sites and forums, and you see it _everywhere_. Adding a hatred of women to an already unstable mind equals disaster.


So if it's all about PUA why was he anti-PUA and a fixture on PUAHate? This guy hated pickup artists. Too bad he doesn't fit your template.


----------



## Machiavelli

wilderness said:


> Why are the PUA and the MRAs being grouped together in this thread? I don't really have a problem with either group, but they are not related at all.


Because rainbows and unicorns.


----------



## Created2Write

Mach, the PUA culture is riddled with woman-haters. Misogyny is apart of the basics of PUA, seeing women as nothing more than a tool for a man's sexual release. He may have hated being duped by the PUAs, but the effects of its creepy, misogynistic crap was there nonetheless. Did he go and kill the PUAs who duped him? No.


----------



## Cubby

Created2Write said:


> I don't think so, especially with what I've seen of PUA websites. The views this guy had, his entitlement to sex, coincides exactly what I've seen PUAs say on here and on other forums.
> 
> He felt the PUA sites mislead him since he hadn't gotten lucky using their "tactics", but the hatred of women is still there in the underlying theme of PUA.


Have you seen the videos where he drives around listening to love songs, like he's longing to find true love? The guy wanted a girlfriend in the worst way. He hated guys that were into simply "picking up chicks" using PUA tactics. And he came to hate the girls that fell for those Pick-up artist types, when they instead should be with him...."a perfect gentleman." That's what drove him nuts. That they couldn't see that he was a good guy who deserved love.


----------



## Sandfly

Happyfamily said:


> For example, not knowing a thing about evolution. **** Sapiens (wise man in latin) won the evolutionary battle for supremacy against other primates by virtue of his intellect and social organizational skills, not because he hit the weights.


Interesting take! 

I believe that **** Sapiens won out precisely because the _entire _species is mentally ill. 

Humans are more vicious and vindictive and prone to killing than any other animal. 

Most humans feel "entitled", not just this little freak.

I wouldn't call the dominance of mankind a triumph of 'intellect' or 'skills'.

Most people would go out on a shooting spree _eventually _if they knew for sure there'd be no consequences. Humans need ideology and/or religion and/or law simply to prevent a continual genocide.

Look at those parts of the world where people don't share an ideology, a law or a religion. Just look at Africa. How quickly did Ukraine turn on itself? Yugoslavia? The United States even (civil war)? And for what... superficially different "identity".

No. This fellow, whatever his name was - elliott? Is actually normal. 

... In the sense that he was willing to kill those who were different or "inferior" (in this case 'morally') to himself. 

If he'd have directed his psychopathy toward Arabs or Russians, - he'd be wearing medals by now.

Now... this doesn't at all mean _I _think he's great. I know how some minds come to conclusions based on scant information, and the scanter the info, the more clearly they think they understand what a body is saying... 

So to be clear, I'm saying the whole human race is defective. 

When it comes to our ability to be programmed (even self-programmed) It's a very short skip and a jump to then go on a killing spree.

You are all potential serial killers, it's in your DNA. 

Rather than pretend there are innocent humans in this world, we could look at why his _self-policing mechanism_ broke down. That would be productive. For example, was there a sub-section of PUA which discussed 'anonymous revenge'? If not, was there a film he was copying? 

etc.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cubby said:


> Have you seen the videos where he drives around listening to love songs, like he's longing to find true love? The guy wanted a girlfriend in the worst way.


You don't think that is a touch sick itself? No specific girl. No human PERSON that he liked. Whose personality spoke to him. A mere shape. A plug and play device with particular parts to fill in his ... whatever. I mean why not sell us at Best Buy.


----------



## Fozzy

EleGirl said:


> NNo one has said four guys were murdered, so what. Instead the point is that he intendid a blood bath in a sorority and was not able I to pull it off. It is valid to consider what his intent was when trying to figure out his motive.
> 
> All of I the deaths are horribly tragic, especially I since this was preventable.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think you're right to consider his intended plan. Part of which was to shoot his younger brother afterwards to prevent him from "eclipsing" him in life.

This WAS misogyny, wrapped in misandry, wrapped in narcissism, with a HUGE helping of crazy at its core. The guy was a ball of hate, and the facts make it clear that he didn't much care who was on the receiving end of it.


----------



## Sandfly

NobodySpecial said:


> You don't think that is a touch sick itself? No specific girl. No human PERSON that he liked. Whose personality spoke to him. A mere shape. A plug and play device with particular parts to fill in his ... whatever. I mean why not sell us at Best Buy.


Good point!

This is another human tendency. Worshipping/hating abstractions (Country, Flag, Womankind, Dogma, science), with real consequences for the non-abstractions whom they project them onto (people).

In fact, talking about PUA/MRA as if you could go from the abstraction one abhors to the individual who flirts with their ideas, is itself an example of this tendency to build inquisitions and search for heretics.

Easier to say "You are unacceptable because of your ideas" than to understand and overcome the other person's wrong ideas.

This technique happens a lot here in the ladies lounge!


----------



## Happyfamily

Machiavelli said:


> So if it's all about PUA why was he anti-PUA and a fixture on PUAHate? This guy hated pickup artists. Too bad he doesn't fit your template.


Already been answered. In every article discussing PUAHate it is pointed out that all the members bought pick up artist bunk and realized they'd been conned. They're angry about one very correct thing: how wrong the pick-up artist crap is. How neg theory (insulting women) just makes self-respecting women angry in the same way insulting normal men makes them angry. 

We are on here TELLING you how vile the misogyny is, having women labeled as targets (as all the victims certainly were in this case) and instead of agreeing that labeling women as targets and seeing them strictly as sexual conquests is wrong - what we get is "He wasn't doing it right".

At their core, pick-up artist groupies are cowards. They didn't make the team, so they have these underhanded tactics that are supposed to work. But when they are called out on them they scurry into their corner denying that's what they're doing. 

Neg theory? Oh, not me - no, I only read the articles for the Chinese cooking tips and Renaissance art sections. lol.


----------



## Created2Write

Cubby said:


> Have you seen the videos where he drives around listening to love songs, like he's longing to find true love? The guy wanted a girlfriend in the worst way. He hated guys that were into simply "picking up chicks" using PUA tactics. And he came to hate the girls that fell for those Pick-up artist types, when they instead should be with him...."a perfect gentleman." That's what drove him nuts. That they couldn't see that he was a good guy who deserved love.


This guy is not a martyr, Cubby. Guys don't try PUA tactics to get true love, they try PUA because they want sex and don't know how else to get it. He came to hate PUA only after the tactics they preached didn't work for him(which isn't surprising because PUA is all crap.) He _wasn't_ a gentleman, or a misunderstood nice guy. He was a creep with a chip on his shoulder who identified with PUAs because he was a creep with a chip on his shoulder. He wasn't "a good guy" at all.


----------



## Happyfamily

Sandfly said:


> Interesting take!
> 
> I believe that **** Sapiens won out precisely because the _entire _species is mentally ill.
> .


Well we just disagree on this. He was clearly an antisocial character disordered outlier. He will not survive and produce offspring replicating his DNA like the rest of us who are social.


----------



## As'laDain

Created2Write said:


> This guy is not a martyr, Cubby. Guys don't try PUA tactics to get true love, they try PUA because they want sex and don't know how else to get it. He came to hate PUA only after the tactics they preached didn't work for him(which isn't surprising because PUA is all crap.) He _wasn't_ a gentleman, or a misunderstood nice guy. He was a creep with a chip on his shoulder who identified with PUAs because he was a creep with a chip on his shoulder. He wasn't "a good guy" at all.


he didnt identify with PUA. he thought that girls should be falling at his feet because of who he was. he thought he was so awesome that the entire world must be wrong when he didnt get what he wanted. 

PUA is all about finding ways to exploit women. get them into bed. he saw that as atrocious. he thought that he should be good enough. problem is, when things didnt go the way he thought they should, he blamed EVERYONE else. he never blamed himself. how the hell did he get to the point where he thought he could not be the one who is wrong? 

in the end though, it didnt matter what they did. PUA or MRA, none of it would make a difference on someone so self righteous as him. he was the epitome of selfishness.


----------



## Cosmos

As'laDain said:


> he didnt identify with PUA. he thought that girls should be falling at his feet because of who he was. he thought he was so awesome that the entire world must be wrong when he didnt get what he wanted.
> 
> PUA is all about finding ways to exploit women. get them into bed. he saw that as atrocious. he thought that he should be good enough. problem is, when things didnt go the way he thought they should, he blamed EVERYONE else. he never blamed himself. how the hell did he get to the point where he thought he could not be the one who is wrong?
> 
> in the end though, it didnt matter what they did. PUA or MRA, none of it would make a difference on someone so self righteous as him. he was the epitome of selfishness.


IMO, his membership of PUA sites, where he was able to meet with other angry, frustrated, maladjusted virgins, exacerbated his issues by encouraging his self-entitlement and hatred of women.


----------



## soccermom2three

As'laDain said:


> he didnt identify with PUA. he thought that girls should be falling at his feet because of who he was. he thought he was so awesome that the entire world must be wrong when he didnt get what he wanted.
> 
> PUA is all about finding ways to exploit women. get them into bed. he saw that as atrocious. he thought that he should be good enough. problem is, when things didnt go the way he thought they should, he blamed EVERYONE else. he never blamed himself. how the hell did he get to the point where he thought he could not be the one who is wrong?
> 
> in the end though, it didnt matter what they did. PUA or MRA, none of it would make a difference on someone so self righteous as him. he was the epitome of selfishness.


:agree:


----------



## Cubby

NobodySpecial said:


> You don't think that is a touch sick itself? No specific girl. No human PERSON that he liked. Whose personality spoke to him. A mere shape. A plug and play device with particular parts to fill in his ... whatever. I mean why not sell us at Best Buy.


Of course the guy was sick. He was obsessive about finding a girl 24-7. A deluded and creepy mind for sure. If he ever got a girlfriend and the inevitable breakup occurred I have no doubt he'd become some type of stalker/bunny boiler. That's a sharp contrast to the PUA types, who have a girls are like buses mentality. But I do agree that with both the killer and the PUA crowd, there's a women as objects mindset. Although with the killer I don't think he consciously thought of women as objects, in the same way that the PUA guys do. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

The projection of the PUA / MRA dynamic into this young man's tragic story by the " Manboobz " blogger , David Futrelle ,is the worst application of a logical fallacy known as " the camel nose logic" I've ever seen.

It is the same as saying that married women go on GNO exclusively to cheat. The reality is that a woman predisposed to cheating doesn't need a GNO to cheat. Even if her husbands objects to the GNO, she would find another way to cheat. 
The GNO didn't make her a cheater.

And that's Fuitrelle's logic. The MRA's and the PUA's made this young man a killer , even though there is tons of evidence that he was showing potent signs and had been to counselling since he was 8 yrs old.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cubby said:


> Of course the guy was sick. He was obsessive about finding a girl 24-7. A deluded and creepy mind for sure. If he ever got a girlfriend and the inevitable breakup occurred I have no doubt he'd become some type of stalker/bunny boiler. That's a sharp contrast to the PUA types, who have a girls are like buses mentality. But I do agree that with both the killer and the PUA crowd, there's a women as objects mindset. Although with the killer I don't think he consciously thought of women as objects, in the same way that the PUA guys do.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't give a hoot about PUA. There are plenty of things online and in RL to aid a nut case in feeling nuttier. But if he wanted *a girlfriend* - not Jessica and her love of music, not Wanda and her vast intelligence - but *a girlfriend* then what else did he think of women but of object?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Also of interest, which nobody mentioned on this thread , is that the victims parents are blaming, not the MRA's or the PUA's, but the NRA's. [ National Rifle Association.]


----------



## Faithful Wife

Every major news source in the country has picked up the story, has talked about the MRA/PUA and misogyny angle. Dave Futrelle is a watchdog of the MRA/PUA groups and always has been. But he didn't decide all on his own to report about this story with just his viewpoint. All other news agencies did the same. Or....you might know this if you'd bothered to read anything else about it, instead of just trying to mock me for posting a link to Dave's article.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Elliot Rodger’s UCSB massacre, sexual assaults and campus speech codes

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rs-california-shooting-mental-health-misogyny

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05...-men-women-doesnt-change-fact-misogynist.html

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/...gers-if-society-doesnt-provide-them-with-sex/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/24/us/california-shooting-suspect/



Yes, it is just totally silly for someone to think the way Dave Futrelle does. He must be some kind of outlier.


----------



## Sandfly

Happyfamily said:


> Well we just disagree on this. He was clearly an antisocial character disordered outlier. He will not survive and produce offspring replicating his DNA like the rest of us who are social.


It's good to disagree!

There's a program on Telly just now - I sometimes watch things that are realistic, and this is one - with a group of men on an island trying to survive unaided.

For once, it's almost reality, in the sense that they are getting no help whatsoever. They are living exactly as jungle people do live: one day starving, next day gorging themselves. Drinking filthy water etc.

Anyway... this group of europeanised men are eating snails, cassava boiled in filth-water, and trying to kill anything that moves for food. If it hadn't of been for a three day stretch where they ate nothing at all, and a couple of days of no water, they might not have 'discovered' their true natures.

Which is: kill, eat, starve.

The next steps should be:

- Introduce a shortfall of women to the camp. 1 for every 2 men.
- Take away the cameras and contact with the outside altogether.

And if we really want to see the human race in action - before leaving them, send half of them to one side of the island with a tin of red paint, and give a tin of blue paint to the remainder.

Come back after one generation... one tribe of these civilised Europeans will have massacred the other, taken the women, and made a sacred symbol and religion based around whichever colour tin of paint they were given ! 

Nor will anyone have bothered to keep up the traditions of writing, metalworking and maths either.

People are not inherently good, they are xenophobic serial killers.... IMO. Enlightened self-interest keeps us from acting on it.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> And that's Fuitrelle's logic. The MRA's and the PUA's made this young man a killer , even though there is tons of evidence that he was showing potent signs and had been to counselling since he was 8 yrs old.


Of course those sites didn't turn him into a killer but, IMO, they possibly helped exacerbate his already badly skewed mindset with their misogynistic group think.


----------



## Sandfly

Cosmos said:


> Of course those sites didn't turn him into a killer but, IMO, they possibly helped exacerbated his already skewed mindset.


It's good to see we all arrive at the same place eventually.

So the real Q is, not 'why is A a psycho when everyone else isn't', but: how did his normal self-policing failsafe - which worked for decades -... come to fail?

This is not explained. We need what is called a 'trigger'.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Of course those sites didn't turn him into a killer but, *IMO, they possibly helped exacerbated his already skewed mindset.*


Well THIS^^^ I can fully agree with.

To what extent, we would never know.
Even psychologist who study mass murderers like the perp in this story say that the nexus between the person's obsessions and the final act is always a complex, grey area.


----------



## Cubby

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't give a hoot about PUA. There are plenty of things online and in RL to aid a nut case in feeling nuttier. But if he wanted *a girlfriend* - not Jessica and her love of music, not Wanda and her vast intelligence - but *a girlfriend* then what else did he think of women but of object?


Yes, and that's why I said he had a women-as-objects mentality. But I don't think he was self-aware enough to realize this, since he was single-mindedly focused on what he wanted and thought he deserved. He didn't think in terms of meeting girls based on shared interests and hobbies. I don't think the guy had any other interests other than pining for love and sex.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cubby said:


> Yes, and that's why I said he had a women-as-objects mentality. But I don't think he was self-aware enough to realize this, since he was single-mindedly focused on what he wanted and thought he deserved. He didn't think in terms of meeting girls based on shared interests and hobbies. I don't think the guy had any other interests other than pining for love and sex.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think he probably might have had some delusions of grandeur.

We all do, but the emotionally healthy among us know how and when to separate fantasy from reality.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Who cares why violent crazy people are crazy?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Well THIS^^^ I can fully agree with.
> 
> To what extent, we would never know.
> Even psychologist who study mass murderers like the perp in this story say that the nexus between the person's obsessions and the final act is always a complex, grey area.


:iagree: There can be a very fine line between obsessions / fantasies and that which precipitates an unbalanced person to act on them.


----------



## COGypsy

Runs like Dog said:


> Who cares why violent crazy people are crazy?



Exactly! Because all this discussion and media coverage teaches halfway intelligent people who are violent and crazy that they will be legitimized and immortalized by whatever insanity they can cook up. 

Yeah. 

Let's do THAT some more.


----------



## Sandfly

COGypsy said:


> Exactly! Because all this discussion and media coverage teaches halfway intelligent people who are violent and crazy that they will be legitimized and immortalized by whatever insanity they can cook up.
> 
> Yeah.
> 
> Let's do THAT some more.


The adoration of andre breivik in England really got up my nose.

He killed a stack of white kids, to protest 'islam'. Instead of, for example, killing muslims. 

And there were dozens of whites in my town singing his praises. Why?

Because those white kids were 'communists' and 'traitors'. HE shoots his _fellow countrymen_, of his own DNA and skin colour, and the _victims _are somehow the non-patriots.

Suddenly, black is white and up is down. People are not rational decision makers, advertising proved that decades ago.


----------



## EleGirl

Sandfly said:


> It's good to disagree!
> 
> There's a program on Telly just now - I sometimes watch things that are realistic, and this is one - with a group of men on an island trying to survive unaided.
> 
> For once, it's almost reality, in the sense that they are getting no help whatsoever. They are living exactly as jungle people do live: one day starving, next day gorging themselves. Drinking filthy water etc.
> 
> Anyway... this group of europeanised men are eating snails, cassava boiled in filth-water, and trying to kill anything that moves for food. If it hadn't of been for a three day stretch where they ate nothing at all, and a couple of days of no water, they might not have 'discovered' their true natures.
> 
> Which is: kill, eat, starve.
> 
> The next steps should be:
> 
> - Introduce a shortfall of women to the camp. 1 for every 2 men.
> - Take away the cameras and contact with the outside altogether.
> 
> And if we really want to see the human race in action - before leaving them, send half of them to one side of the island with a tin of red paint, and give a tin of blue paint to the remainder.
> 
> Come back after one generation... one tribe of these civilised Europeans will have massacred the other, taken the women, and made a sacred symbol and religion based around whichever colour tin of paint they were given !
> 
> Nor will anyone have bothered to keep up the traditions of writing, metalworking and maths either.
> 
> People are not inherently good, they are xenophobic serial killers.... IMO. Enlightened self-interest keeps us from acting on it.


:iagree: The people today are the descendants of the ancestors who had no problem killing everyone else and stealing their women, food, land and things.


----------



## Sandfly

EleGirl said:


> :iagree: The people today are the descendants of the ancestors who had no problem killing everyone else and stealing their women, food, land and things.


Ele, you're a straight talker. 

Utopias come and go, but basic human nastiness is forever. Unless! We are in touch with our true nature, observe it, gain influence over it... _then _like magic, we become capable of choosing not to follow it. 

True freedom is the recognition that we are always influenced by our wants, needs and hormones and circumstances, never completely free from them... but by admitting to, and becoming _conscious _of, the true extent of their influence, we can _then _work to reduce their real-world influence, divert their power over us, and make real rational long-term choices, from among _realistic _options.

"Freedom is the _recognition_(conscious-ness) of necessity (the drives and circumstances that impel us forward)."


----------



## notmyrealname4

Happyfamily said:


> It is instructive that the sheriff's office was called in April because of the frightening YouTube videos he had made. It was his therapist who called a mental health hotline who in turn called the Sheriff's office.
> 
> They sent six officers to his house, and he told them everything was okay. They did not look at the videos, because after all - all six heard him say everything was OK.
> 
> Kind of reminds me how the cops were called to a gang fight, pulled over a car that was identified as pivotal in the incident, but let the extremely drunk driver go, who promptly t-boned my husband's car and put him in the hospital, injuring his spine permanently.



I found this very strange too, HappyFamily, I'm guessing that the polices' antennas were going off like crazy; but they couldn't actually do anything since Elliot Rodgers had not committed any crime at that point - and I don't think they can just barge into his apartment and conduct a search. Violation of civil rights and so forth.

I'm so sorry about your husband's injury. The police letting an extremely drunk driver go, is not understandable at all. Someone drunk operating a motor vehicle *is* an actual crime. I hope you were able to take the appropriate legal action.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Sandfly said:


> It's good to disagree!
> 
> There's a program on Telly just now - I sometimes watch things that are realistic, and this is one - with a group of men on an island trying to survive unaided.
> 
> For once, it's almost reality, in the sense that they are getting no help whatsoever. They are living exactly as jungle people do live: one day starving, next day gorging themselves. Drinking filthy water etc.
> 
> Anyway... this group of europeanised men are eating snails, cassava boiled in filth-water, and trying to kill anything that moves for food. If it hadn't of been for a three day stretch where they ate nothing at all, and a couple of days of no water, they might not have 'discovered' their true natures.
> 
> Which is: kill, eat, starve.


The island with Bear Grylls?


----------



## norajane

Sandfly said:


> Ele, you're a straight talker.
> 
> Utopias come and go, but basic human nastiness is forever. Unless! We are in touch with our true nature, observe it, gain influence over it... _then _like magic, we become capable of choosing not to follow it.
> 
> True freedom is the recognition that we are always influenced by our wants, needs and hormones and circumstances, never completely free from them... but by admitting to, and becoming _conscious _of, the true extent of their influence, we can _then _work to reduce their real-world influence, divert their power over us, and make real rational long-term choices, from among _realistic _options.
> 
> "Freedom is the _recognition_(conscious-ness) of necessity (the drives and circumstances that impel us forward)."


Scientists are studying the effects of gut bacteria on brain development, and the resulting effects on behavior and personality. Our wants and needs and hormones could actually be influenced by the bacteria that colonizes us soon after we're born. They're asking who's in control of our brains, us or us after bacteria has gotten ahold of it. 

The Neuroscience of the Gut - Scientific American

So when you look at human behavior from that perspective, there's even more reason to step back and think.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Why couldn't he have gone to a high-class escort and learned about sex.

I suppose he thought it was beneath him to have to pay for sex.

I don't believe in prostitution really; but somehow, some form of it might help some people. Some awkward shy girls could probably benefit from being with a skilled, humane sex professional.

I can hardly believe I'm saying this; but it might be an answer sometimes.


----------



## Miss Taken

Yes, he was a member of PUAHate but man do I wish I had Stephen Fry's voice right now to help me say, "Well so fvcking what?"

The way it's been pointed out on here to clarify that it wasn't a PUA but anti-PUA site he was on almost sounds like people trying to argue that as evidence against his misogyny.

Some Cached Eliiot Rodger posts from PUAHate:



> "It must be accepted, but not embraced. Human society should never be allowed to generate to such brutality. *The problem is women, they are primitive in nature and incapable of thinking rationally. If they are allowed to choose who to breed with, humanity will never advance.* Look at civilizations over 100 years ago. In a way they were much more civilized, simply *because women were restricted and controlled. It was a much better world to live in.*"


Do you feel the love in that? Glad to know I'm primitive and incapable of rational thought. Glad to know humanity will never advance if I decide whose penis goes inside my vagina. Sorry for not being as restricted or controlled since it was a much better world to live in.



> "Eventually these frustrated men won't be able to take it anymore and will explode in rage and fury, and *the female population will suffer the consequences, as they rightfully deserve. Once women are brought to their knees, things can be reformed. The sooner this happens, the better.*"


Unlike the irrationally and unthinking, primitive women - the men will explode into rage and fury... because you know... reform.

This one is NOT by ElliotRodger - this guy is romeo101jk on PUAHate and is still alive out there right now and preaching this violence because he believes it.



> "IMO there are things we need to revert back to, and be primitive about for men at least. As we have advanced, we have grown soft, we have been feminized. *If we revert back and dominate over women sh!t will get better.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of them like cavemen would.* I've been saying it from the beginning guys, *women are fvcking evil. We must show them our superiority and create order.* Men have lost their instincts and primal power through feminization. Men are b!tches in today's society.
> 
> If we cut back on advancing technology and sh!t and focus on our own core and instinctive needs as a man, we would have sh!t in check. Nature will always find a way. Through the concrete a rose will bloom. Why should we fight against what we were meant to do, which is be the head of the damn household?"


Beautiful amiright? Didn't y'all love the part about the roses?


----------



## EleGirl

intheory said:


> Why couldn't he have gone to a high-class escort and learned about sex.
> 
> I suppose he thought he was beneath having to pay for sex.
> 
> I don't believe in prostitution really; but somehow, some form of it might help some people. Some awkward shy girls could probably benefit from being with a skilled, humane sex professional.
> 
> I can hardly believe I'm saying this; but it might be an answer sometimes.


Yes, he said something about he was not going to pay for something others got for free.

His problem was not only about actual sex, he could not apparently form any kind of meaningful human connections.


----------



## As'laDain

the guy had his head shoved so far up his own ass that he couldnt see that no girl wanted him because HE was UNDESIRABLE. 

if he could have pulled his head out of his fourth point he might have gotten a girlfriend.


----------



## Happyfamily

Miss Taken said:


> Yes, he was a member of PUAHate but man do I wish I had Stephen Fry's voice right now to help me say, "Well so fvcking what?"
> 
> The way it's been pointed out on here to clarify that it wasn't a PUA but anti-PUA site he was on almost sounds like people trying to argue that as evidence against his misogyny.
> PUAHate and is still alive out there right now and preaching this violence because he believes it.


You get used to this if you have any experience with pick-up artist loser-club misogynists. 

The great thing about having brains is that we can go to their sites, as you have, and read exactly what they are saying amongst themselves instead of listening to the manipulative crap they spew when their tactics are under fire from outsiders.

I love being told by pick-up artist groupies that they are really giving woman what they want. We WANT to be insulted, lied to, treated as objects instead of as humans, and oh yes the incessant appeals to "primal" behavior. 

The irony of the primal pretenders is that these are always the guys who couldn't make the team in actual competition with other men. But they're going to tell you that they're the modern day reincarnation of Genghis Khan. 

Like this guy. He says he is the ultimate alpha. How is that different from all the other pick-up artist losers?


----------



## Miss Taken

"I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of them like cave men would."

Or in other words:

I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your daughter like a cave man would.

I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your mother like a cave man would. 

I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your sister like a cave man would.

I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your cousin like a cave man would.

I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your grandmother like a cave man would.

I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your neice like a cave man would.

That toddler over there? When she's ready - someone needs to whip the sh!t out of her like a cave man would.

Because, you know... Women are evil, primal, incapable of rational thought and us men need reform and are entitled to sex.

Sorry, just had to write it out, it's just disgusting.


----------



## techmom

Problem I have with the PUA community is this, nobody ever left high school where you had the jocks, nerds, and the nobody's. The jocks got the lead cheerleader, everybody wanted her. Not the girl that actually hung out with the nerds and had more common interests with them. This dynamic bled out into the internet, and snagged vulnerable men like Elliot Rodger.

Elliot Rodger saw that his father found new poon more exciting than spending time with his son. Elliot was raised by nannies so he won't disturb dad's time with his current woman. What that bred was resentment in his son towards the women, they were that special that dad found them more interesting.

The interesting part was that his mom was Asian. His father left his mom and found other women, and left him behind in the process. This breeds the abandonment syndrome in children, they develop a gaping abyss where the parents love should have been. The quality time would have done good in avoiding that abyss. Then, he wanted to full that abyss with the thing that he found was so powerful that it took his dad's attention away, sex and women.

He became obsessed with obtaining a girlfriend to fill the void. Not surprisingly women sense this and avoided him. Needy men turn off women. So he becomes more needy and desperate. That desperation turns into hatred for the object of his desires. 

How dare they reject him?

How dare they not willingly offer themselves to them?

Sometime during his life, he was taught that all he had to do was to have a nice car and be "nice". That was the magical formula for being loved and fulfilled. Didn't work. So he turned to the internet. MRA and PUA sites. Their ideology poisons his mind to fully have women and believe that they are evil incarnate on the earth.

Still, he has this void. He resents other men for easily getting his share of the sex and love for women. He hates them too. Passionately. As much or even more than he hates the women. They committed a crime against him, took what was rightfully his.

No wonder he killed more men than the women. They are the thieves, and they stole his love and validation.


----------



## Happyfamily

Miss Taken said:


> "I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of them like cave men would."
> 
> Or in other words:
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your daughter like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your mother like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your sister like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your cousin like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your grandmother like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your neice like a cave man would.
> 
> That toddler over there? When she's ready - someone needs to whip the sh!t out of her like a cave man would.
> 
> Because, you know... Women are evil, primal, incapable of rational thought and us men need reform and are entitled to sex.


That was brilliant. 

And it's the waterboy saying it. 

*techmom* has a point that seems appropriate to me. These guys have arrested emotional development. I'd put them even further back than high school. The discussions remind me of an 8th grader... "did you get to second base with her"? 

So on top of the false bravado about how "alpha" they are you have all the intellectual charm of an 8th grader in a 40 year old.


----------



## As'laDain

Miss Taken said:


> "I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of them like cave men would."
> 
> Or in other words:
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your daughter like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your mother like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your sister like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your cousin like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your grandmother like a cave man would.
> 
> I'm talking about whipping the sh!t out of your neice like a cave man would.
> 
> That toddler over there? When she's ready - someone needs to whip the sh!t out of her like a cave man would.
> 
> Because, you know... Women are evil, primal, incapable of rational thought and us men need reform and are entitled to sex.
> 
> Sorry, just had to write it out, it's just disgusting.


at first, i took offense at the fact that all your examples were female. then i realized that my own internal reaction proved your point.

your right. its disgusting.


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> No wonder he killed more men than the women. They are the thieves, and they stole his love and validation.


People seem to miss the point that the only reason that he killed more males than females was because his attempt to carry out a blood bath at a sorority house as thwarted when the sorority house door was locked and none of the girls would open the door when he was pounding on it.


----------



## As'laDain

EleGirl said:


> People seem to miss the point that the only reason that he killed more males than females was because his attempt to carry out a blood bath at a sorority house as thwarted when the sorority house door was locked and none of the girls would open the door when he was pounding on it.


he just wanted to kill. i struggle to understand how someone can come up with that decision. to WANT to end the life of another human being.

he didnt just want to kill women. he wanted to kill everyone.


----------



## Fozzy

intheory said:


> Why couldn't he have gone to a high-class escort and learned about sex.
> 
> I suppose he thought it was beneath him to have to pay for sex.
> 
> I don't believe in prostitution really; but somehow, some form of it might help some people. Some awkward shy girls could probably benefit from being with a skilled, humane sex professional.
> 
> I can hardly believe I'm saying this; but it might be an answer sometimes.


Sending a crazy violent psycho to a prostitute to see if it will calm him down and loosen him up? I think I saw that once on Law & Order SVU.


----------



## EleGirl

'I'm going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoilt, stuck-up, blonde s**t that I see inside there. All those girls that I've desired so much, they would've all rejected me and looked down on me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them,' he says.

'I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male,' he laughs like a maniacal movie villain. 'Yes... After I have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house I will take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there. All those popular kids who live such lives of hedonistic pleasure...'


Read more: UCSB sorority sisters among victims of Elliot Rodger's California shooting rampage | Mail Online 




Location No. 1:

Rodger is believed to have killed three victims in his residence in the 6500 block of Seville Road before the shooting rampage Friday night. "The three male victims appear to have been repeatedly stabbed," according to Brown.

Location No. 2:

Rodger went to the Alpha Phi sorority at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 800 block of Embarcadero del Norte. Sorority members inside heard "loud and aggressive" knocking for up to two minutes, but no one opened the door.

Witnesses reported seeing Rodger shoot three young women who were standing outside the sorority house from across the street, the sheriff said. Two of the victims died. The other is hospitalized.

Location No. 3:

Rodger then went to a nearby delicatessen on Pardall Road. He got out of his car, went inside the deli and killed another UCSB student, Christopher Martinez, according to officials.

Location No. 4:

After this shooting, Rodger returned to his car and drove off to another place "where he fired multiple rounds at two people on the sidewalk." He allegedly drove his vehicle down the wrong side of the road at this point so he could fire out the driver's side window parallel to the sidewalk.

Location No. 5: 

Rodger continued onto Del Playa Drive, where he pulled a handgun on a female and fired additional shots, Brown said. Then he turned around, traveling westbound on Del Playa. He also exchanged shots with a lone sheriff's deputy before driving off.

Location No. 6:

He traveled to the 6600 block of Del Playa where he injured a bicyclist with his car.

Location No. 7:

Rodger continued on to Camino del Sur to an intersection where he fired multiple shots at pedestrians in the area, hitting three of them.

Location No. 8:

The gunman shot another pedestrian as he continued driving.

Location No. 9:

The shooter encountered four sheriff's deputies running across Little Acorn Park in response to the gunfire. Rodger fired at them as he drove by, officials said.

Three of the four deputies returned fire, striking Rodger's car as it went by. Brown believes Rodger was wounded by one of these shots in the left hip, but it didn't stop him. He sped off.

Location No. 10:

The suspect backtracked, heading onto Del Playa again, where witnesses say he hit another bicyclist with his car.

The cyclist landed on the windshield of the suspect's car so hard that the force of the impact caved in its windshield. Rodger then smashed into several parked cars, which finally ended the rampage.

Deputies rushed to the crash scene where they dragged Roger from the car and handcuffed him, but Brown says he was already dead with an "apparent gunshot wound to the head."


----------



## EleGirl

As'laDain said:


> he just wanted to kill. i struggle to understand how someone can come up with that decision. to WANT to end the life of another human being.
> 
> he didnt just want to kill women. he wanted to kill everyone.


Apparently, when he was not able to get into the sorority house and carry out the blood bath he'd planned.. .he started to just shoot and any and everyone he could.

After all he had already killed his roommates so there was no waiting for another day. I'm sure that he knew he had limited time before he had to put a bullet in his own head.

Only a mad man can understand how the mind of a mad man works.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why Elliot Rodger is being linked to the men's rights movement

Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger


----------



## As'laDain

EleGirl said:


> 'I'm going to enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB and I will slaughter every single spoilt, stuck-up, blonde s**t that I see inside there. All those girls that I've desired so much, they would've all rejected me and looked down on me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them,' he says.
> 
> 'I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male,' he laughs like a maniacal movie villain. 'Yes... After I have annihilated every single girl in the sorority house I will take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay every single person I see there. All those popular kids who live such lives of hedonistic pleasure...'
> 
> 
> Read more: UCSB sorority sisters among victims of Elliot Rodger's California shooting rampage | Mail Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Location No. 1:
> 
> Rodger is believed to have killed three victims in his residence in the 6500 block of Seville Road before the shooting rampage Friday night. "The three male victims appear to have been repeatedly stabbed," according to Brown.
> 
> Location No. 2:
> 
> Rodger went to the Alpha Phi sorority at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 800 block of Embarcadero del Norte. Sorority members inside heard "loud and aggressive" knocking for up to two minutes, but no one opened the door.
> 
> Witnesses reported seeing Rodger shoot three young women who were standing outside the sorority house from across the street, the sheriff said. Two of the victims died. The other is hospitalized.
> 
> Location No. 3:
> 
> Rodger then went to a nearby delicatessen on Pardall Road. He got out of his car, went inside the deli and killed another UCSB student, Christopher Martinez, according to officials.
> 
> Location No. 4:
> 
> After this shooting, Rodger returned to his car and drove off to another place "where he fired multiple rounds at two people on the sidewalk." He allegedly drove his vehicle down the wrong side of the road at this point so he could fire out the driver's side window parallel to the sidewalk.
> 
> Location No. 5:
> 
> Rodger continued onto Del Playa Drive, where he pulled a handgun on a female and fired additional shots, Brown said. Then he turned around, traveling westbound on Del Playa. He also exchanged shots with a lone sheriff's deputy before driving off.
> 
> Location No. 6:
> 
> He traveled to the 6600 block of Del Playa where he injured a bicyclist with his car.
> 
> Location No. 7:
> 
> Rodger continued on to Camino del Sur to an intersection where he fired multiple shots at pedestrians in the area, hitting three of them.
> 
> Location No. 8:
> 
> The gunman shot another pedestrian as he continued driving.
> 
> Location No. 9:
> 
> The shooter encountered four sheriff's deputies running across Little Acorn Park in response to the gunfire. Rodger fired at them as he drove by, officials said.
> 
> Three of the four deputies returned fire, striking Rodger's car as it went by. Brown believes Rodger was wounded by one of these shots in the left hip, but it didn't stop him. He sped off.
> 
> Location No. 10:
> 
> The suspect backtracked, heading onto Del Playa again, where witnesses say he hit another bicyclist with his car.
> 
> The cyclist landed on the windshield of the suspect's car so hard that the force of the impact caved in its windshield. Rodger then smashed into several parked cars, which finally ended the rampage.
> 
> Deputies rushed to the crash scene where they dragged Roger from the car and handcuffed him, but Brown says he was already dead with an "apparent gunshot wound to the head."


the king decided the world had to pay for not kissing his royal ass. 

call him crazy or call him disgusting... it doesn't matter. he and his victims are dead. 

how the hell did he grow up thinking that he was perfect, that he deserved what he though was due him? 

i dont buy that it was MRA or PUA. he was just a narcissistic piece of scum.


----------



## Happyfamily

intheory said:


> I found this very strange too, HappyFamily, I'm guessing that the polices' antennas were going off like crazy; but they couldn't actually do anything since Elliot Rodgers had not committed any crime at that point - and I don't think they can just barge into his apartment and conduct a search. Violation of civil rights and so forth.


Well, they didn't look at the YouTube videos that gave the urgency for the mental health professionals who knew him to call the police. So this is one point I think that is quite valid in terms of what we should take from this situation. 



> I'm so sorry about your husband's injury. The police letting an extremely drunk driver go, is not understandable at all. Someone drunk operating a motor vehicle *is* an actual crime. I hope you were able to take the appropriate legal action.


He accepted $30K in an out of court settlement. It was before I met him, and had I been there I would have been mortified by the amount. 

He was a professional fighter that owned a club and that was the end of this aspect of his life. He felt that if he couldn't fight the kids he was training that he was done with it. He's a bit of a fattie now but is frightening to watch on the heavy bag. 

This is a real man, who uses none of the pick-up artist jargon and does everything wrong by their standards with women. Old School opening of doors, ladies first; super kind and considerate. Nice guy. 

When I hear this misogynistic primal pretender crap I want to have them spend fifteen seconds in a cage with this guy.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Why Elliot Rodger is being linked to the men's rights movement
> 
> Inside the ‘manosphere’ that inspired Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger


Pretty sick stuff. I had no idea this garbage was going on. Take kid like Elliot Rogers who cannot form personal relationships, having a much of immature idiots cheering him on and this is what you get.


----------



## TiggyBlue

Fozzy said:


> Sending a crazy violent psycho to a prostitute to see if it will calm him down and loosen him up? I think I saw that once on Law & Order SVU.


Tyrion also did that with Goffrey on game of thrones


----------



## EleGirl

As'laDain said:


> the king decided the world had to pay for not kissing his royal ass.
> 
> call him crazy or call him disgusting... it doesn't matter. he and his victims are dead.
> 
> how the hell did he grow up thinking that he was perfect, that he deserved what he though was due him?
> 
> i dont buy that it was MRA or PUA. he was just a narcissistic piece of scum.


I guess you have never had to deal with a type of mental illness that leads to this kind of thinking. 

My nephew who is schizophrenic goes into states of psychosis when his thinking patterns are a lot like this guys. Apparently he also has brain injury from too many concussions when he played football in high school.

He does not obsess about women. Instead he obsesses about being a god and how many people have sinned against him. He has a hit list that include me, my children, his parents and siblings and every one else who he believes has done him wrong. 

He believes that he is superior to all humans and that his purpose on this earth is to cleanse of people who have wronged him. After all as a god, he has that right and obligation.

He claims to have already killed at least one guy though he would never give us enough details to find out.

In one of his worst states of psychosis so far the police picked him up stalking his mother's house with a sword. He had told me before leaving where I live to where is mother lives that he was doing there to kill her.

One thing that really tweaked him in this state of psychosis were websites.. there were some very strange ones that he requested that are for people who, like him think they are a god. They discuss their mission on earth.. and it's often something like killing people. 

We were able to get him locked up for a while. but he's out again and scaring the crap out of people again. And there is nothing anyone can do because he has rights.

one of these days, I am sure that we will read about him doing exactly this same kind of thing. 

People just do not understand that while most mentally ill people are more danger to themselves than to others, there are some who are extremely dangerous.

Sites like those PUA and PUAHate sites provided him with a place to hone his hate and murderous plans. He was even cheered on by the other participants.


----------



## notmyrealname4

Quote:
*Originally Posted by intheory* View Post
Why couldn't he have gone to a high-class escort and learned about sex.

I suppose he thought it was beneath him to have to pay for sex.

I don't believe in prostitution really; but somehow, some form of it might help some people. Some awkward shy girls could probably benefit from being with a skilled, humane sex professional.

I can hardly believe I'm saying this; but it might be an answer sometimes.
------------------------------------------------------------------
*Posted by Fozzy*
Sending a crazy violent psycho to a prostitute to see if it will calm him down and loosen him up? I think I saw that once on Law & Order SVU.

---------------------------------------------------------------
That's not what I meant. I meant that sexual therapy (perhaps of a physical variety), should maybe be available. With safeguards in place.

I meant it as a constructive idea. The very opposite of violence and horror.


----------



## Omego

The fact that attention is being drawn to a whole pool of unhinged people who are potential risks to society because of this horrible tragedy is an important point. 

Profilers could hopefully identify potential killers by delving into the net and tracking members of the sites which are spewing the garbage quoted by Miss Taken. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to analyse whether or not this would cough up any results. People can write whatever they want behind the safety of a computer, but how man sociopaths are there who would actually take action? And are they even posting on these sites?

At any rate, I'd like to think that there is a chance of reducing the risk of this happening again by gathering as much information as possible.


----------



## LongWalk

My brother died of schizophrenia. My father was a psychiatrist and forced me to work in his clinic as a teen. I have seen mental illness intimately.

When my brother stopped his meds and went psychotic I went to the place he was locked up to help him get ready for release into the world. All those people struggling with psychosis. Many crash and burn. My eventually died in his 40s after running naked in the street and getting hit by car. The car did him little damage. But he sat in the hospital bed and refused to move or take his meds. He was Paul (yes, the Bible Paul).

Eventually when the expensive hospital kicked him out to the county place he went over. We had made through the county place before. It stunk and was depressing. But you cannot sit in bed there.

Day two my brother played ping pong. That night massive clots went from his legs to his lungs and the embolism killed him. If only he had been at the county place earlier and not sit the bed for two weeks. Actually at the hospital he had cuffs on his legs to prevent clots but they did not work.

re: sex and hatred of women
My brother was very handsome and played sports in high school. He was ill inside but not yet psychotic. One day he told me that when our family made trip to Jamaica for holiday he had met a girl and gone to the beach and "fvcked the hell" out of her. His tone of voice was full of violence.

It disturbed me because he did not speak about it as a pleasure or joy. It was as if she had violated him and having sex had harmed him. So the PUA and MRA thinking had nothing to do with the organic misogyny that came from illness. Why do mentally ill people has trouble with sex? We are programmed to desire. However, the mentally ill person is already struggling to control disturbing thoughts so sexuality is a volcano of disturbance.

A few years later before he had a diagnosis but was already psychotic, he told us that sperm were leaving his testicle and travelling around his body. WTF?

My brother was not a hateful person. He was very kind. When on his meds he used to love dancing. He was not gay but he avoided sex because it was too much for him. He worked in telephone sales. That was all the stress he could deal with. He was active in the stay-on-your-meds community group. To bad he didn't follow through. But mentally ill people hate the side effects. They feel good for a long time and wonder if they are cured. Once they skip the meds they feel great for a day or two before the demons return. 

When he died the church was packed because he was such a good guy. He would give someone the shirt off his back.

Could my brother have murdered? He could have. That is the reality of these illnesses.

Once my mother and I went through a list of all the kids who grew up and died from mental illness as young adults. There were 4 or 5 of them.

If you sit down with friends and family and try and remember all the people in your life touched drugs, alcohol and mental illness and low and behold, you discover that these afflictions touch everyone.

re: MRA and PUA
Are there groups that recommend killing women? I didn't realize that.


----------



## Omego

Long Walk,

Very sad.

A friend of mine's son also died from schizophrenia. He was in his 30s.


----------



## JCD

wilderness said:


> It is not 'fringe' to fight oppression. *Divorced men are the most oppressed group of people on this planet.[*/QUOTE]
> 
> No...I'm guessing political prisoners making Nike sneakers in China might be up there.
> 
> Or maybe young girls in Darfur who are faced with the prospect of leaving camp to get some firewood and be raped or NOT and not have anything to cook with might also take the prize.
> 
> How about women who, if they show an ankle in Islamistan or even TALK to a man who isn't a family member face censure at best, beatings on average and stoning at worse.
> 
> Hmm...How about Somali families who have no food, no money, have to pay off Gun Lords and the men need to get in dingy rafts to try to steal from these 'oppressed divorced men' who are cruising down the Red Sea as they try to find solace from their 'oppression' on a singles cruise?
> 
> Did you even think for a moment before you typed that? Cause I can think of about 30 examples of more oppressed people right of the top of my head while dead drunk and coming out of a sound sleep.
> 
> Does this mean you have ZERO point? No. But can the hyperbole. It only makes it easier to discredit you when you have a valid point.


----------



## JCD

Fozzy said:


> I think you're right to consider his intended plan. Part of which was to shoot his younger brother afterwards to prevent him from "eclipsing" him in life.
> 
> This WAS misogyny, wrapped in misandry, wrapped in narcissism, with a HUGE helping of crazy at its core. The guy was a ball of hate, and the facts make it clear that he didn't much care who was on the receiving end of it.


Man hated everyone. Girls are part of everyone.

Ergo, man hated girls.

Instant misogyny.

And Created, if he was anti PUA (I am really only skimming over this entire thing, so I may be wrong), then you can't lump him with PUAs.

What you are saying is 'I hate what HE did and I also hate PUAs...so I want to tangentially lump them together.'

Sorry, but that isn't logic. I am not denying that PUAs have a strain of misogyny in them. But trying to tar them with the same brush 'just because' doesn't work and very much downplays the points you are trying to make.

Separate the two issues. Because...as stated: there are MILLIONS of PUA types. Female deaths and drive-by's? Rare as hen's teeth. So the connection isn't being made.


----------



## LongWalk

The connection is being made by opinion piece writers all over the Western world.


----------



## techmom

The only reason why Elliot hit the anti-PUA sites is because the gaming taught on the PUA sites didn't work. It didn't bring him the poon he was promised. Anti-PUA sites exist only because these men couldn't execute the techniques. They are still not getting laid. So they are angry at the game because they can't play. They feel left out.

Let's not make the mistake that these Anti-PUA guys are disgusted with the pick up scene because they have a shred of love and respect for women. They are disgusted because they are mad at the guys who are able to get laid. So for the people who are trying to distance him from the MRA/PUA manosphere, they are wrong because his ideology fits like a glove.

Even suggesting that all this guy needed was a girl to finally give up the poon to him misses a very valid point. This mans disturbances were deeper than just getting poon. He wanted to have total domination of women because he felt that is what he deserved. Men like this have such a gaping hole of need that even if they get laid, they will need more and more validation from women. They will never be able to full that void. It is like giving a man who has starved for food a cracker. Not only will he still be hungry but he will be angry that that cracker didn't completely stop the hunger pangs.


----------



## Cosmos

As'laDain said:


> he just wanted to kill. i struggle to understand how someone can come up with that decision. to WANT to end the life of another human being.
> 
> he didnt just want to kill women. he wanted to kill everyone.


:iagree: But he only wanted to kill because of his hatred of women. 

Women rejected him.
Men stole women who were rightfully his from him.


----------



## JCD

techmom said:


> The only reason why Elliot hit the anti-PUA sites is because the gaming taught on the PUA sites didn't work. It didn't bring him the poon he was promised. Anti-PUA sites exist only because these men couldn't execute the techniques. They are still not getting laid. So they are angry at the game because they can't play. They feel left out.
> 
> Let's not make the mistake that these Anti-PUA guys are disgusted with the pick up scene because they have a shred of love and respect for women. They are disgusted because they are mad at the guys who are able to get laid. So for the people who are trying to distance him from the MRA/PUA manosphere, they are wrong because his ideology fits like a glove.
> 
> Even suggesting that all this guy needed was a girl to finally give up the poon to him misses a very valid point. This mans disturbances were deeper than just getting poon. He wanted to have total domination of women because he felt that is what he deserved. Men like this have such a gaping hole of need that even if they get laid, they will need more and more validation from women. They will never be able to full that void. It is like giving a man who has starved for food a cracker. Not only will he still be hungry but he will be angry that that cracker didn't completely stop the hunger pangs.


Sorry, but the idea that most of the opinion writers (and probably a few women here) are SEEM to be trying to draw is that men are one 'misogynistic rant' away from a drive by...and anyone who makes a misogynistic rant (God knows we never call Fems on misandric rants) is just perpetuating part of the problem.

Well fie on that! Because this guy is broken. I could easily say 'this guy is only a half a bubble off the overweening entitlement crowd who were part of Occupy Wall Street, demanding free education NOW and hating everyone who had two more nickels to rub together than they do'.

I could also point to female sense of entitlement, who demand Prince Charming: wealthy, handsome, unencumbered by emotional baggage and an above average penis. Is that EVERY woman? No...but the similarities are valid in philosophy.

Now, women don't tend to do drive bys. Instead, they get bitter and jaded and write incredibly lengthy op ed pieces decrying 'PUA and MRAs' who don't realize what a prize they are DAMMIT.

At least this guy has the benefit of not being passive aggressive...

I am not pointing at YOU per se. I have seen articles like this. Hate the player if you want. I can hate the tease just as much. But I have better things to do with my life


----------



## Chaparral

techmom said:


> I wanted to post this, much has been said about this tragedy that happened in UC Santa Barbara. Elliot Rodger was obviously a very lonely young man who was hurting for love and affection. Like many men, he yearned for love and affection (sex) from women. He was rejected often and became resentful.
> 
> Link to his writings:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-document.html?_r=0
> 
> He frequented MRA and PUA web sites, I feel that this had a lot to do with his hatred towards women. Had he had proper guidance and support, people would not have lost their lives.


This young man was a paranoid schizophrenic, he was diagnosed and given anti psychotic drugs that he refused to take. This is common. Often they think they are not sick and many become convinced the medicine is what is messing them up.

He was in counseling since the age of 8.

What killed these people is societies wish to pretend mentally I'll people should be free from being institutionalized.

If you read his manifesto, there are obvious examples showing he was halucinating.

The media uses this tragedy to bash men and guns as usual.

The New York Times has jumped the shark, unfortunately. Its just a liberal political rag.


----------



## techmom

JCD said:


> Sorry, but the idea that most of the opinion writers (and probably a few women here) are SEEM to be trying to draw is that men are one 'misogynistic rant' away from a drive by...and anyone who makes a misogynistic rant (God knows we never call Fems on misandric rants) is just perpetuating part of the problem.
> 
> Well fie on that! Because this guy is broken. I could easily say 'this guy is only a half a bubble off the overweening entitlement crowd who were part of Occupy Wall Street, demanding free education NOW and hating everyone who had two more nickels to rub together than they do'.
> 
> I could also point to female sense of entitlement, who demand Prince Charming: wealthy, handsome, unencumbered by emotional baggage and an above average penis. Is that EVERY woman? No...but the similarities are valid in philosophy.
> 
> Now, women don't tend to do drive bys. Instead, they get bitter and jaded and write incredibly lengthy op ed pieces decrying 'PUA and MRAs' who don't realize what a prize they are DAMMIT.
> 
> At least this guy has the benefit of not being passive aggressive...
> 
> I am not pointing at YOU per se. I have seen articles like this. Hate the player if you want. I can hate the tease just as much. But I have better things to do with my life


On this thread, we are discussing a young man who was driven to murder. Murder. Not just getting huffy about being wronged, not just feeling insulted. He felt he was justified to murder innocent people. You sound like the men who created the #notallmen on Twitter.

No one is saying that every man is one rant away from murdering. What we are saying is that there are enough of these particular men, who I mentioned in my post, who are so disillusioned by the dating scene that they feel angry enough to hate women for not having sex with them and angry at the men who are happily indulging in the wonderful world of sex. Elliot called it hedonism.

Why is it that when we have discussions like this a male has to say "not every man!". We are not discussing every man. We are discussing a particular type of man who is disturbed. Now, if that is not you, then you can happily move along and not worry about this discussion too much.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> Sites like those PUA and PUAHate sites provided him with a place to hone his hate and murderous plans. He was even cheered on by the other participants.


Yes I agree, but lets not pretend that these types of sites, promoting the hatred of one gender or another , are unique , isolated or only run by one gender.

Here's an excerpt from an article from the gender issues section on xojane.com , a liberal very popular fashion website geared to the modern woman.
Bear in mind this article was done by a young " progressive"
20 yr old girl.

Here's the title of her piece:

" WHERE'S VALERIE SOLANAS WHEN YOU NEED HER? WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO MAN-HATE IN 2013.."

http://www.xojane.com/issues/the-new-new-misandry-what-it-means-to-man-hate-in-2013

Here's her opening salvo.
_" Misandry exists only as an exaggerated Internet joke, and as a way in which women who have been directly or indirectly hurt by men to express their frustration and anger..."_

And she's pretty moderate .
Does her views sound any different to the type of views held by the MRA crowd?

Just to jog your memory , here's who her hero ,Valarie Solanas was.
_" Valerie Jean Solanas (April 9, 1936 – April 25, 1988) was an American radical feminist writer who is best known for her work, " *The SCUM Manifesto*", which urged women to "overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex_."

Read a little about of the SCUM Manifesto HERE , see if it sounds familiar.

Here's another excerpt;

_" Due to the aforementioned grievances, the manifesto concludes that the elimination of the male sex is a moral imperative.It also argues that women must replace the "money-work system" with a system of complete automation, as this will lead to the collapse of the government and the loss of men's power over women..."_

_" The manifesto ends by describing a female-dominated utopian future in which there is no money, and disease and death have been eliminated. It argues that men are irrational to defend the current system and should accept the necessity of their destruction..."_

If I wanted, I can provide numerous links to feminist blogs, female chatrooms, where there is the same type of hatred to anything masculine.

And I know a few females on this thread know exactly what I'm talking about.

IMO, it makes absolutely no sense one constantly complaining about the hatred of women on those PUA / MRA sites, when the internet is overflowing with a similar type of hatred geared towards men.
I think it's is a type of hypocrisy to hold any one side responsible for all the evils between the gender divide.

What takes place in the internet manosphere is no different to what takes place in the all women chatrooms and feminist blogs.

Both are like Ying and Yang.
Many different types of hate groups on the internet and they include both genders. The hatred even exist between the same genders because of a difference in ideologies.
But haters would always find a "legitimate "reason to hate.
Basically that's what the writer of the xojane article I quoted, Madeline Alpert , was doing.


The hate is everywhere.


----------



## Cosmos

JCD said:


> Sorry, but the idea that most of the opinion writers (and probably a few women here) are SEEM to be trying to draw is that men are one 'misogynistic rant' away from a drive by...and anyone who makes a misogynistic rant (God knows we never call Fems on misandric rants) is just perpetuating part of the problem.
> 
> What's being said is that Rodgers was pathologically misogynistic and that radical groups that perpetuate this sort of idealogy are potentially dangerous.
> 
> As a feminist, I also believe that radical feminism is potentially dangerous.
> 
> Well fie on that! Because this guy is broken. I could easily say 'this guy is only a half a bubble off the overweening entitlement crowd who were part of Occupy Wall Street, demanding free education NOW and hating everyone who had two more nickels to rub together than they do'.
> 
> I could also point to female sense of entitlement, who demand Prince Charming: wealthy, handsome, unencumbered by emotional baggage and an above average penis. Is that EVERY woman? No...but the similarities are valid in philosophy.
> 
> Entitlement mindedness isn't gender specific.
> 
> Now, women don't tend to do drive bys. Instead, they get bitter and jaded and write incredibly lengthy op ed pieces decrying 'PUA and MRAs' who don't realize what a prize they are DAMMIT.
> 
> Perhaps, but this is a far cry from going out and attacking people then ultimately deciding to massacre as many people as they can.
> 
> At least this guy has the benefit of not being passive aggressive...
> 
> 
> He was passive aggressive. A lot of his angst was aimed at women who failed to notice him and smile in his direction. He sulked and wrote friends off for no other reason than that they were successful with women. His physical aggression came later...
> 
> I am not pointing at YOU per se. I have seen articles like this. Hate the player if you want. I can hate the tease just as much. But I have better things to do with my life
> 
> There's a big difference between disliking / hating something and deciding to destroy everything that it stands for...


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man, that is all fine and dandy, but unless you find as many examples of women being driven to murder by reading these sites, then you are just providing a distraction.

Let me repeat again, for the posters who can't handle discussions about men who are murderous because of dangerous ideology without presenting a straw man, this is a discussion of a man who murdered innocent people. He didn't just rant and rage on the internet. Evidentially that was not enough for him. He was mentally disturbed enough to murder. 

The parents of the victims of this tradegy are not much concerned about a girl spewing feminist rants on the internet. She did not kill their children. I would gather that they would be concerned about what drove this young man to kill their children, what was behind the manifestos she wrote and the you tube videos he posted. 

Nobody is saying that toxic feminism does not exist. But you are presenting this argument in this thread feels so out of place.


----------



## techmom

Also, the lady who was unfortunate enough to be mentioned as the girl who rejected Elliot has received death threats. Death threats. For daring to reject this young man in middle school. Middle school.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> Caribbean Man, that is all fine and dandy, but unless you find as many examples of women being driven to murder by reading these sites, then you are just providing a distraction.
> 
> Let me repeat again, for the posters who can't handle discussions about men who are murderous because of dangerous ideology without presenting a straw man, this is a discussion of a man who murdered innocent people. He didn't just rant and rage on the internet. Evidentially that was not enough for him. He was mentally disturbed enough to murder.
> 
> The parents of the victims of this tradegy are not much concerned about a girl spewing feminist rants on the internet. She did not kill their children. I would gather that they would be concerned about what drove this young man to kill their children, what was behind the manifestos she wrote and the you tube videos he posted.
> 
> Nobody is saying that toxic feminism does not exist. But you are presenting this argument in this thread feels so out of place.


Ok,

Then lets hypothesize because that's what we've been doing all along this thread.

Lemme ask you a simple question.

If the genders were reversed and the killer was a disturbed young 20 yr old woman, who suffered the exact , same trauma in her life, was bullied at school, had behavioral issues just like this boy , and who because of her life experiences , identified with radical feminism.

Do you think the conversation here and in the media would have been different?


----------



## Cosmos

techmom said:


> Caribbean Man, that is all fine and dandy, but unless you find as many examples of women being driven to murder by reading these sites, then you are just providing a distraction.
> 
> Let me repeat again, for the posters who can't handle discussions about men who are murderous because of dangerous ideology without presenting a straw man, this is a discussion of a man who murdered innocent people. He didn't just rant and rage on the internet. Evidentially that was not enough for him. He was mentally disturbed enough to murder.
> 
> The parents of the victims of this tradegy are not much concerned about a girl spewing feminist rants on the internet. She did not kill their children. I would gather that they would be concerned about what drove this young man to kill their children, what was behind the manifestos she wrote and the you tube videos he posted.
> 
> Nobody is saying that toxic feminism does not exist. But you are presenting this argument in this thread feels so out of place.


:iagree:

And, IMO, this thread is about to turn into yet another man vs women thread, rather than a discussion on a misogynist who massacred a group of innocent people - so I'm out of here.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Lol. Only on TAM could a parallel be drawn between a pos that murdered people and feminists that rant in op ed pieces. Wow.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Caribbean Man

lifeistooshort said:


> Lol. Only on TAM could a parallel be drawn between a pos that murdered people and feminists that rant in op ed pieces. Wow.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Lol, NO.

The parallel is between people/ groups that hate.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> 
> Then lets hypothesize because that's what we've been doing all along this thread.
> 
> Lemme ask you a simple question.
> 
> If the genders were reversed and the killer was a disturbed young 20 yr old woman, who suffered the exact , same trauma in her life, was bullied at school, had behavioral issues just like this boy , and who because of her life experiences , identified with radical feminism.
> 
> Do you think the conversation here and in the media would have been different?


I haven't read anything to suggest that this guy was_ actually_ bullied at school, but a lot to suggest that his own egocentric sense of entitlement caused him to project his own delusions and paranoia onto others...

My reaction would be exactly the same if this killer had been a woman.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I haven't read anything to suggest that this guy was_ actually_ bullied at school, but a lot to suggest that his own egocentric sense of entitlement caused him delusions and paranoia about others.
> 
> My reaction would be exactly the same if this killer had been a woman.


And which would you say had more influence on her final actions or pushed her over the edge?
Would you say that her membership on the rad feminist sites pushed her over the edge?
Or would you say that her life trauma influenced her perceptions a great deal and also final actions.

In other words, whether or not she was a member on those blogs, she would have still acted the way she did in the final analysis because she didn't get the critical help she needed.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> And which would you say had more influence on her final actions or pushed her over the edge?
> Would you say that her membership on the rad feminist sites pushed her over the edge?
> Or would you say that her life trauma influenced her perceptions a great deal and also final actions.
> 
> In other words, whether or not she was a member on those blogs, she would have still acted the way she did in the final analysis because she didn't get the critical help she needed.


It's difficult to say what would have pushed her over the edge, but negativity does tend to breed negativity and her membership of a rad fem site probably fueled her already out of control fire of hatred by validating and exacerbating it.

I would need to know what those "life traumas" were that had damaged her to such an extent that she hated the opposite sex so vehemently... 

The (seemingly) amicable divorce of ones parents (particularly where there is still regular contact with both parents), mixed race heritage and lack of desired physical stature aren't usually factors that engender such strong emotions. I also doubt that these things were responsible for him never landing himself a date and being a virgin, whereas his sense of entitlement, self-absorption and grandiose opinion of himself would certainly have been contributing factors...

From what I gather, Rodgers was provided with an _abundance_ of parental / psychiatric / psychological help. For whatever reason, it wasn't enough to reach the dark recesses of his mind.


----------



## Sandfly

lifeistooshort said:


> Lol. Only on TAM could a parallel be drawn between a pos that murdered people and feminists that rant in op ed pieces. Wow.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Spose, but then there are a lot of female child-killers whose neglect starts off as "taking it out on the kid, to get at the kid's father".

They receive sympathy, welfare and indulgence; so it carries on and escalates. The kid's injuries are overlooked, her right to custody goes unchallenged. Till it dies. If it dies. It may just be constantly abused for 16 years instead.

Given that child killing seems to be a special fixation of the feminine gender, what should we do about it?

The state only pays welfare because it knows that without welfare, there'd be a lot more women engaged in child prostitution pimpery and puddle-drownings and church and rubbish-dumpster abandonments than currently. 

It's not because the state actually cares about women or children. It's purely for crime-prevention. Women can't be trusted to look after kids without a solid income. They're like ducks. 

So here's the point: woman haters kill women, man haters kill children. Radical feminism, the kind which argues that a child is the property of the mother, should also be canned because it leads to murder. Fair?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> *It's difficult to say what would have pushed her over the edge, but negativity does tend to breed negativity and her membership of a rad fem site probably fueled her already out of control fire of hatred by validating and exacerbating it.*
> 
> I would need to know what those "life traumas" were that had damaged her to such an extent that she hated the opposite sex so vehemently...


Right!

That's the reason I injected the rad fem dynamic in this conversation.

Implying that MRA / PUA forums caused the young man to murder is taking away from his responsibility of his actions and also discounting the experiences that led him to the MRA / PUA forums in the first place.

He ended up there because he's damaged and unstable.

Had he joined a rad fem website , the result would BEEN THE SAME.

Had he joined a church,cult or a fundamental Islamic organization, the result would have been THE SAME.

Like attracts like, or like you said, negativity breeds negativity. MRA / PUA forums are primarily designed for people with all sorts of gender and relationship issues and problems, that's why wing nuts end up there.


----------



## Cosmos

^^^ Again, poisonous idealogy and group think begets poisonous behaviour.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Not All Men -


----------



## DanaS

lifeistooshort said:


> Lol. Only on TAM could a parallel be drawn between a pos that murdered people and feminists that rant in op ed pieces. Wow.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree. Why is it on so many topics such as this on so many forums even if women don't say it's "all men" when they point out something generally men do men come out of the wood work using all kinds of illogical and straw man arguments to try to defend themselves as if we are attacking all men?

Another big one is when you talk about rape. Despite the fact men overwhelmingly rape women they always come out with "But..what about false rapes??". Sure it happens, but the chance of a woman being raped by a man is MUCH higher than a guy being falsely accused of it. Yet instead of talking about the problem they just want to constantly bring up a relatively minor point. 

I also find it interesting how you rarely see men starting threads about "men's problems" yet they are quite happy to bring it up time and time again when women bring up women's problems that relate to men. Of course not at all men are violent/rapists but overwhelmingly men do rape/act more violent than women, is it really that hard for men to own up to it? 

I am glad I can have a sensible discussion with my husband about topics like these without him trying to deflect it. It just really gets on my nerves women can hardly discuss problems that affect them from men without men coming out yelling "But...But what about the men??". They can make their own topic about it.

Even in this topic it's so disheartening how many men defend the PUA/MRA garbage and try to deflect blame on "Oh...it's just a mental illness" when clearly there was much more to it. Had this guy been raised in the KKK while, sure not EVERY KKK member will kill someone you can bet add his mental problems plus his being raised with racist beliefs he would've gone on to internalize hate for other races. It's a part of it.


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok,
> 
> Then lets hypothesize because that's what we've been doing all along this thread.
> 
> Lemme ask you a simple question.
> 
> If the genders were reversed and the killer was a disturbed young 20 yr old woman, who suffered the exact , same trauma in her life, was bullied at school, had behavioral issues just like this boy , and who because of her life experiences , identified with radical feminism.
> 
> Do you think the conversation here and in the media would have been different?


To answer your question, I don't know how the conversation would be if a woman would kill as a result of feminist web sites. Because there has been so few of them as compared to the men who kill, we have nothing to go on.


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> To answer your question, I don't know how the conversation would be if a woman would kill as a result of feminist web sites. Because there has been so few of them as compared to the men who kill, *we have nothing to go on*.


And how many murders or even mass murders can you directly connect to PUA / MRA forums ?

NONE.

That's what I'm trying to say,
We have nothing to go on except , speculation.


----------



## DanaS

techmom said:


> To answer your question, I don't know how the conversation would be if a woman would kill as a result of feminist web sites. Because there has been so few of them as compared to the men who kill, we have nothing to go on.


This is exactly my point, and what really upsets me about these topics. Instead of acknowledging what harmful effects things such as PUA/MRAs can do to men men would rather bring up a HIGHLY unlikely scenario. The chance of men killing women because they hate them is FAR higher than women killing men because they hate them. It's so low in fact it's hardly worth discussing but men always seem to rather point out the most insiginificant thing than face the facts that many aspects of their "man culture" are abhorrent and harmful to women. 

All men need to do is quit the game-playing, quit the "macho" crap and have a good hard look at themselves. I mean my husband is 28 and I am a 43 year old woman, you really think I would have agreed to go out with him let alone marry him if he acted at all like so many men do about this kind of stuff? 

My husband is very intellectual and introspective and among many other topics we have discussed, we have also had talks about why men do this or that and unlike other men he actually acknowledges the problems women face and is willing to go into great detail about why men feel/do what they do, and even offer some ways it could be better. He certainly didn't attract me by acting like some PUA jerk.


----------



## Deejo

I'm trying to understand the direction of the thread.

It started off largely acknowledging that this event was perpetrated by a very, mentally ill young man. Didn't much matter what 'group' he focused his attention on, he just needed a focus. Could have been the government, could have been bullies, jocks, immigration, corporate greed; he chose to make women the focus of his persecution. And at the time of perpetration, he shifted his hatred to just about anybody.

As for his use of, or participation in MRA or PUA sites, I'm not sure I follow your logic, unless your concern is that this event may be a catalyst for other 'disturbed' young men who are looking for someone to target their anger and hatred at?

Do you truly believe the 'message' from these sites is mainstream, or anything other than 'niche'?

Most men have no idea this kind of content even exists. 
Even those who invariably end up perpetrating heinous violence against women.

I'm trying to reconcile if your concern is the message, or who is listening to the message?


----------



## Omego

It's definitely not a mainstream message. Someone mentioned "copycats" on another thread and the fact that members of some of these sites were touting Elliot as a hero. Could be a catalyzer for others, who knows?

I agree that his rage could have been focused in any direction. He had an obsession, was mentally ill, and I guess on some level, wasn't given the correct medical treatment...


----------



## Fozzy

Seems to be two schools of thought here. There's one school that appears to be "lets remove any fringe elements from society, so as to not provoke the crazy among us from snapping", and the second is "Let's treat, cure, or remove the mentally ill from among us so that they are less of a danger to society. Period."

I don't care for the PUA/MRA scene. I don't subscribe to their theories. I DO care about people's freedom of association. I think tearing down bits and pieces of society (even the ugly ones) for the purpose of preventing mentally ill people from fixating on them is like whack-a-mole. They'll always find something to fixate on.

Fight the PUA/MRA scene on it's own merits. They give you plenty of ammunition on their own.

Treat or confine (when necessary) the mentally ill based on the mental illness, not the object of their fixation. The underlying illness is the true danger.


----------



## Happyfamily

JCD said:


> And Created, if he was anti PUA (I am really only skimming over this entire thing, so I may be wrong), then you can't lump him with PUAs.


Shame on you. You didn't even skim, or this would have jumped out like an enormous beacon, having been addressed so many times. 

Why do you feel so entitled to not even bother to pay the slightest attention to what is being discussed and think others should pay attention to you?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Fozzy said:


> Seems to be two schools of thought here. There's one school that appears to be "lets remove any fringe elements from society, so as to not provoke the crazy among us from snapping", and the second is* "Let's treat, cure, or remove the mentally ill from among us so that they are less of a danger to society. Period."*
> 
> *I don't care for the PUA/MRA scene. I don't subscribe to their theories. I DO care about people's freedom of association. I think tearing down bits and pieces of society (even the ugly ones) for the purpose of preventing mentally ill people from fixating on them is like whack-a-mole. They'll always find something to fixate on.*
> 
> *Fight the PUA/MRA scene on it's own merits. They give you plenty of ammunition on their own.
> 
> Treat or confine (when necessary) the mentally ill based on the mental illness, not the object of their fixation. The underlying illness is the true danger.*


:iagree:
These are my thoughts exactly.

I don't understand where this weird Orwellian logic about banning / labeling MRA's and PUA's as a hate group to be monitored is really coming from.

Neither do I understand the " good men / bad men" shaming tactics used to scare people. I think people, men and women are intelligent enough to decide which groups they want to associoate with, and what parts of the group's manifesto they accept or reject, if any at all.

The rights that guarantee us the freedom to distance ourselves from them or / and criticize them is the exact same freedom enshrined in the constitution that protects _their_ rights to hold other, sometimes drastic views.

All of us , male and female,sane and not so sane are guaranteed _agency_ when we arrive here by birth.

_Even _ the PUA / MRA in all it's forms and its twin sister movement , radical feminism.


----------



## DanaS

Caribbean Man said:


> I don't understand where this weird Orwellian logic about banning / labeling MRA's and PUA's as a hate group to be monitored is really coming from.





> Even PUA / MRA in all it's forms and its twin sister movement , radical feminism.


Please, comparing PUA/MRAs to feminism is ridiculous. Feminism as it stands is just about equal rights for women, PUA/MRAs as it stands is about treating women like objects and thinking women "owe them".


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> And how many murders or even mass murders can you directly connect to PUA / MRA forums ?
> 
> NONE.


There is a long list of examples of mass killings motivated by hatred of women dating back for decades.

I cannot think of one that was committed by a woman motivated by her hatred of men.

That is why misogyny is a part of this discussion. It is part of a recognizable pattern.

Insisting that this observable pattern not worth discussion because we can't identify a "direct cause" is a red herring. Of course we can't. There is no direct cause. Just a whole bunch of influences and motivating factors.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Every major news source in the country has picked up the story, has talked about the MRA/PUA and misogyny angle. Dave Futrelle is a watchdog of the MRA/PUA groups and always has been. But he didn't decide all on his own to report about this story with just his viewpoint. All other news agencies did the same. Or....you might know this if you'd bothered to read anything else about it, instead of just trying to mock me for posting a link to Dave's article.


Never heard of this guy, but looked him up. Here's the photo I found:


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I'm trying to understand the direction of the thread.
> 
> It started off largely acknowledging that this event was perpetrated by a very, mentally ill young man. Didn't much matter what 'group' he focused his attention on, he just needed a focus. Could have been the government, could have been bullies, jocks, immigration, corporate greed; he chose to make women the focus of his persecution. And at the time of perpetration, he shifted his hatred to just about anybody.
> 
> As for his use of, or participation in MRA or PUA sites, I'm not sure I follow your logic, unless your concern is that this event may be a catalyst for other 'disturbed' young men who are looking for someone to target their anger and hatred at?
> 
> Do you truly believe the 'message' from these sites is mainstream, or anything other than 'niche'?
> 
> Most men have no idea this kind of content even exists.
> Even those who invariably end up perpetrating heinous violence against women.
> 
> I'm trying to reconcile if your concern is the message, or who is listening to the message?


Who are you asking this question to, Deejo? Just the women on this thread, or the 100's of opinion pieces who are quite clearly describing exactly WHY the MRA/PUA stuff is dangerous and needs to be watched and understood by more people?

Did you read any of those pieces? I linked several of them.

Do you actually think the women on this thread are just making up our concerns for no real reason, because we just want to talk about how men are dangerous? Do you have any idea what the "not all men" thing is about? Because you're on top of that not all men mountain right now.


----------



## DanaS

always_alone said:


> There is a long list of examples of mass killings motivated by hatred of women dating back for decades.
> 
> I cannot think of one that was committed by a woman motivated by her hatred of men.
> 
> That is why misogyny is a part of this discussion. It is part of a recognizable pattern.
> 
> Insisting that this observable pattern not worth discussion because we can't identify a "direct cause" is a red herring. Of course we can't. There is no direct cause. Just a whole bunch of influences and motivating factors.


Exactly. I just wish men would acknowledge that. Stop acting like you have it oh so bad when women have always been the ones to be oppressed through rules/laws/customs/traditions. Is it really so hard for men to say "Yeah, men do cause lots of problems for women and others, now what can we do to fix the men's mentality that fosters this" instead of CONSTANTLY trying to turn it around on women like it's anywhere near comparable? 

Men constantly want to have their cake and eat it to. You can defend this crap all you want but it doesn't change the fact that men have a deeply flawed culture that promotes this sort of thing.


----------



## Fozzy

always_alone said:


> There is a long list of examples of mass killings motivated by hatred of women dating back for decades.
> 
> *I cannot think of one that was committed by a woman motivated by her hatred of men*.
> 
> That is why misogyny is a part of this discussion. It is part of a recognizable pattern.
> 
> Insisting that this observable pattern not worth discussion because we can't identify a "direct cause" is a red herring. Of course we can't. There is no direct cause. Just a whole bunch of influences and motivating factors.


Aileen Wuornos.


----------



## Machiavelli

Fozzy said:


> I don't care for the PUA/MRA scene. I don't subscribe to their theories.


That's like saying "I don't care for the JDL/Stormfront scene."

Two completely different groups with completely different attitudes and philosophies on how to solve their problems.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So Mach, what exactly do you think you've accomplished by posting that picture? I'm pretty sure the thousands of people who follow and read him are aware of how he looks. He talks about it a lot. Why does it matter how he looks?

Oh I get it, you have to shame him for being fat.

Because you know, you just HAVE to shame, right?


----------



## Happyfamily

Caribbean Man said:


> Yes I agree, but lets not pretend that these types of sites, promoting the hatred of one gender or another , are unique , isolated or only run by one gender.
> .


I'm with you all the way on this. 

I don't like the pretense that it is "radical" feminism that is the problem. I am offended that feminists frame me as a victim who needs them to carry me through life. I am offended that my own liberties and choices are commandeered by them to pursue their own power agenda. I am an individual and nobody has the right to use me and my choices for their own ends.

If you believe in equality, then don't identify yourself as a soldier in a gender war. I'm not stupid, so don't join the army and then say you are against war. 

Likewise, don't call me stupid and peddle misogynistic pick-up artist crap and then tell me I can't see straight through you. (Not you personally CM, I mean the guys doing it)


----------



## DanaS

Faithful Wife said:


> Who are you asking this question to, Deejo? Just the women on this thread, or the 100's of opinion pieces who are quite clearly describing exactly WHY the MRA/PUA stuff is dangerous and needs to be watched and understood by more people?
> 
> Did you read any of those pieces? I linked several of them.
> 
> Do you actually think the women on this thread are just making up our concerns for no real reason, because we just want to talk about how men are dangerous? Do you have any idea what the "not all men" thing is about? Because you're on top of that not all men mountain right now.


Imagine if men were forced to experience what it was like as a woman for just a month, add in a week of the worst period cramps imaginable how more sympathetic they'd be. When I have talked to my husband about this, his answer was simply that men in general have a harder time being introspective and are so wrapped up in their own way of doing things few can admit how fundamentally flawed it is.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> So Mach, what exactly do you think you've accomplished by posting that picture? I'm pretty sure the thousands of people who follow and read him are aware of how he looks. He talks about it a lot. Why does it matter how he looks?
> 
> Oh I get it, you have to shame him for being fat.
> 
> Because you know, you just HAVE to shame, right?


Shaming is something y'all do. I'm just pointing out the guy seems to have settled into a viable strategy to get laid. That's quite an achievement for him. Kudos.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> The rights that guarantee us the freedom to distance ourselves from them or / and criticize them is the exact same freedom enshrined in the constitution that protects _their_ rights to hold other, sometimes drastic views.


And you would like to extend these freedom to all hate groups? Because people have a right to spew and spread whatever hatred they have, against races, religions, sexual orientations, and on and on it goes?

Even John Stuart Mill, the king-daddy of libertarianism himself, thought that freedom ought not extend to those who exhort others to hateful frenzy.

But you think it's all fine and dandy?


----------



## Fozzy

Faithful Wife said:


> Not All Men -


Not sure why, but i'd been reading the hashtag as "No Tall Men".


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> And you would like to extend these freedom to all hate groups? Because people have a right to spew and spread whatever hatred they have, against races, religions, sexual orientations, and on and on it goes?
> 
> Even John Stuart Mill, the king-daddy of libertarianism himself, thought that freedom ought not extend to those who exhort others to hateful frenzy.
> 
> But you think it's all fine and dandy?


John Stuart Mill told little Elliot to go stab three Chinese guys because of his ethnic self-hatred?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> Shaming is something y'all do. I'm just pointing out the guy seems to have settled into a viable strategy to get laid. That's quite an achievement for him. Kudos.


Do you even know if he is straight or gay? No. But you make a statement about his strategy for getting laid. Even though he is nothing but a writer and a watchdog, you project much more into it. Why?

You admit you know nothing about him.

You scrounge up a pic that his haters (ie: the MRA's and PUA's he exposes) have made of him, and this is all you know about him.

Yet of course, you must mock him.

Because.....??????

Because why exactly?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Fozzy said:


> Not sure why, but i'd been reading the hashtag as "No Tall Men".


Did you read it Fozzy?


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> Aileen Wuornos.


Of course, there had to be one.

Let's all keep that in mind for when the next one happens, so we can observe the patterns.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> There is a long list of examples of mass killings motivated by hatred of women dating back for decades.
> 
> *I cannot think of one that was committed by a woman motivated by her hatred of men.*


AA,

You of all persons know that I'm a history buff, and I don't actually actually believe that you're telling me that women have never killed men because of their hatred of men.
Why do you think radical feminist Valerie Solanas, who advocated that all men should be killed and purged from the face of the earth shot playwright Andy Warhol?

I do happen to have a set o DVD's in my library detailing hundreds of cases in the USA alone of women who kill, and the reason they kill.


Here's an example of a very famous female serial killer.
Slovakian Countess, Elizabeth Bathory tortured , mutilated, raped and killed over 600 girls.
And I dare say, even _that_ wasn't misogyny.
She was a mentally deranged sadistic killer who got sexual pleasure from torturing and killing girls.

And I can provide a list as long as this page of women who were serial killers, and killed men exclusively for the fun of it.
Lol, I actually have a DVD collection of documentaries dealing exclusively with female serial killers , mass murderers and what motivates their hatred.


----------



## Omego

Fozzy said:


> Aileen Wuornos.


She had been abused since childhood.. That poor woman was also a victim. It's just not the same thing at all....


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> John Stuart Mill told little Elliot to go stab three Chinese guys because of his ethnic self-hatred?


???? Looks to me like you completely missed both the context and content of what I said. Not to mention the point.

But of course,your interest is not in the point. Just employing whatever rhetorical tactics necessary to poke others.


----------



## DanaS

always_alone said:


> And you would like to extend these freedom to all hate groups? Because people have a right to spew and spread whatever hatred they have, against races, religions, sexual orientations, and on and on it goes?
> 
> Even John Stuart Mill, the king-daddy of libertarianism himself, thought that freedom ought not extend to those who exhort others to hateful frenzy.
> 
> But you think it's all fine and dandy?


What's interesting was after JSM wrote "The Subjection of Women" not long after Ernest Belfort Bax wrote "The Legal Subjection of Men." and this was back in the 19th century! 

Seriously, it amazes me how men love to trivialize women's issues and try to act as if what they go through is anywhere the same. No matter how good men have it they will not admit their own mistakes; the ultimate form of cowardice.


----------



## Fozzy

Omego said:


> She had been abused since childhood.. That poor woman was also a victim. It's just not the same thing at all....


It's absolutely the same thing. She was a mentally ill person who went without treatment or intervention; life circumstances compounded on that and the end result was a lot of dead people. 

She didn't kill those men because she was a victim. Lots of people are abused as children (I'm one). She killed them because she was mentally ill.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Omego said:


> She had been abused since childhood.. That poor woman was also a victim. It's just not the same thing at all....


Yes it is the same.

and that's what I'm trying to say all morning.
Even the men who were serial killers were themselves abused since childhood.

That's why it's kind crazy to try to insert the misogyny argument into it.

In an obtuse sense, they're all victims in one way or another.

Recentlly I looked at a DVD on a young man who killed and tortured his aunt and mother.
Apparently he grew up in a cult where his mother was having sex with him from a very young age. They made him to have sex with his sister, and his aunts . His father, the leader of the cult was having sex with everybody.

This young man mind was so fcuked up, that when he got married he decided to leave the cult with his wife, even though he could have had sex with any woman in the cult.

Then he planned his revenge, he decided to kill his mother and aunt, and a few other women who had sex with him regularly when he was just a kid.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Do you even know if he is straight or gay? No. But you make a statement about his strategy for getting laid. Even though he is nothing but a writer and a watchdog, you project much more into it. Why?
> 
> You admit you know nothing about him.
> 
> You scrounge up a pic that his haters (ie: the MRA's and PUA's he exposes) have made of him, and this is all you know about him.
> 
> Yet of course, you must mock him.
> 
> Because.....??????
> 
> Because why exactly?


I googled the guy and found his website. He gives talks to college girls explaining that how sex with guys they want is "bad sex." I would guess that sex with guys like him is "good sex." He says he's making lube available at his talk, so you may be correct that he's gay if he thinks 18 year old girls need lube. However, I'd say he seems to have a lot in common with Kyle Payne and Hugo_Schwyzer and has found a way to get next to unsuspecting young women in order to exploit them for his own satisfaction.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Valerie Solanas


Okay, so now we have two. Both victims ofsexual abuse. So, just as we can see a pattern where hatred of women can motivate men to kill, we can start to see a pattern where subjection to sexual abuse can motivate women to kill.



Caribbean Man said:


> Here's an example of a very famous female serial killer.
> Slovakian Countess, Elizabeth Bathory tortured , mutilated, raped and killed over 600 girls.


Interesting that you would have such a long list of women who killed men out of hatred for them, yet chose as your main example a woman who killed other women.


----------



## Fozzy

To your point Always, yes--there are more male mass/serial killers than there are female. Men have more of a tendency to exhibit their mental illness in a violent fashion than women do. Totally agree.

Still, mental illness is the cause, not gender or gender philosophy.


----------



## BaxJanson

I don't really understand how people can justify using the words of a crazy man to try and understand why he did what he did. If his manifesto had detailed how he received messages from the lizard people through his breakfast cereal, would we really be discussing banning alpha-bits, and how the lizard people are overstepping their bounds? 

It wasn't the misogyny, the guns, the World of Warcraft, the PUA's, the car, the women he knew, his parents, or the drugs. It was him. He chose to hurt a lot of people, and he succeeded. Now the race is on for everyone to connect him to their least favorite group.


----------



## always_alone

Fozzy said:


> She killed them because she was mentally ill.


But mental illness didn't *cause* it either. There are lots and lots of mentally ill people that wouldn't harm a fly.

It was part of the picture.

I find it odd that so many people here find it so difficult to believe that rage and hatred are significant motivating factors in mass murder.

Mind-boggling.


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> Apparently he grew up in a cult where his mother was having sex with him from a very young age. They made him to have sex with his sister, and his aunts . His father, the leader of the cult was having sex with everybody.


Children of God. Actually, the father was some kid from Spain, but you're basically correct. From the time the kid was an infant, the nanny and other cult women would blow him to put him to sleep.


----------



## Omego

Fozzy said:


> It's absolutely the same thing. She was a mentally ill person who went without treatment or intervention; life circumstances compounded on that and the end result was a lot of dead people.
> 
> She didn't kill those men because she was a victim. Lots of people are abused as children (I'm one). She killed them because she was mentally ill.


This is true. But my gut reaction to your post stemmed from the immediate comparison I made between her and Elliot Rodgers. Stories of abused children really, really gets to me. Immediate reaction. Did you see the movie about her life called Monster?

Anyway, yes, I see your point. A lot of us are saying the same thing on this thread. An untreated mentally ill person could react dangerously given any sort of trigger.

ETA: I am sorry to learn that you were a victim of child abuse.


----------



## DanaS

always_alone said:


> But mental illness didn't *cause* it either. There are lots and lots of mentally ill people that wouldn't harm a fly.
> 
> It was part of the picture.
> 
> I find it odd that so many people here find it so difficult to believe that rage and hatred are significant motivating factors in mass murder.
> 
> Mind-boggling.


I don't get it either. Heck, one can be completely sane but kill simply due to rage and hatred.


----------



## Cosmos

Deejo said:


> As for his use of, or participation in MRA or PUA sites, I'm not sure I follow your logic, unless your concern is that this event may be a catalyst for other 'disturbed' young men who are looking for someone to target their anger and hatred at?
> 
> Do you truly believe the 'message' from these sites is mainstream, or anything other than 'niche'?
> 
> Most men have no idea this kind of content even exists.
> Even those who invariably end up perpetrating heinous violence against women.
> 
> I'm trying to reconcile if your concern is the message, or who is listening to the message?


I think people are only discussing the PUA/MRA angle because Rodgers mentioned those groups in his Manifesto. 

I don't think anyone believes that the views held by those groups are mainstream, any more than rad fem groups are considered mainstream. 

Had this tragedy been based on racism, anti-semitism or homophobia, and the perpetrator had been a known member of radical groups supporting such things, I think we would be looking at them in the same way.


----------



## Omego

Cosmos said:


> I think people are only discussing the PUA/MRA angle because Rodgers mentioned those groups in his Manifesto.
> 
> I don't think anyone believes that the views held by those groups are mainstream, any more than rad fem groups are considered mainstream.
> 
> Had this tragedy been based on racism, anti-semitism or homophobia, and the perpetrator had been a known member of radical groups supporting such things, I think we would be looking at them in the same way.


:iagree: This is a good point. I was just thinking the same thing.


----------



## Chaparral

Don't stigmatize murderers! | Human Events

This pretty much sums it up.


----------



## Omego

And let's not forget that there have been many mass killings based solely on ideology....


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> But mental illness didn't *cause* it either. There are lots and lots of mentally ill people that wouldn't harm a fly.
> 
> It was part of the picture.
> 
> I find it odd that so many people here find it so difficult to believe that rage and hatred are significant motivating factors in mass murder.
> 
> Mind-boggling.


It ain't rocket science, particularly in this case. The kid was mentally ill. Why? Probably the crappy, essentially fatherless way he was raised contributed to it. They put him in therapy at age 8, which is probably enough to turn any normal kid into a psycho. They put him on psychoactive drugs (just like every other non-Islamic mass shooter in the USA since 1990). Women rejected him for the very sensible reason that he was clearly nuts. He hated everyone, especially Chinese GUYS (a group he was a member of). 

You can't make sense out of the senseless.


----------



## techmom

lifeistooshort said:


> Lol. Only on TAM could a parallel be drawn between a pos that murdered people and feminists that rant in op ed pieces. Wow.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Ain't this the truth? Now we have to bring up the few women in history who killed ANYBODY and compare them to the thousands of men who killed women. There is a woman killed around the world everyday by a man, can't say the same thing for women killing men.

That is the point.


----------



## always_alone

DanaS said:


> I don't get it either. Heck, one can be completely sane but kill simply due to rage and hatred.


Indeed, I think rage and hatred are probably the two top motivators for murder, across the board. And jealousy would be right up there too.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> But mental illness didn't *cause* it either. There are lots and lots of mentally ill people that wouldn't harm a fly.
> 
> It was part of the picture.
> 
> I find it odd that so many people here find it so difficult to believe that rage and hatred are significant motivating factors in mass murder.
> 
> Mind-boggling.


Yeah, but there is no way to tell where the half-rational, half-understood thoughts end and the psychosis begins.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> Indeed, I think *rage and hatred are probably the two top motivators for murder,* across the board. And jealousy would be right up there too.


Try drug territory and gang turf. It's not personal, just business.


----------



## Runs like Dog

2 of his 6 victims were women. I don't know about the merely wounded.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Yeah, but there is no way to tell where the half-rational, half-understood thoughts end and the psychosis begins.


It hardly matters to the overall point that his mental illness played a role, as did his rage and hatred of women.


----------



## always_alone

Machiavelli said:


> Try drug territory and gang turf. It's not personal, just business.


Ah yes, let's not leave out greed and revenge now that we're trying to explain every murder ever committed.


----------



## Cubby

Machiavelli said:


> It ain't rocket science, particularly in this case. The kid was mentally ill. Why? Probably the crappy, essentially fatherless way he was raised contributed to it. They put him in therapy at age 8, which is probably enough to turn any normal kid into a psycho. They put him on psychoactive drugs (just like every other non-Islamic mass shooter in the USA since 1990). Women rejected him for the very sensible reason that he was clearly nuts. He hated everyone, especially Chinese GUYS (a group he was a member of).
> 
> You can't make sense out of the senseless.


Yeah, he hated Chinese guys and he also hated at least one Indian guy, a guy he described as not good-looking, who he hated because he saw a cute blonde riding in his car. He also hated any couples he saw, and splashed coffee on one couple at Starbucks. A lot of rage directed at pretty much everyone.


----------



## Cosmos

Omego said:


> And let's not forget that there have been many mass killings based solely on ideology....


Quite. And not all poisonous idealogy has its roots in mental illness...

This guy _certainly_ had mental health issues, but there was a lot more to it than that, IMO.

Saying that misogyny wasn't a factor here is rather like saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi.


----------



## Happyfamily

BaxJanson said:


> I don't really understand how people can justify using the words of a crazy man to try and understand why he did what he did. If his manifesto had detailed how he received messages from the lizard people through his breakfast cereal, would we really be discussing banning alpha-bits, and how the lizard people are overstepping their bounds?


Fallacy of false equivalence. We have ample defenders of Pick-up artist bunk on this site, and zero lizard-people channeled through breakfast cereal. Also the fallacy of false premises. He is not insane. 

One of the most offensive things to me about the primal pretenders in the pick-up artist loser's club is trying to MAKE their loathsome misogyny mainstream. If a man is successful at life and thereby achieves admiration of men and women alike, the primal pretenders say "he's got game". 

They also point to a man who genuinely treats women with respect and say that is the same manipulative strategy, just a different tactic. 

I had no knowledge of Men's Rights Activism before this thread but if you look at a guy like Paul Elam for example, he's a whack job. What I read of him so far is pretty disturbing.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> I haven't read anything to suggest that this guy was_ actually_ bullied at school, but a lot to suggest that his own egocentric sense of entitlement caused him to project his own delusions and paranoia onto others...
> 
> *My* reaction would be exactly the same if this killer had been a woman.


He didn't ask for YOUR reaction. He asked how society would have treated it in the press.

When a man has sex with a young girl, he's a monster and jailed as long as legally possible.

When a woman has sex with a young boy, she's (at worst) disturbed. Does she see the inside of a prison? It is to laugh.

I'm guessing it would be a similar narrative in this hypothetical, where society would have surrounded her with attempts at understanding if not outright sympathy. "See what she was driven too by XXXX"

Please note: If we were discussing THIS MAN and his demons, the men would have little to say.

Instead, some are EXPANDING this to say 'and here is where his demons came from!"

Well...I'm guessing a paranoid schizophrenic would find a way to be dangerous from...I dunno...watching Jodie Foster...just as an example.

So should we outlaw Jodie Foster? (Raises hand yes...)


----------



## Miss Taken

Sandfly said:


> Spose, but then there are a lot of female child-killers whose neglect starts off as "taking it out on the kid, to get at the kid's father"
> 
> ...
> 
> Given that child killing seems to be _*a special fixation of the feminine gender*_, what should we do about it?
> ...
> 
> So here's the point: woman haters kill women, *man haters kill children. Radical feminism, the kind which argues that a child is the property of the mother, should also be canned because it leads to murder.* Fair?



Excerpt from a Filicide Statistical Study just released to the public in February of this year.

After analyzing homicide data collected from the FBI over the thirty-two years between 1976 – 2007, it was found that:



> Close to three-quarters (72 percent) of the children killed were age 6 or younger. One-third were infants (children less than 1 year of age). Only about 10 percent of children killed were between ages 7 and 18. Adult offspring were the balance of the victims. Male children were more likely to be killed (58.3 percent) than female children. About 11 percent of victims were stepchildren, which is on the low end of the estimated proportion of U.S. children (10-20 percent) who live with a stepparent.
> 
> *Among offenders, while fathers were about equally likely to kill an infant, they were more likely to be the alleged murderer of children older than a year, especially when the children were adults (fathers were the offenders in 78.3 percent of those cases). Overall, fathers were the accused murderer 57.4 percent of the time.*
> 
> The data allowed the researchers to determine the most common filicide scenarios. A father killing a son was the most likely (29.5 percent of cases), a mother killing a son (22.1 percent) follows. A mother was slightly more likely to kill a daughter (19.7 percent of cases) than a father was (18.1 percent). The rarest instances were stepmothers killing either a stepson (0.5 percent) or a stepdaughter (0.3 percent).


So no, child killing isn't a special fixation of the feminine species. In fact, infanticide (the killing of infants/babies) is said to occur about equally among both genders. However, men are more likely if ever so slightly (57.4% vs. 42.6%) than women, to kill their own children of any age.


----------



## DanaS

Happyfamily said:


> Fallacy of false equivalence. We have ample defenders of Pick-up artist bunk on this site, and zero lizard-people channeled through breakfast cereal. Also the fallacy of false premises. He is not insane.
> 
> One of the most offensive things to me about the primal pretenders in the pick-up artist loser's club is trying to MAKE their loathsome misogyny mainstream. If a man is successful at life and thereby achieves admiration of men and women alike, the primal pretenders say "he's got game".
> 
> They also point to a man who genuinely treats women with respect and say that is the same manipulative strategy, just a different tactic.
> 
> I had no knowledge of Men's Rights Activism before this thread but if you look at a guy like Paul Elam for example, he's a whack job. What I read of him so far is pretty disturbing.


This is a great article: Masculine insecurity and entitlement are a big, tangled-up mess


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> And you would like to extend these freedom to all hate groups? Because people have a right to spew and spread whatever hatred they have, against races, religions, sexual orientations, and on and on it goes?
> 
> Even John Stuart Mill, the king-daddy of libertarianism himself, thought that freedom ought not extend to those who exhort others to hateful frenzy.
> 
> But you think it's all fine and dandy?


So...wanting equal access to children in divorce is 'exhorting others to hateful frenzy'? Saying 'our legal structure is not friendly to men so men should eschew marriage because it is a legal loser for them' is 'spewing and spreading whatever hatred they have'?

Hell...it puts Nazism to shame!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> I googled the guy and found his website. He gives talks to college girls explaining that how sex with guys they want is "bad sex." I would guess that sex with guys like him is "good sex." He says he's making lube available at his talk, so you may be correct that he's gay if he thinks 18 year old girls need lube. However, I'd say he seems to have a lot in common with Kyle Payne and Hugo_Schwyzer and has found a way to get next to unsuspecting young women in order to exploit them for his own satisfaction.


And this is important....why?

Oh right...you are still mocking him.

And you are mocking him because....??

You bring up his sex life because it is relevant to...???

I'm being sarcastic of course, because I know exactly why you have to mock him. It is part of (some parts of) male culture to mock any man who doesn't live in a way that you approve of. Shaming and mocking are part of the whole big mess of a problem that creates the environments we are discussing.

So that's the real relevance here. You are showing a great example of how men mock each other in order to shame them to make yourself (believe that you) look better than them. But you are actually just proving Dave's point by doing so.


----------



## Happyfamily

Here is a perfect example of the manipulative kinds of arguments from a pick-up artist defender. 

First of all the assertion that it is easy to understand the killer, and the causes behind him:




Machiavelli said:


> It ain't rocket science, particularly in this case. The kid was mentally ill. Why? Probably the crappy, essentially fatherless way he was raised contributed to it. They put him in therapy at age 8, which is probably enough to turn any normal kid into a psycho. They put him on psychoactive drugs (just like every other non-Islamic mass shooter in the USA since 1990). Women rejected him for the very sensible reason that he was clearly nuts. He hated everyone, especially Chinese GUYS (a group he was a member of).


Then the glaring contradiction, and this is the second time the same poster has done it:



> You can't make sense out of the senseless.


So we get to pick and choose what the causes are, and the only one under discussion that is off-limits for defenders of pick-up artist bunk is.... surprise! Pick up artist bunk.

Why is it no surprise and not rocket science that a disordered man so deep into misogynistic clubs, getting pats on the back from his fellow primal pretenders for murderous screeds against women goes out and does just what he says he is going to do?

Because I am a primal pretender and if one of my home boys gets a little out of hand then I am going to say it's all just so senseless and can't be understood, except for being fatherless, and of course if he is put into therapy that actually CAUSES insanity instead of being the remedy. Anything except what he actually SAID his motivations were...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why Is It So Hard For People to Get That Elliot Rodger Hated Women?


----------



## DanaS

Faithful Wife said:


> Why Is It So Hard For People to Get That Elliot Rodger Hated Women?


Great read, it's sad how many men want to defend this garbage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Looks like one of the biggest garbage defenders is banned again, thank goodness.


----------



## Happyfamily

Faithful Wife said:


> And this is important....why?
> 
> Oh right...you are still mocking him.
> 
> And you are mocking him because....??
> 
> You bring up his sex life because it is relevant to...???
> 
> I'm being sarcastic of course, because I know exactly why you have to mock him. It is part of (some parts of) male culture to mock any man who doesn't live in a way that you approve of. Shaming and mocking are part of the whole big mess of a problem that creates the environments we are discussing.
> 
> So that's the real relevance here. You are showing a great example of how men mock each other in order to shame them to make yourself (believe that you) look better than them. But you are actually just proving Dave's point by doing so.


Oh, in spades. Check out how the pick-up artist groupies have one and only one way to frame others: everything they do is to manipulate women into sex. 

This is ironically what I was referring to earlier - there cannot be any intellectual validity to equality amongst the genders. It is merely a posture taken on to get laid. 

Placing shame on people is appropriate when the actions are shameful. Like, say, killing a bunch of people. Or hating women. Or hating men, or hating a race, etc. 

One of the things that bothers me here on this site is framing every action as "alpha" or "beta" , which I believe causes us to buy into the idea that nothing can be viewed outside the prism of men getting laid. It is pretty clear to me which quarter this framing is mostly coming from, but it has gained far too much mainstream currency to the exclusion of any other means of analyzing things.


----------



## always_alone

And here is another nice example of those manipulative arguments :

First, carefully avoid the murderous screeds full of loathing and hatred, then identify a couple of political and legal issues and ask if *they* are examples of this hate:



> So...wanting equal access to children in divorce is 'exhorting others to hateful frenzy'? Saying 'our legal structure is not friendly to men so men should eschew marriage because it is a legal loser for them' is 'spewing and spreading whatever hatred they have'?


Then reinforce your superior assessment with some sarcasm and eye-rolling



> Hell...it puts Nazism to shame!


All without ever addressing or acknowledging the point at issue.


----------



## Happyfamily

always_alone said:


> And here is another nice example of those manipulative arguments :
> 
> First, carefully avoid the murderous screeds full of loathing and hatred, then identify a couple of political and legal issues and ask if *they* are examples of this hate:
> 
> 
> 
> Then reinforce your superior assessment with some sarcasm and eye-rolling
> 
> 
> 
> All without ever addressing or acknowledging the point at issue.


Oh, thanks for handling that one. Although I disagree with feminism in its entirety, at least most self-identified feminists will disavow and condemn the radical feminists. 

Paul Elam - absolutely yes, he is talking about burning/shooting judges, justifying beating women to a pulp instead of having them charged with domestic violence, etc. I am still unsure of the Men's Rights thing as a movement, but there are some personalities in there for sure that need the most strong condemnation.


----------



## lifeistooshort

techmom said:


> Ain't this the truth? Now we have to bring up the few women in history who killed ANYBODY and compare them to the thousands of men who killed women. There is a woman killed around the world everyday by a man, can't say the same thing for women killing men.
> 
> That is the point.


I've learned a lot from TAM and even though I can be harsh I really appreciate the insight into mens thought processes, and those willing to discuss instead of insult, condescend, or name call are pure gold.

I have also learned, however, just how deeply po'd a lot of men are at their loss power over women. Just goes to show what happens when a group of people that used to have all the power now only have some. i've been very surprised by the amount of misogyny here, and any time they get called on it fingers get pointed at some radical feminist writing op ed pieces that most of us have never heard of. 

I don't know any women that hate men. I bet a big chunk of guys here know someone that's po'd at women, and sometimes it's in the mirror.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> You bring up his sex life because it is relevant to...???.


Everything he does.


----------



## Machiavelli

DanaS said:


> Great read, it's sad how many men want to defend this garbage.


Nobody's defending him. They're saying it's laughable for you to blame his actions on guys who try to get laid by aping alpha male behaviors (PUA) or whiny guys who got divorce robbed (MRA).


----------



## Machiavelli

Happyfamily said:


> One of the things that bothers me here on this site is framing every action as "alpha" or "beta" , which I believe causes us to buy into the idea that nothing can be viewed outside the prism of men getting laid. *It is pretty clear to me which quarter this framing is mostly coming from*, but it has gained far too much mainstream currency to the exclusion of any other means of analyzing things.


So you oppose Freud and his disciples?


----------



## Miss Taken

Machiavelli said:


> Nobody's defending him. They're saying it's laughable for you to blame his actions on guys who try to get laid by aping alpha male behaviors (PUA) or whiny guys who got divorce robbed (MRA).


Nobody's accusing you of defending Rodger Elliott. They're calling PUA garbage. They're calling out some of the MRA's campaigns as garbage.

JCD brought up a straw man about custody. Yes, let's argue about how we all think men shouldn't have custody of their kids (said no one ever on this thread). 

MRA campaigns to decriminalize marital rape? Yes, I'm against that. The fight for the right to rape one's wife is not an honourable one.

MRA campaigns to make it illegal for a woman to get an abortion without the consent of the father. I am definitely iffy about that one. What if she's raped? 

OH YEAH... See the campaign about marital rape decriminalization.

Another important men's rights campaign was to be allowed to make rape jokes on Facebook. Da fuq is that about?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Machiavelli said:


> Everything he does.


Projection much?

You admit you know nothing about him and have to google him, yet now you know that his sex life has to do with _everything he does_.

So you don't know what exactly he does (which is obvious by everything you've written) yet you know that whatever it is, it is all about his own sex life.


----------



## Jellybeans

Miss Taken said:


> Nobody's accusing you of defending Rodger Elliott. They're calling PUA garbage. They're calling out some of the MRA's campaigns as garbage.


:iagree:


----------



## Eqili

Could Therapy Culture Help Explain Elliot Rodger's Rampage? - Reason.com


----------



## Dad&Hubby

DanaS said:


> Please, comparing PUA/MRAs to feminism is ridiculous. Feminism as it stands is just about equal rights for women, PUA/MRAs as it stands is about treating women like objects and thinking women "owe them".


Sorry Dana, I'm going to have to call you out on this one.

There are men's rights activists who want nothing more than equal rights...specifically driven by the divorce court system in this country, which for many years was slanted against your "average husband/father". There are also men's groups who are scum, like this Elliot fellow, who hate and despise women simply based on gender.

There are feminists who simply want equal rights, but there are also feminist groups who hate men and react accordingly.

EVERY movement has different degrees of attitudes. Just look at civil rights and compare the teachings of MLK Jr. versus the Nation of Islam.

There are tons of activists, of every race and gender who grab onto the victim identity and walk around with the "you owe me attitude".

One interesting factor to this discussion is how quickly this psycho's actions are being used to discredit an entire movement. The idea of men's rights is still considered somewhat of a joke. "You own everything, you hold all of the power, how can you be victimized". These are all "outer-pendulum" arguments. The extremes if you will. It's not hard to victimize (justly or not) men.

I remember when there was a story about how a women drugged her STBXH and cut off his genitals and put them in a blender. Female talk shows praised the woman and blamed the man saying he must have been cheating, even though the cheating was never discussed by the people involved, it was just hypothesized by the women on the panel. The only people to speak out against the show were men's groups who were quickly laughed at and dismissed. If the gender's were reversed, I guarantee the men would have been fired and replaced (ala Don Imus, Don Sterling etc.) 

PS I agree with what happened(ing) to Imus and Sterling.

Are there misogynists in our society....WITHOUT A DOUBT, and they need help.

There are also mysandrysts, probably in similar numbers frankly. 

There are racists from EVERY RACE.

And unfortunately the internet doesn't help.

If anything the internet and social media gives these people MORE power because it allows them to spread their hate that much easier.

Anyway....simply saying group xyz is doing something noble while group abc is evil is very short sighted. Every group has good and bad members.


----------



## Faithful Wife

not all men....not all men....not all men....


----------



## techmom

Faithful Wife said:


> not all men....not all men....not all men....


And the beat goes on and on and on and on....


----------



## DanaS

lifeistooshort said:


> I've learned a lot from TAM and even though I can be harsh I really appreciate the insight into mens thought processes, and those willing to discuss instead of insult, condescend, or name call are pure gold.
> 
> I have also learned, however, just how deeply po'd a lot of men are at their loss power over women. Just goes to show what happens when a group of people that used to have all the power now only have some. i've been very surprised by the amount of misogyny here, and any time they get called on it fingers get pointed at some radical feminist writing op ed pieces that most of us have never heard of.
> 
> I don't know any women that hate men. I bet a big chunk of guys here know someone that's po'd at women, and sometimes it's in the mirror.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Spot on, and that's the crux of the issue. Since the beginning men have always been in control and the center of attention, in the past 50 years it's started all of the sudden come to a screeching halt and now the same men in times past that would abuse women and treat them like slaves suddenly find themselves at an impass. Yet if they were truly secure in themselves it wouldn't be an issue. 

Just like my husband who, despite just being 28 has always been very mature and secure in himself, hence why he already has his own successful business, treats me better than any other man has and works plenty around the house sharing equal duties and then some. I have never had to ask him, he has just always done it. I don't care who you are, if you have to resort to being a "PUA" you are a grade A loser! Even my husband laughs at them.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> And here is another nice example of those manipulative arguments :
> 
> First, carefully avoid the murderous screeds full of loathing and hatred, then identify a couple of political and legal issues and ask if *they* are examples of this hate:
> 
> 
> 
> Then reinforce your superior assessment with some sarcasm and eye-rolling
> 
> 
> 
> All without ever addressing or acknowledging the point at issue.


The point of the issue? People say hateful things. Caribbean Man IIRC left a specific example of a female calling for essentially the 'eradication of the male gender'.

But let's talk 'facts'. You seem to be asserting that with so many of these bitter hate filled MRA types out there SAYING so many horrible things anonymously and on the internet, that dang it! It's pretty darned dangerous for women these days!

Here is the problem (taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics): 



> In 2011, the murder rate for males was 7.4 homicides per
> 100,000 males, or an estimated 11,370 male homicide
> victims (table 1). The murder rate for females in 2011 was
> 2.0 homicides per 100,000 females, or about 3,240 female
> homicide victims. *From 2002 to 2011, the homicide rate
> among males declined by 16%, while the rate for females
> decreased by 20%*.


So...who is doing all the dying among this smaller demographic of female murders?



> The homicide victimization rate for females
> was highest *during the first year of life*
> 
> For the 10-year period from 2002 to 2011, females younger
> than age 1 had a higher murder rate than females of any
> other age group (figure 6). The homicide rate for females
> younger than age 1 was 4.5 homicides per 100,000 for white
> females and 10.3 per 100,000 for black females. Among
> white females, the homicide rate was highest during
> the first year of life. However, among black females, the
> homicide rate peaked at age 22 (11.8 homicides per 100,000
> black females), a level slightly above the rate for black
> females younger than age 1. In comparison, the homicide
> rate for white females at age 22 was 37% lower than the
> homicide rate for white females younger than age 1.


Killing kids is heinous. VERY heinous. But you can't blame THOSE murders on MRA types or PUAs. Or do you think that a grown man writing about how he 'hates them bitzzes' is thinking of infants? It is a ridiculous suggestion.

I would suggest there is a huge difference between your PERCEPTION and REALITY.

In days of yore, MRA types went (mostly alone) to the local tavern, threw back a bunch, spouted nonsense in graphic terms about that woman he married or women in general...and having vented his spleen, he walked home again to take out the trash...

The internet lets women inside the tavern. And to 'get attention' men may be saying dumber and dumber things. Look at the incredibly stupid things they say on The View.

But...what is happening to the murder rates? Down down and down. Contradicts your fears, doesn't it? Since you are more than one year old. you are now past your murder prime.

But that is MURDER, you can rightly say. These MRA types are probably using their fists, right?



> *The rate of domestic violence in U.S. households declined 63 percent,* from 13.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 1994 to 5.0 per 1,000 in 2012. Both serious domestic violence (rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault) and simple assault decreased, and most of the decline occurred from 1994 to 2002.


Now, one can state that even ONE incident of domestic violence and murder is too much (not rationally, but you can say it) And I am forced to agree in principle.

But this INCREASING horror at *declining rates of all sorts of violence* is unrealistic. *Your problem is shrinking!*

And, since we are pointing the finger at 'avoiding the point', let's recall our history of paranoid schizophrenics.

Unabomber Environmentalism

Hinkley Jodie Foster

Elliot MRA

You want to avoid the point that it wasn't the message, it was the crazy! The message is irrelevant. But that doesn't satisfy you because you REALLY REALLY want to make political hay out of this.

Do so. But know exactly where the trends of violence are going...and it's due south...which is totally contrary to where you BELIEVE these trends should be going according to your assertion that MRA rants drive greater violence and increase hate.

Where are the stats to back this up? They don't exist...except maybe in marriage rates.

There is this phrase we learn as children...something to do with sticks and stones...names...I don't recall it all right now, but it seems germane somehow, particularly when dealing with internet 'tough guys'.


----------



## Omego

DanaS said:


> I don't care who you are, if you have to resort to being a "PUA" you are a grade A loser!


I think that everyone on this thread would agree with this statement!!


----------



## DanaS

You know, I wonder if there is a correlation between guys that think that women should do whatever they want with guys that were babied their whole lives by their mother? 

I know my husband had loving parents and fortunately both of his parents never did. I also found it interesting how when we first got together he would always speak well of his mother as well as his father.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> not all men....not all men....not all men....


Right...I don't actually have any legitimate points. 

This is like 6th grade when you don't like that the the other person actually makes cogent points...the argument is to throw a label on the person in order to make their points seem illegitimate. 

"He's got cooties. LITTLE JOHNNY'S GOT COOTIES"

The funny thing about your response is I'm ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH YOU. But I'm also pointing out that the problem is a problem of our SPECIES as a whole...not based on gender or race.


----------



## DanaS

Omego said:


> I think that everyone on this thread would agree with this statement!!


Seems like mostly just the women. Most of the men seem quite happy to defend any and all things that are "manly" no matter how hurtful it is towards women. I just wish men were more willing to at least attempt to see things from women's POV. I certainly know how extremely fortunate I am to have a man that does, heck unlike my ex when I have the times where I get some major period cramps like hardly get out of bed my husband always asks what he can get me to help or run to the store to get some feminine supplies. 

I always found it hilarious how my ex was a former marine and all around "tough guy" but ask him to run to the store to get me some feminine supplies and he'd chicken out like a big baby.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

DanaS said:


> You know, I wonder if there is a correlation between guys that think that women should do whatever they want with guys that were babied their whole lives by their mother?
> 
> I know my husband had loving parents and fortunately both of his parents never did. I also found it interesting how when we first got together he would always speak well of his mother as well as his father.


Possibly. I think your reasoning is solid, although I might not specifically name the mother. I think it's an entitlement mentality. If the child is spoiled and given whatever they want, their errors and mistakes in life go without punishment or accountability, those are the people who, I'm GUESSING, would be more predisposed to that mentality.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dad&Hubby said:


> Right...I don't actually have any legitimate points.
> 
> This is like 6th grade when you don't like that the the other person actually makes cogent points...the argument is to throw a label on the person in order to make their points seem illegitimate.
> 
> "He's got cooties. LITTLE JOHNNY'S GOT COOTIES"
> 
> The funny thing about your response is I'm ACTUALLY AGREEING WITH YOU. But I'm also pointing out that the problem is a problem of our SPECIES as a whole...not based on gender or race.


Did you read the "not all men" link I posted? Because it addresses each one of the points you made and shows how it is simply more "not all men" stuff.

Honestly, did you read it?

If not, why would I bother to consider your points either?

If you did, then it would be great to discuss it with you.


----------



## Happyfamily

Machiavelli said:


> So you oppose Freud and his disciples?


Talk straight, "warrior" (lol), as you have insinuated about yourself elsewhere. It is difficult to know with manipulative people whether this is a rhetorical question, a set-up for something or what. Far too vague as it is. Oppose Freud's statements about not understanding women? Penis envy? What?

But do tell me, warrior, what kind of combat experience you have with other men. Like your pro MMA record or whatever it is. Because if you run your mouth about appealing to women as a warrior, you better have the goods. I don't mean lifting inanimate objects off the ground. An average Orangutan is probably at least five times stronger than you and I don't find them the least bit attractive. Tell me why I need to be swooning over you for leveling other men on the modern day field of battle.


----------



## Cosmos

No, the Fact Elliot Rodgers Killed More Men Than Women Doesn't Change His Misogyny


----------



## soccermom2three

Machiavelli said:


> It ain't rocket science, particularly i
> this case. The kid was mentally ill. Why? Probably the crappy, essentially fatherless way he was raised contributed to it. They put him in therapy at age 8, which is probably enough to turn any normal kid into a psycho. They put him on psychoactive drugs (just like every other non-Islamic mass shooter in the USA since 1990). Women rejected him for the very sensible reason that he was clearly nuts. He hated everyone, especially Chinese GUYS (a group he was a member of).
> 
> You can't make sense out of the senseless.


I agree. 

He was both a Misogynist and a Misandrist. He hated those guys that got the girl.

He had virtually no male guidance and the one he did have sucked at it.

He had an extreme sense of entitlement.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> The point of the issue? People say hateful things.


Ah, okay, we can agree on something. Let's see if we can't find more common ground.



JCD said:


> Caribbean Man IIRC left a specific example of a female calling for essentially the 'eradication of the male gender'.


So one woman saying hateful things is the equivalent of hundreds and thousand of webpages and blogs in the manosphere? 

The "equivalence" of misandry to misogyny has been asserted a number of times here, but I've yet to seeing evidence of it.



JCD said:


> But let's talk 'facts'. You seem to be asserting that with so many of these bitter hate filled MRA types out there SAYING so many horrible things anonymously and on the internet, that dang it! It's pretty darned dangerous for women these days!
> 
> Here is the problem (taken from the Bureau of Justice Statistics):


Yes, let's talk about facts, shall we?

Your stats are impressive, but your efforts to diminish hate groups by using all caps and dismissive statements about infanticide are not.

No one has suggested that hatred of women is responsible for all murders. Not even all murders against women. Rather the conversation here is about those crimes that are motivated by hate, specifically hatred of women. There are many examples of this. Famous ones include
Marc Lépine 
George Sodini 
Scott Evans Dekraai 

Much like the case under discussion, these were all mass killers who targeted women precisely because they hated them. Yet we're to believe that their hatred had nothing at all to do with their actions? 

As for hate speech, we can try to diminish it as "just SAYING" stuff (all caps because we know that men jawing in the tavern is always perfectly acceptable and women should just keep out), but not all speech is equivalent. The sites in question literally call women targets, claim over and over that we are all ****s and *****es, and basically that we deserve to be beaten, raped and killed.

And a man who was literally PLANNING (all caps because these are *not* just words) to kill a sorority full of girls finds camaraderie and reinforcement for his hatred, his venom echoed by many others.

And yet you still find it farfetched to discuss the role these sites might have played in his rampage?



JCD said:


> I would suggest there is a huge difference between your PERCEPTION and REALITY.


Again, the argument here was never that these sites are causing men to kill women in ever-increasing numbers, or that they even cause men to kill at all. But fact is, they actively promote hatred of women, and provide support to those who wish to do them harm.

Maybe violent crime is down overall, stats-wise. But knowing that is of little help in a discussion analyzing motivating factors in specific types of hate crimes.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lessons From a Day Spent With the UCSB Shooter's Awful Friends


----------



## Faithful Wife

Other articles and writing by David Futrelle (his blog is only one of many things he has going on):

David Futrelle | TIME.com

David Futrelle is a former staff writer for Money magazine. He's written for numerous publications, including Salon, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times Book Review. He lives in Chicago.


----------



## Happyfamily

Well hey, where's the problem with racism too so long as we aren't murdering too many of them? :smthumbup:


I'm not some kind of crime specialist but don't most of these serial killers that rack up 30 or more women have a bit of a chip on their shoulder regarding women? They're generally killing a lot of prostitutes, which society seems to think of as disposable, so there's no big outcry.

But we can go right down the list - Ted Bundy, Green River killer, Bianchi, etc. I can think of at least one that targeted men - Gacy - but for the most part it is women. 

It's a fallacy to say murder is the only thing we should be worrying about for crying out loud - how about rape? Enormous numbers, overwhelmingly women, and rape is more about power than it is sex.

This is the whole pick-up artist theory too: exercising power over women with your pick-up lines, your put-downs, superior intellect in manipulating our brainless bodies...


----------



## EleGirl

All of us here should be very cognizant that internet forums have a profound influence on people.

Look at TAM. People come here and make life altering decisions in their lives based on what is posted here by others. 

I think that many things lead to Elliot Roger’s murderous rampage. The PUA/PUAHate sites were one of the influence.. I think a major influence on his choice of action. He hung out on sites of men with similar points of view. He talked about slaughter a sorority house full of women. He ranted on and on, saying horrible, vile things about women. And what response did he get from the forums? He as encourage and cheered. Meeting no resistance to his hideous thoughts and even encouragement, for a mentally deranged man, simply helped to push him over the edge into living out his horrible plans.


----------



## Miss Taken

JCD said:


> ....
> But let's talk 'facts'. You seem to be asserting that with so many of these bitter hate filled MRA types out there SAYING so many horrible things anonymously and on the internet, that dang it! It's pretty darned dangerous for women these days!...
> 
> Unabomber Environmentalism
> 
> Hinkley Jodie Foster
> 
> Elliot MRA


Overall I agree homicide deaths and domestic-violence related deaths are down and the trend suggests that it will continue to do so. Men are also murdered in higher numbers than are women. That said who does most of the killing? Is it women killing these men or is it largely men killing each other? I think we all know the answer to that. As we know the answer to which gender is more culpable for killing women. When it comes to infanticide, the study published this year shows that between 1976 and 2007, both men and women were equally capable of infanticide (murdering a child under the age of 1) but men were responsible for more child murders overall. 

I don’t believe that anyone on this thread has argued that MRA or PUA or PUAHate is directly responsible for murders. However, we have all said it is misogynistic because it is. We have also all said that misogyny leads to violence because in many cases it absolutely does. 

In addition to being bat-sh!t crazy, two of the suspects that you mentioned, had something else in common besides the sensationalism from the media or a link to another issue.

Hinckley had an obsession for Jodie Foster and he stalked her for years. I can’t argue that stalking is misogynist behaviour. It’s not as women do it too. (Bunny boiler anyone?!) That said, it can be argued that stalking is in fact a violent behaviour. Though not a physical assault on the body, it is a terrorizing crime that causes real fear and duress in its victims and often occurs before any homicide or sexual violence occurs.

Now we know Elliott Rodgers was a misogynist. No paragraph needed, just read his own writing found on the cached pages of PUAHate or skip back to when I quoted him earlier. We all can agree that these men were crazy. What some choose to ignore is in addition to being highly disturbed; whether involved in PUA/MRA or they were anti-PUA members or not both of these men all exhibited maladaptive, unhealthy thoughts and obsessions towards women and both were violent. I can think of a few more:

Virginia Tech killer, Seung-Hui Cho – majority of victims were women. Killer stalked and harassed two female students and promised to prevail over female vipers - referred to all women as snakes before the attack. 

Sandy Hook killer, Adam Lanza – Word document on why all females are inherently selfish found on his computer.

Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh – sexual frustrations and a woman who rejected him

9/11 – Jihads and the promises of virgins in heaven. (Yes, I know there is more to the story here but it’s a big part of it). 

École Polytechnique Massacre, Marc Lepine – Claimed to be “fighting feminism”. Kills 14 women, 4 men, injures another 10 women, angered for not being accepted for the program over the women.

ETA: I also think it’s important to note that one need not be crazy to be a misogynist or even violent. I will not name-names but having been on TAM since 2012, I know of a member who is well-liked and I’d be hard-pressed to call crazy. However he was once a misogynist and admitted to having beat his wife in the past but has long since reformed himself of doing. I don’t think he’s crazy and while I can’t say if he’s misogynistic or not today, he certainly was then. It takes an element of superiority and entitlement to coerce and control a woman through force to do that.

If you aren’t a misogynist then I applau.... no, no I don’t because nobody should be one. Just as I believe – as a mother of sons that nobody should be misandrist. However, I don’t understand the offence if you don’t have a horse in this race when you hear that misogyny does kill people. No, not every time but getting drunk and driving down the high way doesn’t kill people every time either.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> Lessons From a Day Spent With the UCSB Shooter's Awful Friends


Oh come on, they don't hate women. They are just talking about men's rights.


----------



## Cubby

Okay, which is it? PUA or PUAhate? Cuz PUAhate (Rodgers forum of choice) hates PUA.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three

Cubby said:


> Okay, which is it? PUA or PUAhate? Cuz PUAhate (Rodgers forum of choice) hates PUA.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Yeah, I'm getting confused. First it was PUA/MRA, now it's PUAhate and PUAhate is being lumped with MRA?

:scratchhead:


----------



## Happyfamily

Faithful Wife said:


> Lessons From a Day Spent With the UCSB Shooter's Awful Friends


My Goodness, that was sobering. A very good point here:



> Elliot Rodger and company aren't the mentally ill outliers that the media (and the NRA) depicts them as. They're much more common than we want them to be. They're capable of being functional members of society — hell, Elliot Rodger was able to talk his way out of a property search that would have thwarted his mass murder plans before they even began to play out.


Remember that our primeval PUA pretenders in this thread are doing just that: insisting Elliot was completely insane.

Yet, six cops could come to his house after he was REPORTED by his therapist, not for being psycho but specifically for his hate-filled Youtube videos...

and those six cops decided he was no problem worth bothering with, not even to complete a search of his place. 

Another good thing pointed out was how these people chum around with themselves and get to thinking that everyone is a delusional misogynist just like them. That does help me understand better how we can have guys who never made the team referring to themselves as "warriors" right here on this forum. All alpha all the time. lol. 

Running into a woman with half a brain has to be pretty intimidating after spending the day on your pick-up artist forum.


----------



## Happyfamily

Cubby said:


> Okay, which is it? PUA or PUAhate? Cuz PUAhate (Rodgers forum of choice) hates PUA.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Since this has been addressed close to a dozen times now the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are purposefully spreading this fallacy.

PUAhate, again, is pick-up artist losers who have exactly the same misogyny and entitlement boner, having paid for PUA rubbish and found the purveyors to be con-men that took advantage of them.

The misogyny is the damn issue, which is BOTH of them. Not that this will sink in, since it has been stated over and over and over and over again here.


----------



## SoWhat

Cubby said:


> Okay, which is it? PUA or PUAhate? Cuz PUAhate (Rodgers forum of choice) hates PUA.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Yeah, exactly. 
PUAs, in general, don't feel "entitled" to women - quite the opposite. They seem to think that arousing sexual attraction in a woman requires game - a broad concept encompassing everything from being in shape and dressing well to being able to converse in a confident manner with any woman. 

Generally, they stress self-improvement and personal change. That's at odds with entitlement, with the sentiment that "I'm a nice guy, women should sleep with me for who I am now!!!!!" 

PUAhate'rs don't believe in personal change, they don't believe in improvement, they don't think they can or should do better. They spend hours discussing the aesthetic qualities of other men's faces. No, really, that was what most of the forum was - debates about how ideal a given celebrity's facial features are. 

This is ultimately a story about mental illness.


----------



## SoWhat

Happyfamily said:


> Since this has been addressed close to a dozen times now the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you are purposefully spreading this fallacy.
> 
> PUAhate, again, is pick-up artist losers who have exactly the same misogyny and entitlement boner, having paid for PUA rubbish and found the purveyors to be con-men that took advantage of them.
> 
> The misogyny is the damn issue, which is BOTH of them. Not that this will sink in, since it has been stated over and over and over and over again here.


How are a group of guys telling you that you are NOT good enough as is, that you are NOT entitled to sex simply because you are alive, but that you have to actively improve yourself to find yourself in the company of women sexually attracted to you preaching entitlement?

Thank God I'm married and don't have to try to "pick up" girls in bars but lots of single guys are wondering what they need to do to change so that women will be interested in them. 

ER didn't think he should have to do anything. Like all of the PUAers, he thought the secret was that he wasn't good looking enough and that women were bad for being that shallow....

That's the opposite of the "game" guys. That's entitlement.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Anyone who is genuinely interested in what the guys Rodger was talking to were saying and are saying now...should read the link in my post #301. If you don't actually know what they say by reading these guys themselves, then you are simply speculating.


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> Lessons From a Day Spent With the UCSB Shooter's Awful Friends



For a young man with seriously flawed social skills and mental health issues, finding acceptance and encouragement amongst misfits like this was a recipe for disaster...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cosmos said:


> For a young man with seriously flawed social skills and mental health issues, finding acceptance and encouragement amongst misfits like this was a recipe for disaster...


And now he's their hero...and now they are talking about writing their own manifestos and raping and killing women.

But you know, we shouldn't be alarmed. It is just a bunch of kooks, they are harmless, and not all men are like that.

:scratchhead: I am shocked at the responses here and elsewhere.

However....elsewhere, I HAVE come across literally thousands of truly shocked and horrified men and women, who just now have heard of any of these hate groups and who are now discussing it and becoming aware. This means those hate groups will not be able to grow in the dark as they once were. This means that some day soon, decent men will avoid MRA and PUA groups so as to not be associated with a total psycho misogyny camp.

I've been reading so many brilliant and awakening pieces, comments, stories....people who now know this exists and would not have without this tragedy. 

Awareness is the key. It is just the key, it doesn't correct anything. But if we have the key, we can unlock the rest.

Funny that Mach actually predicted this exact thing would happen a few weeks ago, and he knew this because he knows that hundreds of men make similar claims all the time. Yet he acts like this killing really wasn't that big of a deal and wasn't related to the beta war against the alpha's and their women he prophesied. Right.


----------



## Cosmos

As one person commented in the "... Shooter's Awful Friends" article, FW:-
_
"It sort of boggles my mind, at this point, that most women go through life simply hoping to have control over their own bodies, and that these f0ckers feel entitled to not only themselves, but to other people."_

Where do these _animals_ get off with their utter sense of entitlement?


----------



## As'laDain

didn't Athol Kay get his start on PUA sites?

i never really though of him as a misogynist..


----------



## Happyfamily

SoWhat said:


> Yeah, exactly.
> PUAs, in general, don't feel "entitled" to women - quite the opposite. They seem to think that arousing sexual attraction in a woman requires game - a broad concept encompassing everything from being in shape and dressing well to being able to converse in a confident manner with any woman.


Lol. Exactly as stated earlier in the thread. A PUA groupie comes on here thinking we can't actually go to PUA sites and read for ourselves. 

Yes, I read "The Game" - cover to cover. Mystery method. And I went to the PUA sites and read with amazement the misogyny and most especially the pathetic loser/stalker stories your buddies wrote in with. 

You are so full of manipulative crap you have zero credibility. 

Look how you forgot to label us as you do amongst yourselves: "targets". Look how you forgot to tell us how brainless women are to fall for "neg theory" where you insult us in order to make us drop our pants. Etc.

See how you did not link to any sites? They've been linked to here, and we can read for ourselves. Sure, sure - it's actually bodybuilder magazine or toastmasters. 

This is just so essential to creepy PUA guys, and I mean that literally. It means to sneak around in the shadows and deceive instead of being an honest, decent man who has balls enough to kick your rear end out of the stadium. You lie about what these sites are so full of, and actually think lying makes you smarter than the women you are trying to con right now. 

Confidence does not come from lying and deceiving. It comes from kicking ass in real life and earning the respect of people around you. 

And one thing about the Game. Read the preface. It actually mocks people like you who think they are learning something valuable. The Game is actually the con game on YOU, who spent money on this garbage.


----------



## EleGirl

soccermom2three said:


> Yeah, I'm getting confused. First it was PUA/MRA, now it's PUAhate and PUAhate is being lumped with MRA?
> 
> :scratchhead:


Here is what I gather...

The PUAHate community hates PUA because they tied the PUA tactics, paid big bucks for classes, etc. And they still cannot get laid. However, PUAHate still has the same attitudes of the PUA community in that women are things to be used and manipulated Women are the root of evil Women owe men sex.

The PUA community believes that they are an offshoot of the MRA community.


----------



## Miss Taken

Cubby said:


> Okay, which is it? PUA or PUAhate? Cuz PUAhate (Rodgers forum of choice) hates PUA.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_





SoWhat said:


> Yeah, exactly.
> *PUAs, in general, don't feel "entitled" to women - quite the opposite. *They seem to think that arousing sexual attraction in a woman requires game - a broad concept encompassing everything from being in shape and dressing well to being able to converse in a confident manner with any woman.


Yes, it's all just about self-improvement. 

Because I also have Google and reading comprehension abilities, I thought I'd call bullsh!t on the above.

No One Would Have Died If PUAHate Killer Elliot Rodger Learned Game Link is to PUA site from which I got the following excerpt.



> Rodger’s manifesto clearly states that his utter failure with women drove him to murder. The problem that he experienced is not unique—many men in Western society graduate from high school or college to realize that they have absolutely no skill or ability to seduce the opposite sex. We live in a society where being shy, normal, or a little awkward is duly punished by entitled American women who have been encouraged to pursue exciting and fun casual sex in their prime with sexy and hot men as a way of “experimentation.” They are enabled by the culture to seek out bad boys while rejecting the nice guy who is “boring.” This behavior continues until they find that they are past their physical prime, whereby the nice guy is plucked from a spartan sexual existence and expected to keep his mouth shut when a trickle flow of informational torture reveals that his bride-to-be has experienced more than a dozen different penises in her vagina, anus, and mouth—the same mouth that is supposed to kiss his future children good night.


Let’s pick this apart for a second should we?



> “We live in a society where being shy, normal, or a little awkward is *duly punished* by entitled American women...”


We entitled women duly punish men by existing whilst failing to give sex to those we don’t desire.



> “...who have been encouraged to pursue exciting and fun casual sex in their prime with sexy and hot men as a way of experimentation...”


Yes, and? How unfair because men are _never _encouraged to bag as many chicks as possible before settling down like EVAR! (Except that it happens in most social circles save the strictly devout (and often even then). 



> This behavior continues until they find that they are past their physical prime, whereby the nice guy is *plucked *from a spartan sexual existence and *expected to keep his mouth shut when a trickle flow of **informational torture*...


"expected to keep his mouth shut"... as opposed to what? Freely slvt-shaming her for behaving the same way that men are encouraged to?

And yes, plucked, booby-trapped, snatched, kidnapped et al. as the man is helpless in his choice for a girlfriend or wife. And, "Informational TORTURE," 'nuff said. 



> “... reveals that his bride-to-be has experienced more than a dozen different penises in her vagina, anus, and mouth—*the same mouth that is supposed to kiss his future children good night.”*


Yes, she’s tainted if she’s had another penis in her mouth and vagina before you. The traces of which will be left on the foreheads of your children at night when she puts them to bed. Dozens of penis imprints will be EVERYWHERE!!! Think of the steam-cleaning bills!

As for you though, Casanova-to-be; it doesn’t matter if you’ve performed cunnilingus, PIV and anal on multiple women – because that’s alpha. A woman sleeping around however – the thought of it is *torturous*. We’re supposed to be pure and chaste, only to turn into porn stars in the bedroom the minute you come along because your panty-dropping game should make us that way. 

NO, there’s no entitlement there whatsoever. None.


----------



## EleGirl

My head hurts.... :scratchhead:


----------



## SoWhat

Happyfamily said:


> Lol. Exactly as stated earlier in the thread. A PUA groupie comes on here thinking we can't actually go to PUA sites and read for ourselves.
> 
> Yes, I read "The Game" - cover to cover. Mystery method. And I went to the PUA sites and read with amazement the misogyny and most especially the pathetic loser/stalker stories your buddies wrote in with.
> 
> You are so full of manipulative crap you have zero credibility.



What?

Where did I say I was a pickup artist? 
Where did I equate the broad concept of "game" with the book "The Game" or "Mystery Method"? 

I'm married. I'm overjoyed that I'm no longer part of the dating world. I have no desire to ever be part of that world again. I am not, nor have I ever, considered myself a "PUA." I haven't labeled myself as such. 

Why the personal attack?


----------



## Deejo

Let me digress from the vitriol in this thread by saying I celebrate a woman's freedom to have as many penises in her mouth and vagina as she wants ... Nice Guy ... Bad Boy ... whatever.

I'm not terribly interested in pure and chaste post marriage and on the back-field of 40.

Or maybe I'm being manipulative and passive aggressive. It's hard for me to tell sometimes with all of the mixed messages ...

Carry on.


----------



## EleGirl

SoWhat said:


> Where did I equate the broad concept of "game" with the book "The Game" or "Mystery Method"?


What we are taking about here is not men who work on self improvement and by doing this improve their chance of finding a good woman.

The PUA community is about "The Game", "Mystery Method", entitlement, treating women as things that they seek to trick and use. 

If you were not defending the PUA community then what was the context of your post?


----------



## techmom

I'm going to repost this for those of you who still don't get it:

The only reason why Elliot hit the anti-PUA sites is because the gaming taught on the PUA sites didn't work. It didn't bring him the poon he was promised. Anti-PUA sites exist only because these men couldn't execute the techniques. They are still not getting laid. So they are angry at the game because they can't play. They feel left out.

*Let's not make the mistake that these Anti-PUA guys are disgusted with the pick up scene because they have a shred of love and respect for women. They are disgusted because they are mad at the guys who are able to get laid. So for the people who are trying to distance him from the MRA/PUA manosphere, they are wrong because his ideology fits like a glove.*

Even suggesting that all this guy needed was a girl to finally give up the poon to him misses a very valid point. This mans disturbances were deeper than just getting poon. He wanted to have total domination of women because he felt that is what he deserved. Men like this have such a gaping hole of need that even if they get laid, they will need more and more validation from women. They will never be able to full that void. It is like giving a man who has starved for food a cracker. Not only will he still be hungry but he will be angry that that cracker didn't completely stop the hunger pangs."

Ok, now let's focus on the bolded part. These men don't love women. The anti-PUA or the PUAs. Neither one of them believe that women deserve to be treated like human beings. Instead they both treat women like objects to be obtained. Like having a luxury car, a status symbol.

The only difference between these two groups is that the PUAs are successful in getting laid while the anti PUAs are Anti solely because they are angry that they went through all of the effort with no results. It is like comparing two people, one is a thief and is successful in stealing. Even with robbing banks. The other person is not, and lands in jail after getting caught. The thief who is caught looks at the other successful one and says, "why is he successful and not me? What is wrong with me?" Remember, they are both doing the same thing. So they are both thieves. One and the same.

The thief in prison could have chosen to take a respectable job and work hard, but no. He feels entitled to money, so he doesn't want to do the work and get the education neccessary to have a respectable life. He wants what the other one has, so resentment builds.

That example was to show the only difference between the PUA and Anti-PUA sites. One is glowing in being successful in getting laid by using degrading techniques on women and the other site is wallowing in misery, feeling left out of the party of poon.


----------



## Machiavelli

As'laDain said:


> didn't Athol Kay get his start on PUA sites?
> 
> i never really though of him as a misogynist..


Athol's deal was to figure out how to apply "game", which one might call the ability to appeal to women's sexual triggers, to marriage or other long term relationships with women. A lot of his stuff came from books by PhD authors that have been around for a while and a lot came from Roissy.

As for him being a misogynist? Well, he wants sex, so what else could he be?


----------



## SoWhat

EleGirl said:


> What we are taking about here is not men who work on self improvement and by doing this improve their chance of finding a good woman.
> 
> The PUA community is about "The Game", "Mystery Method", entitlement, treating women as things that they seek to trick and use.
> 
> If you were not defending the PUA community then what was the context of your post?


There's a difference between "defending" and "differentiating."
PUAhate was a site devoted to discrediting the concept that you can change how attractive women find you by altering your behavior and/or sartorial style and/or by working out more. It's a site where grown men have thousands of posts about the ratio of a man's jaw size to the length of his face, about the most attractive shape of a man's eyes, about grown men's lips....and how these are the only things that women are sexually interested in.



Pick-up sites are about making yourself more attractive. Each site has a different tone - yep, some do refer to women as "targets" and have some underlying disdain for women. Others don't. A site like RoK, authored by a variety of men, has a variety of tones. The only thing they'll all have in common is that they're aimed at making men more sexually attractive. 

I have no real love for pick up artistry. But it's strange to see the tenuous connections being made here.


----------



## EleGirl

Machiavelli said:


> Athol's deal was to figure out how to apply "game", which one might call the ability to appeal to women's sexual triggers, to marriage or other long term relationships with women. A lot of his stuff came from books by PhD authors that have been around for a while and a lot came from Roissy.
> 
> As for him being a misogynist? Well, he wants sex, so what else could he be?


A man wanting sex is not a criteria that would automatically make the man misogynist.


It takes attitudes like the garbage that we find on the PUA and PUAHate sites that makes it clear that some men are misogynists.


----------



## AliceA

I read the last page, saw some of the quotes and debates and couldn't stomach reading the whole thread. I think one of the biggest things forgotten by many who support these misogynist communities:

Females are human beings too. You'd think men created us as their pleasure things and are now p1ssed off that we aren't performing to their satisfaction. Sickening.


----------



## Miss Taken

SoWhat said:


> What?
> 
> Where did I say I was a pickup artist?
> Where did I equate the broad concept of "game" with the book "The Game" or "Mystery Method"?
> 
> I'm married. I'm overjoyed that I'm no longer part of the dating world. I have no desire to ever be part of that world again. I am not, nor have I ever, considered myself a "PUA." I haven't labeled myself as such.
> 
> Why the personal attack?


I didn't attack you but I'll take a guess...

Your other post came across as if you felt like you're the only one with a search engine and what you said, misrepresents what is actually going on, on those sites as we've read them ourselves. 

We've all read the PUA, MRA and PUAHate sites, many of links and excerpts have been posted within the thread. There is plenty of evidence to support that PUA sites are a little more sinnister than self-improvement and that MRA propoganda IS often misogynistic and has more to do with equal rights to parenting, custody and other noble causes. 

It's from searching, reading and discussing that we've drawn the conclusions that we have. So to come here and say that they aren't, this far in the thread was insulting. I'm assuming that's where some of the vitriol may be coming from.


----------



## SoWhat

Disagreeing with people's conclusions isn't equivalent to saying people haven't reached those conclusions through their own research. 

I haven't attacked anyone personally. I haven't used ad hominems. I keep the personal out of debate and try to only get involved in discussions where people let the content do the talking. If that's not what's happening in this thread, I can leave.


----------



## EleGirl

SoWhat said:


> There's a difference between "defending" and "differentiating."
> PUAhate was a site devoted to discrediting the concept that you can change how attractive women find you by altering your behavior and/or sartorial style and/or by working out more. It's a site where grown men have thousands of posts about the ratio of a man's jaw size to the length of his face, about the most attractive shape of a man's eyes, about grown men's lips....and how these are the only things that women are sexually interested in.
> 
> 
> 
> Pick-up sites are about making yourself more attractive. Each site has a different tone - yep, some do refer to women as "targets" and have some underlying disdain for women. Others don't. A site like RoK, authored by a variety of men, has a variety of tones. The only thing they'll all have in common is that they're aimed at making men more sexually attractive.
> 
> I have no real love for pick up artistry. But it's strange to see the tenuous connections being made here.


Have you looked at the links that have been posted on this thread that show what was posted on www.puahate.com and other site since PUAhate has been shut down?


----------



## Miss Taken

Machiavelli said:


> As for him being a misogynist? Well, he wants sex, so what else could he be?


:sleeping:


----------



## Happyfamily

SoWhat said:


> What?
> 
> Where did I say I was a pickup artist?
> Where did I equate the broad concept of "game" with the book "The Game" or "Mystery Method"?
> 
> I'm married. I'm overjoyed that I'm no longer part of the dating world. I have no desire to ever be part of that world again. I am not, nor have I ever, considered myself a "PUA." I haven't labeled myself as such.
> 
> Why the personal attack?


Don't call me stupid, and don't misquote me. I said you were a groupie. An admirer. Fan. Zero critical capacity. Absolutely nothing wrong with any aspect of PUA bunk whatsoever. All wonderful self-improvement literature. That is calling us stupid after we have been citing and quoting from it here. 

Why do you feel entitled to not read the thread and peddle this after it has already been discussed? THAT is rude.


----------



## SoWhat

Happyfamily said:


> Don't call me stupid, and don't misquote me. I said you were a groupie. An admirer. Fan. Zero critical capacity. Absolutely nothing wrong with any aspect of PUA bunk whatsoever. All wonderful self-improvement literature. That is calling us stupid after we have been citing and quoting from it here.
> 
> Why do you feel entitled to not read the thread and peddle this after it has already been discussed? THAT is rude.


I did not call anyone stupid. 
I read the thread. I didn't see where people were no longer allowed to raise (or even rehash) differing opinions on PUA/PUAhate. 

I'm out of here.


----------



## soccermom2three

SoWhat said:


> I did not call anyone stupid.
> I read the thread. I didn't see where people were no longer allowed to raise (or even rehash) differing opinions on PUA/PUAhate.
> 
> I'm out of here.


Sorry you were bullied. You really had some good points.


----------



## Cosmos

SoWhat said:


> There's a difference between "defending" and "differentiating."
> PUAhate was a site devoted to discrediting the concept that you can change how attractive women find you by altering your behavior and/or sartorial style and/or by working out more. It's a site where grown men have thousands of posts about the ratio of a man's jaw size to the length of his face, about the most attractive shape of a man's eyes, about grown men's lips....and how these are the only things that women are sexually interested in.
> 
> Pick-up sites are about making yourself more attractive. Each site has a different tone - yep, some do refer to women as "targets" and have some underlying disdain for women. Others don't. A site like RoK, authored by a variety of men, has a variety of tones. The only thing they'll all have in common is that they're aimed at making men more sexually attractive.
> 
> I have no real love for pick up artistry. But it's strange to see the tenuous connections being made here.


I don't believe the connections are at all tenuous. One is for successful PUAs and the other is for chronically unsuccessful and disenchanted PUAs (PUAHate). Their philosophy is basically the same. Women are mere objects that are there to be duped and used...

They even suggest a fun competition on one of the successful PUAs sites: "How to Increase Your Yearly Notch Count":-



> Here’s all you gotta do: start a contest with a friend on who can get the most bangs for the year.
> 
> The idea for the contest started by accident in 2008, when a friend and I were talking about our conquests during the summer. We informally kept count after that and at the end of the year there was a clear winner. Quality was not accounted for.
> 
> For 2009 it became much more official. Every notch was put up on the leaderboard and without divulging too many details let me state that it definitely made the year more exciting. Someone was in the lead by three notches, another caught up, there was a back and forth for several months, many ties, text messages and email subject lines with “+1″ flying around, and then finally two notches in the final half of December to cement the contestants’ fates, giving birth to the phrase “clutch notch.”
> 
> Previously I had thought of the contest only as a male bonding exercise, but when reflecting on the year I realized something: I banged four girls that I wouldn’t otherwise—simply to not lose the contest. These girls were merely alright but they kept me in the game, so to speak.
> 
> You’d think sex and the pursuit of notches would be enough to push a man like myself to bang all that I could, but truth is after a while in the game you need something more as motivation. A simple contest, with no real stake, is what did it.
> 
> If you are not yet sure about how to approach, get numbers, and have girls agree to go on dates with you, then check out my book Bang. I explain all these topics in painful detail so that you can go right out and start applying the techniques without the huge learning curve I had to go through.
> 
> How would your sex life change if you could approach more, or get more numbers, or get flaked on less? If it would change for the better, then I think you’ll like my book. Click here to learn more about Bang today.
> 
> How To Increase Your Yearly Notch Count | Pick Up Artist Mindset


And this is designed to make men more _attractive _to women? I think not...


----------



## Machiavelli

EleGirl said:


> Here is what I gather...
> 
> The PUAHate community hates PUA because they tied the PUA tactics, paid big bucks for classes, etc. And they still cannot get laid. However, PUAHate still has the same attitudes of the PUA community in that women are things to be used and manipulated Women are the root of evil Women owe men sex.


I doubt this guy ever even read anything about how to appeal to women; if he did, he evidently ignored it, as you would expect form a psycho. He still believed that being a "gentleman" was the way to attract women. Trying the same thing over and over despite getting the same result is called?.....Insanity.



EleGirl said:


> The PUA community believes that they are an offshoot of the MRA community.


Nope. Those guys hate each other, generally speaking. MRA is mostly divorced guys who are stuck paying lifetime alimony and exorbitant child support to the XW who refuses to get her bi-polar sexual addiction under control and has moved her drug dealing boyfriend into the dream house the MRA built for her/them. They have some legitimate beefs, but they tend to wear victimhood like a cloak, like the PUAHate guys. They are usually BHs, and have a huge since of betrayal that they can't get past because they have oneitis. 

Most PUAs, like Roissy, think MRAs are retarded for ever getting married in the first place, since that is no longer a requirement for sex and tends to limit variety, which is something men have always enjoyed.


----------



## EleGirl

SoWhat said:


> I did not call anyone stupid.
> I read the thread. I didn't see where people were no longer allowed to raise (or even rehash) differing opinions on PUA/PUAhate.
> 
> I'm out of here.


It's fine to give your opinion. But....

As has been stated, we have read the PUAHate site and other similar sites. People have posted links to quotes, screen shots, etc.

Elliot Roger's rants about how he planned to kill women were not removed by moderators. He was allowed to posts hateful posts. Not only did he but so did others. And the others encouraged him in his hate and in doing violence.

Why did PUAHate feel that they had to take the site down once it was clear that he had actually gone ahead with the killing? Most likely because they feared that they liability since they helped to perpetuate the hate and violence. Plus, there is a possibility that in PM's and other such behind the scene communications others from that site are planning to pull off similar attacks.

Many of the PUAHate members have moved to another forum.. guess what they are doing? They are talking about creating bombs to blow up stores with women in them, chaining closed the exits at a school and killing everyone inside.

And you want to whitewash this and make it sound like it was all about facial proportions , height and self improvement. 

Well you are going to have to work a lot harder to convince folks about that.


----------



## EleGirl

Machiavelli said:


> I doubt this guy ever even read anything about how to appeal to women; if he did, he evidently ignored it, as you would expect form a psycho. He still believed that being a "gentleman" was the way to attract women. Trying the same thing over and over despite getting the same result is called?.....Insanity.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Those guys hate each other, generally speaking. MRA is mostly divorced guys who are stuck paying lifetime alimony and exorbitant child support to the XW who refuses to get her bi-polar sexual addiction under control and has moved her drug dealing boyfriend into the dream house the MRA built for her/them. They have some legitimate beefs, but they tend to wear victimhood like a cloak, like the PUAHate guys. They are usually BHs, and have a huge since of betrayal that they can't get past because they have oneitis.
> 
> Most PUAs, like Roissy, think MRAs are retarded for ever getting married in the first place, since that is no longer a requirement for sex and tends to limit variety, which is something men have always enjoyed.


Like I said... my head hurts :scratchhead:


----------



## Machiavelli

Cosmos said:


> I don't believe the connections are at all tenuous. One is for successful PUAs and the other is for chronically unsuccessful and disenchanted PUAs. Their philosophy is the same. Women are mere objects that are there to be duped and used...
> 
> They even suggest a fun competition on one of the successful PUAs sites: "How to Increase Your Yearly Notch Count":-
> 
> 
> 
> And this is designed to make men more _attractive _to women? I think not...


Ever hear of a guy named Tucker Max?


----------



## EleGirl

Machiavelli said:


> Ever hear of a guy named Tucker Max?


Well there are some stupid women.


----------



## Machiavelli

EleGirl said:


> Well there are some stupid women.


Those are the kind of girls the PUAs were originally trying to score with.


----------



## Miss Taken

I just don't get the allure and the after-sex fart, now that's class. :rofl:


----------



## Cosmos

Miss Taken said:


> I just don't get the allure and the after-sex fart, now that's class. :rofl:


I think the post coital fart is the equivalent of a hearty belch after a good meal. In some cultures it's seen as a sign of appreciation. In the PUA culture, I expect it means something along the lines of: "Well done! Now go make me a sammich."


----------



## Windwalker

I read every post on this thread. The only solid conclusion I can come up with is that ALL men are guilty by virtue of having a pen!s.

It matters not.
What you have or have not done.
What your personal character is.
What your personal sense of morals are.
You could be a upright morally straight individual, doesn't matter.

GUILTY!

Look, I as a general rule, avoid this part of the forums like the plague. The only reason I even looked at it was that I had not heard the news. 

I for one am married. Have been for the last 16 years and have no intention of that changing. At least not by my choice.

Do I agree with the PUA or any of those retarded sites? Hell no! Have I seen them and read some of the stuff the promote? Yes.

The thing is, the basic principals are very often prescribed right here at this very site, by both men and women.

NMMNG
MMSLP

Nough said!

To create a well rounded individual with varied interests and who is fit, both physically and mentally. Hmmm? Sounds familar.

The whole MRA aspect is bad. While I agree with some of the points they make. Most of the sites let a bunch of nut jobs in, and a bunch of whine ass3s. The hearts in the right place, but the execution is pretty poor for the most part.

Yes. Men do in fact.
Rape
Murder
Hate Women.

I'm not about to say that these things don't happen. The point the I do believe most of the guys tried to make is that they have never committed these crimes themselves. Yet, just about every one of them has been shut down. Guilt by association. The guys who have tried to marginalize it, well they made their beds.

I guess personal responsibility went right out the damn3d window didn't it.

And then a couple of the ladies got off on the whole being chaste and virgins tangent. Yes, there is a double standard when it comes to sexuality perceptions. No one with half a brain is going to deny that. I can however promise you that if I am in a relationship with a woman, the full and honest history had better come out. BY BOTH PARTIES! I not only insist on it, but I demand it. Don't like that? Then hit the road. It's called transparency. It's necessary to make an informed decision.

I could really care less if you spent 5 years as the main attraction in a travelling porn show, but I better get the truth before hand. Same goes for me.

The ladies that are so quick to make generalizations and like to keep perpetuating stereotypes. I suggest that you look at the guy sitting in your living room first! He's a rapist, murder, pedophile, and a number of other undesirable things.

To guy that's ashamed to be a man. You can go ahead and be ashamed for me as well, because I am NOT! Each and every thing I do or have done will be accounted to eventually. I have lots that I am not proud of, but that's where self growth comes in.

One final thought.

NAWALT - AKA, Not all women are like that. 

Whats good for the gander is good for the goose!

Let my banning begin.

:soapbox:


----------



## Windwalker

EleGirl said:


> Well there are some stupid women.


I bet she made her mother proud.


----------



## Cosmos

^^^God have mercy on us - I don't think my poor brain can take much more of this! 

I'd better go to bed before I get myself banned from here >>>


----------



## Miss Taken

Is it possible to have this discussion without the use of strawman arguments...? Seriously getting tired of having to defend against crap that wasn‘t argued in the first place. 

If that post wasn‘t a straw man, please show me the posts where we‘ve said all men are misogynists, rapists or guilty of violence against women and I‘ll apologize on behalf of my fellow women. 

Otherwise, let‘s reign it back in a bit okay?


----------



## Deejo

Machiavelli said:


> Ever hear of a guy named Tucker Max?


Well ... nobody can accuse him of being manipulative and deceptive. 



> “Look, here’s the deal: If you’re into immature, sexually compulsive men who drink too much and need to be the center of attention at all times, you are going to find me very attractive.”


Can't say he's someone I want to emulate.
I read "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell", haven't read his others.


----------



## Windwalker

Miss Taken said:


> Is it possible to have this discussion without the use of strawman arguments...? Seriously getting tired of having to defend against crap that wasn‘t argued in the first place.
> 
> If that post wasn‘t a straw man, please show me the posts where we‘ve said all men are misogynists, rapists or guilty of violence against women and I‘ll apologize on behalf of my fellow women.
> 
> Otherwise, let‘s reign it back in a bit okay?


No straw man here. I based my post off of the comments already made. 


"Faithful Wife 03:01 PM Yesterday
not all men....not all men....not all men...."

I encourage you to read the link that the post is referring to. I would even suggest reading the comments as well. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Who are you asking this question to, Deejo? Just the women on this thread, or the 100's of opinion pieces who are quite clearly describing exactly WHY the MRA/PUA stuff is dangerous and needs to be watched and understood by more people?
> 
> Did you read any of those pieces? I linked several of them.
> 
> Do you actually think the women on this thread are just making up our concerns for no real reason, because we just want to talk about how men are dangerous? Do you have any idea what the "not all men" thing is about? Because you're on top of that not all men mountain right now.


Was intended for the OP ... or anyone else really.

I did indeed read the pieces.

I don't think the women in this thread are making up their concerns. I just think the concern is misplaced. The concern seems to be that PUA, PUAhaters, and MRA sites and their participants are incubators for misogyny and potentially murderers. That #NotAllMen are complicit via their lack of vociferous condemnation or action.

I posted about the recent honor killing of pregnant woman by her family ... outside of a Pakistani courthouse.

Also saw this just today: Alleged gang rape, hanging of 2 girls in India sparks global outrage - CNN.com

I have made it clear on multiple occasions that I have very big issues with violence against women.

If the participants on that PUAHate board, do in fact come up with each their very own manifesto, all that effectively does is prove the point that these are NOT,and never will be the kind of men that women should involve themselves with ... but websites and manifestos aside ... I can't make them NOT hate women. By the time they are posting about it, or stoning their own daughter, or raping and hanging young girls that ship has sailed. But I'd be very happy to show them the error of their ways, were we to be introduced in a private setting.

At the end of the day, I believe this is a problem for women to solve. Ideally with the support of men. Just like all of the other strides women have made, including their sexual liberation (still a work in progress for both genders). I don't think women want men to fix the problem for them, but it would be nice if we don't consciously get in the way either.

Most folks here know I've read the pickup stuff. I have directly and personally referenced some of the very benefits I have experienced, that have been openly disparaged and mocked on this thread. I can live with that. I don't feel compelled to defend the material to someone who may have been harmed by it at some point.


----------



## LongWalk

Deejo said:


> Well ... nobody can accuse him of being manipulative and deceptive.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say he's someone I want to emulate.
> I read "I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell", haven't read his others.


A long time ago I read his account of his affair with Katy Johnson, once Miss Vermont. In some odd way his apparent contempt for her (and for himself) some how made her look sympathetic. Her earnestness contrasted beautifully with his cynicism. It would be interesting to hear what he says about her today.

The truth is she doesn't look so horrible. Just foolish. Everything about him in piece reveals his self hatred. The persona he creates in his writing may partially be a bluff. His self exposure is the vestige of decency in him.

re: PUA and MRA
These two groups may have some overlap in misogyny, but not all of the participants in these groups are women haters. That does not change the fact that misogyny may be a way to compensate for the lack some real resolution to the real life problems that people face.

People reason in strange ways. A guy who never gets laid may hear a PUA advocate say:


> Hey, if you won the lottery and had millions, would you have good looking women lining up to sleep with and marry you?
> 
> Probably? No, you know you would. That's because women are all *****s at heart. Got it?
> 
> So the trick is to act like you're won the lottery and they will sleep with you.


I have two teenage daughters. For sure I would be sickened if they got used by a PUA artist. In fact, D18 once told me about a guy who tried to pick her up on the street and I know that the attention turned her head. She simply lacked judgment and experience.

Part of the problem is that there is a mating game that exploits. It is not just men and women who objectify each other. Entire industries that have social approval exist to make the game ruthless. All the make up and clothing pushed on young women so that they can increase their sex appeal. Isn't this also an unhealthy distortion?

The good looking woman who has perfect make up, perfect clothing, unreal feminine hygiene, etc. has objectified herself. In reality she is a human with all the insecurities that are normal. When some of the nerdy, awkward, shy guys feel that they are absolutely invisible and beneath contempt by attractive women, there is no industry that addresses their psychological inadequacies. In steps the PUA sub culture.

The commercialization of sex appeal exists and it contributes to the normalization of extremism.

Do PUA or MRA bear responsibility for misogynistic hate crimes? The answer is that any hateful ideology is responsible for the hate it creates. Most German people would never have accepted Nazism. It happened, though. Ideologies can cause collective insanity.

TAM doesn't have a young people section.


----------



## JCD

Okay. I was reading this book about police. A WASP police lieutenant and a Hispanic officer were meeting a bunch of gang members to discuss...something. The issue escapes my memory. Some kind of peace deal IIRC.

So the gang leader gets up and he starts thumping his chest and starts talking. "We're the Latin Kings (or whomever). We don't take stuff from no one! We don't respect the law. We got more gang members than you got cops. We got guns, we got muscle, we are heart breakers and life takers. You got your piddly little tiny cars with two scared fat guys driving around. You guys don't even STOP in our neighborhoods! So who the hell are YOU to tell US what to do?"

Well, the WASP lieutenant starts to stand up and leave. Obviously there was no room to negotiate. The Hispanic cop put his hand on the lieutenants shoulder and sat his ass back down again. He said "We just STARTED negotiations."

It was a nice little vignette to show the benefits of having a 'multicultural' police force. The Hispanic guy 'spoke the language'. The toughs were laying down a marker on how deserving of 'respect' they were. It was, as stated, talking smack.

So...how does this tie into this issue? The lady folks are agog, simply agog that the men folk aren't taking this seriously. Can't they see the awful awful things being said?

Cause you read some horrifying blog by 'ConantheThrusting357' and imagine some horrible alpha murderer, one rejected date away from going out with his huge arsenal of weapons intent on shooting every single person with a vagina in sight.

We know him as Ralph the Mouth, a guy who has more lung capacity than brains. We know him as a guy with an overdue mortgage, a shrewish wife, and a dog who dumps on his den rug all the time.

We know the PUAs too. And they do not (for the most part) conform to the picture women are painting here at all. They are 'Steve Dallas' from 'Bloom County' fame...










Mystery or Roosh V is not slipping anyone date rape drugs. They are hanging in bars and talking to people. I am not responsible for how they see women. This kind of (pathetic) guy has been around forever.

And we are also looking at actual facts. The world is full of a lot more hot air...and a lot less blood. Cause we can't be thought police. It is a very bad thing to criminalize speech. We can only criminalize actions.

But I will even support women on that front...if I see a reason to criminalize such speech. Do we have gangs of bitter MRA guys wandering around hunting women? Do we have a drastic and sudden increase in rapes, domestic violence and female murders?  We do not. We have the exact opposite of an increase in violence. We have a 20-63% decrease in violence...on all fronts!

Instead, about the time some 'internet tough guys' got a chance to vent their frustrations on the internet...we also get a downturn in violence. They 'got a chance to be heard'...and they get on with their day, vent their bile...and go take out the trash and walk Fluffy with his pathetic little bag to pick up the poopie.

Now, we also had drastic changes in society and the law. So I am not sure there is a correlation...but I wouldn't be surprised if it was A factor in the societal changes. 

So...I am told constantly that I need to listen to women and their world view. How they see things will give me HUGE insights into women and how to treat them better.

Fine. I am telling you that he is a crazy guy. Most of these guys are not only harmless but pathetic. They know they are pathetic. And they aren't brave enough to get into a fist fight, much less murder.

Are you willing to listen to men?


----------



## JCD

Here is another view of these internet tough guys. Lots of guys who are bitter and lonely. It takes a seriously crazy one to do what that guy did, though.


----------



## Omego

techmom said:


> I wanted to post this, much has been said about this tragedy that happened in UC Santa Barbara. Elliot Rodger was obviously a very lonely young man who was hurting for love and affection. Like many men, he yearned for love and affection (sex) from women. He was rejected often and became resentful.
> 
> Link to his writings:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/25/us/shooting-document.html?_r=0
> 
> He frequented MRA and PUA web sites, I feel that this had a lot to do with his hatred towards women. Had he had proper guidance and support, people would not have lost their lives.




With all of the directions this thread has taken, I wanted to go back and re-post the first post.

There is no one on this thread, I believe, who would disagree with this statement. It's been said over and over again that his mental illness simply needed a trigger or a focus to push him over the edge. 

It's also been said that it's a good thing for the police to be aware of the potential risks linked to these hate groups.

So how in the world did it turn into a mess of arguing and bullying... It's very annoying that things cannot be discussed without people getting called out, made fun of and "written to" in a rude manner. Everyone on this thread has made points which could be taken into consideration... Extrapolation is a waste of time and totally counter productive.


----------



## As'laDain

Windwalker said:


> No straw man here. I based my post off of the comments already made.
> 
> 
> "Faithful Wife 03:01 PM Yesterday
> not all men....not all men....not all men...."
> 
> I encourage you to read the link that the post is referring to. I would even suggest reading the comments as well.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


i read it.

i basically got that he accuses everyone who says it to be false and claims that all men are bullies/a-holes.

actually, the way he worded it, he didnt just accuse those who were saying it. he accused every single male. 

i cant take him seriously. he sounds nuts to me.


----------



## JCD

Omego said:


> With all of the directions this thread has taken, I wanted to go back and re-post the first post.
> 
> There is no one on this thread, I believe, who would disagree with this statement. It's been said over and over again that his mental illness simply needed a trigger or a focus to push him over the edge.
> 
> It's also been said that it's a good thing for the police to be aware of the potential risks linked to these hate groups.
> 
> So how in the world did it turn into a mess of arguing and bullying... It's very annoying that things cannot be discussed without people getting called out, made fun of and "written to" in a rude manner. Everyone on this thread has made points which could be taken into consideration... Extrapolation is a waste of time and totally counter productive.


Yes and

1) was the hatred a preexisting condition or something fostered in him? This is an important question. He was, IMO, already angry at (insert target here).

2) How big a danger do these sites actually pose?

These are legitimate questions and there are wildly differing opinions on this.

If you are speaking potentially, I suppose any website could spark hatred. But as far as actual stats of violence, the answer to the second question seems to be 'little discernible effect except on chemically imbalances paranoid schizos'.


----------



## LongWalk

1) He was in bad shape. The PUA and MRA sites may have stimulated and encouraged him to act. Do they recommend killing women?

2) Ideology has its waves of popularity

Das Kapital is in the library. No one (outside of some university scholars) is reading it. Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto are also on the selves. Those thinkers are not popular among the haters right now.

Here is a clip about the freedom of speech debate in Europe.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol, this thread still runs.

Anyway here are the FACTS.

Below I have copied and pasted a screenshot from a forum I have been a member of for the past FIVE YEARS, Bodybuilding.com.

Eliot Rodger was also a new member there.

If you read it carefully , you would understand clearly that his problem wasn't so much misogyny , but racial identity , ( he was bi racial), class, and self hatred because he was half Asian and hated wanted to be seen as white.
I read where he said he actually dyed his hair blonde, and complained bitterly when the black roots of his _real_ hair showed.
BTW , it wasn't coincidental that he murdered FOUR ASIAN MEN in his rampage.
He hated Asians , Indians , Blacks and minorities, he hated and loathed himself.
He grew up hating himself.
Everything else is incidental to this.

Here's a screenshot of Eliot Rodgers last thread.

Forum»More General Categories»Misc.» I'm tired of seeing losers with hot chicksPage 1 of 6123...LastResults 1 to 30 of 171
Thread: I'm tired of seeing losers with hot chicks
Thread Tools
05-18-2014, 08:37 PM #1
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



I'm tired of seeing losers with hot chicks
Seriously, today at my college I saw this short, ugly Indian guy driving a Honda civic, and he had a hot blonde girl in his passenger seat. What on earth is up with that?!?!? I would climb mount Everest 10 times just to have a girl like that with me. I drive a BMW coupe and I've struggled all my life to get a girlfriend. What's wrong with this world?

Does anyone else get disturbed and offended when you see sights like this? Someone make sense of this ridiculousness.
05-18-2014, 08:40 PM #2
*puremb*
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: United States
Age: 25
Stats: 5'11", 185 lbs
Posts: 4,117
Rep Power: 801



Buys BMW 
Expects the world to mire.
05-18-2014, 08:40 PM #3
*ThisIsBrahta*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: New Zealand
Age: 23
Stats: 5'11", 179 lbs
Posts: 228
Rep Power: 86



strong join date to post ratio
"Disregard Everything, Acquire Aesthetics" Crew
05-18-2014, 08:41 PM #4
*Superkid2*
Straight Brolic

Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Canada
Stats: 5'8", 170 lbs
Posts: 8,564
BodyPoints: 320
Rep Power: 2627



jealousy is a terrible trait to have my friend
Killa
05-18-2014, 08:41 PM #5
*ArthurAardvark*
teardrop inner canthi

Join Date: May 2013
Location: Rancho Palos Verdes, California, United States
Stats: 5'10", 170 lbs
Posts: 2,447
Rep Power: 5778



dude's prolly fun to be around

the "secret" to getting girls is to be fun to be around

srs
mke bucks. wiggins/parker, whoever is left. das it mane.
gb packers. *colt lyerla is gonna make it*
everton fc. ross barkley's epl, we just living it
la galaxy.
05-18-2014, 08:41 PM #6
*MightyBroYoung*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2014
Age: 21
Stats: 206 lbs
Posts: 97
Rep Power: 18



Racist post reported.
Romancer of beautiful women
05-18-2014, 08:41 PM #7
*Showtimebrah*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2014
Age: 21
Posts: 61
Rep Power: 0


yah i dunno either brah
05-18-2014, 08:42 PM #8
*lightsarefallin*
beer gains

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Canada
Stats: 5'10", 187 lbs
Posts: 7,887
Rep Power: 6449



It would probably help if you didn't look like you were still in elementary school.
***Canadian Crew***
☆ ☆ QUEBEC CREW ☆ ☆

*Coffee black as the sky on a moonless night crew*
*poverty phone crew*
*unpumped in avi crew*
*drive for 5 minutes in the summer and back of shirt gets completely wet crew*
*ass eaters anonymous crew*
*pee in the shower crew*
*fart in gym and blame rotten smell on faulty ventilation crew*
*fart at home and blame it on the dog crew*
*uses half the roll to wipe after a poo crew*
05-18-2014, 08:42 PM #9
*chorus*
Registered User

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Stats: 6'2", 176 lbs
Posts: 1,186
Rep Power: 19



just remember,

-the provider
-the lover
(@) It's a god-awful small affair / To the girl with the mousy hair (@)
05-18-2014, 08:43 PM #10
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by MightyBroYoung 
Racist post reported.
I wasn't being racist. I mentioned his race to make a point.
05-18-2014, 08:43 PM #11
dtugg
Barack Obama, Jr.

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: United States
Age: 28
Stats: 5'8", 165 lbs
Posts: 4,072
Rep Power: 3587



I see you got rid of those serial killer-esc videos on Youtube.
*In love with Katy Perry crew*
05-18-2014, 08:44 PM #12
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by lightsarefallin 
It would probably help if you didn't look like you were still in elementary school.
You're just jealous of my beautiful eyes and cheekbones.
05-18-2014, 08:44 PM #13
*SpotMeYo*
Banned

Join Date: May 2014
Age: 26
Posts: 135
Rep Power: 0


Did you see them kiss? Maybe he is a sucker giving her a ride? Maybe she is a monster *****, maybe even has a STD? 

There is just so much uncertainty
05-18-2014, 08:44 PM #14
*RyanLeee*
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 26
Stats: 6'1", 213 lbs
Posts: 940
Rep Power: 294



Originally Posted by ElliotRodger 
Seriously, today at my college I saw this short, ugly Indian guy driving a Honda civic, and he had a hot blonde girl in his passenger seat. What on earth is up with that?!?!? I would climb mount Everest 10 times just to have a girl like that with me. I drive a BMW coupe and I've struggled all my life to get a girlfriend. What's wrong with this world?

Does anyone else get disturbed and offended when you see sights like this? Someone make sense of this ridiculousness.
Lol no I do not get offended 

but i also dont struggle with women

he probably has a lot of power and wealth so she is drawn to that goldddd and money
05-18-2014, 08:45 PM #15
s1ckpsycho
hi

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: United States
Stats: 5'10", 177 lbs
Posts: 1,541
Rep Power: 479



where the *** do you phaggots go to school where a bunch of other phaggots get hot girls? I want to go there...now.
strong 2.5/10 facial aesthetics
HBB Amber Heard is my future wife
05-18-2014, 08:45 PM #16
*MightyBroYoung*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2014
Age: 21
Stats: 206 lbs
Posts: 97
Rep Power: 18



Originally Posted by ElliotRodger 
I wasn't being racist. I mentioned his race to make a point.
I was merely trolling. You must be new to the internets.

It did come off like you had a little bit of India hate though.
Romancer of beautiful women
05-18-2014, 08:45 PM #17
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by dtugg 
I see you got rid of those serial killer-esc videos on Youtube.
My parents discovered the videos, so I temporarily took them down. They will be back up in a few days, along with more videos I've filmed.
05-18-2014, 08:46 PM #18
*Oburoni*
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2014
Stats: 5'9"
Posts: 2,103
Rep Power: 1699






Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs

Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs

Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs






























































05-18-2014, 08:46 PM #19
*TopProsp3ct*
Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2013
Stats: 5'8", 170 lbs
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 64



He might be a great person. Possessions aren't everything brah.
"You may fool the whole world down the pathway of years
And get pats on the back as you pass
But your final reward will be heartache and tears
If you’ve cheated the man in the glass. "
05-18-2014, 08:46 PM #20
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by RyanLeee 
Lol no I do not get offended 

but i also dont struggle with women

he probably has a lot of power and wealth so she is drawn to that goldddd and money
Did you even read my post? He was driving a Honda civic, and an old model honda civic at that.
05-18-2014, 08:47 PM #21
dtugg
Barack Obama, Jr.

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: United States
Age: 28
Stats: 5'8", 165 lbs
Posts: 4,072
Rep Power: 3587



Originally Posted by ElliotRodger 
My parents discovered the videos, so I temporarily took them down. They will be back up in a few days, along with more videos I've filmed.
I'm not trying to be mean, but the creepy vibe that you give off in those videos is likely the major reason that you can't get girls.
*In love with Katy Perry crew*
05-18-2014, 08:48 PM #22
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by MightyBroYoung 
I was merely trolling. You must be new to the internets.

It did come off like you had a little bit of India hate though.
Well, I find it unjust that a white girl would choose him over me.
05-18-2014, 08:49 PM #23
AcetylCoA
Biochemist

Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 168
Rep Power: 61


lol
05-18-2014, 08:49 PM #24
*DesertSider*
Like a unicorn.

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Posts: 5,332
Rep Power: 15136



Maybe he's nice to her and treats her really good. Crazy theory, I know.
A man asked two bricklayers what they were doing. The first said "I'm laying bricks." The second said, "I'm building a cathedral."

Never trust a fart.
05-18-2014, 08:50 PM #25
*Grabre*
Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Canada
Age: 17
Stats: 5'11", 190 lbs
Posts: 1,046
Rep Power: 525



Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
05-18-2014, 08:51 PM #26
*MightyBroYoung*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2014
Age: 21
Stats: 206 lbs
Posts: 97
Rep Power: 18



Originally Posted by ElliotRodger 
Well, I find it unjust that a white girl would choose him over me.
I've got some bad news for you.
Romancer of beautiful women
05-18-2014, 08:51 PM #27
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by AcetylCoA 
So how do you know they were actually seeing each other?
I'm trying to convince myself that they were just friends or something, so that I can actually get some sleep tonight. 

Even if they were just friends, it still pisses me off that she is his friend and not mine.
05-18-2014, 08:52 PM #28
WKlase
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: United States
Age: 30
Stats: 5'9", 236 lbs
Posts: 12
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by ElliotRodger 
I drive a BMW coupe
I've heard enough.
05-18-2014, 08:52 PM #29
*ElliotRodger*
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: United States
Stats: 5'9", 135 lbs
Posts: 55
Rep Power: 0



Originally Posted by MightyBroYoung 
I've got some bad news for you.
Shut up, troll.
05-18-2014, 08:52 PM #30
*s1ckpsycho*
hi

Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: United States
Stats: 5'10", 177 lbs
Posts: 1,541
Rep Power: 479



Originally Posted by DesertSider 
Maybe he's nice to her and treats her really good. Crazy theory, I know.
lmao, good one.
strong 2.5/10 facial aesthetics
HBB Amber Heard is my future wife
Page 1 of 6123...Last
Quick Navigation Misc. Top
Bookmarks
Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Facebook Twitter
Posting Permissions
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Rules


Contact Us Bodybuilding.com Archive Top

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a link to a cached version the page sent to me;

[url=http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TbptOnc5huUJ:forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php%3Ft%3D161988053+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a]I'm tired of seeing losers with hot chicks - Bodybuilding.com Forums[/url]

I think the mods of bodybuilding.com deleted the other three pages of the thread.


----------



## JCD

Haters got to hate.


----------



## Caribbean Man

JCD said:


> Haters got to hate.



And there is a whole lot more I can post.

But I find it kinda sad that people are willing to bypass the fact that he killed four men FIRST before even getting to his target.

Anyone who has a basic understanding of how psychopaths operate know that in the forensic analysis of their actions , every single detail counts.
The details help piece the puzzle together.

Go on the link I provided to the forums and you'd see that most of the guys there were calling him out on his youtube vids, and his weird , self hating attitude.

Too bad the other pages are no longer available.

Funny how easily people let themselves be duped by the misogyny angle from the media in spite of the glaring facts to prove otherwise.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> And there is a whole lot more I can post.
> 
> But I find it kinda sad that people are willing to bypass the fact that he killed four men FIRST before even getting to his target.
> 
> I don't believe that anyone has bypassed the killing of the four men. He told us in his manifesto that he was going to do this before turning his attention to the sorority house. He also told us why...
> 
> Anyone who has a basic understanding of how psychopaths operate know that in forensics , every single detail counts.
> The details help piece the puzzle together.
> 
> Absolutely. Every single detail - _including _his misogyny.
> 
> Go on the link I provided to the forums and you'd see that most of the guys there were calling him out on his youtube vids, and his weird , self hating attitude.
> 
> I'm sure that most normal men would call him out, but the sites he, apparently, frequented and received acceptance and encouragement from were full of similarly maladjusted men. The body building site you belong to obviously isn't one of them.
> 
> Too bad the other pages are no longer available.
> 
> Funny how easily people let themselves be duped by the misogyny angle from the media in spite of the glaring facts to prove otherwise.
> 
> I don't believe that anyone here has been duped by the media. Those of us who read his manifesto were left in no doubt of his blatant misogyny.
> 
> Again, there were _certainly_ other complex factors at play here, but misogynistic idealogy _was_ definitely one of them.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I don't believe that anyone here has been duped by the media. Those of us who read his manifesto were left in no doubt of his blatant misogyny.
> 
> Again, there were other factors at play here, but misogynistic idealogy was certainly one of them.


Ok.

Lets do a simple extrapolation.

If a man of X race says the he hates women of Y race for some reason, what does that make him, a racist or misogynist?

If both, which one do you think plays a greater part in his attitude towards women of Y race, the fact that he was a misogynist or racist?


Can you see why it is way more complex than just plain old misogyny?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Ok.
> 
> Lets do a simple extrapolation.
> 
> If a man of X race says the he hates women of Y race for some reason, what does that make him, a racist or misogynist?
> 
> If both, which one do you think plays a greater part in his attitude towards women of Y race, the fact that he was a misogynist or racist?
> 
> 
> Can you see why it is way more complex than just plain old misogyny?


The fact that he was both.

Of course it's more complex than just misogyny. Much more complex. The guy even had his psychiatrist and therapists fooled. However, his hatred of women and sense of entitlement over them is something that he was very open and vocal about, and that is why it's in the spotlight.


----------



## TimeHeals

intheory said:


> Why couldn't he have gone to a high-class escort and learned about sex.
> 
> I suppose he thought it was beneath him to have to pay for sex.
> 
> .



Read his 140+ page polemic. He felt he was entitled to sex and intimacy from women due to his status as a superior (God-like really) human being.

It's a treatise that takes you into the mind of a grandiose malignant narcissist.

By age 4, he had travelled to 5 countries, he drove a BMW and wore 300 dollar sunglasses, he was better looking, smarter than the inferior men women were choosing over him, and what the world needed was a dictator/king like himself to decide which men women could select as mates (PS. His mother should have married George Lucas so she could have provided for him in the style which he rightly deserved).

He was skewed so far to one-end of the NPD scale that he will likely be featured in abnormal psychology talks at some point.


----------



## techmom

The only reason why this thread is still going is because after reading his manifesto, viewing his videos on you tube, and reading his posts on the manosphere, men are still trying to convince us that misogyny had nothing to do with him committing murder. You guys want him to be anything else besides a misogynist. When all evidence points to enormous amounts of woman hating viewpoints, you guys want us to just glance over it.

Racists can be misogynists.

Mentally ill men can be misogynists.

When he dyed his hair blonde and got upset when the dark roots started to show again, he was still a misogynist.

Misogyny was a major factor in motivating him to kill, can we agree with that and move on to solve that problem of misogyny?


----------



## Miss Taken

Windwalker said:


> No straw man here. I based my post off of the comments already made.
> 
> 
> "Faithful Wife 03:01 PM Yesterday
> not all men....not all men....not all men...."
> 
> I encourage you to read the link that the post is referring to. I would even suggest reading the comments as well.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry, 

Not satisfied with this at all. Faithful Wife wasn't calling out all men as rapists and misogynists there. 

If you read the context behind that post, you'd see she was addressing the fact that most of the men that had responded to this thread had continued to make posts about how NAMALT. Which was missing the point entirely. Nobody accused all men of being like that. 

A large point of this thread was that misogyny, in addition to mental illness, and as CM has pointed out self-loathing and his internal racism were factors here. 

I believe your reading of her post, "not all men.." was misconstrued to build your long straw man argument... if I didn't, I'd give an apology.


----------



## Caribbean Man

TimeHeals said:


> Read his 140+ page polemic. He felt he was entitled to sex and intimacy from women due to his status as a superior (God-like really) human being.
> 
> It's a treatise that takes you into the mind of a grandiose malignant narcissist.
> 
> *By age 4, he had travelled to 5 countries, he drove a BMW and wore 300 dollar sunglasses, he was better looking, smarter than the inferior men women were choosing over him, and what the world needed was a dictator/king like himself to decide which men women could select as mates (PS. His mother should have married George Lucas so she could have provided for him in the style which he rightly deserved).*
> 
> *He was skewed so far to one-end of the NPD scale that he will likely be featured in abnormal psychology talks at some point.*


FINALLY!

Somebody finally gets it.

Especially the last paragraph.:smthumbup:


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> The only reason why this thread is still going is because after reading his manifesto, viewing his videos on you tube, and reading his posts on the manosphere, men are still trying to convince us that misogyny had nothing to do with him committing murder. You guys want him to be anything else besides a misogynist. When all evidence points to enormous amounts of woman hating viewpoints, you guys want us to just glance over it.
> 
> Racists can be misogynists.
> 
> Mentally ill men can be misogynists.
> 
> When he dyed his hair blonde and got upset when the dark roots started to show again, he was still a misogynist.
> 
> Misogyny was a major factor in motivating him to kill, can we agree with that and move on to solve that problem of misogyny?


Why don't you give us your idea of how Eliot Rodger's "misogyny problem" could have been solved to prevent him murdering THREE ASIANS MEN, ONE WHITE MAN and TWO WHITE WOMEN, and finally himself, a half Asian half white?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> FINALLY!
> 
> Somebody finally gets it.
> 
> Especially the last paragraph.:smthumbup:


Some of us have actually been "getting it" along. We're just not prepared to ignore the misogyny angle, because it is highly relevant.

Once again, there are _many_ factors at play here.


----------



## Omego

Cosmos said:


> Some of us have actually been "getting it" along. We're just not prepared to ignore the misogyny angle, because it is highly relevant..
> 
> Once again (sigh), there are many factors at play here.


Thanks Cosmos, you beat me to it.

@CM, yes others have also understood the point you are trying to make, including me. I actually do believe that the personality disorder was at the origin of Rodger's frenzy.

This being said, you can't simply sweep other points of view under the rug. it's a complex issue and the attention drawn to the extremist websites is not a bad thing.


----------



## Omego

Caribbean Man said:


> Can you see why it is way more complex than just plain old misogyny?


Everyone sees that, I think.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> Some of us have actually been "getting it" along. We're just not prepared to ignore the misogyny angle, because it is highly relevant..
> 
> Once again (sigh), there are many factors at play here.


Cosmos,

What I've been saying all along is this.

His narcissistic personality disorder for which he showed very strong traits,is responsible for what drove him to do this.
Poster Kathy Basel alluded to it on another thread.

We all have some narcissistic traits in varying degrees.
But when a person exhibits strong clusters all of the traits , which is very rare, there is very little that can be done to help that person.

The racism and then misogyny in that order are all tangential to his issues, they are not the root cause of his actions.

Even if he was a full Asian with the same wealth and status,went to an all Asian university , most likely he would have had the same problem or similar because he saw himself better ,everyone else around him as lesser mortals ,and genuinely thought that they should worship him, to the point that when he didn't receive the worship he desired for his perceived god like status , he decided that he would have to deliver retribution or punishment.

We could enter any number of possible permutations and combinations , the end result would have still been the same.

That's why it is impossible to answer the question I asked Techmom.
His " misogyny " can't be " fixed" because that isn't the root of the problem.



Or maybe anyone else can answer exactly how it could have been
" fixed?"


----------



## Omego

Caribbean Man said:


> The racism and then misogyny in that order are all tangential to his issues, they are not the root cause of his actions.


Correct. :iagree:

Frankly, I think low self esteem was a major factor. I knew a guy at university, of Latin American origin, who had these traits. He kind of looked up to the blond guys and felt he was inferior. Sad.

Anyway, getting off the subject here.


----------



## techmom

*Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



Caribbean Man said:


> Why don't you give us your idea of how Eliot Rodger's "misogyny problem" could have been solved to prevent him murdering THREE ASIANS MEN, ONE WHITE MAN and TWO WHITE WOMEN, and finally himself, a half Asian half white?


The point that was made numerous times in this thread is that Elliot Rodger felt that he should have been the prime choice for women to date. Instead, he saw other men who he deemed unworthy getting what was rightfully his. 

When he was little, he saw that his father preferred to spend time with his girlfriends instead of his son. If his father would have spend quality time with him, it would have showed him that he had value and purpose.

If you look up narcissism, you will find that it is bred out of very low self esteem. These people then create a persona where they are a god and the best in the world. This is to fill the void that the low self esteem created.

Killing the men was his way of punishing them for taking what was his, the women. Killing the women was punishing them for not seeing what a god he was and how much of a gentleman he was. It all makes sense, to him. 

These points have been made earlier in the thread if you would care to read it instead of regurgitating the "notallmen" talking points.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



techmom said:


> The point that was made numerous times in this thread is that Elliot Rodger felt that he should have been the prime choice for women to date. Instead, he saw other men who he deemed unworthy getting what was rightfully his.
> 
> When he was little, he saw that his father preferred to spend time with his girlfriends instead of his son. If his father would have spend quality time with him, it would have showed him that he had value and purpose.
> 
> If you look up narcissism, you will find that it is bred out of very low self esteem. These people then create a persona where they are a god and the best in the world. This is to fill the void that the low self esteem created.
> 
> Killing the men was his way of punishing them for taking what was his, the women. Killing the women was punishing them for not seeing what a god he was and how much of a gentleman he was. It all makes sense, to him.
> 
> These points have been made earlier in the thread if you would care to read it instead of regurgitating the "notallmen" talking points.


And what part of your post here ^^^has anything to do with him having a
" misogyny problem" rather than behavioral clusters / mental disorder which led him on to a murderous rampage?


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Did you read the "not all men" link I posted? Because it addresses each one of the points you made and shows how it is simply more "not all men" stuff.
> 
> Honestly, did you read it?
> 
> If not, why would I bother to consider your points either?
> 
> If you did, then it would be great to discuss it with you.


Then let's discuss.

Can you please explain to me how what I said has anything to do with this "not all men" movement is connected. 

PS I did read the opinion piece you posted. And I was the kid in school who got out of my seat and helped the kid who was tripped up.

I believe in total fairness. I don't believe in pendulums. I don't believe in reciprocity. I judge myself and my surroundings on my own actions and life experiences. 

I see this issue with this sociopath as a mental health and gun control issue. If someone has been seeing a psychiatrist since they were 8 and prescribed medicine...maybe they shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. He was a woman hating, self-important a$$ who I would've despised if I knew him.

The "not all men" argument has truths to both sides. People like the author you posted have some valid points because there are many people who take a stand like "not all men" at the expense of helping the victims. But there is also a mistake socially to try and adjust all of society because of the 1% of abhorrent individuals. And that's what many of the more extreme groups do.

Can you honestly tell me that there isn't a single extreme group who is taking this truly sad situation and using it to try and push the pendulum past center? Or that there are groups who believe that the white man should be made to suffer because, historically there were some in that group who subjugated the other groups (women and minorities)?

The problem with your response of "not all men" is you're using it to try and silence or minimize people who want TRUE and TOTAL fairness and equality. There are plenty of men who hold women to the same levels as men, who don't let color of someone's skin influence their decisions. And I would bet they are the majority.


----------



## techmom

*Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



Caribbean Man said:


> And what part of your post here ^^^has anything to do with him having a
> " misogyny problem" rather than behavioral clusters / mental disorder which led him on to a murderous rampage?


I've asked you to read the posts earlier in the thread which you have refused to do so. Instead you choose to derail the thread by asking the same questions over and over. You don't want to see a misogyny problem. 

He hated women as a result of being rejected by them. If you don't see that from his manifestos and the numerous links posted, then I have no more to say to you.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Fine. I am telling you that he is a crazy guy. Most of these guys are not only harmless but pathetic. They know they are pathetic. And they aren't brave enough to get into a fist fight, much less murder.
> 
> Are you willing to listen to men?


So you see these misogynists as no threat? All talk and no action? Who cares if they talk smack about women?

Well, seems to me it's easy for you to be cavalier because you are not the target.

For starters, let's remember that it's not all talk. Names upon names of men who have ACTED on their hatred of women have been listed here. And those were just the serial killers. What of the teenage boy who killed a girl because she wouldn't go to prom with him? 

Violence may be down overall, but there is very real threat to women for being women and not wanting to date one of these guys you see as so harmless.

Would you be so cavalier if it was your demographic that was the target of such hate, full of threats of bombings, killings, rapes, and beatings?

Personally, I find it rather revolting that this sort of "smack talk" doesn't even make you blink. But that you can't see that these people are actually proposing and fomenting further violence is beyond the pale.

Do you really think the psycho serial killers of this world didn't begin as pathetic losers? Or is there just not enough of them for you to be concerned ? Or, you know, it's just a few people dead, whatevs, people have been dying since the beginning of time?


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



techmom said:


> The point that was made numerous times in this thread is that Elliot Rodger felt that he should have been the prime choice for women to date. Instead, he saw other men who he deemed unworthy getting what was rightfully his.
> 
> When he was little, he saw that his father preferred to spend time with his girlfriends instead of his son. If his father would have spend quality time with him, it would have showed him that he had value and purpose.
> 
> If you look up narcissism, you will find that it is bred out of very low self esteem. These people then create a persona where they are a god and the best in the world. This is to fill the void that the low self esteem created.
> 
> Killing the men was his way of punishing them for taking what was his, the women. Killing the women was punishing them for not seeing what a god he was and how much of a gentleman he was. It all makes sense, to him.
> 
> These points have been made earlier in the thread if you would care to read it instead of regurgitating the "notallmen" talking points.


I think that assigning blame to the father based upon input from his Narcissistic son, is more than a little iffy.

What I do think, is had this kid made his manifesto and videos about people of color rather than women, this tragedy may have had a different outcome. Had the diatribes been purely about racial hatred, I suspect he would have ended up on someone's radar much sooner.

If anything I can accept that most men likely perceived him as the type of person that was content whining and b!tching, but at the end of the day wasn't going to do anything about it. Hell I'd wager everyone knows someone like that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Dad&Hubby said:


> Then let's discuss.
> 
> Can you please explain to me how what I said has anything to do with this "not all men" movement is connected.
> 
> PS I did read the opinion piece you posted. And I was the kid in school who got out of my seat and helped the kid who was tripped up.
> 
> I believe in total fairness. I don't believe in pendulums. I don't believe in reciprocity. I judge myself and my surroundings on my own actions and life experiences.
> 
> I see this issue with this sociopath as a mental health and gun control issue. If someone has been seeing a psychiatrist since they were 8 and prescribed medicine...maybe they shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. He was a woman hating, self-important a$$ who I would've despised if I knew him.
> 
> The "not all men" argument has truths to both sides. People like the author you posted have some valid points because there are many people who take a stand like "not all men" at the expense of helping the victims. But there is also a mistake socially to try and adjust all of society because of the 1% of abhorrent individuals. And that's what many of the more extreme groups do.
> 
> Can you honestly tell me that there isn't a single extreme group who is taking this truly sad situation and using it to try and push the pendulum past center? Or that there are groups who believe that the white man should be made to suffer because, historically there were some in that group who subjugated the other groups (women and minorities)?
> 
> The problem with your response of "not all men" is you're using it to try and silence or minimize people who want TRUE and TOTAL fairness and equality. There are plenty of men who hold women to the same levels as men, who don't let color of someone's skin influence their decisions. And I would bet they are the majority.


Brilliant post.

And as a Black Man I can vouch for the part about the reverse racism and the grievances industry that exist in large measures in the Black community.
People holding on to a lot of old historical grudges and grievances giving way to a sense of false entitlement.

But very few in the Black intelligentsia want to address that topic because they fear ostracism, probably with the exception of Thomas Sowell.

Sadly, I see some of that same attitude creeping into internet feminist blogs.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



Deejo said:


> I think that assigning blame to the father based upon input from his Narcissistic son, is more than a little iffy.
> 
> *What I do think, is had this kid made his manifesto and videos about people of color rather than women, this tragedy may have had a different outcome. Had the diatribes been purely about racial hatred, I suspect he would have ended up on someone's radar much sooner.*
> 
> If anything I can accept that most men likely perceived him as the type of person that was content whining and b!tching, but at the end of the day wasn't going to do anything about it. Hell I'd wager everyone knows someone like that.


Well , the facts are out.

You're a bit late, but input for his manifesto was largely based on people of color and minorities, whom he considered inferior.
Being biracial, he hated that part of himself mostly.

I've put up links to some of his posts before he wrote his manifesto , on a bodybuilding forum.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

EleGirl said:


> All of us here should be very cognizant that internet forums have a profound influence on people.
> 
> Look at TAM. People come here and make life altering decisions in their lives based on what is posted here by others.
> 
> I think that many things lead to Elliot Roger’s murderous rampage. The PUA/PUAHate sites were one of the influence.. I think a major influence on his choice of action. He hung out on sites of men with similar points of view. He talked about slaughter a sorority house full of women. He ranted on and on, saying horrible, vile things about women. And what response did he get from the forums? He as encourage and cheered. Meeting no resistance to his hideous thoughts and even encouragement, for a mentally deranged man, simply helped to push him over the edge into living out his horrible plans.


I completely agree. There used to be a mountain dew commercial where two guys are in sports armor with home made lances up on opposing hills. They ride their bikes down the hill and crash into each other. As these two guys are writhing on the ground moaning, 4 people are drinking mountain dew (2 men and 2 women I think) asking each other "Do you think they meant to do that?"

When guys get together and have a similar interest in an "exciting activity", they will usually start talking about what they can accomplish and, unfortunately, disregard the potential dangers involved.

I remember when I was 9 or 10, my friend and I thought we could build better go carts using bike tires on plywood. We built them, brought them to the top of the hill and started to go. The problem was, in our excitement, we forgot little things like brakes...And because of the speed and poor build quality of a 9 year old....we ended up sliding down half of the hill on a plank of plywood at about 15-20 mph LOL.

Now there have been great things accomplished because of this mentality...but there is also a dark side to it and it shows itself in these websites. The solution isn't necessarily going to be in searching out the hateful versus the legitimate due to the freedoms we enjoy in this country. But, in my opinion, the solution will always reside at the "grassroots" level. Fathers (and mothers) have to teach their sons about respect, honor, integrity, right and wrong and to protect the victimized.


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Cosmos,
> 
> What I've been saying all along is this.
> 
> His narcissistic personality disorder for which he showed very strong traits,is responsible for what drove him to do this.
> Poster Kathy Basel alluded to it on another thread.
> 
> We all have some narcissistic traits in varying degrees.
> But when a person exhibits strong clusters all of the traits , which is very rare, there is very little that can be done to help that person.
> 
> I agree with this and did mention early on that I thought he was both pathologically egocentric and narcissistic.
> 
> The racism and then misogyny in that order are all tangential to his issues, they are not the root cause of his actions.
> 
> Even if he was a full Asian with the same wealth and status,went to an all Asian university , most likely he would have had the same problem or similar because he saw himself better ,everyone else around him as lesser mortals ,and genuinely thought that they should worship him, to the point that when he didn't receive the worship he desired for his perceived god like status , he decided that he would have to deliver retribution or punishment.
> 
> 
> IMO:-
> 
> He expected _women_ to worship him for his god-like status. He saw the acquisition of sex (woman) as a symbol of power and his resentment of men was based soley on him feeling that they were taking away what was rightfully his.
> 
> He was particularly attracted to blonde white women and, being half white, it incensed him even further that those women would associate with men of other races, rather than him.
> 
> He was like a dog after a much prized bone. He might have hated anyone who had access to that bone, but his main obsession, and ultimate hatred, was for the bone itself. Because he 'knew' he would never get a taste of it, that bone came to symbolize all that was wrong with humanity, and he decided to eradicate it and anyone who had ever got to taste it.
> 
> We could enter any number of possible permutations and combinations , the end result would have still been the same.
> 
> That's why it is impossible to answer the question I asked Techmom.
> His " misogyny " can't be " fixed" because that isn't the root of the problem.
> 
> It is doubtful that it was the root of all his issues, but it was certainly one of them...
> 
> 
> Or maybe anyone else can answer exactly how it could have been
> " fixed?"


----------



## always_alone

*Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



techmom said:


> If you look up narcissism, you will find that it is bred out of very low self esteem. These people then create a persona where they are a god and the best in the world. This is to fill the void that the low self esteem created.


A lot of people prefer to see mental illness as a simple defect in neurological wiring, and so unconnected to the wider social context. I think this must be reassuring, somehow, because it provides an easy explanation for the unexplainable, and also locates all blame on the one person, absolving the rest of us from having to examine ourselves or social structures.

Problem is, mental illness is socially situated, especially the emotional disorders that stem from alienation and insecurity.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dad&Hubby said:


> Can you please explain to me how what I said has anything to do with this "not all men" movement is connected.
> 
> PS I did read the opinion piece you posted. And I was the kid in school who got out of my seat and helped the kid who was tripped up.
> 
> I believe in total fairness. I don't believe in pendulums. I don't believe in reciprocity. I judge myself and my surroundings on my own actions and life experiences.
> 
> I see this issue with this sociopath as a mental health and gun control issue. If someone has been seeing a psychiatrist since they were 8 and prescribed medicine...maybe they shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. He was a woman hating, self-important a$$ who I would've despised if I knew him.
> 
> The "not all men" argument has truths to both sides. People like the author you posted have some valid points because there are many people who take a stand like "not all men" at the expense of helping the victims. But there is also a mistake socially to try and adjust all of society because of the 1% of abhorrent individuals. And that's what many of the more extreme groups do.
> 
> Can you honestly tell me that there isn't a single extreme group who is taking this truly sad situation and using it to try and push the pendulum past center? Or that there are groups who believe that the white man should be made to suffer because, historically there were some in that group who subjugated the other groups (women and minorities)?
> 
> The problem with your response of "not all men" is you're using it to try and silence or minimize people who want TRUE and TOTAL fairness and equality. There are plenty of men who hold women to the same levels as men, who don't let color of someone's skin influence their decisions. And I would bet they are the majority.


Dad&Hubby...the real issue of "not all men" is that it immediately tries to silence the voice who is speaking. 

Why can't we (meaning, anyone, man or woman) just say "a big part of this tragedy was this young man's blatent hatred of women and knowing that thousands of others like him are out there make me really uneasy and sad"...without a man (or anyone) saying "but not all men are like that"?

Why is that, do you think?

Why can't we just be heard without a debate about how WE FEEL about this issue?

I'm aware there are many other issues with this case. But the ONE that has me freaked out is the fact that these groups exists and that they have now been stirred up like a hornets nest.

Why is it that I cannot just express my feelings and fears on this without a debate about whether or not my feelings are valid?

You (anyone) could simply say "wow, yeah, that is probably frightening, isn't it?" and at least show you are listening....without going into other aspects. But that's the thing...these issues are always handled as if there is a debate.

Sometimes we have thoughts that are real and valid that should NOT be debated. Why should my feelings be debated by others? By debating them at all, you (anyone) are dismissing the feelings and fears themselves.

The "not all men" problem is a problem of debating instead of listening.

What you (I'm guessing) don't know about me is that I also spend time advocating for men and listening to them and NOT debating their valid feelings (I don't mean here at TAM, mostly other places). When a man or woman is telling me about a valid fear they have, I'm not trying to explain to them that there are parts of their fears that aren't valid. I'm just listening.

Why can't we just be heard?

The women in your lives are scared by these creepos and the fact that they are right now in the daylight making claims that they will do more killing and raping. Why don't men hear their women saying this and say "wow, I'm sorry this is scary" instead of "really? do you really think you need to worry about those kooks?"

It is invalidating.

I don't mean that other issues in this case cannot be discussed. 

I just mean that the fear that is provoked by this case should not be mixed in with those other debates nor should it be debated at all.

If you were the kid who went and helped the tripped kid up, then why don't you offer help in this case without a debate? "Help" would be something as simple as "yeah, I can see how that would have a lot of women freaked out".

One time after I posted out against the MRA's at TAM, someone signed on to TAM from an MRA group JUST TO SEND ME A THREATENING PM. That's it. They saw what I wrote and registered here JUST to call me a name and threaten violence against me. Has that ever happened to you? Can you actually just attempt to feel empathy about that? Since it totally isn't fair to me and really could have been a Rodger Elliot type? Or would you have to say something like "eh, kooks are just kooks"?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> He was particularly attracted to blonde white women and, being half white, it incensed him even further that those women would associate with men of other races, rather than him.
> 
> He was like a dog after a much prized bone. He might have hated anyone who had access to that bone, but his main obsession, and ultimate hatred, was for the bone itself.* Because he 'knew' he would never get a taste of it, that bone came to symbolize all that was wrong with humanity.*


And this^^^is the crux of the matter.

That's why I think it's a complex problem with cultural and sociological implications.
There are glaring facts that cannot be overlooked.

And interesting fact is that this fellow's dad was one of the producers of the biggest trilogy to hit movie screens worldwide last year.
His father was a producer of the " _Hunger Games_" movie.


----------



## Faithful Wife

One last thing...I'd like to note again that I've recently met literally hundreds of men online who are saying "wow, I can see how this would have a lot of women freaked out".

So it isn't impossible for this to happen. Some men are stepping up and trying to understand the fears this is causing in women, without a debate about the validity of their fears.

My husband is one of them. He would NEVER try to invalidate my fears of other men, in fact, he expects me to be on guard all the time. He know there are men who hate women and will kill or rape them if given the chance and yet he doesn't ever say "not all men" or think it has anything to do with his own manhood to be aware that some men ARE like that. He sees it as his job to protect me and the other women in our family from those men.


----------



## always_alone

*Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



Deejo said:


> What I do think, is had this kid made his manifesto and videos about people of color rather than women, this tragedy may have had a different outcome. Had the diatribes been purely about racial hatred, I suspect he would have ended up on someone's radar much sooner.


And this is exactly it. We get that hate speech against a race is wrong. We get that hate against a religion is wrong. We are fine with monitoring these hate groups to keep it in check and root out any terrorist activities. But hating women? That's just fine, normal, to be expected, it would seem.

A recent case near me was a guy who killed over 30 women. No one really noticed or cared for a very long time, despite complaints about disappearing women and suspicions that he was to blame. The cops even partied at his house for years, and made excuses for him.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

SoWhat said:


> Yeah, exactly.
> PUAs, in general, don't feel "entitled" to women - quite the opposite. They seem to think that arousing sexual attraction in a woman requires game - a broad concept encompassing everything from being in shape and dressing well to being able to converse in a confident manner with any woman.
> 
> Generally, they stress self-improvement and personal change. That's at odds with entitlement, with the sentiment that "I'm a nice guy, women should sleep with me for who I am now!!!!!"
> 
> PUAhate'rs don't believe in personal change, they don't believe in improvement, they don't think they can or should do better. They spend hours discussing the aesthetic qualities of other men's faces. No, really, that was what most of the forum was - debates about how ideal a given celebrity's facial features are.
> 
> This is ultimately a story about mental illness.


I've never been to a PUA site or MRA site or PUAHate site...because I have no interest in it frankly, but I've know some PUA's in my days and I would disagree with you.

Yes PUA's focus on self improvement. They focus on making money and being in great shape....because those two things help them well....pick up women.

One of my "friends" in college...and I use the term lightly because we started as what I thought were friends but I quickly learned that I was an unintentional wingman. I also couldn't stand his attitude towards women.

PUA's (in the general sense, not just websites) look at women the way a mountain lion looks at a lamb. They are predators looking for a conquest. Everything in their life...including this supposed self improvement...is about being the strongest predator they can be. So no, I have no respect for them.

The litmus test I have for PUA's or mysoginists is when they meet a woman for the first time. Most men, in my opinion, will look to get to know the woman. They may notice her physical traits etc. but their focus is on the PERSON in front of them...ie look at them as an individual. PUA's look at a woman like they look at steak in the meat case. This is just another tender morsel and they focus on THEIR game and manipulations in order to get said morsel.


----------



## Amplexor

I am not referring to anyone specifically here. Please keep your posts directed at the subject matter and not personal insults. A couple of members have already received bans in this thread and at least one was permanent. I have also taken down a thread that was simply designed to stir the pot on issues between men and women. This is obviously a tragic event and emotions run high as to why/how it happened. 

Please keep it respectful, thanks.


----------



## Omego

Dad&Hubby said:


> But, in my opinion, the solution will always reside at the "grassroots" level. Fathers (and mothers) have to teach their sons about respect, honor, integrity, right and wrong and to protect the victimized.


:iagree:


----------



## Caribbean Man

Dad&Hubby said:


> I've never been to a PUA site or MRA site or PUAHate site...because I have no interest in it frankly, but I've know some PUA's in my days and I would disagree with you.
> 
> Yes PUA's focus on self improvement. They focus on making money and being in great shape....because those two things help them well....pick up women.
> 
> One of my "friends" in college...and I use the term lightly because we started as what I thought were friends but I quickly learned that I was an unintentional wingman. I also couldn't stand his attitude towards women.
> 
> PUA's (in the general sense, not just websites) look at women the way a mountain lion looks at a lamb. They are predators looking for a conquest. Everything in their life...including this supposed self improvement...is about being the strongest predator they can be. So no, I have no respect for them.
> 
> The litmus test I have for PUA's or mysoginists is when they meet a woman for the first time. Most men, in my opinion, will look to get to know the woman. They may notice her physical traits etc. but their focus is on the PERSON in front of them...ie look at them as an individual. * PUA's look at a woman like they look at steak in the meat case. This is just another tender morsel and they focus on THEIR game and manipulations in order to get said morsel.*


And what I've found is that it works both ways.

PUA boy sees hot chick he want's to jump into bed with.
Hot chick sees hot guy she begins to fantasize about having him in _her_ bed.
She doesn't care what it takes or the consequences and says yes.

That's why I think the whole concept of casual sex itself is manipulative.
If they both agree to sex on the first date,
IMO, they both deserve each other.


----------



## EleGirl

Machiavelli said:


> Those are the kind of girls the PUAs were originally trying to score with.


Yea and going after stupid women with "game" makes a guy what? A loser?


----------



## EleGirl

Windwalker said:


> I read every post on this thread. The only solid conclusion I can come up with is that ALL men are guilty by virtue of having a pen!s.
> 
> It matters not.
> What you have or have not done.
> What your personal character is.
> What your personal sense of morals are.
> You could be a upright morally straight individual, doesn't matter.
> 
> GUILTY!


No one here is blaming all men for anything. We are talking about men who have posted some really hateful stuff on PUA and PUAHate sites.


----------



## SoWhat

EleGirl said:


> Yea and going after stupid women with "game" makes a guy what? A loser?


If they sleep with each other, it means two people who wanted to sleep with each other did. 

I have single guy friends who I try to help out with dating. It's an intimidating scene. I usually give them advice that mirrors some of the PUA advice to an extent - confidence, humor, remaining a little distant, not coming off as overeager, date multiple women at the same time (before you're exclusive), etc. 

Most of these guys are religious. It's understood that they're not trying to sleep with these girls. They want to be better at *attracting women*, at sparking a genuine sexual interest in women, so that they'll be able to get with the woman that's best for them for the long-term. 

Just like women try to look their best and there are magazines devoted to making a woman more attractive and confident? I'm trying to help my guy friends be more attractive and confident. I'm not a one-night-stand/notch count proponent, but I do understand that socio-sexual dynamics are founded on certain evolutionary realities and that guys who want women to be attracted to them should be aware of what women tend to be attracted to.


----------



## Deejo

Faithful Wife said:


> Dad&Hubby...the real issue of "not all men" is that it immediately tries to silence the voice who is speaking.
> 
> Why can't we (meaning, anyone, man or woman) just say "a big part of this tragedy was this young man's blatent hatred of women and knowing that thousands of others like him are out there make me really uneasy and sad"...without a man (or anyone) saying "but not all men are like that"?
> 
> Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Why can't we just be heard without a debate about how WE FEEL about this issue?
> 
> I'm aware there are many other issues with this case. But the ONE that has me freaked out is the fact that these groups exists and that they have now been stirred up like a hornets nest.
> 
> Why is it that I cannot just express my feelings and fears on this without a debate about whether or not my feelings are valid?
> 
> You (anyone) could simply say "wow, yeah, that is probably frightening, isn't it?" and at least show you are listening....without going into other aspects. But that's the thing...these issues are always handled as if there is a debate.
> 
> Sometimes we have thoughts that are real and valid that should NOT be debated. Why should my feelings be debated by others? By debating them at all, you (anyone) are dismissing the feelings and fears themselves.
> 
> The "not all men" problem is a problem of debating instead of listening.
> 
> What you (I'm guessing) don't know about me is that I also spend time advocating for men and listening to them and NOT debating their valid feelings (I don't mean here at TAM, mostly other places). When a man or woman is telling me about a valid fear they have, I'm not trying to explain to them that there are parts of their fears that aren't valid. I'm just listening.
> 
> Why can't we just be heard?
> 
> The women in your lives are scared by these creepos and the fact that they are right now in the daylight making claims that they will do more killing and raping. Why don't men hear their women saying this and say "wow, I'm sorry this is scary" instead of "really? do you really think you need to worry about those kooks?"
> 
> It is invalidating.
> 
> I don't mean that other issues in this case cannot be discussed.
> 
> I just mean that the fear that is provoked by this case should not be mixed in with those other debates nor should it be debated at all.
> 
> If you were the kid who went and helped the tripped kid up, then why don't you offer help in this case without a debate? "Help" would be something as simple as "yeah, I can see how that would have a lot of women freaked out".
> 
> One time after I posted out against the MRA's at TAM, someone signed on to TAM from an MRA group JUST TO SEND ME A THREATENING PM. That's it. They saw what I wrote and registered here JUST to call me a name and threaten violence against me. Has that ever happened to you? Can you actually just attempt to feel empathy about that? Since it totally isn't fair to me and really could have been a Rodger Elliot type? Or would you have to say something like "eh, kooks are just kooks"?


Yours is the first post where someone has openly said "I'm afraid."

Else, debate is what we do.

Say those words and you tap a very different portion of the male psyche.
I don't believe anyone here wants you, or any of the participating women to be afraid. And more than likely we would want to find ways to help, or offer advice to ease that fear.


----------



## EleGirl

Deejo said:


> At the end of the day, I believe this is a problem for women to solve. Ideally with the support of men. Just like all of the other strides women have made, including their sexual liberation (still a work in progress for both genders). I don't think women want men to fix the problem for them, but it would be nice if we don't consciously get in the way either.


Women will never be able to combat and end (or seriously reduce) violence against women without serious support from the good men out there. 

You posting about the honor killings is an example of how a good man can give that support.

The men who do hate women, feel a need to control women, and/or are violent to women need to hear from other men that their behavior is wrong and harmful. Why? Because these types of men could care less what women say. A woman telling such a man that his is wrong and needs to check his behavior is viewed by them as just more proof that women deserve whatever it is that the man is dishing out.

These men are far more likely to listen to other men then they are to list to any woman.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> Yours is the first post where someone has openly said "I'm afraid."
> 
> Else, debate is what we do.
> 
> Say those words and you tap a very different portion of the male psyche.
> I don't believe anyone here wants you, or any of the participating women to be afraid. And more than likely we would want to find ways to help, or offer advice to ease that fear.


Thank you, Deejo.


----------



## JCD

What was the name of this man, always? When did it happen?

With that kind of body count, his name should be a household word.

Heck, Jack the Ripper only got 8. John Wayne Gacy (who killed men) got 33 and he's a household name. The Green River Killer got supposedly 49. Jeff Dahmer (again men) got 17.


----------



## Caribbean Man

*Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbarar*



always_alone said:


> A recent case near me was a guy who killed over 30 women. No one really noticed or cared for a very long time, despite complaints about disappearing women and suspicions that he was to blame. The cops even partied at his house for years, and made excuses for him.


Can you provide us with a link please or at least a name of this man?

I can't remember seeing anything like that in the news within recent times unless of course it was an old story. 
But I find thirty women in this age of high tech crime fighting techniques to be a bit high.

If it is factual, then I think the entire brass of the police service , from the Commissioner right down to the Chief should resign.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Of course, there had to be one.


You won't find that which you do not go looking for

Stories about Notorious Murders: Women Who Kill and their Motives from the Crime Library Granted there is a mix in this list of man hating killers, and women that are just killers in general.


Now your point is taken, I believe many more men kill because of hatred of women than in the reverse.


I can find a whole bunch of women that kill because they hate men, or are misandrists. But you won't find 80%+ of my posts with a "women this, women that" theme.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

techmom said:


> The only reason why this thread is still going is because after reading his manifesto, viewing his videos on you tube, and reading his posts on the manosphere, men are still trying to convince us that misogyny had nothing to do with him committing murder. You guys want him to be anything else besides a misogynist. When all evidence points to enormous amounts of woman hating viewpoints, you guys want us to just glance over it.
> 
> Racists can be misogynists.
> 
> Mentally ill men can be misogynists.
> 
> When he dyed his hair blonde and got upset when the dark roots started to show again, he was still a misogynist.
> 
> Misogyny was a major factor in motivating him to kill, can we agree with that and move on to solve that problem of misogyny?


Would it be in bad taste to post

#notallmen

Disclaimer:
PLEASE DISREGARD ANY AND ALL POINTS OR INFORMATION IN THIS POST. THIS WAS A JOKE. PLEASE DON'T JUDGE THE POSTERS TRUE OPINIONS AND THOUGHTS ON SAID JOKE. OP SIMPLY FELT THIS THREAD NEEDED SOME LEVITY.


----------



## techmom

Deejo said:


> Yours is the first post where someone has openly said "I'm afraid."
> 
> Else, debate is what we do.
> 
> Say those words and you tap a very different portion of the male psyche.
> I don't believe anyone here wants you, or any of the participating women to be afraid. And more than likely we would want to find ways to help, or offer advice to ease that fear.


Thank you for this post. Men are problem solvers, I find that when I talk to men in my life about any negative feeling I may have, like fear, the first thing they want to do is solve it. Ways they go about it sometimes are invalidating, they make jokes or say things to make me feel wrong for feeling the way I do. Which is how I felt reading the posts from most of the men in this thread.

I created this thread to discuss this topic in the Ladies Lounge because IRL my friends felt frightened. They feel this every time we hear a man who has negative viewpoints on women take action and murder. These feelings are real. The #notallmen was another example of men invalidating our feelings and the way we have to live our lives. 

I don't know if this thread will be successful in providing a place for women to express how they feel about this man who killed because he felt rejected by women. This mans intentions was to shoot up a sorority. The girls so happened not to open the door, which was probably the only reason why the female body count was lower than the male body count. His intentions was to kill was to kill women. Let's not forget that.

But many men want to gloss that over and it makes me mad.


----------



## vellocet

Cosmos said:


> Saying that misogyny wasn't a factor here is rather like saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi.


Misogyny was absolutely a factor. Mental illness doesn't negate that fact.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> And there is a whole lot more I can post.
> 
> But I find it kinda sad that people are willing to bypass the fact that he killed four men FIRST before even getting to his target.
> 
> Anyone who has a basic understanding of how psychopaths operate know that in the forensic analysis of their actions , every single detail counts.
> The details help piece the puzzle together.
> 
> Go on the link I provided to the forums and you'd see that most of the guys there were calling him out on his youtube vids, and his weird , self hating attitude.
> 
> Too bad the other pages are no longer available.
> 
> Funny how easily people let themselves be duped by the misogyny angle from the media in spite of the glaring facts to prove otherwise.


Yes most were calling him out. That's a good thing.

On some of the other sites, particularly PUAHate the guys there were not calling him out. Instead they were encouraging him.. and they agreed. Quotes from the site that many of the PUAHate members moved to show men calling him their hero and talking about how they will write their own manifestos and commit mass murders.

There are sick people out there and they often find each other. 

And you continue to miss the thing about him killing more males. No one is dismissing that he killed more men. But some are dismissing that his intent was to also carry out a blood bath at a sorority but the girls did not open the door to him (thank goodness). Like you say, with these types of pshycos, every detail counts in analyzing their actions and intent.


----------



## Miss Taken

Robert Pickton? Charged/sentenced for the killings of 27 women but his kill count is thought to be as high as 49. Trial happened in 2007. He buried the women in and around his pig farm. Happened in British Columbia, Canada. He was a former millionaire and had lots of wild parties at his house... under the guise of his charity.

Obviously not all Canadians are nice. :/


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> What was the name of this man, always? When did it happen?
> 
> With that kind of body count, his name should be a household word.


He is, at least in these here parts:
Robert Pickton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SoWhat

Miss Taken said:


> Robert Pickton? Charged/sentenced for the killings of 27 women but his kill count is thought to be as high as 49. Buried the women in and around his pig farm. Happened in British Columbia, Canada. He was a former millionaire and had lots of wild parties at his house... under the guise of his charity.
> 
> Obviously not all Canadians are nice. :/



Eww, I remember reading about this guy. Killed a bunch of prostitutes, put them through his meat grinding equipment. Disgusting human being.


----------



## always_alone

Miss Taken said:


> Robert Pickton? Charged/sentenced for the killings of 27 women but his kill count is thought to be as high as 49. Buried the women in and around his pig farm. Happened in British Columbia, Canada. He was a former millionaire and had lots of wild parties at his house... under the guise of his charity.
> 
> Obviously not all Canadians are nice. :/


That's the one! You're faster than me.


----------



## Nynaeve

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol, this thread still runs.
> 
> Anyway here are the FACTS.
> 
> Below I have copied and pasted a screenshot from a forum I have been a member of for the past FIVE YEARS, Bodybuilding.com.
> 
> Eliot Rodger was also a new member there.
> 
> If you read it carefully , you would understand clearly that his problem wasn't so much misogyny , but racial identity , ( he was bi racial), class, and self hatred because he was half Asian and hated wanted to be seen as white.
> I read where he said he actually dyed his hair blonde, and complained bitterly when the black roots of his _real_ hair showed.
> BTW , it wasn't coincidental that he murdered FOUR ASIAN MEN in his rampage.
> He hated Asians , Indians , Blacks and minorities, he hated and loathed himself.
> He grew up hating himself.
> Everything else is incidental to this.


Isn't hatred of others always ultimately rooted in self-hatred?

He hated himself and other men. Obviously.

But the main focus of his hate was clearly women. He said as much. Repeatedly.

He planned to go to a sorority house to kill women.

He didn't plan to go to an Asian fraternity to kill Asian men. He didn't plan to go to a black fraternity to kill black men. He didn't plan to go to a place where men gathered or lived to kill a bunch of them all at once.

Just as his hatred of women was incidental to his self-loathing, his hatred of other men was incidental to his hatred of women. 

It seems to me that some men go to great lengths to deny the obvious in this case. The guy ranted and raved about hating women and wanting to kill women for not sleeping with him. And yet we're supposed to believe that because he also hated some other groups, his stated goals are irrelevant. That somehow, his hatred of other groups erases his hatred of women.

Why?

Why is it so hard for some men to acknowledge that Elliot Rogers was motivated by misogyny?


This kind of reminds me of the people who want to believe that Matthew Shepherd's murderers weren't motivated by homophobia. Those who claim it was a drug-deal gone bad, even though the killers' testimony/confessions indicated that it was because Matthew was gay.


----------



## Caribbean Man

vellocet said:


> I can find a whole bunch of women that kill because they hate men, or are misandrists. But you won't find 80%+ of my posts with a "women this, women that" theme.


Missandry doesn't exist.
Missandry or the hatred of men is a legitimate, visceral response by women who have been historically victimized and oppressed by a patriarchal system.
Missandry cannot exist because men still hold the reins of power and misogyny is systemic.

At least that is how they put it across on the the blogs.

If I'm wrong would somebody please correct me?


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> Thank you for this post. Men are problem solvers, I find that when I talk to men in my life about any negative feeling I may have, like fear, the first thing they want to do is solve it. Ways they go about it sometimes are invalidating, they make jokes or say things to make me feel wrong for feeling the way I do. Which is how I felt reading the posts from most of the men in this thread.
> 
> I created this thread to discuss this topic in the Ladies Lounge because IRL my friends felt frightened. They feel this every time we hear a man who has negative viewpoints on women take action and murder. These feelings are real. The #notallmen was another example of men invalidating our feelings and the way we have to live our lives.
> 
> I don't know if this thread will be successful in providing a place for women to express how they feel about this man who killed because he felt rejected by women. This mans intentions was to shoot up a sorority. The girls so happened not to open the door, which was probably the only reason why the female body count was lower than the male body count. His intentions was to kill was to kill women. Let's not forget that.
> 
> But many men want to gloss that over and it makes me mad.


I don't understand the issue with the "#notallmen " tag. 

This is a fact, not all men are like Elliot Roger. Not all men hate women or would pull off a mass murder like he did. 

The tag could even be taken a reassurance that not all men are like that. And of course not all men are like that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nynaeve said:


> Why is it so hard for some men to acknowledge that Elliot Rogers was motivated by misogyny?


Why is it so hard for you to understand that pepole are quite capable of looking at the FACTS, analyzing them and thinking for themselves?

Why is it so hard to get that there are many different angles to this case?

Also a few women on this thread also agreed that misogyny was NOT the underlying motivating factor.

Or is it that their opinions don't count because they don't fit into the groupthink?


----------



## EleGirl

Miss Taken said:


> Robert Pickton? Charged/sentenced for the killings of 27 women but his kill count is thought to be as high as 49. Trial happened in 2007. He buried the women in and around his pig farm. Happened in British Columbia, Canada. He was a former millionaire and had lots of wild parties at his house... under the guise of his charity.
> 
> Obviously not all Canadians are nice. :/


Here in Albuquerque a mass grave was found with the remains of 11 women. (not quite 27 or 49 but a lot just the same). These women were buried over a period of many years. No one knows who murdered them an buried them there. The killer has probably moved to another city or died.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Missandry doesn't exist.
> Missandry or the hatred of men is a legitimate, visceral response by women who have been historically victimized and oppressed by a patriarchal system.
> Missandry cannot exist because men still hold the reins of power and misogyny is systemic.
> 
> At least that is how they put it across on the the blogs.
> 
> If I'm wrong would somebody please correct me?


Of course misandry exists. There are some unhinged women just as there are unhinged men.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Why is it so hard for you to understand that pepole are quite capable of looking at the FACTS, analyzing them and thinking for themselves?
> 
> Why is it so hard to get that there are many different angles to this case?
> 
> Also a few women on this thread also agreed that misogyny was NOT the underlying motivating factor.
> 
> Or is it that their opinions don't count because they don't fit into the groupthink?


That's right. And others have their opinions as well. None of us know 100% what went on in the creeps head. So we are exchanging our ideas, thoughts and opinions. When we do that we challenge each other, bring up points/facts to ponder. It's ok for people to not agree.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> Yes most were calling him out. That's a good thing.
> 
> On some of the other sites, particularly PUAHate the guys there were not calling him out. Instead they were encouraging him.. and they agreed. Quotes from the site that many of the PUAHate members moved to show men calling him their hero and talking about how they will write their own manifestos and commit mass murders.
> 
> There are sick people out there and they often find each other.
> 
> And you continue to miss the thing about him killing more males. No one is dismissing that he killed more men. But some are dismissing that his intent was to also carry out a blood bath at a sorority but the girls did not open the door to him (thank goodness). Like you say, with these types of pshycos, every detail counts in analyzing their actions and intent.


I think you need to check Today's news and columns.

Also have a read of yesterday's article about it on Salon.com.

I'm going to post another link for you just now from another reputable source.

Basically they are refuting your theory.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> He is, at least in these here parts:
> Robert Pickton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Come on AA,

That case is more than seven years old.
It isn't a recent case like you've mentioned.


----------



## SoWhat

CaribbeanMan: 


Rodger was: 

Manlet
Forever alone
Didn't even lift
hated women
was obsessed with facial aesthetics

Definitely a miscer


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you need to check Today's news and columns.
> 
> Also have a read of yesterday's article about it on Salon.com.
> 
> I'm going to post another link for you just now from another reputable source.
> 
> Basically they are refuting your theory.


Which theory are they refuting?


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> I think you need to check Today's news and columns.
> 
> Also have a read of yesterday's article about it on Salon.com.
> 
> I'm going to post another link for you just now from another reputable source.
> 
> Basically they are refuting your theory.


It isn't a theory, CM. It's what Rodgers stated in his manifesto and last video.


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> Which theory are they refuting?


Presumably the _fact _that it was his (stated) intention to massacre everyone in the sorority house?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> If I'm wrong would somebody please correct me?


You have posted one name of one misandrist, and we all agreed that she was a misandrist. So clearly it exists.

I invited you to post more, to show the equivalence of misandry to misogyny, but you declined. Probably wise, given that it would've been a threadjack

But the point remains that no one has denied the existence of misandry. The question here is whether it is possible to even talk about misogyny without being told that it isn't a problem, that women are just as bad, that women's experience is invalid.

And my experience here is that it really isn't. Throughout my time here at TAM, I have been accused repeatedly being a misandrist, of hating all men, and of being a foam at the mouth radical feminist simply because I speak against objectification, rape, and misogyny.

Yet, I have never said anything even 1/10 as loathing or hate filled as the subjects of this thread. I have never once threatened anyone, or said that men deserved to be killed, beaten, and raped, nor have I defended anything of the kind. Ever. I have never even said that all men are misogynists, although I get accused of that too.

Heck, I even get called a misandrist for saying that objectification *isn't* a biological imperative, and that men too suffer when it happens to them.

So, it would seem that any time a woman speaks of for women's issues, she is a misandrist, but men who talk about raping, beating and killing women are just harmless dudes having a little dude-rant.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> Of course misandry exists. There are some unhinged women just as there are unhinged men.


Well good that you would be brave enough to admit that. But most feminist say that missandry doesn't and can't exist.
That post you quoted from was one I got from a feminist website.

Here's another one from a very popular website,xojane.com, which I posted yesteray;

_" Misandry exists only as an exaggerated Internet joke, and as a way in which women who have been directly or indirectly hurt by men to express their frustration and anger_."
Madeleine Alpert
Jul 26, 2013 at 5:00pm | 490 comments

WHERE'S VALERIE SOLANAS WHEN YOU NEED HER? WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO MAN-HATE IN 2013.


There were 490 comments and VERY FEW disagreed. They all agreed with it and added some more...

What was worse, was that there were some more blogs that were even more revolting than that.


BTW, the author was a 20 yr old lady, pursuing a degree at university...


----------



## EleGirl

Cosmos said:


> Presumably the _fact _that it was his intention to massacre everyone in the sorority house?


LOL.. it was his stated intent. He stated it in more than one place. He tried to pull it off but the girls in the sorority house did not let him in.

So once he realized that he could not gain access to the sorority house, he walked around to the side of it and kills some young men and women who were hanging around outside of the sorority house.. the girls were (I believe) members of the sorority.

Yea none of that matters.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Come on AA,
> 
> That case is more than seven years old.
> It isn't a recent case like you've mentioned.


More recent, at least, than your 1980s misandrist who "proves" your case that there are also women out there spreading the hate on men.

Indeed, she is long dead, and while Pickton is in jail, his accomplice is free to continue on.


----------



## SoWhat

If I may: 

To some extent, everyone's speaking past each other because they're speaking on different issues. 

Incontrovertible Fact 1: Rodger hated women.
Incontrovertible Fact 2: Rodger killed women and men.

Did (1) have causal impact on (2)? Probably. 

Absent (1), would (2) have happened? We simply do not know. If the hatred for women had never entered the picture, would his racism been sufficient to motivate him to kill people? Would he have found some other ideology to latch on to and use as a justification to act on his sociopathic/violently narcissistic tendencies? Maybe. 

Did the fact that he visited PUA/MRA/anti-PUA websites fuel his hatred towards women and make it more likely that he would act on his hatred/tendencies? 

Well, that's also impossible to know. As a control, you could look at rates of violence against women in proportion to the growth of PUA/MRA/anti-PUA websites. JCD has done so and the correlation looks to be the opposite -as the web in general grew, violence against women dropped in a big way. 

Now, that doesn't answer the question of whether or not Rodger, in particular, was funneled into murder by these websites. It only tells us that, in general, the effect has not been to increase violence against women.


So which of these is each person arguing here?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> You have posted one name of one misandrist, and we all agreed that she was a misandrist. So clearly it exists.
> 
> I invited you to post more, to show the equivalence of misandry to misogyny, but you declined. Probably wise, given that it would've been a threadjack
> 
> But the point remains that no one has denied the existence of misandry. The question here is whether it is possible to even talk about misogyny without being told that it isn't a problem, that women are just as bad, that women's experience is invalid.
> 
> And my experience here is that it really isn't. Throughout my time here at TAM, I have been accused repeatedly being a misandrist, of hating all men, and of being a foam at the mouth radical feminist simply because I speak against objectification, rape, and misogyny.
> 
> Yet, I have never said anything even 1/10 as loathing or hate filled as the subjects of this thread. I have never once threatened anyone, or said that men deserved to be killed, beaten, and raped, nor have I defended anything of the kind. Ever. I have never even said that all men are misogynists, although I get accused of that too.
> 
> Heck, I even get called a misandrist for saying that objectification *isn't* a biological imperative, and that men too suffer when it happens to them.
> 
> So, it would seem that any time a woman speaks of for women's issues, she is a misandrist, but men who talk about raping, beating and killing women are just harmless dudes having a little dude-rant.


AA,

I can post several excerpts from radical feminist blogs I've read and much of your beliefs, especially on objectfication, fall squarely in the radical feminist camp.
I have no problem with that.

But the problem begins when you start shaming men for _their_ beliefs.
That is what a lot of men on TAM have a problem with.


----------



## JCD

techmom said:


> I created this thread to discuss this topic in the Ladies Lounge because IRL my friends felt frightened. They feel this every time we hear a man who has negative viewpoints on women take action and murder. These feelings are real. The #notallmen was another example of men invalidating our feelings and the way we have to live our lives.


I live in a sleepy village. Maybe 3000 people total. It's next to a larger town of maybe 40,000.

My wife, god love her, does not like the idea of my girls (11 and 13) walking half a mile down the road together to go to the local store. "What if there are pedophiles out there?" Since my girls know and are known to pretty much everyone in the village, anyone trying such a thing would be seen and identifiable. So while 'valid' statistically it is very low as a chance. Almost microscopically low.

Likewise, if I go to your friends and tell them 'you are statistically twice as safe today as you were just 20 years ago', I would be considered a person 'invalidating their feelings'. But I would be factually correct.

Rape is down 63% from 1995. You are twice as safe. 

Domestic violence is also down 63% or so. Again, more than twice as safe.

Murder is down 20% over all and if you are more than 1 year old, it's very small. If you are a white woman, it is frankly miniscule. By the time you pass thirty, your chances diminish ever year.

So...now you know the facts. You are safer than you were. Do you FEEL safer? Knowing these statistics, do you think your feelings of insecurity are valid or invalid?

Granted, if you watch CSI, every other murder victim is a smoking hot 20 year old who was offed by a serial killer who hates women and not, you know, a rival gang member who shot a black man which is statistically more likely.

So I can understand why you have this skewed feeling of reality. Again, if you go by the stats, do you think your feelings of insecurity are entirely valid? 

Because, as a man, I seem to be judged on feminine feelings instead of pesky little facts. And that makes ME mad.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> More recent, at least, than your 1980s misandrist who "proves" your case that there are also women out there spreading the hate on men.
> 
> Indeed, she is long dead, and while Pickton is in jail, his accomplice is free to continue on.


Here is an article published LAST YEAR in xojane.com ,hailing Valerie Solanas as a feminist hero.

WHERE'S VALERIE SOLANAS WHEN YOU NEED HER? WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO MAN-HATE IN 2013.

And I can post articles from TWO DAYS AGO, again hailing Solanas book, _The SCUM manifesto_, which she says that females are a superior gender and advocates the killing off of the male species ,as a brilliant piece of work.

Do you want me to post some more?


----------



## Nynaeve

Caribbean Man said:


> Here is an article published LAST YEAR in xojane.com ,hailing Valerie Solanas as a feminist hero.
> 
> WHERE'S VALERIE SOLANAS WHEN YOU NEED HER? WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO MAN-HATE IN 2013.


I got "page not found" on that link.



> And I can post articles from TWO DAYS AGO, again hailing Solanas book, _The SCUM manifesto_, which she says that females are a superior gender and advocates the killing off of the male species ,as a brilliant piece of work.
> 
> Do you want me to post some more?


What would be the point?


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> AA,
> 
> I can post several excerpts from radical feminist blogs I've read and much of your beliefs, especially on objectfication, fall squarely in the radical feminist camp.
> I have no problem with that.
> 
> But the problem begins when you start shaming men for _their_ beliefs.
> That is what a lot of men on TAM have a problem with.


Except that I am not a radical feminist, and don't identify with that stance at all. Indeed, I have never taken that hard-line regarding men or penetrative sex, or any of the other radical issues whatsoever.

But of course, you've already decided what I stand for, so it doesn't much matter what I say about it. 

Sorry all, for the tangent. Dropping it now.


----------



## SoWhat

I suppose JCD just presented one more issue we're talking past each other one:

"Feeling" more unsafe because of increased number of men viewing PUA/MRA/anti-PUA websites.

"Being" more unsafe because of increased number of men viewing PUA/MRA/anti-PUA websites.

If anyone is arguing simply that they FEEL one way, no one else really has much room to disagree - we should take your posts as sincere expressions of how you feel.

If anyone is arguing about how unsafe they actually ARE - their best bet is to attack the statistics, argue that they are only retrospective, argue that the decrease in some sorts of crimes is qualitatively offset by an increase in other sorts of crimes, etc. 

I think we should always strive to communicate on the same level - so maybe we could all be more clear about what we're trying to say and not conflate issues? I know I could certainly use more work on that point!


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Dad&Hubby...the real issue of "not all men" is that it immediately tries to silence the voice who is speaking.
> 
> Why can't we (meaning, anyone, man or woman) just say "a big part of this tragedy was this young man's blatent hatred of women and knowing that thousands of others like him are out there make me really uneasy and sad"...without a man (or anyone) saying "but not all men are like that"?
> 
> Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Why can't we just be heard without a debate about how WE FEEL about this issue?
> 
> I'm aware there are many other issues with this case. But the ONE that has me freaked out is the fact that these groups exists and that they have now been stirred up like a hornets nest.
> 
> Why is it that I cannot just express my feelings and fears on this without a debate about whether or not my feelings are valid?
> 
> You (anyone) could simply say "wow, yeah, that is probably frightening, isn't it?" and at least show you are listening....without going into other aspects. But that's the thing...these issues are always handled as if there is a debate.
> 
> Sometimes we have thoughts that are real and valid that should NOT be debated. Why should my feelings be debated by others? By debating them at all, you (anyone) are dismissing the feelings and fears themselves.
> 
> The "not all men" problem is a problem of debating instead of listening.
> 
> What you (I'm guessing) don't know about me is that I also spend time advocating for men and listening to them and NOT debating their valid feelings (I don't mean here at TAM, mostly other places). When a man or woman is telling me about a valid fear they have, I'm not trying to explain to them that there are parts of their fears that aren't valid. I'm just listening.
> 
> Why can't we just be heard?
> 
> The women in your lives are scared by these creepos and the fact that they are right now in the daylight making claims that they will do more killing and raping. Why don't men hear their women saying this and say "wow, I'm sorry this is scary" instead of "really? do you really think you need to worry about those kooks?"
> 
> It is invalidating.
> 
> I don't mean that other issues in this case cannot be discussed.
> 
> I just mean that the fear that is provoked by this case should not be mixed in with those other debates nor should it be debated at all.
> 
> If you were the kid who went and helped the tripped kid up, then why don't you offer help in this case without a debate? "Help" would be something as simple as "yeah, I can see how that would have a lot of women freaked out".
> 
> One time after I posted out against the MRA's at TAM, someone signed on to TAM from an MRA group JUST TO SEND ME A THREATENING PM. That's it. They saw what I wrote and registered here JUST to call me a name and threaten violence against me. Has that ever happened to you? Can you actually just attempt to feel empathy about that? Since it totally isn't fair to me and really could have been a Rodger Elliot type? Or would you have to say something like "eh, kooks are just kooks"?





Faithful Wife said:


> One last thing...I'd like to note again that I've recently met literally hundreds of men online who are saying "wow, I can see how this would have a lot of women freaked out".
> 
> So it isn't impossible for this to happen. Some men are stepping up and trying to understand the fears this is causing in women, without a debate about the validity of their fears.
> 
> My husband is one of them. He would NEVER try to invalidate my fears of other men, in fact, he expects me to be on guard all the time. He know there are men who hate women and will kill or rape them if given the chance and yet he doesn't ever say "not all men" or think it has anything to do with his own manhood to be aware that some men ARE like that. He sees it as his job to protect me and the other women in our family from those men.


Two GREAT posts FW. Thank you for taking the time to write your thoughts instead of just posting op ed pieces or saying "not all men not all men not all men". (also what I just typed isn't in any way said with any negative connotation, I know it could come across that way but I can't think of another way of saying it).

I'm sorry you felt my posts invalidated your feelings or thoughts. I think if you go back and re-read what I wrote, I think you might get a different opinion. In NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM do I want to invalidate the concerns and issues this psycho's behavior raises. These are real issues, and not just in the mysoginist camp. There's racial issues, mental health issues and gun control issues that need to be looked at. And ALL have validity to them. I think there are core issues at hand (mental health and guns) and peripheral (racial and mysogyny), but ALL are valid and need to be considered and worked on.

To address one of your questions....
"_Why can't we (meaning, anyone, man or woman) just say "a big part of this tragedy was this young man's blatent hatred of women and knowing that thousands of others like him are out there make me really uneasy and sad"...without a man (or anyone) saying "but not all men are like that"?_"

Honestly, probably sensitivity. I'm in my early 40's, so I'll speak for my age group. Since as far back as I was mature enough to understand social issues, I've been hammered about how many evils the white man has committed. How unfair the system is and how slanted it is to favor the white man. News, media, op ed pieces, talk shows, equal rights groups etc. all are extremely vocal...If we're not aware and mature about it, many men in my age range grow with a form of "catholic guilt". Many men get tired of hearing how bad "men" are. How easy we have it. How society favors us. etc. I'll speak for myself. I didn't grow up in a wealthy family and had to pay my way through college. As a middle class white man, I had the LEAST amount of money available to me through scholarships, grants, federal funding etc. I applied to an Ivy League level school and just missed acceptance, although I had better qualifications than one of my friends who happened to be a minority and was accepted, due to affirmative action. I remember having to work full time to pay for school while the girl next to me went to school for free and had money to go out on the weekends because she was on welfare with a child. She called me a moron for not "working the system" even though, as a white man I could never get "on the system". When I say middle class...that means my parents made "too much money" but they didn't share that with me. Many men just get tired of hearing how "men" are the problem. Even in the op ed piece about "not all men" the author placed the blame on ALL MEN.

NOW, I was bitter and angry in my early 20's. But I was angriest at myself. I was angriest that I had grown my entire life into someone who prided himself on his fairness, on looking at situations and not considering race or gender. Who treats women with honor. Who didn't have notches in his bed post. Who protects the victims...and I was losing that person because of my recent experiences. Luckily. I realized I was becoming someone I didn't like and let go of that anger. But not all men let go of that type of anger or resentment. 

Also, most threads with differing opinions, or also similar opinions but different focal points of an issue tend to devolve into a debate. I think that has happened here. 

If a survey was done, I think 99% of ALL posters, men and women would agree the following

Elliot Rodger was a mysogynist with mental health issues and was a threat to women.

The debate seems to be centered on which of Rodger's issues were the core problem and which should be addressed.

I agree with you though that they ALL have merit, including the mysogyny.

Also, just because men don't go out and start up a website combatting the issues being discussed, or get on the news, doesn't mean we're silent. I'm not silent because I'm making sure MY children are better than the children before them. If we, as men and fathers, raise the next generation to be better and more enlightened etc. we're not silent.

My oldest son was "bullied" (he didn't see it as bullying because it didn't bother him because he knew he could handle the other boy if push went to shove) but eventually this bully went too far and my son "dealt" with him. What I was MOST impressed with though was my son took the time while teaching this bully not to bother him...to also make sure the bully wouldn't bother anyone else.


----------



## LongWalk

always_alone said:


> You have posted one name of one misandrist, and we all agreed that she was a misandrist. So clearly it exists.
> *
> I invited you to post more, to show the equivalence of misandry *to misogyny, but you declined. Probably wise, given that it would've been a threadjack


Easy. A boy is born and a piece of his penis is cut off without his permission. A lot of concealed hatred in that act. The justification is that it will prevent cancer of the penis, which is very rare. Who would suggest cutting off women's breasts to prevent breast cancer, which is very common? That would be misogyny.

The real reasons for cutting off the foreskin are to mark ethnic and religious possession of individuals via their sexuality. Furthermore, it is an attempt to control male sexuality.

If anyone say lets excise the clitoral hood to dry out the clitoris and make it less sensitive, women would go nuts.

Other examples of misandry: school organization. Little boys cannot sit still and concentrate. They need exercise. Currently many boys don't do well in school because the developmental lag between the genders is ignored.

Often feminists complain about subtle structural anti female bias. They exist for men as well.

Misandry and misogyny are both problems but they are difficult to eradicate. To prevent misogyny we ought to eliminate pornography which distorts sexuality, but that clashes with freedom of speech. So, there are dilemmas.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Nynaeve said:


> I got "page not found" on that link.
> 
> 
> 
> What would be the point?


Well if you have to ask what would be the point, then you're saying that you see nothing wrong in feminist idolizing a woman who openly advocated killing men.

And if that's what you're saying then you're basically proving my point that hate and extremism exists in probably equal amounts on both sides of the gender divide.

Here's that link again;

Where's Valerie Solanas When You Need Her? What It Really Means To Man-Hate In 2013 | xoJane

This one works. have a good read and tell us if you agree with her sentiments.


----------



## SoWhat

Misandry: numerous studies in different countries show that female teachers grade females higher for the exact same test answers. In each country, women make up a big majority of teachers. 

I'm not going to argue that there's a lot of women following the SCUM Manifesto though. Female-on-male murder is much more rare than male-on-female murder and both are much more rare than male-on-male murder.


----------



## techmom

Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.

Stats don't stop men from following you home. Stats don't stop men from raping a drunk girl at a party. We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it. Which is being done by men who throw around stats, like that would make a difference to me when I walk out of my house door.

Violence against women still happens and that makes us feel unsafe.


----------



## Omego

JCD said:


> Because, as a man, I seem to be judged on feminine feelings instead of pesky little facts. And that makes ME mad.


You perceive it that way and that is understandable, but I think the reality is that people are concerned about the possibility of a trend being started. The fact that Rodgers was linked to these sites, and the fact that some of the posts post-murder rampage actually championned what he did, have resulted in a lot of media attention in this direction.

Your example of not letting the children walk to the store is a good one! I'm exactly like that. Totally afraid of what MAY happen. 

I think it is better to be safe than sorry, as a general rule. Is it possible that some other mentally ill member of one of these sites decides to go on another rampage? I guess it could be possible. And who would the target be? Most likely women, based on the content of some of the posts.

That being said, the discussion becomes one of which came first: the chicken or the egg?


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Except that I am not a radical feminist, and don't identify with that stance at all. Indeed, I have never taken that hard-line regarding men or penetrative sex, or any of the other radical issues whatsoever.
> 
> But of course, you've already decided what I stand for, so it doesn't much matter what I say about it.
> 
> Sorry all, for the tangent. Dropping it now.


Do you think that missandry, or the hatred of men or anything masculine exists in the feminist movement ?

Here's yet another link:

https://formulationsofoppression.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/sinking-into-despair/#comments

Check the comments


----------



## SoWhat

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.
> 
> Stats don't stop men from following you home. Stats don't stop men from raping a drunk girl at a party. We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it. Which is being done by men who throw around stats, like that would make a difference to me when I walk out of my house door.
> 
> Violence against women still happens and that makes us feel unsafe.


Thank you for answering with clarity! 
I hope no one here is inclined to argue with you about how you feel - your feelings are your own. 

On the same token, I hope you are not inclined to argue against the statistics on the basis of your feelings - as that would be just about the same thing as someone arguing with your feelings on the basis of statistics. That is: you're less likely now to get raped or murdered than you were before the advent of the internet and, therefore, before the rise of PUA/ant-PUA/MRA sites.


----------



## Omego

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged


Very true. I was just telling my daughter the other day about going to parties when she gets older and not letting her drink out of her sight because of that drug people are putting into girls' glasses. She already knew about it! Turns out the school had organized a talk about this. She's in middle school.

When I was her age, these kind of things were not talked about as much. At least, that is my experience.

All of this media coverage about the misogynist aspect of the killings will hopefully lead people to discuss these issues with their young adult/teen children. I think it was Dad&Hubby who said that change has to start at this level.


----------



## Lionelhutz

techmom said:


> Thank you for this post. Men are problem solvers, I find that when I talk to men in my life about any negative feeling I may have, like fear, the first thing they want to do is solve it. Ways they go about it sometimes are invalidating, they make jokes or say things to make me feel wrong for feeling the way I do. Which is how I felt reading the posts from most of the men in this thread.
> 
> I created this thread to discuss this topic in the Ladies Lounge because IRL my friends felt frightened. They feel this every time we hear a man who has negative viewpoints on women take action and murder. These feelings are real. The #notallmen was another example of men invalidating our feelings and the way we have to live our lives.
> 
> I don't know if this thread will be successful in providing a place for women to express how they feel about this man who killed because he felt rejected by women. This mans intentions was to shoot up a sorority. The girls so happened not to open the door, which was probably the only reason why the female body count was lower than the male body count. His intentions was to kill was to kill women. Let's not forget that.
> 
> But many men want to gloss that over and it makes me mad.


The expression of fear is legitimate. I have many women in my life and I want none of them to feel threatened let alone fall victim to violence.

I agree that I, like a lot of men, often feel the need to "fix" the situation any time my wife expresses a negative emotion. I know from my own experience that it can be very irritating if I am simply expressing a negative emotion such as anger, and the listener attempts to "fix" the situation when I am not looking for help. But as with most perceived differences in the sexes, it is often impossible and perhaps meaningless to speak in terms of cause and effect.

Of course when my wife expresses negative emotions about something that wasn't my fault, it is not a soliloquy, she is looking for a response. Maybe that response is nothing more than support. However, often it feels like it is expressed in terms which seems to put responsibility on me as the cause or remedy of the situation. Sometimes that feeling is groundless but sometimes it is entirely reasonable.


In this case the statement that the killer was a misogynist seems self-evident. It is also almost certainly true that he was predisposed to act out violently. He was trying to target a group composed exclusively women but when that didn't work ultimately any victim would do. What was most important for him was not merely to harm or eliminate women but to act out violently and dramatically.

To express the fear this incident causes is legitimate but that doesn't mean any conclusion attached to that fear is legitimate. For example, it is fine for Ann Hornaday to express her fear in the Washington Post but when she wrongly implies others are responsible, then she should be soundly criticized.

What does it imply to say this guy is a misogynist? Does it mean the same thing as stating that the guy who shot up the people at the Jewish centre was anti-Semitic? If so then it would seem foolish to disagree. But any conclusion beyond that about society at large or the responsibility of others is the subject of legitimate debate.


----------



## Cosmos

SoWhat said:


> If I may:
> 
> To some extent, everyone's speaking past each other because they're speaking on different issues.
> 
> Incontrovertible Fact 1: Rodger hated women.
> Incontrovertible Fact 2: Rodger killed women and men.
> 
> Did (1) have causal impact on (2)? Probably.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Absent (1), would (2) have happened? We simply do not know. If the hatred for women had never entered the picture, would his racism been sufficient to motivate him to kill people? Would he have found some other ideology to latch on to and use as a justification to act on his sociopathic/violently narcissistic tendencies? Maybe.
> 
> 
> Highly likely. It's my guess that he would have found some other poisonous idealogy. His personality type demanded someone or something to blame for his real or imagined woes.
> 
> The fact is, though, he _did _hate women and he was a misogynist.
> 
> Did the fact that he visited PUA/MRA/anti-PUA websites fuel his hatred towards women and make it more likely that he would act on his hatred/tendencies?
> 
> I believe they probably exacerbated them by adding to his sense of entitlement with and hatred of women.
> 
> Well, that's also impossible to know. As a control, you could look at rates of violence against women in proportion to the growth of PUA/MRA/anti-PUA websites. JCD has done so and the correlation looks to be the opposite -as the web in general grew, violence against women dropped in a big way.
> 
> I would need to know how these studies were carried out and by whom. We're always hearing, for example, that porn has not precipitated any increase in violence against women, but some studies will indicate otherwise:-
> 
> BOLD - Violence Against Women on the Internet -
> 
> I'm very wary of some of the stats thrown around here on TAM.
> 
> Now, that doesn't answer the question of whether or not Rodger, in particular, was funneled into murder by these websites. It only tells us that, in general, the effect has not been to increase violence against women.
> 
> 
> I don't believe those websites alone tipped the scales with Rodgers, but I do believe that they could have played a part.
> 
> 
> So which of these is each person arguing here?


----------



## Caribbean Man

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.
> 
> Stats don't stop men from following you home. Stats don't stop men from raping a drunk girl at a party. We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it. Which is being done by men who throw around stats, like that would make a difference to me when I walk out of my house door.
> 
> Violence against women still happens and that makes us feel unsafe.


Neither does painting the vast majority of men as rapist, or misogynist make us feel good .

Violence against men still happens,in greater numbers than women ,and that also makes all of us feel unsafe.
And as , we have the responsibility of keeping both ourselves and women , safe. 
It comes with being a man.

If men and women are equals, then,
Basically, we're all in this together.

Are you willing to see it that way?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Omego said:


> That being said, the discussion becomes one of which came first: the chicken or the egg?


That's the real issue.

As a side note, Rodgers also said that he had spent lots of hours everyday playing certain violent video games. Can't remember the names, but he praised those games and said they " gave him purpose."
He literally lived in a fantasy.


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> But I find it kinda sad that people are willing to bypass the fact that he killed four men FIRST before even getting to his target.


It doesn't advance the hive narrative.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> Do you think that missandry, or the hatred of men or anything masculine exists in the feminist movement ?
> 
> Here's yet another link:
> 
> https://formulationsofoppression.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/sinking-into-despair/#comments
> 
> Check the comments


I read this, particularly the comments. These women really do sound scared. They must have had terrible things happen to them.

They sound like the guys quoted on the PUA sites in this thread, except the women sound scared and the men sound angry. Different expression of maybe the same emotion? 

These men and women are both at extremes.

It looks like the fears and hurts of both sides need to be validated. All this extremism is not healthy.


----------



## jld

Machiavelli said:


> It doesn't advance the hive narrative.


A comment like that doesn't help, Mach. Everyone wants to feel respected and listened to.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> I read this, particularly the comments. These women really do sound scared. They must have had terrible things happen to them.
> 
> They sound like the guys quoted on the PUA sites in this thread, except the women sound scared and the men sound angry. Different expression of maybe the same emotion?
> 
> These men and women are both at extremes.
> 
> It looks like the fears and hurts of both sides need to be validated. All this extremism is not healthy.


Which is what I've banging my head on the walls trying to say in here since yesterday.

There are extremes on both sides, worse yet are the ages and socioeconomic classes of these youngsters.

It is a sociological problem, how deep it runs, I don't know.


----------



## wilderness

always_alone said:


> And you would like to extend these freedom to all hate groups? Because people have a right to spew and spread whatever hatred they have, against races, religions, sexual orientations, and on and on it goes?
> 
> Even John Stuart Mill, the king-daddy of libertarianism himself, thought that freedom ought not extend to those who exhort others to hateful frenzy.
> 
> But you think it's all fine and dandy?



It's not hatred to fight oppression. It's commendable. However, I would say that it IS hatred to claim that it's hatred to fight oppression. Referring specifically to MRAs and those that claim they are hate groups.


----------



## Machiavelli

techmom said:


> The only reason why this thread is still going is because after reading his manifesto, viewing his videos on you tube, and reading his posts on the manosphere, men are still trying to convince us that misogyny had nothing to do with him committing murder. You guys want him to be anything else besides a misogynist. When all evidence points to enormous amounts of woman hating viewpoints, you guys want us to just glance over it.


What?? All the evidence points to misandry. He killed twice as many guys, so he was twice as misandrous and he was misogynist. He was mad at guys because they got laid and he didn't, which is why he hated PUAs, since he thought he should be able to do what they did (hey, even Indian guys with game can bag blondes) and he couldn't. His murder numbers are the proof.

See how simple that is?

Guys 4
Girls 2
So the Guys win the Elliot Rodger Murder Spree.


----------



## Nynaeve

Caribbean Man said:


> Well if you have to ask what would be the point, then you're saying that you see nothing wrong in feminist idolizing a woman who openly advocated killing men.


I'm saying nothing of the sort. Don't put words in my mouth, that's just dishonest.

I'm asking you what your point would be in posting more examples. As far as I can see, no one has argued that no women ever hate men. So my question is what would be the point in continuing to post examples when no one has said they don't exist.





> And if that's what you're saying then you're basically proving my point that hate and extremism exists in probably equal amounts on both sides of the gender divide.


Of course that's not what I'm saying. And I think you know that.



> Here's that link again;
> 
> Where's Valerie Solanas When You Need Her? What It Really Means To Man-Hate In 2013 | xoJane
> 
> This one works. have a good read and tell us if you agree with her sentiments.


Now it says "503 Service not available."


----------



## SoWhat

jld said:


> I read this, particularly the comments. These women really do sound scared. They must have had terrible things happen to them.
> 
> They sound like the guys quoted on the PUA sites in this thread, except the women sound scared and the men sound angry. Different expression of maybe the same emotion?
> 
> These men and women are both at extremes.
> 
> It looks like the fears and hurts of both sides need to be validated. All this extremism is not healthy.


I think the women there seem extremely angry too. 
However, I'm guessing the readership for that blog is a few orders of magnitude smaller than that of, say, RoK. 

There are very few women who are truly dedicated to consciously destroying their attraction to men, methinks.


----------



## techmom

Caribbean Man said:


> Neither does painting the vast majority of men as rapist, or misogynist make us feel good .
> 
> Violence against men still happens,in greater numbers than women ,and that also makes all of us feel unsafe.
> And as , we have the responsibility of keeping both ourselves and women , safe.
> It comes with being a man.
> 
> If men and women are equals, then,
> Basically, we're all in this together.
> 
> Are you willing to see it that way?


No I don't see it that way, especially when the thread was intended to discuss this latest tragedy. If you want to discuss violence against men then start another thread. Meanwhile, allow women here a space to openly discuss and work through our feelings. If that threatens you or make you feel unsafe, then I'm sorry. 

But, please don't interrupt us with the constant "but it happens to us too" posts, it feels very invalidating.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Well good that you would be brave enough to admit that. But most feminist say that missandry doesn't and can't exist.


There is not a woman on this thread who has said that misandry does not exist.
I don’t read current feminist material so I don’t know what they are saying. If they are saying that misandry does not exist then are not being honest. 


Caribbean Man said:


> That post you quoted from was one I got from a feminist website.


Are you assuming that I, or the others here, would support everything ever written about a woman who calls herself a feminist and posts on feminist web sites? To be honest I am very likely to disagree with most of what radical feminists say/write as I think they are taking things way too far. They have gone beyond the idea of equality for men and women.

“Missandry doesn't exist.
Missandry or the hatred of men is a legitimate, visceral response by women who have been historically victimized and oppressed by a patriarchal system.
Missandry cannot exist because men still hold the reins of power and misogyny is systemic.”

Note that the quote contradicts itself. The first statement is that misandry does not exist. It then goes on to explain that misandry does indeed exist and why the author believes it exists. I tried to find the site this is on but nothing came up in google.

Ok, that’s a radical view for a women here in the North America or in most of Europe.

Now if the woman stating that was a woman who grew up in a country where she was forced to marry an older man at the age of 10, forced to have sex with him (repeatedly raped) and forced to have his children and live as one of his wives, forced to endure beating by him… I can understand a woman who was forced into a life of this abuse feeling like this.

When I lived in East Africa, our maid’s husband traveled a lot. When he traveled he forced her to have someone in their village sew up her vagina so that she could not cheat on him. The poor woman had constant infections and serious scaring/disfiguration due to this. But this was the norm in the villages there. I can understand why women in that culture might feel this way.

But women who live in the North America and Europe today? The rant about hatred of men being legitimate makes the author sound about as rational as Elliot Roger. Hopefully she was not talking about killing fraternity houses full of young men or even nursing homes full of old men. 



Caribbean Man said:


> Here's another one from a very popular website,xojane.com, which I posted yesteray;
> 
> _" Misandry exists only as an exaggerated Internet joke, and as a way in which women who have been directly or indirectly hurt by men to express their frustration and anger_."
> Madeleine Alpert
> Jul 26, 2013 at 5:00pm | 490 comments
> WHERE'S VALERIE SOLANAS WHEN YOU NEED HER? WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO MAN-HATE IN 2013.
> There were 490 comments and VERY FEW disagreed. They all agreed with it and added some more...


It’s written by a 20 year old undergraduate college student and reads like something written by a 20 year old. First she says basically that misandry does not exist, then she says the following (see quote below). He’s all over the place. 

Not all of the comments agree with here… a good number are actually poking fun at her article…
. 



Caribbean Man said:


> What was worse, was that there were some more blogs that were even more revolting than that.


Yes there are lots of blogs by both men and women that are revolting. Should we go out and tally up which gender as the most revolting blogs? 



Caribbean Man said:


> BTW, the author was a 20 yr old lady, pursuing a degree at university...


Yep, she’s an immature kid. IT shows in what she wrote.



Caribbean Man said:


> As I said, misandry exists. What also exist are nutcase women who identify with a radical form of "feminism". Most women do not agree with that kind of radical thinking.


You are right. MOST women do not agree with radical feminism. But we are constantly being put in that category and disparaged. It happens so often on TAM that the women here are getting down right sick of it. If we talk about equality for women…. We are equated to the radical feminists and called misogynist.


----------



## Machiavelli

Caribbean Man said:


> Even if he was a full Asian with the same wealth and status,went to an all Asian university , most likely he would have had the same problem or similar because *he saw himself better ,everyone else around him as lesser mortals ,and genuinely thought that they should worship him,* to the point that when he didn't receive the worship he desired for his perceived god like status , he decided that he would have to deliver retribution or punishment.


Yeah, that might be the real problem. For some reason, girls aren't all that hot to have sex with feminine looking guys who think they are living gods and let you know it in five minutes. I just don't understand it. Why if women don't drop their panties immediately for a guy like that, something must be wrong with the women. And the PUAs are stealing the women who are rightfully his, as master of the universe. No wonder the guy got upset about it. What master of the universe wouldn't be upset?


----------



## jld

Machiavelli said:


> What?? All the evidence points to misandry. He killed twice as many guys, so he was twice as misandrous and he was misogynist. He was mad at guys because they got laid and he didn't, which is why he hated PUAs, since he thought he should be able to do what they did (hey, even Indian guys with game can bag blondes) and he couldn't. His murder numbers are the proof.
> 
> See how simple that is?
> 
> Guys 4
> Girls 2
> So the Guys win the Elliot Rodger Murder Spree.


True, but I don't think you are scared of the PUA guys, right? I don't think men are more scared of other men now than before they heard about the murders. Is that right?

But women might be. To women, at least the women mentioned in CM's example, it might be just one more reason to fear men.

Most men are not like this. Most women are not like the women in CM's example blog. Most of us are pretty decent people. But we do need to pay attention to the extremes. These people need support and some, like Rodgers, need treatment.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Dad&Hubby...the real issue of "not all men" is that it immediately tries to silence the voice who is speaking.
> 
> Why can't we (meaning, anyone, man or woman) just say "a big part of this tragedy was this young man's blatent hatred of women and knowing that thousands of others like him are out there make me really uneasy and sad"...without a man (or anyone) saying "but not all men are like that"?


It makes me more than uneasy and sad. I have a son who is hearing this stuff at school already. In MIDDLE SCHOOL. The idea that getting laid is premier stud thing, and boys who don't are ... I won't even say the word that is being used.

I have a tween daughter who is going to be interacting with these people. 

It is, very obviously, not "all men". But in my experience it is not some crazy minority as to be virtually invisible either. My children WILL have to deal with these attitudes throughout their maturing lives. 



> Why is that, do you think?
> 
> Why can't we just be heard without a debate about how WE FEEL about this issue?
> 
> 
> I'm aware there are many other issues with this case. But the ONE that has me freaked out is the fact that these groups exists and that they have now been stirred up like a hornets nest.
> 
> Why is it that I cannot just express my feelings and fears on this without a debate about whether or not my feelings are valid?
> 
> You (anyone) could simply say "wow, yeah, that is probably frightening, isn't it?" and at least show you are listening....without going into other aspects. But that's the thing...these issues are always handled as if there is a debate.
> 
> Sometimes we have thoughts that are real and valid that should NOT be debated. Why should my feelings be debated by others? By debating them at all, you (anyone) are dismissing the feelings and fears themselves.
> 
> The "not all men" problem is a problem of debating instead of listening.
> 
> 
> 
> What you (I'm guessing) don't know about me is that I also spend time advocating for men and listening to them and NOT debating their valid feelings (I don't mean here at TAM, mostly other places). When a man or woman is telling me about a valid fear they have, I'm not trying to explain to them that there are parts of their fears that aren't valid. I'm just listening.
> 
> 
> 
> Yah. I hate the way the ugliest members of a group get to define the terms. Just as feminism means way more than radical man hating feminism, men's rights activism started as protestation against very unfair family courts, which is an absolutely essential change for the equality and rights of everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't we just be heard?
> 
> The women in your lives are scared by these creepos and the fact that they are right now in the daylight making claims that they will do more killing and raping. Why don't men hear their women saying this and say "wow, I'm sorry this is scary" instead of "really? do you really think you need to worry about those kooks?"
> 
> It is invalidating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is not just invalidating. It is distracting and minimizing an REAL issue as if it were just some noise of some b!tchy chicks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean that other issues in this case cannot be discussed.
> 
> I just mean that the fear that is provoked by this case should not be mixed in with those other debates nor should it be debated at all.
> 
> If you were the kid who went and helped the tripped kid up, then why don't you offer help in this case without a debate? "Help" would be something as simple as "yeah, I can see how that would have a lot of women freaked out".
> 
> One time after I posted out against the MRA's at TAM, someone signed on to TAM from an MRA group JUST TO SEND ME A THREATENING PM. That's it. They saw what I wrote and registered here JUST to call me a name and threaten violence against me. Has that ever happened to you? Can you actually just attempt to feel empathy about that? Since it totally isn't fair to me and really could have been a Rodger Elliot type? Or would you have to say something like "eh, kooks are just kooks"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a genuine reason I avoid certain topics. I had someone from usenet find my HOME from my postings. That was seriously not fun.
Click to expand...


----------



## JCD

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.
> 
> Stats don't stop men from following you home. Stats don't stop men from raping a drunk girl at a party. We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it. Which is being done by men who throw around stats, like that would make a difference to me when I walk out of my house door.
> 
> Violence against women still happens and that makes us feel unsafe.



And it could be that this added awareness is part and parcel of what makes women safer. How can I deny that?

However, this sentence:



> We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it.


just about has me pinging. 

Do you feel anyone who contradicts you or has a differing opinion is 'minimizing rape'?

Do you think that only women were responsible for the drop in violence statistics and men had no role in changing their attitudes and teaching their sons new attitudes?

Do you think 'citing facts' is minimizing?

Do you think that the majority of men 'excuse rape and brutality against women'?

Do you live in the West?


----------



## wilderness

techmom said:


> No I don't see it that way, especially when the thread was intended to discuss this latest tragedy. If you want to discuss violence against men then start another thread. Meanwhile, allow women here a space to openly discuss and work through our feelings. If that threatens you or make you feel unsafe, then I'm sorry.
> 
> But, please don't interrupt us with the constant "but it happens to us too" posts, it feels very invalidating.


Not only does it happen to us, too, it happens far more to us. Violence against men, at least in the US, is far more prevailing than violence against women. The reason for this is that women have the benefit of the full force of the state to do their violent bidding. This is known as 'violence by proxy'.


----------



## Omego

EleGirl said:


> But women who live in the North America and Europe today? The rant about hatred of men being legitimate makes the author sound about as rational as Elliot Roger.


So true so true. The examples of women you described in the rest of your post provide a very, very good reality check.


----------



## techmom

Machiavelli said:


> What?? All the evidence points to misandry. He killed twice as many guys, so he was twice as misandrous and he was misogynist. He was mad at guys because they got laid and he didn't, which is why he hated PUAs, since he thought he should be able to do what they did (hey, even Indian guys with game can bag blondes) and he couldn't. His murder numbers are the proof.
> 
> See how simple that is?
> 
> Guys 4
> Girls 2
> So the Guys win the Elliot Rodger Murder Spree.


Again, if he was able to achieve his intent, which was to enter the sorority house and shoot up the "pretty stuck up girls" who rejected him, we would have a different result. 

I'm not hoping to "win" the Elliot Rodger massacre. I'm glad that the girls didn't open the door, very smart on their part. But the 4 men who were murdered were solely because he couldn't reach the girls he wanted to kill.


----------



## wilderness

JCD said:


> And it could be that this added awareness is part and parcel of what makes women safer. How can I deny that?
> 
> However, this sentence:
> 
> 
> 
> just about has me pinging.
> 
> Do you feel anyone who contradicts you or has a differing opinion is 'minimizing rape'?
> 
> Do you think that only women were responsible for the drop in violence statistics and men had no role in changing their attitudes and teaching their sons new attitudes?
> 
> Do you think 'citing facts' is minimizing?
> 
> Do you think that the majority of men 'excuse rape and brutality against women'?
> 
> Do you live in the West?


The one part of your post that I would like to respond to is the 'citing facts' part. Many women on this site have used _deceptive statistics_ and claimed them as facts. I'm referring specifically to the domestic violence statistics which in my opinion demonstrate a systemic corruption and tendency to prosecute innocent men, NOT a predilection or tendency of men to be violent.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

always_alone said:


> Except that I am not a radical feminist, and don't identify with that stance at all. Indeed, I have never taken that hard-line regarding men or penetrative sex, or any of the other radical issues whatsoever.
> 
> But of course, you've already decided what I stand for, so it doesn't much matter what I say about it.
> 
> Sorry all, for the tangent. Dropping it now.


In other words...

#notallwomen

Do you see how easy it is to fall into the mentality that was behind #notallmen

Now to the credit of the posters of TAM, both the women and the men, I believe that almost everyone would fall into the moderate category on their views. Some will disagree (specifically the ones on the outer part of the spectrum when looking at the people at the other end of the spectrum) but I do believe we don't have any extremists in our midst.

We're just getting caught up in our own opinions and not looking at the whole. In any debate, the normal response is to give your view maximum validity while trying to discredit the opposition. Maybe we need to move away from that a bit.

Maybe we can promote our opinions such as what drove Elliot Rodger to do such an evil act, and more so, why he had such a skewed perception of the world.

Some think it was more mysoginy, some think it was more mental health. But I think we all agree he had both going on.


----------



## jld

SoWhat said:


> I think the women there seem extremely angry too.
> However, I'm guessing the readership for that blog is a few orders of magnitude smaller than that of, say, RoK.
> 
> There are very few women who are truly dedicated to consciously destroying their attraction to men, methinks.


The women don't sound threatening. Like another poster said, they don't talk about being owed something and killing if they don't get it. 

Well, wait, one may have said something about how life would be better without men. I guess that could sound a bit threatening. But it did not strike me the same way as that stuff from the PUA sites.


----------



## wilderness

Dad&Hubby said:


> In other words...
> 
> #notallwomen
> 
> Do you see how easy it is to fall into the mentality that was behind #notallmen
> 
> Now to the credit of the posters of TAM, both the women and the men, I believe that almost everyone would fall into the moderate category on their views. Some will disagree (specifically the ones on the outer part of the spectrum when looking at the people at the other end of the spectrum) but I do believe we don't have any extremists in our midst.
> 
> We're just getting caught up in our own opinions and not looking at the whole. In any debate, the normal response is to give your view maximum validity while trying to discredit the opposition. Maybe we need to move away from that a bit.
> 
> Maybe we can promote our opinions such as what drove Elliot Rodger to do such an evil act, and more so, why he had such a skewed perception of the world.
> 
> Some think it was more mysoginy, some think it was more mental health. But I think we all agree he had both going on.


Have you noticed that on this thread (and in other places on this forum) it is often insinuated that MRAs (men's rights activists) are extremist?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dad&Hubby said:


> To address one of your questions....
> "_Why can't we (meaning, anyone, man or woman) just say "a big part of this tragedy was this young man's blatent hatred of women and knowing that thousands of others like him are out there make me really uneasy and sad"...without a man (or anyone) saying "but not all men are like that"?_"
> 
> Honestly, probably sensitivity. I'm in my early 40's, so I'll speak for my age group. Since as far back as I was mature enough to understand social issues, I've been hammered about how many evils the white man has committed. How unfair the system is and how slanted it is to favor the white man. News, media, op ed pieces, talk shows, equal rights groups etc. all are extremely vocal...If we're not aware and mature about it, many men in my age range grow with a form of "catholic guilt". Many men get tired of hearing how bad "men" are. How easy we have it. How society favors us. etc. I'll speak for myself. I didn't grow up in a wealthy family and had to pay my way through college. As a middle class white man, I had the LEAST amount of money available to me through scholarships, grants, federal funding etc. I applied to an Ivy League level school and just missed acceptance, although I had better qualifications than one of my friends who happened to be a minority and was accepted, due to affirmative action. I remember having to work full time to pay for school while the girl next to me went to school for free and had money to go out on the weekends because she was on welfare with a child. She called me a moron for not "working the system" even though, as a white man I could never get "on the system". When I say middle class...that means my parents made "too much money" but they didn't share that with me. Many men just get tired of hearing how "men" are the problem. Even in the op ed piece about "not all men" the author placed the blame on ALL MEN.
> 
> NOW, I was bitter and angry in my early 20's. But I was angriest at myself. I was angriest that I had grown my entire life into someone who prided himself on his fairness, on looking at situations and not considering race or gender. Who treats women with honor. Who didn't have notches in his bed post. Who protects the victims...and I was losing that person because of my recent experiences. Luckily. I realized I was becoming someone I didn't like and let go of that anger. But not all men let go of that type of anger or resentment.


Thank you for this, Dad&Hubby.

The thing is...if you were telling me about your feelings about being hammered on and forced to feel "white guilt", I would be happy to hear you and listen to you about it. I also would understand where you are coming from and understand why it wasn't fair to you, etc. I get all of that and know many people who feel the same.

But I hope you can understand that me or other women now talking about our fears of these psychos...we KNOW that a man like YOU is not to blame for this bullcrap. We aren't suggesting you are to blame, nor that you are "like him", nor that you have anything to do with what happened. When we talk about this, we are asking for a man *LIKE YOU* to help us against men like THEM.

How does the transference occur? When you say "probably sensitivity"...why would you be sensitive about something that has nothing to do with you? I'm speaking in general about the "not all men" issue more than about you personally.

And thank you again....honestly.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> Missandry doesn't exist.


Of course it doesn't! Misandry only has one "s".

I am sorry. I really am. Not the spelling police, really. But that one just ... screamed out to me!


----------



## Miss Taken

Caribbean Man said:


> Do you think that missandry, or the hatred of men or anything masculine exists in the feminist movement ?
> 
> Here's yet another link:
> 
> https://formulationsofoppression.wordpress.com/2014/05/25/sinking-into-despair/#comments
> 
> Check the comments


Do you think misogyny or the hatred of women or anything feminine exists in the MRM? 

Do you think that white-on-black racism existed in the black power movement?

Nobody on this thread is refuting that misandry exists. Further, or denying that there are misandrists who self-identify as feminists. Trying to convince us that it exists is preaching to the choir. 

However, not all feminists are misandrists. I’d argue that most are not. Radicals exist in every group or organization. 

I have friends who just happen to be Muslim. They are peaceful people who look at the 9/11 attacks as shameful. 

There are peaceful Christians who are compassionate towards the LGBT community. Then there are the Westboro Church folk that hate Gays and picket at soldiers funerals.

Feminism and misandry are not synonymous with each other nor were they ever intended to be. Yet they are often said to be and it seems that a woman who claims to be a feminist often commits social suicide in doing so.


----------



## Machiavelli

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.


Now you're making me laugh. I don't put my hand on my keys when walking through dimly lit parking lots, I put my hand on my .45 auto. I also watch my drink. Ever heard of a Mickey Finn? Been around since the time when the only women allowed in bars were hookers. Your female indicators of terror are just common sense precautions for men.


----------



## wilderness

Machiavelli said:


> Now you're making me laugh. I don't put my hand on my keys when walking through dimly lit parking lots, I put my hand on my .45 auto. I also watch my drink. Ever heard of a Mickey Finn? Been around since the time when the only women allowed in bars were hookers. Your female indicators of terror are just common sense precautions for men.


I'll do one better. Every single married man in the US has to sleep with one eye open as he is one phone call away from having his children violently taken from him, being falsely ejected from his home, and having his income seized unlawfully. That's real risk.


----------



## LongWalk

SoWhat said:


> Misandry: numerous studies in different countries show that female teachers grade females higher for the exact same test answers. In each country, women make up a big majority of teachers.
> 
> I'm not going to argue that there's a lot of women following the SCUM Manifesto though. Female-on-male murder is much more rare than male-on-female murder and both are much more rare than male-on-male murder.


I appreciate your objectivity.

Techmom did not respond to my point about circumcision because that act of violence against men is some how allowed by some twisted thinking.

Another possible example of misandry: football. It turns out that playing football, which entails high impact collisions that cause brain damage, is okay because it is a traditional form of entertainment. The victims of brain damage are almost exclusively men. Football is big business. 

Gymnastics stunts female growth and delays sexual maturation. This is done mostly to girls. Is is misogyny?

Both genders are discriminated against. Both suffer consequences.

Certain behavior, namely rape and physical abuse, are forms of misogyny that are inherent to maleness. Only through civilization and culture can men understand that these are unacceptable. Every boy must be taught that striking and raping women is morally wrong.

In contrast, women don't have to learn not to rape or assault men in general (of course there are violent women but they are not nearly a common as violent men). What women do do is use verbal intelligence to hurt men. Sure there are men who are quick witted and can best their wives in emotional arguments but oft seen pattern is for a wife's sarcasm to leave a man speechless and enraged.

Men are more often the perpetrators of violence, but women also goad and incite men to fight over them. It is human nature. 

Neither gender can be discredited as the monopolist of hateful behavior.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> Well good that you would be brave enough to admit that. But most feminist say that missandry doesn't and can't exist.


There is No Such Thing as most feminists. Just as men's rights activists range from people who rightly want justice in family courts to women hating nut cases, so too does feminism have such a range.



> That post you quoted from was one I got from a feminist website.
> 
> Here's another one from a very popular website,xojane.com, which I posted yesteray;
> 
> _" Misandry exists only as an exaggerated Internet joke, and as a way in which women who have been directly or indirectly hurt by men to express their frustration and anger_."
> Madeleine Alpert
> Jul 26, 2013 at 5:00pm | 490 comments
> 
> WHERE'S VALERIE SOLANAS WHEN YOU NEED HER? WHAT IT REALLY MEANS TO MAN-HATE IN 2013.
> 
> 
> There were 490 comments and VERY FEW disagreed. They all agreed with it and added some more...
> 
> What was worse, was that there were some more blogs that were even more revolting than that.
> 
> 
> BTW, the author was a 20 yr old lady, pursuing a degree at university...


More rabid people tend to be more vocal. And people seek out boards where their interest lie. So a bunch of like minded radical feminists are on the same board. Does this surprise you? 

I am a feminist. I believe that women who do the same work should get paid the same. I think that if physical requirements are to be prerequisite to the military that they make the necessary physical prerequisite, not simply seek to disallow women to certain jobs. I think women should be able to wear what they like rather than protect men from their own sexuality. All the standard stuff.

But the truth is, misogyny is simply more prevalent across all of the world. In third world countries, girls are still sold off as slaves. But even here in our first world, there is no one woman among us who has not been referred to as a stupid c***. Who has not been assaulted, raped or harassed, simply because we were female. Not one of us who has not had a male person ignore our humanity, our personality by trying to acquire us against our wishes simply because we were female. Not One of Us.

And that is the world I send my daughter into. Yes I will teach her that as a feminist, we need to fight for men's rights in family court, the one place where being male is a liability. But no, I won't be teaching my kids that misogyny and mysandry are equivalent problems in our society at all.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> But the point remains that no one has denied the existence of misandry. The question here is whether it is possible to even talk about misogyny without being told that it isn't a problem


Who said misogyny isn't a problem? Perhaps someone might take a specific case and say misogyny wasn't involved, but I don't think anyone is denying misogyny/woman hating exists or is a problem.

Of course its a problem, just like racism.




> And my experience here is that it really isn't. Throughout my time here at TAM, I have been accused repeatedly being a misandrist, of hating all men, and of being a foam at the mouth radical feminist simply because I speak against objectification, rape, and misogyny.


But the problem is that is pretty much ALL you talk about here, on a marriage site.



> Yet, I have never said anything even 1/10 as loathing or hate filled as the subjects of this thread. I have never once threatened anyone, or said that men deserved to be killed, beaten, and raped, nor have I defended anything of the kind.


And who here threatened anyone and said women deserve to be killed beaten and raped? Who did this and I'll respond to his post.




> Ever. I have never even said that all men are misogynists, although I get accused of that too.


I don't think you think or said all men are misogynists. Although you clearly don't like us much.




> So, it would seem that any time a woman speaks of for women's issues, she is a misandrist


A woman speaking up for women's issues is not a misandrist.

But answer this, what would you call a man that speaks up for men's issues, and speaks out against women in more than 80 or 90 percent of his posts?





> but men who talk about raping, beating and killing women are just harmless dudes having a little dude-rant.


Who here did this?? Post a link to their posts. I'll gladly set the SOB's straight.


----------



## jld

LongWalk said:


> In contrast, women don't have to learn not to rape or assault men in general (of course there are violent women but they are not nearly a common as violent men). What women do do is use verbal intelligence to hurt men. Sure there are men who are quick witted and can best their wives in emotional arguments but oft seen pattern is for a wife's sarcasm to leave a man speechless and enraged.


But you can't kill someone with words, LW. And a secure man can see through the words and validate the feelings underlying them.

A woman can't do much about a man who is raping and beating her. There is usually an inherent power differential.


----------



## wilderness

LongWalk said:


> I appreciate your objectivity.
> 
> Techmom did not respond to my point about circumcision because that act of violence against men is some how allowed by some twisted thinking.
> 
> Another possible example of misandry: football. It turns out that playing football, which entails high impact collisions that cause brain damage, is okay because it is a traditional form of entertainment. The victims of brain damage are almost exclusively men. Football is big business.
> 
> Gymnastics stunts female growth and delays sexual maturation. This is done mostly to girls. Is is misogyny?
> 
> Both genders are discriminated against. Both suffer consequences.
> 
> Certain behavior, namely rape and physical abuse, are forms of misogyny that are inherent to maleness. *Only through civilization and culture can men understand that these are unacceptable*. Every boy must be taught that striking and raping women is morally wrong.
> 
> In contrast, women don't have to learn not to rape or assault men in general (of course there are violent women but they are not nearly a common as violent men). What women do do is use verbal intelligence to hurt men. Sure there are men who are quick witted and can best their wives in emotional arguments but oft seen pattern is for a wife's sarcasm to leave a man speechless and enraged.
> 
> Men are more often the perpetrators of violence, but women also goad and incite men to fight over them. It is human nature.
> 
> Neither gender can be discredited as the monopolist of hateful behavior.





> _Only through civilization and culture can men understand that these are unacceptable._


Wow. This is one of the most insulting things I have ever read in my entire life. Is it misandry to attack an entire gender by insinuating that men have a predilection to raping women? I'll let you be the judge of that.


----------



## Omego

Machiavelli said:


> Now you're making me laugh. I don't put my hand on my keys when walking through dimly lit parking lots, I put my hand on my .45 auto.


Aaarrgghh! I couldn't resist replying to this one!  I nearly cried into my glass again! 

Machiavelli, not all of us have guns (I'd probably shoot myself in the foot if i did, or fumble around in my bag trying to get it while I got mugged). You just can't be serious.

You simply cannot deny that women are more vulnerable.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> Yep, she’s an immature kid. IT shows in what she wrote.
> 
> 
> You are right. MOST women do not agree with radical feminism. But we are constantly being put in that category and disparaged. It happens so often on TAM that the women here are getting down right sick of it. If we talk about equality for women…. We are equated to the radical feminists and called misogynist.


And what shocked me about that article is that the editorial staff at xojane let it fly. Xojane is a very liberal , modern website .

I saw that piece quite sometime ago, and to be honest, I remember reading another woman on another blog criticizing xojane for that article and a couple others along the same trend, and yes, that woman considered herself a feminist.

The thing is, most men don't see women as pieces of meat for their consumption and pleasure either as some women right here on TAM would have us believe.
Most men aren't rapist,
Most men aren't wife beaters,
Most men aren't trying to dominate women,
Most men aren't plotting to purchase guns and shoot random women simply because they can't have sex with them.

Lumping all men into that category or even having to prefix a narrative with "_ not all men are like that_ " simply because they might disagree with you, in itself is just as offensive as lumping a loving mother, wife and feminist as a man hating radical simply because she identifies with feminism.

I really don't bother too much with what strangers think of me or even my gender because I know myself.

My attitude is simple.

Live and let live.
Tomorrow, the 20 yr old rabble rouse who wrote that piece could change her stance , renounce her old ideas and become more moderate.
Just like tomorrow , the 20 yr old guy on the PUA site could realise it isn't working for him, renounce his old ideas , find a woman and settle down peacefully.

The sky is not falling, PUA hate pose no threat to society any more than radical man hating feminist do.

Live and let live


----------



## wilderness

jld said:


> But you can't kill someone with words, LW. And a secure man can see through the words and validate the feelings underlying them.
> 
> A woman can't do much about a man who is raping and beating her. There is usually an inherent power differential.


Rape is a very rare occurrence in first world countries. Violence by proxy is _much _more common. A man can't do much about men with guns stealing his home, children, dignity, and money. For life. Furthermore, this type of violence is socially acceptable and even encouraged by the prevailing feminist mindset of the majority.


----------



## NobodySpecial

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.
> 
> Stats don't stop men from following you home. Stats don't stop men from raping a drunk girl at a party. We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it. Which is being done by men who throw around stats, like that would make a difference to me when I walk out of my house door.
> 
> Violence against women still happens and that makes us feel unsafe.


Yah on feeling safe.

From this post

#YesAllWomen in the wake of Elliot Rodger: Why itâ€™s so hard for men to recognize misogyny.



> Four years before the murders, I was sitting in a bar in Washington, D.C. with a male friend. Another young woman was alone at the bar when an older man scooted next to her. He was aggressive, wasted, and sitting too close, but she smiled curtly at his ramblings and laughed softly at his jokes as she patiently downed her drink. “Why is she humoring him?” my friend asked me. “You would never do that.” I was too embarrassed to say: “Because he looks scary” and “I do it all the time.”


I was nodding my head. Safety is a thing we carry with us every single day in our heads as we go about our lives. Why is that?


----------



## wilderness

Omego said:


> Aaarrgghh! I couldn't resist replying to this one!  I nearly cried into my glass again! :rofl:
> 
> Machiavelli, not all of us have guns (I'd probably shoot myself in the foot if i did, or fumble around in my bag trying to get it while I got mugged). You just can't be serious.
> 
> You simply cannot deny that women are more vulnerable.


I deny it. Men are much more vulnerable to the violence of the divorce industrial complex and the criminal industrial complex juntas.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Easy. A boy is born and a piece of his penis is cut off without his permission. A lot of concealed hatred in that act. The justification is that it will prevent cancer of the penis, which is very rare. Who would suggest cutting off women's breasts to prevent breast cancer, which is very common? That would be misogyny.
> The real reasons for cutting off the foreskin are to mark ethnic and religious possession of individuals via their sexuality. Furthermore, it is an attempt to control male sexuality.


If you think that male circumcision is based on misogyny, then there are a lot of men who loath men and plot to harm then based on their self-loathing.

Are you blaming women for circumcising baby boys? It’s a custom that was created by men who wanted to control men. 



LongWalk said:


> If anyone say lets excise the clitoral hood to dry out the clitoris and make it less sensitive, women would go nuts.


Actually that and a lot more has been done to huge numbers of women for thousands of years.

In a large part of the world, most women are subjected to female genital mutilation. This generally involve a lot more than just removing the clitoral hood. It’s usually the removal of all external parts of the female genitals, leaving only a small hole. The only reason for this is that it’s seen as a way to curb their desire to have sex… to prevent sex outside of marriage and adultery. These women are denied sexual pleasure for a life time and made to live with painful sex, infections, etc. 



LongWalk said:


> Other examples of misandry: school organization. Little boys cannot sit still and concentrate. They need exercise. Currently many boys don't do well in school because the developmental lag between the genders is ignored.


This is the fault of women? It’s not misandry. Its ignorance of those, male and female educators and law makers, who think that the model used to produce good German factory workers in the late 1800’s is the preferred model for education. This is exactly why I let my son drop out of high school. For him the school system did not work. Left to his own direction, he has graduated with a double major in Physics and Applied Mathematics and is entering graduate school in the fall. 


LongWalk said:


> Often feminists complain about subtle structural anti female bias. They exist for men as well.


Misandry and misogyny are both problems but they are difficult to eradicate. To prevent misogyny we ought to eliminate pornography which distorts sexuality, but that clashes with freedom of speech. So, there are dilemmas.[/QUOTE]
Yep, these are complex issues. Not every woman hates all men and not every man hates all women. I think we need to start with that realization.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> Of course it doesn't! Misandry only has one "s".
> 
> I am sorry. I really am. Not the spelling police, really. But that one just ... screamed out to me!


That's simple.

Ipad nor any word program [spell check etc ] on your computer doesn't recognize the word misandry.
I'm on my laptop now and there's a red line under the word _misandry_, I'm sure it's there when you were typing your response too..

It is a relatively new word only _recently_ accepted into the dictionary.
The concept that women could do serious harm to men was never mainstream and never really existed before.

That's why it doesn't exist.


----------



## Machiavelli

jld said:


> True, but I don't think you are scared of the PUA guys, right? I don't think men are more scared of other men now than before they heard about the murders. Is that right?
> 
> But women might be.


I'm just as alert to men as I ever was. When I see a man or a group of men that I don't know on my turf, or maybe I'm on their turf, I size them up. I instantly (autonomically) calculate their stance and attitude and weigh my options as to who can take whom and what weaponry is close at hand. This is especially true at night and/or where alcohol is or can be a factor. Now, I have this attitude because I was raised in a family of city cops and/or federal investigators and eventually became one. It's second nature. But, this was also second nature to our ancestors and I think society is a very thin veneer over what lies beneath.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> This is the fault of women? It’s not misandry. Its ignorance of those, male and female educators and law makers, who think that the model used to produce good German factory workers in the late 1800’s is the preferred model for education. This is exactly why I let my son drop out of high school. For him the school system did not work. Left to his own direction, he has graduated with a double major in Physics and Applied Mathematics and is entering graduate school in the fall.


We homeschool, and our four boys love it. It is the self-directed variety. Works great.


----------



## Machiavelli

Omego said:


> Aaarrgghh! I couldn't resist replying to this one!  I nearly cried into my glass again!
> 
> Machiavelli, not all of us have guns (I'd probably shoot myself in the foot if i did, or fumble around in my bag trying to get it while I got mugged). You just can't be serious.
> 
> *You simply cannot deny that women are more vulnerable.*


That's exactly the point I'm making. I'm 6'1", 225#, in excellent physical shape for a fight, and I'm constantly maintaining situational awareness. Do you?


----------



## Miss Taken

My views on male circumcision can be found in this thread. Along with many opposing views from my own, by men who chose to have their son's circumcised.


----------



## soccermom2three

I know 4 people that have been roofied. 3 were men,1 was a woman. Luckily they were with friends that could take care of them. Drugging can happen to anyone.


----------



## Machiavelli

wilderness said:


> I deny it. Men are much more vulnerable to the violence of the divorce industrial complex and the criminal industrial complex juntas.


I can buy into that, as well. Of course, nowadays they're trying to bring women into the infantry so they can be cannon fodder, too.


----------



## EleGirl

SoWhat said:


> Misandry: numerous studies in different countries show that female teachers grade females higher for the exact same test answers. In each country, women make up a big majority of teachers.
> 
> I'm not going to argue that there's a lot of women following the SCUM Manifesto though. Female-on-male murder is much more rare than male-on-female murder and both are much more rare than male-on-male murder.


I agree that a lot of female teachers seem biased against male students. It's not because they hate/dislike boys. From my experience it's because they do not relate to them. The female teachers that I talked to about my son's poor performance in school all stated how they wanted him to act and gave examples of how the female students sought out the teacher's help, interacted with her, etc. They did not get that a boy might very well have a different way of interacting.

I also know of male teachers who give female students lower grades. One girl I know how excelled in math was given lower grades by her male teacher. He out right told her that this was because as a female she would never make it in higher level math so he had to discourage her from thinking she could.

I think it's a serious failure in the way the teachers are trained. It's also a serious failure in the way that our school systems are run.

On top of that add that teaching is one of the lowest paid profession out there. This ways one thing.. we do not value the education of our children. 

Keep in mind that in past generations, our school systems had the same structure that they had today. What's the difference between now and then? Why did it seem in the past that boys out performed girls?

In the past girls were discouraged from taking classes that were considered male domain subjects. Girls who were smart were put down for this and discouraged for displaying that they were smart.

I could make a list a mile long of the things I was told I could not do, subjects that I was told I could not take. when I wanted to major in engineering I was told that a woman could not succeed in engineering. I was allowed to enroll because I wouel not take no for an answer. While I was allowed to enroll in engineering, I was assured that I would learn my lesson and fail.

Even today girls in junior high and high school are discouraged from taking the higher level math, physics and science classes. They are also discouraged from taking these in college. 

There are issues on all sides that need to be fixed.


----------



## Omego

Machiavelli said:


> That's exactly the point I'm making. I'm 6'1", 225#, in excellent physical shape for a fight, and I'm constantly maintaining situational awareness. Do you?


I do indeed. Especially with respect to underground parking lots. As a woman, there are lots of situations I simply avoid as much as possible.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Thank you for this, Dad&Hubby.
> 
> The thing is...if you were telling me about your feelings about being hammered on and forced to feel "white guilt", I would be happy to hear you and listen to you about it. I also would understand where you are coming from and understand why it wasn't fair to you, etc. I get all of that and know many people who feel the same.
> 
> But I hope you can understand that me or other women now talking about our fears of these psychos...we KNOW that a man like YOU is not to blame for this bullcrap. We aren't suggesting you are to blame, nor that you are "like him", nor that you have anything to do with what happened. When we talk about this, we are asking for a man *LIKE YOU* to help us against men like THEM.
> 
> How does the transference occur? *When you say "probably sensitivity"...why would you be sensitive about something that has nothing to do with you? * I'm speaking in general about the "not all men" issue more than about you personally.
> 
> And thank you again....honestly.


To answer your question..because men like me DO CARE about protecting women and our society. We want the best things for our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers. So, and this is the kicker and also what contributes to the whole "nice guy syndrome" but I won't go down that path, we listen to the complaints. We pay attention to the criticisms. We want to improve ourselves. In our developmental years, we hear women say their needs and wants so we pattern ourselves in that mold.

So when SOME women say something like "Men are [insert complaint/criticism etc]", guess which men are listening and which ones aren't. It's unfortunately reversed of what it SHOULD be. And there in lies the problem. The men listening, the majority who aren't the problem, get a constant barrage of issues. Defensiveness can start to build up because, as much as we know it's not about us, it sure feels like, quite often, it is directed at us.

Now that being said, I believe you when you say that you recognize not all men are that way. You've said that countless times actually and I recognize that. But please understand some confusion can happen when you also post a link to an article that is clearly stating "All men" and you give no other points about it. You then take on the same stand.


----------



## techmom

Machiavelli said:


> That's exactly the point I'm making. I'm 6'1", 225#, in excellent physical shape for a fight, and I'm constantly maintaining situational awareness. Do you?


Ok, so you are suggesting that all women carry guns? I agree, and I think that will help women feel safe so we won't bother you men with our problems due to misogyny.


----------



## Omego

wilderness said:


> I deny it. Men are much more vulnerable to the violence of the divorce industrial complex and the criminal industrial complex juntas.


But not physically more vulnerable.


----------



## Amplexor




----------



## techmom

Male circumcision was started by religious men, not women. So I don't see why that was brought up as an example of misandry.:scratchhead:


----------



## EleGirl

Machiavelli said:


> What?? All the evidence points to misandry. He killed twice as many guys, so he was twice as misandrous and he was misogynist. He was mad at guys because they got laid and he didn't, which is why he hated PUAs, since he thought he should be able to do what they did (hey, even Indian guys with game can bag blondes) and he couldn't. His murder numbers are the proof.
> 
> See how simple that is?
> 
> Guys 4
> Girls 2
> So the Guys win the Elliot Rodger Murder Spree.


Again...

You ignore that he planned to enter an sorority and kill all the girls in it. But he could not get into the sorority so he just started shooting at anyone he saw. Apparently there were more males out and about the females.

Had he accomplished what he set out to do.. he would have killed many times more females.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> That's simple.
> 
> Ipad nor any word program [spell check etc ] on your computer doesn't recognize the word misandry.


Huh. Apple products. It was recognized in my spell checker.


----------



## Machiavelli

EleGirl said:


> Again...
> 
> You ignore that he planned to enter an sorority and kill all the girls in it. But he could not get into the sorority so he just started shooting at anyone he saw. Apparently there were more males out and about the females.
> 
> Had he accomplished what he set out to do.. he would have killed many times more females.


I don't ignore it. I just choose which facts I like best. Same as the ladies.


----------



## techmom

Amp, if you want to close this thread you can do so, but let me say one last thing. The responses from most of the men here clearly demonstrate their uneasiness with women discussing these issues. This was posted in the ladies lounge for a reason, if I wanted to be combative I would have posted this in the men's clubhouse. I was hoping for a discussion of how women felt about these events in the news. My friends are talking about it, so I thought that this would be a safe place.

Oh boy was I wrong.

Didn't know TAM was so hostile to these issues. Didn't know that I couldn't post about misogyny without being invalidated.

Oh well.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> Now you're making me laugh. I don't put my hand on my keys when walking through dimly lit parking lots, I put my hand on my .45 auto. I also watch my drink. Ever heard of a Mickey Finn? Been around since the time when the only women allowed in bars were hookers. Your female indicators of terror are just common sense precautions for men.


Statistically, a woman will be attacked by someone she knows. 

I am 3.6 times more likely to be murdered than Techmom and my killer will statistically be a stranger. So I have 6 billion people to watch out for.

She just has to watch out for her male family and friends...and she's still 3.6 less likely to be killed than I am.

So I also go around watching who is near me. I happen to live in a foreign country as a foreigner. This means if violence or a riot breaks out, I'm a likely target.

But I don't live my life in fear. I take precautions and get on with life without blaming all men for targeting me. I just blame my killers


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dad&Hubby said:


> To answer your question..because men like me DO CARE about protecting women and our society. We want the best things for our wives, daughters, sisters and mothers. So, and this is the kicker and also what contributes to the whole "nice guy syndrome" but I won't go down that path, we listen to the complaints. We pay attention to the criticisms. We want to improve ourselves. In our developmental years, we hear women say their needs and wants so we pattern ourselves in that mold.
> 
> So when SOME women say something like "Men are [insert complaint/criticism etc]", guess which men are listening and which ones aren't. It's unfortunately reversed of what it SHOULD be. And there in lies the problem. The men listening, the majority who aren't the problem, get a constant barrage of issues. Defensiveness can start to build up because, as much as we know it's not about us, it sure feels like, quite often, it is directed at us.
> 
> Now that being said, I believe you when you say that you recognize not all men are that way. You've said that countless times actually and I recognize that. But please understand some confusion can happen when you also post a link to an article that is clearly stating "All men" and you give no other points about it. You then take on the same stand.



Please tell me which one of the links was clearly stating "all men" and I will remove it.

I'm pretty sure I have not posted any such link. If I did, then certainly I could see why you or anyone would feel I think that way, but I would really honestly like you to point me to which link you feel says "all men". And if you find I posted no such link, I would like you to say so.


----------



## JCD

vellocet said:


> Who said misogyny isn't a problem? Perhaps someone might take a specific case and say misogyny wasn't involved, but I don't think anyone is denying misogyny/woman hating exists or is a problem.
> 
> Of course its a problem, just like racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the problem is that is pretty much ALL you talk about here, on a marriage site.
> 
> 
> 
> And who here threatened anyone and said women deserve to be killed beaten and raped? Who did this and I'll respond to his post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you think or said all men are misogynists. Although you clearly don't like us much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A woman speaking up for women's issues is not a misandrist.
> 
> But answer this, what would you call a man that speaks up for men's issues, and speaks out against women in more than 80 or 90 percent of his posts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here did this?? Post a link to their posts. I'll gladly set the SOB's straight.


That would be me. People say stupid stuff all the time. I would certainly draw the line at encouraging rape but not liking women so much and saying so?...well...show me a person who hasn't been viserally angry at the other gender generically at least once in their life and I'll show you a great guy to have at a party because he can make sure all the Evian is first class wine...

Obviously saying men should be allowed to vent their anger and frustrations harmlessly over the internet in 'AA speak' means wanting men to goad each other into rape.


----------



## JCD

wilderness said:


> I deny it. Men are much more vulnerable to the violence of the divorce industrial complex and the criminal industrial complex juntas.


Omego is worried about shooting herself in the foot in real life.

You seem intent on shooting yourself in the foot metaphorically. But you seem to have perfect aim.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Please tell me which one of the links was clearly stating "all men" and I will remove it.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I have not posted any such link. If I did, then certainly I could see why you or anyone would feel I think that way, but I would really honestly like you to point me to which link you feel says "all men". And if you find I posted no such link, I would like you to say so.


The "not all men" one.

The author is clearly directing his message that it is all men (minus the victim in his example of course....)

Please don't delete it. The author actually made some very poignant statements, especially about the silence that can happen over these issues and that silence is tacit approval.

But I would add that you don't necessarily share in the "all" part of the view point.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Another possible example of misandry: football. It turns out that playing football, which entails high impact collisions that cause brain damage, is okay because it is a traditional form of entertainment. The victims of brain damage are almost exclusively men. Football is big business.


Football is not misandry. IT’s not done out of hate for men. You can leave women out of this mostly as football mostly a male thing.


LongWalk said:


> Gymnastics stunts female growth and delays sexual maturation. This is done mostly to girls. Is is misogyny?


No, young girls doing gymnastics is not misogyny. 
It’s only been in the recent years that the profound damage done to people involved in these and other sports has come to light. A lot of it was not known until more recent medical studies.


----------



## NobodySpecial

techmom said:


> Amp, if you want to close this thread you can do so, but let me say one last thing. The responses from most of the men here clearly demonstrate their uneasiness with women discussing these issues. This was posted in the ladies lounge for a reason, if I wanted to be combative I would have posted this in the men's clubhouse. I was hoping for a discussion of how women felt about these events in the news. My friends are talking about it, so I thought that this would be a safe place.



I can tell you how I felt. Scared for my children. It brought back every bad memory. Every guy who got MAD at me for not going out with him. That is going to happen to my daughter. And there is nothing she can do about it. Nothing we say has any impact since WE are not actually important. Just the fact that we are female is all that is important. 

I felt sad for my son. He is at risk of developing attitudes like these since he is already exposed to some of it as _mainstream_ at the ripe age of 13. He asked me what the word "****" _really_ meant. He'd been hearing stuff at school about ****s. ****s. 7th grade.

So for me. Scared and sad. This is the world we live in.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> That's exactly the point I'm making. I'm 6'1", 225#, in excellent physical shape for a fight, and I'm constantly maintaining situational awareness. Do you?


Because badgers hate stupidity...exactly how many weights does she need to lift to grow 8 inches in height and reach and to add 30% or so more upper body strength that your genetics freely gave you? Adult female world record is 551 bench press. Male HIGH SCHOOL record is 700. So...how much whey protein will fix that genetic disparity?

She has a point. A very good one.


----------



## Machiavelli

techmom said:


> Ok, so you are suggesting that all women carry guns? I agree, and I think that will help women feel safe so we won't bother you men with our problems due to misogyny.


Ordinary violence, which is declining rapidly as has been pointed out in this thread, is still much more of a real threat than violent misogyny. And of course, in the USA we choose to import about half of our violent crime (including mass murder) from the third world. I guess our owners in Washington like to keep things interesting.

Frankly, what interests me most about this "controversy" is the attempt to equate a psychopathic narcissist mass killer with guys who are trying to explain to ordinary social misfits how to create or increase women's attraction to them (game - PUA or LTR). Little ER, did absolutely nothing these guys advocate and went against most of it, yet "game" gets the blame. This is because women viscerally do not like game, for the simple reason that it does work.


----------



## LongWalk

EleGirl said:


> If you think that male circumcision is based on misogyny, then there are a lot of men who loath men and plot to harm then based on their self-loathing.
> 
> Are you blaming women for circumcising baby boys? It’s a custom that was created by men who wanted to control men.
> 
> *Male circumcision comes out of misandry, not misogyny. But I assume this was a typo. Yes, men are enablers and promoters of misandry just as some women support misogyny. Female genital mutilation is carried out by women.*


If anyone say lets excise the clitoral hood to dry out the clitoris and make it less sensitive, women would go nuts. [/QUOTE]
Actually that and a lot more has been done to huge numbers of women for thousands of years.

In a large part of the world, most women are subjected to female genital mutilation. This generally involve a lot more than just removing the clitoral hood. It’s usually the removal of all external parts of the female genitals, leaving only a small hole. The only reason for this is that it’s seen as a way to curb their desire to have sex… to prevent sex outside of marriage and adultery. These women are denied sexual pleasure for a life time and made to live with painful sex, infections, etc. 
*Obviously this is a great and hateful crime. Interesting that the US government does not invade Arab and African countries to eradicate the practice.*

This is the fault of women? It’s not misandry. Its ignorance of those, male and female educators and law makers, who think that the model used to produce good German factory workers in the late 1800’s is the preferred model for education. This is exactly why I let my son drop out of high school. For him the school system did not work. Left to his own direction, he has graduated with a double major in Physics and Applied Mathematics and is entering graduate school in the fall. 

*I did not say it is the fault of women.

Congratulations on your son's success. My eldest has applied to college. Exciting!*


Misandry and misogyny are both problems but they are difficult to eradicate. To prevent misogyny we ought to eliminate pornography which distorts sexuality, but that clashes with freedom of speech. So, there are dilemmas.[/QUOTE]
Yep, these are complex issues. Not every woman hates all men and not every man hates all women. I think we need to start with that realization.[/QUOTE]

Few people wake up and spend the rest of the day hating.


----------



## Machiavelli

JCD said:


> Because badgers hate stupidity...exactly how many weights does she need to lift to grow 8 inches in height and reach and to add 30% or so more upper body strength that your genetics freely gave you? Adult female world record is 551 bench press. Male HIGH SCHOOL record is 700. So...how much whey protein will fix that genetic disparity?
> 
> She has a point. A very good one.


My point is that if I'm situationally aware and on condition yellow at all times, she needs to be too. She's not and she resents having to be. She wants to go through life not having to worry about the possibility that bad violent things might happen. Unfortunately, we will never live in such a world.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here is the entirety of that "not all men" article:

(quote)

You, yes the person standing by saying I’m not like that, not all men are like that. I want to explain why this is truly pathetic.

I’m a man, so this isn’t even about gender, it is about empathy and creating a world we would all like to live in. I was bullied as a kid and my aim here is to point out how meaningless that statement and statements similar to it are because these statements shut out what victims are really asking for—help. 

Imagine walking into a male only classroom and being tripped as you enter for the sole purpose of making the class laugh. This isn’t an extreme example of bullying but one I think most people can relate to, most of us have been the butt of someone’s joke. Now you’re lying face down on the carpet and you can hear most of the class laughing. You’re embarrassed, hurt and humiliated. 

So let me show you how pointless the statement “Not all men are …” is. 

“Not all men are … bullies.” False, there was only one bully doing the tripping, but there was not one single dissenting voice in this class room, everyone was either laughing or silent. The aim of tripping you was humiliation. So when an entire class either laughs or stays silent that humiliation has been achieved. All men in that classroom humiliated you because you can’t hear those who are silent. 

“Not all men … laughed.” False. Half the class laughed true, but how well can you identify those who didn’t laugh while you are lying face down on the floor. You are hurt and humiliated down there and you can’t hear those who are silent, only those who laugh. As far as you can tell the whole class is laughing. When those men in the class sit there and remain silent their silence isn’t really that much different from laughter because you can’t hear silence. 

“Not all men … approved of the bullying.” False. At what point while you are lying on that floor do you hear a voice of disapproval? A voice saying that tripping someone is wrong. That’s right, you only hear laughter. Silence is not disapproval. 

“Not all men … are bad and you shouldn’t be afraid of them” False. Fear is a funny thing, when you get tripped often enough walking into that room you learn to fear the act of walking through that door. There aren’t any dissenting voices to someone tripping you when you walk in, only laughter and humiliation. There are NO people in that room that you trust because there is no way for you to differentiate between those who laugh and those who are silent. 

So when you approach that classroom you cannot tell who you should or shouldn’t be afraid of, everyone is a possible antagonist. — So if you want to be a man that woman don’t lump into the “All men are bastards” category because “Not All Men Are Bastards” then this is what you need to do to leave that category. 

“I’m a man because … I help those who are hurt and humiliated get up and dust themselves off” 

“I’m a man because … I speak up against circumstances that make others afraid, hurt or humiliate them.” 

“I’m a man because … I actively call out those who join in laughing or agreeing with the actions of others that make others afraid, hurt or humiliated.” 

“I’m a man because … I actively create an environment where people can come because they won’t be afraid, hurt or humiliated.” 

Go out and help create the “All men are awesome” category where douche-bags and players belong in the “Not All Men are awesome” category, surely it’s worth the effort. 

(end quote)



Now, what you implied was that I posted a link that made it clear that all men are rapists, misogynists, whatever. No, I did not.

In the article, the author describes a scene and then describes how the non-action and silence of the group in that scene is actually acceptance.

So again...what did you mean by saying I posted a link that clearly states "yes all men"?


----------



## LongWalk

techmom said:


> Male circumcision was started by religious men, not women. So I don't see why that was brought up as an example of misandry.:scratchhead:


Women sign the papers giving doctors permission to do it.

It didn't happen to you and you cannot imagine how unpleasant it is.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> I live in a sleepy village. Maybe 3000 people total. It's next to a larger town of maybe 40,000.
> 
> My wife, god love her, does not like the idea of my girls (11 and 13) walking half a mile down the road together to go to the local store. "What if there are pedophiles out there?" Since my girls know and are known to pretty much everyone in the village, anyone trying such a thing would be seen and identifiable. So while 'valid' statistically it is very low as a chance. Almost microscopically low.


I grew up in a small town (pop. 1800) and managed to encounter not one, not two, but four separate individuals who would do me harm simply because I was a young girl. One pedophile, one rapist and two miscellaneous fvcks, who would no doubt be good candidates for PUA if we had the internet back then.

And fact is, stats show that many rural and small towns are actually *more* violent than big cities. Sure more crime happens in the big cities in real numbers, but if you calculate by population, they are often safer ( depending on region, of course).

And that's the funny thing about stats. They work for you and they work against you, depending on what you cherry-pick and the assumptions you start with.

So you want to argue that women are very poor about their risk assessment? 

I get this. People are notoriously terrible at it, and will be more afraid of flying than driving, for example, even though many more are killed on the roads.

But the stats you cherry-picked to prove your case that women *just feel* afraid, and have no real right to *be* afraid do not take into account all of the unreported and real events that women experience in daily life.

It's true that there is very little, even microscopic chance that I would be shot by the likes of Rodgers. But what is especially creepy about his case (and the many like it) is how easily his hatred of women is dismissed. The cops came to visit him, and found a nice and sane man. Sure he was "saying" some misogynist things, but meh, whatever, it's just words. Big deal.

And this is also what you want us to believe. You, knowing all men so well, assure us that those "just saying" this stuff are harmless. But what you don't know, and that women know all too well is what some of these "fine and upstanding" men are capable of when no one is looking.

And most of it never ends up in those stats you seem to think should be our sole measure of our objective risk.


----------



## JCD

Machiavelli said:


> My point is that if I'm situationally aware and on condition yellow at all times, she needs to be too. She's not and she resents having to be. She wants to go through life not having to worry about the possibility that bad violent things might happen. Unfortunately, we will never live in such a world.


Excuse me, but are you reading the same things I am? These women are saying because they feel unsafe, they are generally in Condition RED all the time out of fear.

This does not arm them. It does not add 25 extra pounds of muscle so IF something happens, they are pretty much screwed.

IF this is the world they live in, I understand this attitude. I can't change how they FEEL.

However, I observe, for the most part, this is a Condition Green world. But they make it out like they live in a zombie apocalypse and I get to guest star as the zombie.

Keen. Because...not all men are rapists as they fervently point out...but they keep their eye on every man as if he were a rapist? The functional difference? None.


----------



## Machiavelli

always_alone said:


> I grew up in a small town (pop. 1800) and managed to encounter not one, not two, but four separate individuals who would do me harm simply because I was a young girl. One pedophile, one rapist and two miscellaneous fvcks, who would no doubt be good candidates for PUA if we had the internet back then.


And what do you think would have happened to those guys at the hands of the fathers and brothers in that town if it were 150 years ago?

The rapist and the pedophile would have no longer been breathing and the other two might have learned a valuable lesson. Sometimes the old ways are the best ways.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Machiavelli said:


> Ordinary violence, which is declining rapidly as has been pointed out in this thread, is still much more of a real threat than violent misogyny. And of course, in the USA we choose to import about half of our violent crime (including mass murder) from the third world. I guess our owners in Washington like to keep things interesting.
> 
> *Frankly, what interests me most about this "controversy" is the attempt to equate a psychopathic narcissist mass killer with guys who are trying to explain to ordinary social misfits how to create or increase women's attraction to them (game - PUA or LTR). Little ER, did absolutely nothing these guys advocate and went against most of it, yet "game" gets the blame. This is because women viscerally do not like game, for the simple reason that it does work.*


I'm trying to figure out also how a clearly deranged young man who absolutely nobody knew or even cared to know has now become a legitimate poster boy for PUA in the media...:scratchhead:

Almost as if his actions are representative of even a tiny fraction of the community.
Just like the paranoid schizophrenic radical feminist , Valerie Solanas CANNOT be the face of mainstream feminism, and she was undoubtedly one million times more recognized than this guy.

Fact is people talk hate anywhere, even here on TAM, does that make TAM a dangerous place for anyone or even larger society.

The entire thing is a huge strawman designed to fan controversy.
Out of all the internet forums , video games, books , rants and issues this man identified with, the misogyny issue was cherry picked by the media , but the reality is that new information is already in , and it is yesterday's opinions from yesterday's news.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Obviously saying men should be allowed to vent their anger and frustrations harmlessly over the internet in 'AA speak' means wanting men to goad each other into rape.


Okay, you caught me. I am the only one on the planet who can see how objectionable these posts and attitudes are, and through my miraculous powers of persuasion managed to convince practically all of the news media and blogosphere to jump on my bandwagon.

Geez, with power like that, you'd think I'd get a bit more traction around here.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always...check your PM's.


----------



## LongWalk

Machiavelli said:


> Ordinary violence, which is declining rapidly as has been pointed out in this thread, is still much more of a real threat than violent misogyny. And of course, in the USA we choose to import about half of our violent crime (including mass murder) from the third world. I guess our owners in Washington like to keep things interesting.
> 
> *Mach, you don't appear anxious to gain a reputation as a cultural relativist.*
> 
> Frankly, what interests me most about this "controversy" is the attempt to equate a psychopathic narcissist mass killer with guys who are trying to explain to ordinary social misfits how to create or increase women's attraction to them (game - PUA or LTR). Little ER, did absolutely nothing these guys advocate and went against most of it, yet "game" gets the blame. *This is because women viscerally do not like game, for the simple reason that it does work.*


I remember reading about fraternity members raping women by getting them drunk and leading to rooms where nobody could hear them scream if they had the will the actively resist. This is misogyny plain and simple.

Sorority sisters don't rape men. But how do they make women who are not good enough to join feel? Is there any misogyny in their value system? Could fraternities exist without sororities?

As to the game, well of course it works. In another time it was called seduction. And the word seduce exists in all the languages I have studied. Women are better at getting men into bed than visa versa. However, the goal for women is generally to have sex as part of a relationship. Whereas the priority for men is the other way round.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> “Not all men … are bad and you shouldn’t be afraid of them” False.


I want to speak to this as well. While it is obviously true that not all men are bad, you don't get to know in advance WHICH ONES ARE OR ARE NOT. 



> (end quote)


And it was a good one.



> Now, what you implied was that I posted a link that made it clear that all men are rapists, misogynists, whatever. No, I did not.
> 
> In the article, the author describes a scene and then describes how the non-action and silence of the group in that scene is actually acceptance.
> 
> So again...what did you mean by saying I posted a link that clearly states "yes all men"?


----------



## always_alone

wilderness said:


> It's not hatred to fight oppression. It's commendable. However, I would say that it IS hatred to claim that it's hatred to fight oppression. Referring specifically to MRAs and those that claim they are hate groups.


Maybe not all, but certainly many of them are. And not just by my say-so, but others who you may (or may not) find more credible:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform...wse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites

http://www.splcenter.org/get-inform.../browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Lumping all men into that category or even having to prefix a narrative with "_ not all men are like that_ " simply because they might disagree with you, in itself is just as offensive as lumping a loving mother, wife and feminist as a man hating radical simply because she identifies with feminism.


What's wrong with saying that I recognize that most men are not like Elliot Roger and the guys who agreed with him on the PUAHate site or saying that I know that all, or most men, do not hate women? It's a statement of fact and a statement in support of most men.


On TAM, our experience is that any loving mother and wife who dares to say that she is also a feminist is called out as a man hating radical simply because she identifies with feminism.

There are a multitude of threads here where this is what has happened over and over with a large number of the men TAM male posters going after any woman who dares to say that she supports feminism in so far as it has the tenants of equality for women under the law and in society.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> I grew up in a small town (pop. 1800) and managed to encounter not one, not two, but four separate individuals who would do me harm simply because I was a young girl. One pedophile, one rapist and two miscellaneous fvcks, who would no doubt be good candidates for PUA if we had the internet back then.
> 
> And fact is, stats show that many rural and small towns are actually *more* violent than big cities. Sure more crime happens in the big cities in real numbers, but if you calculate by population, they are often safer ( depending on region, of course).
> 
> And that's the funny thing about stats. They work for you and they work against you, depending on what you cherry-pick and the assumptions you start with.
> 
> So you want to argue that women are very poor about their risk assessment?
> 
> I get this. People are notoriously terrible at it, and will be more afraid of flying than driving, for example, even though many more are killed on the roads.
> 
> But the stats you cherry-picked to prove your case that women *just feel* afraid, and have no real right to *be* afraid do not take into account all of the unreported and real events that women experience in daily life.
> 
> It's true that there is very little, even microscopic chance that I would be shot by the likes of Rodgers. But what is especially creepy about his case (and the many like it) is how easily his hatred of women is dismissed. The cops came to visit him, and found a nice and sane man. Sure he was "saying" some misogynist things, but meh, whatever, it's just words. Big deal.
> 
> And this is also what you want us to believe. You, knowing all men so well, assure us that those "just saying" this stuff are harmless. But what you don't know, and that women know all too well is what some of these "fine and upstanding" men are capable of when no one is looking.
> 
> And most of it never ends up in those stats you seem to think should be our sole measure of our objective risk.


You aren't giving any answers.

Do you think that a lay person or a police officer would be better at analyzing a nut job? Obviously SOMEONE pointed him out...and in hindsight, they did a good job.

But to go into 'Crying Wolf', how many men got a report and passed muster...and never did anything?

My point remains: I have no idea how big the PUA community is. I have no idea how big the MRA community is. But one assumes it encompasses at least a million people.

So, if their speech forments so much hate and anger, we should be seeing some change in violence levels. We aren't. I didn't 'cherry pick' anything (which is a nice way to dismiss the stats, thank you very much)

I use ALL murders. ALL domestic violence. ALL rape. I didn't go looking for ONLY stats that decreased. Frankly, I was shocked at what I saw. Because it seems, even to me, that our world is more violent.

But it isn't. Now...you can rightly say that unreported rapes and domestic violence aren't counted...but if we assume a steady percentage of reports, the trend in the reported stuff will show a general correlation with the unreported stuff, i.e. if only 20% of rapes (don't quibble about the number, I am stating a principle) are reported, and the number of reported rapes goes down, it is very likely, if 20% is constant, then the unreported rapes are also going down.

The only way this would not be the case is if suddenly women started reporting these things less and less...and in today's culture, I just don't see that happening. Women are screaming at each other to report. So if anything, the unreported stuff is down even more as more is reported compared to the 90's.

Now...on to caddishness. I can't stop people from being cads. I can't stop people from hitting on you. I can't make some men not hate women. And I won't start criminalizing speech unless I see huge national movements getting started.

We can only punish actions...and frankly, women have already pushed that about as far in that direction as it can go. Men telling a dirty joke can be fired. Men asking a woman to lunch can be fired. Men commenting on a woman at all can be fired.

Okay...if it makes you feel safer, I can accept that. But how do we address speech?

This is an imperfect world and occasionally the crazy is going to slip through the cracks.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It's true that there is very little, even microscopic chance that I would be shot by the likes of Rodgers. But what is especially creepy about his case (and the many like it) is how easily his hatred of women is dismissed. The cops came to visit him, and found a nice and sane man. Sure he was "saying" some misogynist things, but meh, whatever, it's just words. Big deal.


So you're saying the cops should have had him arrested based on a RANT and have him charged for what ? Misogyny?

Who would have been the victims and on what grounds would they have convicted him


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> But to go into 'Crying Wolf', how many men got a report and passed muster...and never did anything?


This is interesting. These same types of speech ("crying Wolf" as you say) has been deemed damaging and horrifying enough to consider making it specifically illegal when aimed at race and religion.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> What's wrong with saying that I recognize that most men are not like Elliot Roger and the guys who agreed with him on the PUAHate site or saying that I know that all, or most men, do not hate women? It's a statement of fact and a statement in support of most men.
> 
> 
> On TAM, our experience is that any loving mother and wife who dares to say that she is also a feminist is called out as a man hating radical simply because she identifies with feminism.
> 
> There are a multitude of threads here where this is what has happened over and over with a large number of the men TAM male posters going after any woman who dares to say that she supports feminism in so far as it has the tenants of equality for women under the law and in society.


And there are also large numbers of women here who are hell bent on shaming men as " bad men , insecure men , controlling men" for all sorts of silly reasons.

Chief being because he doesn't subscribe to a particular feminist groupthink perspective. Sometimes it can be simply because he prefer a woman with a certain look, size or shape.

I've had a particular poster on *this* thread try to derail three of my threads IN THE MEN'S CLUBHOUSE because she didn't want me talking about a particular issue.

She even went so far as PMing other male posters telling them not to participate...

There is craziness all over TAM from both sides of the divide, I just ignore it.

A man doesn't even have to identify as a PUA or MRA all he has to do is state his physical preference in a woman and BINGO!

He's " dissecting" women and treating them like a piece of meat.
Lol,

The craziness goes both ways.

People come with their own little agendas, and get upset when they're challenged with FACTS, then when they can't respond , they resort to calling people names, baiting and teasing .
Even on this thread I'm sure you have seen it.

Both genders are subject to it here.
And that might be one of the top reasons why _both male and female _posters are banned here so regularly.


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> This is interesting. These same types of speech ("crying Wolf" as you say) has been deemed damaging and horrifying enough to consider making it specifically illegal when aimed at race and religion.


I am not sure what you are saying, but let me clarify what I am saying so we don't talk past each other.

I am saying that police are frequently called to analyze 'someone'. A great number of times, nothing comes of it. And the police assessment is spot on, because the person isn't a risk.

But if I am following you, you are saying that cops would get into trouble for checking up on 'some suspicious black guy' or 'that shifty Jewish person' but society seems perfectly okay to 'check out that loud mouth up the street...I think he's dangerous'.

The law isn't well equipped to deal with this issue. Not without sacrificing some rights which I am not prepared to do...particularly with the crime stats the way they are.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Here is the entirety of that "not all men" article:
> 
> (quote)
> 
> You, yes the person standing by saying I’m not like that, not all men are like that. I want to explain why this is truly pathetic.
> 
> I’m a man, so this isn’t even about gender, it is about empathy and creating a world we would all like to live in. I was bullied as a kid and my aim here is to point out how meaningless that statement and statements similar to it are because these statements shut out what victims are really asking for—help.
> 
> Imagine walking into a male only classroom and being tripped as you enter for the sole purpose of making the class laugh. This isn’t an extreme example of bullying but one I think most people can relate to, most of us have been the butt of someone’s joke. Now you’re lying face down on the carpet and you can hear most of the class laughing. You’re embarrassed, hurt and humiliated.
> 
> So let me show you how pointless the statement “Not all men are …” is.
> 
> “Not all men are … bullies.” False, there was only one bully doing the tripping, but there was not one single dissenting voice in this class room, everyone was either laughing or silent. The aim of tripping you was humiliation. So when an entire class either laughs or stays silent that humiliation has been achieved. All men in that classroom humiliated you because you can’t hear those who are silent.
> 
> “Not all men … laughed.” False. Half the class laughed true, but how well can you identify those who didn’t laugh while you are lying face down on the floor. You are hurt and humiliated down there and you can’t hear those who are silent, only those who laugh. As far as you can tell the whole class is laughing. When those men in the class sit there and remain silent their silence isn’t really that much different from laughter because you can’t hear silence.
> 
> “Not all men … approved of the bullying.” False. At what point while you are lying on that floor do you hear a voice of disapproval? A voice saying that tripping someone is wrong. That’s right, you only hear laughter. Silence is not disapproval.
> 
> “Not all men … are bad and you shouldn’t be afraid of them” False. Fear is a funny thing, when you get tripped often enough walking into that room you learn to fear the act of walking through that door. There aren’t any dissenting voices to someone tripping you when you walk in, only laughter and humiliation. There are NO people in that room that you trust because there is no way for you to differentiate between those who laugh and those who are silent.
> 
> So when you approach that classroom you cannot tell who you should or shouldn’t be afraid of, everyone is a possible antagonist. — So if you want to be a man that woman don’t lump into the “All men are bastards” category because “Not All Men Are Bastards” then this is what you need to do to leave that category.
> 
> “I’m a man because … I help those who are hurt and humiliated get up and dust themselves off”
> 
> “I’m a man because … I speak up against circumstances that make others afraid, hurt or humiliate them.”
> 
> “I’m a man because … I actively call out those who join in laughing or agreeing with the actions of others that make others afraid, hurt or humiliated.”
> 
> “I’m a man because … I actively create an environment where people can come because they won’t be afraid, hurt or humiliated.”
> 
> Go out and help create the “All men are awesome” category where douche-bags and players belong in the “Not All Men are awesome” category, surely it’s worth the effort.
> 
> (end quote)
> 
> 
> 
> Now, what you implied was that I posted a link that made it clear that all men are rapists, misogynists, whatever. No, I did not.
> 
> In the article, the author describes a scene and then describes how the non-action and silence of the group in that scene is actually acceptance.
> 
> So again...what did you mean by saying I posted a link that clearly states "yes all men"?


Okay so two things for me to address.

The author's words are somewhat disjointed. On one hand he says "Not all men … are bad and you shouldn’t be afraid of them..False." The entire article is a crescendo to that line. He builds up to that line. Then he goes and says how if we don't want to be lumped into the "all men group", here's how. Well that doesn't work. He just pointed out how, regardless of how we act and what we think...we'll be met with "Fear is a funny thing, when you get tripped often enough walking into that room you learn to fear the act of walking through that door. There aren’t any dissenting voices to someone tripping you when you walk in, only laughter and humiliation. There are NO people in that room that you trust because there is no way for you to differentiate between those who laugh and those who are silent." So...which is it? Do we have an opportunity to show who we are, or are we guilty before action because the AUTHOR has a perception that there are NO GOOD MEN in the room. There is noone who will help him.

2. "Now, what you implied was that I posted a link that made it clear that all men are rapists, misogynists, whatever. No, I did not." I really sorry you feel that is what I implied. I know you didn't remotely say or imply that you think all men are rapists, mysogynists etc. I NEVER implied that. I implied (or outright stated) that you presenting that link doesn't match up with many other of your posts. I am also speaking of the "not all men" issue as a general issue. The author isn't saying that he thinks all men are rapists or outright mysogynists, so by connection I don't think you did. The author's point is much more general. The person who did the tripping is a different form of wrong than the person who laughed and they are different from the silent man, but ultimately all men carry some form of guilt in his article. And to make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR:

You posting that connects you to the same views, which you've also made statements that would go against those views, so there is a disconnect in what message to take from you. Please don't pmisrepresent my words, it's been done a few times through this thread. I've applauded you on some very good points and I've disagreed with some of what you've said, but hopefully you have never felt disrespected by me. You doing something like "not all men..not all men...not all men" on a post of mine that doesn't even have to do with this specific topic IS disrespectful and dismissive, so I hope we can "right the ship" if you will and continue to have some great discussions.

Also I don't think we're as different in most view points as you think. We've just gotten stuck on the semantics of one topic. I also don't think we're interpreting the meaning of the idea behind "not all men" the same. I'm speaking about the general idea of guilt, while you're speaking about mysogyny and rape. So it's understandable how we'd not mesh in our discussion.


----------



## JCD

Quick anecdote on women, size and fear.

I was in a martial arts class. The drill was for me to beat on a bag. A person was selected to try to stop me and disturb me as much as possible so I could not hit the bag. Mess with my arms and legs etc.

The person they selected was a male about 140 pounds and 5'6". I am about Mach's height and about 20 pounds lighter. I carried a 8 inch advantage in height and 60 pounds of weight.

It was pathetic. This guy would come up and I would literally brush him off with a sweep of my arm. Now, was it he felt constrained not to hurt me? I was constrained the same. 

Now I am imagining that scenario with a 5'2" 120 pound woman with a much more limited upper body strength...

Scary. Very scary. The only way a guy could feel something similar is if he hung around a prison weight room...and only if he was NOT a weight lifter.

So...I can get the fear. I still resent the breadth of the brush that is being used to paint men, however.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> You aren't giving any answers.


Okay, let me say it this way. Here are Uniform crime rates for all violent crimes in the US between 1960 and 2010


1960 288,460
1961 289,390
1962 301,510
1963 316,970
1964 364,220
1965 387,390
1966 430,180
1967 499,930
1968 595,010
1969 661,870
1970 738,820
1971 816,500
1972 834,900
1973 875,910
1974 974,720
1975 1,039,710
1976 1,004,210
1977 1,029,580
1978 1,085,550
1979 1,208,030
1980 1,344,520
1981 1,361,820
1982 1,322,390
1983 1,258,087
1984 1,273,282
1985 1,327,767
1986 1,489,169
1987 1,483,999
1988 1,566,221
1989 1,646,037
1990 1,820,127
1991 1,911,767
1992 1,932,274
1993 1,926,017
1994 1,857,670
1995 1,798,792
1996 1,688,540
1997 1,636,096
1998 1,533,887
1999 1,426,044
2000 1,425,486
2001 1,439,480
2002 1,423,677
2003 1,383,676
2004 1,360,088
2005 1,390,745
2006 1,435,123
2007 1,422,970
2008 1,394,461
2009 1,325,896
2010 1,251,248
2011 1,206,031
2012 1,214,464

Now first of all, we see quite clearly that the numbers haven't gone down by 63 % in the time frame you specified. We also see that the numbers have more than quadrupled since 1960.

Here are uniform crime stats for forcible rape.
1999 89,411
2000 90,178
2001 90,863
2002 95,235
2003 93,883
2004 95,089

Again, the picture is different from the one you paint.

And this is only one way that your assessment of women's risk is off the mark.


----------



## Cosmos

Here's what a professor of sociology and gender studies has to say on the subject of "aggrieved entitlement":-




> _
> 
> "Here we go again. A mass shooting at the UC Santa Barbara campus this weekend and the immediate cause is mental illness. Or maybe guns. But can we actually discuss what is going on with this shooting and most of the other mass shootings that happen? Can we actually talk about masculinity? It is not an accident that the overwhelming majority of mass shootings are committed by men, but not just men, white men,* and not just white men, but white men who feel entitled and because of that entitlement feel as if they have been cheated and robbed of their rights.
> 
> This sort of "angry masculinity" stems from what sociologist Michael Kimmel describes as "aggrieved entitlement." Historically, the US created conditions that favored both whites and men. Now, with those traditional privileges more regularly challenged and yet sexism and racism hanging on as ways of understanding the world, these men feel the right to dominate others and when that doesn't happen, they feel the right to beat them, rape them, and even kill them. This violence isn't the result of mental illness, but occurs with depressing regularity as part of angry manhood. According to Kimmel and others who study this aggrieved masculinity, violence and the rhetoric that supports it is embedded in American manhood from rape and domestic violence statistics to men's movement rhetoric to fraternity parties on campuses like UCSB.
> 
> In this video that Rodger posted the day before his killing spree, he talks about his "unfulfilled desires" because "girls have never been attracted to me" and so "I'm 22 years old and still a virgin." This is "not fair" and so he promises to "punish all you girls for it." Then he promises to enter the "hottest sorority" and "slaughter every single spoiled, stuck up blonde ****" there. He finishes with "If I can't have you, I will destroy you."
> 
> According to a post on Rodger over at the Bell Jar, his sense of aggrieved entitlement could have been spurred on by the misogynistic company he kept. Rodger was apparently an active member of an online forum, PUAhate, that is for men who had tried the "tricks" taught to them by pick up artists but they still hadn't been able to successfully bed women. In case you don't follow misogynistic culture, these "pick up artists" claim to have the power to seduce any woman and then offer to train other men how to do the same. The sort of hatred of women that is embedded in pick-up artistry is not considered mentally ill, but a normal part of masculinity and even entertaining given that VH1 had a reality TV show called "The Pick-Up Artist" in which a man named Mystery shares his tricks with viewers while men compete to see who can pick up the most women and "win" the competition.
> 
> And that's the point. Mainstream masculinity is often embedded in such a deep and abiding hatred for women, a sense of entitlement to women's bodies, and a seriously sick way of keeping women scared and in their place through violence and violent rhetoric that to name Rodger "mentally ill" is to create a smokescreen through which it's difficult to see that there is something seriously sick in our culture. Until we admit this, until men reject this woman-hating and embrace feminism, until women only embrace feminist men, we will be stuck in a cycle of violence where the discussion is not about the thing that is happening- that thing called patriarchy- but instead about mental illness, guns, and a few "bad apples" in an otherwise healthy culture of masculinity.
> 
> *It's worth noting that Rodger is both white and Asian, but as the son of a successful Hollywood producer, he grew up with many of the trappings of whiteness and wealth and often posted extremely racist rants against non-white men."_
> 
> Elliot Rodger and the problem with manhood | Psychology Today


----------



## Miss Taken

LongWalk said:


> Women sign the papers giving doctors permission to do it.
> 
> It didn't happen to you and you cannot imagine how unpleasant it is.


You're right, I can't imagine how unpleasant it is. Still, I fail to see it as a misandrist issue. 

My partner, (a man) wanted our boys to be circumcised, I was against it so they are not. With my SIL, same thing - both her boys are "in tact" too. 

The circumcision thread in the men's forum has plenty of posts from men stating they wanted their boys to be cut. It also has posts from women stating that they did not want their boys to be cut.

*Do you ignore the men that desire to have their children circumcised? *

While I don't agree with circumcision (male or female), I fail to see how it's a misandrist practice. 

Thought this was an interesting read:

History of male circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The American Medical Association (President-elect of obstetrics is a man) in 2011 said:

_"There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. "Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."_


The American Association of Pediatrics (the current and past presidents both are men) view from 2012 to present: 

_"the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks" and that the procedure should be available to families who choose it.[61] Their view was challenged by a group of mostly European physicians as resulting from "cultural bias"._

Most of the men depicted in pornography (by and large a male-dominated industry) are also circumsised so where do you think the aesthetic preference for circ'd guys is coming from when it exists? (Personally, I don't care about the aesthetics). 

Men are largely responsible for encouraging women to circumcise their children and have been throughout history... so why are we (the collective we) to blame for listening?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dad&Hubby said:


> Also I don't think we're as different in most view points as you think. We've just gotten stuck on the semantics of one topic. I also don't think we're interpreting the meaning of the idea behind "not all men" the same. I'm speaking about the general idea of guilt, while you're speaking about mysogyny and rape. So it's understandable how we'd not mesh in our discussion.


Ok, Dad&Hubby. Fair enough.

But I still do not understand why if I am talking about one thing, you (or anyone) would talk about another thing in response.

When I talk about my feelings and fears about male psycho groups, why would you talk about your own guilt? 

Never mind...I know there isn't really an answer.

I do doubt there will be much more good discussion between us here, however...because soon I will be outta here. We may encounter each other in other ways, however. Peace.


----------



## Miss Taken

Caribbean Man said:


> So you're saying the cops should have had him arrested based on a RANT and have him charged for what ? Misogyny?
> 
> Who would have been the victims and on what grounds would they have convicted him


The cops should have looked at the videos which incited the call in the first place.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Miss Taken said:


> The cops should have looked at the videos which incited the call in the first place.



I fully agree!

He should have been investigated and put on a watch list or something like that, so he wouldn't have access to a semi automatic weapon.
The university could have also been alerted by the cops and some sort of psychiatric evaluation done in light of his rants online and his youtube videos.

Ironically, on the bodybuilding forum I belonged to, other guys were calling him on the video he made and calling him on his racist remarks

They also told him that his attitude towards chicks suck and he would never get any of those girls because of his sense of entitlement.

Basically they ridiculed him, maybe that was a contributing factor to his final actions?

Maybe, but to what extent, we don't know.


----------



## Omego

Cosmos said:


> Here's what a professor of sociology and gender studies has to say on the subject of "aggrieved entitlement":-


Interesting essay and thanks for posting. I was thinking about what is "mainstream" (in the US for the sake of discussion), and going to refer to Hollywood films as a good example.

I don't agree 100% with his analysis, especially this: "Mainstream masculinity is often embedded in such a deep and abiding hatred for women, a sense of entitlement to women's bodies, and a seriously sick way of keeping women scared and in their place through violence and violent rhetoric that to name Rodger "mentally ill" is to create a smokescreen through which it's difficult to see that there is something seriously sick in our culture. Until we admit this, until men reject this woman-hating and embrace feminism, until women only embrace feminist men..."

Maybe I'm just not in the right place, or reading the right books or newspapers but I simply do not see hatred of women, even implicit, as being "mainstream". I mentioned Hollywood films above as an example of what appeals to the "masses" in order to "test" what values most people respond to, and I don't see this description of masculinity as being steeped in hatred of women expressed positively in this particular form of mass media.

I took the example of cinema just for argument's sake.


----------



## Omego

Caribbean Man said:


> I fully agree!
> 
> He should have been investigated and put on a watch list or something like that, so he wouldn't have access to a semi automatic weapon.
> The university could have also been alerted by the cops and some sort of psychiatric evaluation done in light of his rants online and his youtube videos.


YES. :iagree:


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Okay, let me say it this way. Here are Uniform crime rates for all violent crimes in the US between 1960 and 2010
> 
> 
> 1960 288,460
> 1961 289,390
> 1962 301,510
> 1963 316,970
> 1964 364,220
> 1965 387,390
> 1966 430,180
> 1967 499,930
> 1968 595,010
> 1969 661,870
> 1970 738,820
> 1971 816,500
> 1972 834,900
> 1973 875,910
> 1974 974,720
> 1975 1,039,710
> 1976 1,004,210
> 1977 1,029,580
> 1978 1,085,550
> 1979 1,208,030
> 1980 1,344,520
> 1981 1,361,820
> 1982 1,322,390
> 1983 1,258,087
> 1984 1,273,282
> 1985 1,327,767
> 1986 1,489,169
> 1987 1,483,999
> 1988 1,566,221
> 1989 1,646,037
> 1990 1,820,127
> 1991 1,911,767
> 1992 1,932,274
> 1993 1,926,017
> 1994 1,857,670
> 1995 1,798,792
> 1996 1,688,540
> 1997 1,636,096
> 1998 1,533,887
> 1999 1,426,044
> 2000 1,425,486
> 2001 1,439,480
> 2002 1,423,677
> 2003 1,383,676
> 2004 1,360,088
> 2005 1,390,745
> 2006 1,435,123
> 2007 1,422,970
> 2008 1,394,461
> 2009 1,325,896
> 2010 1,251,248
> 2011 1,206,031
> 2012 1,214,464
> 
> Now first of all, we see quite clearly that the numbers haven't gone down by 63 % in the time frame you specified. We also see that the numbers have more than quadrupled since 1960.
> 
> Here are uniform crime stats for forcible rape.
> 1999 89,411
> 2000 90,178
> 2001 90,863
> 2002 95,235
> 2003 93,883
> 2004 95,089
> 
> Again, the picture is different from the one you paint.
> 
> And this is only one way that your assessment of women's risk is off the mark.


Now who is using crap statistics.

I was pretty clear. I cited a 20 year benchmark.

So ALL violent crime was 1,932,274 in 1992 (I was using stats between 1995 to 2010, but whatever)

In 2012, the 1,214,464.

So even there, 1992 was 59% greater than 2012.

But this is every single fist fight, assault, etc. Also ignored is that in 1960, the population was only 179,000,000, about 54% of today's population. So your 'four times' is with a stroke only 'two times'.

I specifically cited FEMALE violence. FEMALE murders. FEMALE rapes and all domestic violence, which is 3/4 female.

I would suggest you go to Bureau of Justice Statistics. They have this dandy little report which reports trends over the past 15 years or so of the RATE of violent crimes as well as the raw numbers.

But further to the point. I assume that the BJS is trying to do accurate and credible work. I am not a statistician but took their numbers on faith.

Additionally, I only checked ONE set of numbers. I went straight to that website and saw the trends. So alleging I am cherry picking is inaccurate. Even the UCMJ stats from 1992 to 2012 shows a 23% drop in rape. The population was also 60 million people smaller so the RATE per 100,000 is also affected quite a bit.

But you don't want to believe my numbers. Okay. Don't. No skin off my nose.


----------



## LongWalk

Miss Taken said:


> You're right, I can't imagine how unpleasant it is. Still, I fail to see it as a misandrist issue.
> 
> My partner, (a man) wanted our boys to be circumcised, I was against it so they are not. With my SIL, same thing - both her boys are "in tact" too.
> 
> *Thank you and your SIL for sparing them. Someday they and the women in their lives may be grateful. *
> 
> The circumcision thread in the men's forum has plenty of posts from men stating they wanted their boys to be cut. It also has posts from women stating that they did not want their boys to be cut.
> 
> *Again misandry and misogyny are not exclusive to one gender. There have no doubt been many men who behaved sadistically and hatefully towards members of their own gender in the context gender roles. An abbess who sadistically ruled over a convent of women could be considered a misogynist. Here is an example of misogyny organized by the Catholic Church and run by cruel hatful women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magdalene asylums, also known as Magdalene institutions and Magdalene laundries, were institutions from the 18th to the late-20th centuries ostensibly to house "fallen women", a term used to imply female sexual promiscuity or work in prostitution. Asylums operated throughout Europe and North America for much of the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century. London's Magdalen Asylum was active from 1758 to 1966,[1] and the last Laundry in Ireland closed in 1996.[2]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Ireland, women were imprisoned like slaves or cult members.*
> 
> *Do you ignore the men that desire to have their children circumcised?
> 
> They are unenlightened at best. But not all hateful practices are consciously carried out in hatred. Some poor Thai farmer who sells his daughter to a pimp from Bangkok may just feel that the family is poor and need the money. He may not consciously hate his daughter. But it is still misogyny to sell your daughter into prostitution even if it is culturally acceptable
> 
> The Egyptian women who have their daughters clitorises sliced off would to a woman deny that it is is hateful act.
> *
> 
> While I don't agree with circumcision (male or female), I fail to see how it's a misandrist practice.
> 
> *By denying someone sexual autonomy and self determination in their identity the act is harmful.*
> 
> Thought this was an interesting read:
> 
> History of male circumcision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> The American Medical Association (President-elect of obstetrics is a man) in 2011 said:
> 
> _"There is strong evidence documenting the health benefits of male circumcision, and it is a low-risk procedure, said Peter W. Carmel, M.D., AMA president. "Today the AMA again made it clear that it will oppose any attempts to intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of patients."_
> 
> 
> The American Association of Pediatrics (the current and past presidents both are men) view from 2012 to present:
> 
> _"the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks" and that the procedure should be available to families who choose it.[61] Their view was challenged by a group of mostly European physicians as resulting from "cultural bias"._
> 
> *First off pediatricians are not the doctors to ask. Children do not have a sex life. The correct doctors to consult would be psychiatrists, urologists and andrologists. When female genital mutilation is considered why are gynacologists and obstetricians the relevant experts? Makes sense.
> 
> Also, the decision in America has to do with the anti masturbation movement. There was a doctor Kellogg (of the cereal family) who wanted to stamp out self abuse. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kellogg worked on the rehabilitation of masturbators, often employing extreme measures, even mutilation, on both sexes. He was an advocate of circumcising young boys to curb masturbation and applying phenol (carbolic acid) to a young woman's clitoris. In his Plain Facts for Old and Young,[7] he wrote:
> “	A remedy which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.	”
> further
> “	a method of treatment [to prevent masturbation] ... and we have employed it with entire satisfaction. It consists in the application of one or more silver sutures in such a way as to prevent erection. The prepuce, or foreskin, is drawn forward over the glans, and the needle to which the wire is attached is passed through from one side to the other. After drawing the wire through, the ends are twisted together, and cut off close. It is now impossible for an erection to occur, and the slight irritation thus produced acts as a most powerful means of overcoming the disposition to resort to the practice	”
> and
> “	*In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid (phenol) to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement.* ”
> 
> 
> 
> Kellogg was both a misogynist and misandrist.
> 
> Most of the men depicted in pornography (by and large a male-dominated industry) are also circumsised so where do you think the aesthetic preference for circ'd guys is coming from when it exists? (Personally, I don't care about the aesthetics).
> 
> *There are all sorts of norms in pornography*
> 
> Men are largely responsible for encouraging women to circumcise their children and have been throughout history... so why are we (the collective we) to blame for listening?
Click to expand...

*Everyone has responsibility*


----------



## Caribbean Man

Omego said:


> Interesting essay and thanks for posting. I was thinking about what is "mainstream" (in the US for the sake of discussion), and going to refer to Hollywood films as a good example.
> 
> * I don't agree 100% with his analysis, especially this: "Mainstream masculinity is often embedded in such a deep and abiding hatred for women, a sense of entitlement to women's bodies, and a seriously sick way of keeping women scared and in their place through violence and violent rhetoric that to name Rodger "mentally ill" is to create a smokescreen through which it's difficult to see that there is something seriously sick in our culture. Until we admit this, until men reject this woman-hating and embrace feminism, until women only embrace feminist men...*"
> 
> Maybe I'm just not in the right place, or reading the right books or newspapers but I simply do not see hatred of women, even implicit, as being "mainstream". I mentioned Hollywood films above as an example of what appeals to the "masses" in order to "test" what values most people respond to, and I don't see this description of masculinity as being steeped in hatred of women expressed positively in this particular form of mass media.
> 
> I took the example of cinema just for argument's sake.



I don't think that " mainstream" in the article was meant in a social , everyday , next door neighbor sense. Because I don't see that in men generally either.

But clearly,imo the masculine ideal in some segments of the media, especially music and music vids , does encourage the entitlement aspect.


----------



## Eqili

EleGirl said:


> Again...
> 
> You ignore that he planned to enter an sorority and kill all the girls in it. But he could not get into the sorority so he just started shooting at anyone he saw. Apparently there were more males out and about the females.
> 
> Had he accomplished what he set out to do.. he would have killed many times more females.


ER's plan was to:
1. Kill his male roommates,
2. Kill women at a sorority house, and then
3. Kill random people of both sexes throughout town.

It's interesting how some people interpret his plan as:
1. Something unimportant,
2. Kill women at a sorority house, and then
3. Something unimportant.


----------



## Cosmos

Omego said:


> Interesting essay and thanks for posting. I was thinking about what is "mainstream" (in the US for the sake of discussion), and going to refer to Hollywood films as a good example.
> 
> I don't agree 100% with his analysis, especially this: "Mainstream masculinity is often embedded in such a deep and abiding hatred for women, a sense of entitlement to women's bodies, and a seriously sick way of keeping women scared and in their place through violence and violent rhetoric that to name Rodger "mentally ill" is to create a smokescreen through which it's difficult to see that there is something seriously sick in our culture. Until we admit this, until men reject this woman-hating and embrace feminism, until women only embrace feminist men..."
> 
> Maybe I'm just not in the right place, or reading the right books or newspapers but I simply do not see hatred of women, even implicit, as being "mainstream". I mentioned Hollywood films above as an example of what appeals to the "masses" in order to "test" what values most people respond to, and I don't see this description of masculinity as being steeped in hatred of women expressed positively in this particular form of mass media.
> 
> I took the example of cinema just for argument's sake.


I don't agree with the "mainstream masculinity" term, either, because I don't encounter men like this in my every day life. But I do believe that there is an aggrieved entitlement mindset amongst some (mainly) younger people.

I don't blame either gender for this, however. Our society is badly fractured by the many changes that have taken place over the past 50 years, and I think there is a general maladjustment between the genders.

Somehow, we need to start to get things right... A good start might be if both genders start listening to one another with empathy rather than anger.


----------



## Eqili

An interesting take on the problem.
Could Therapy Culture Help Explain Elliot Rodger's Rampage? - Reason.com


----------



## Caribbean Man

Lol,

People, we need to be careful with the rewriting of history.

John Harvey Kellog and his likes were from a different era of history.

Also Kellog was an active leader of a fundamentalist religious sect of Christians.


----------



## Omego

Caribbean Man said:


> But clearly,imo the masculine ideal in some segments of the media, especially music and music vids , does encourage the entitlement aspect.





Cosmos said:


> I don't agree with the "mainstream masculinity" term, either, because I don't encounter men like this in my every day life. But I do believe that there is an aggrieved entitlement mindset amongst some (mainly) younger people.



Yes, I agree with both of you. I do think it's definitely more prevalent in the younger generation as well.


----------



## Miss Taken

LongWalk said:


> *Everyone has responsibility*


YES. I can agree with that.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> I don't agree with the "mainstream masculinity" term, either, because I don't encounter men like this in my every day life. But I do believe that there is an aggrieved entitlement mindset amongst some (mainly) younger people.
> 
> *I don't blame either gender for this, however. Our society is badly fractured by the many changes that have taken place over the past 50 years, and I think there is a general maladjustment between the genders.*
> 
> Somehow, we need to start to get things right... A good start might be if both genders start listening to one another with empathy rather than anger.


Yes, YES and again YES!

Technological advances in the past 50 years has changed the way both genders perceive themselves in society.
Gender stereotypes and roles have become obsolete and society has been in a general state of flux because of how rapid these changes are occurring.

A lot of the conversations ,cross talk and the rage are simply people trying to find their space in the new order of things.

For example 50 years ago we didn't have internet accessible to the public, but we survived and even thrived.
If the internet shuts down now , chaos will erupt , social upheaval and many will literally , die.

Technology has left us behind.


----------



## Miss Taken

Eqili said:


> ER's plan was to:
> 1. Kill his male roommates,
> 2. Kill women at a sorority house, and then
> 3. Kill random people of both sexes throughout town.
> 
> It's interesting how some people interpret his plan as:
> 1. Something unimportant,
> 2. Kill women at a sorority house, and then
> 3. Something unimportant.


1 post and banned? That was quick.


----------



## vellocet

Miss Taken said:


> 1 post and banned? That was quick.


Well I certainly hope it wasn't because of that one post.


----------



## Amplexor

vellocet said:


> Well I certainly hope it wasn't because of that one post.


Previously banned member


----------



## Miss Taken

vellocet said:


> Well I certainly hope it wasn't because of that one post.


Yeah... it didn't seem like much to me. 

However, we've been over those points several times in this highly circular thread, so maybe that's why?

ETA:



Amplexor said:


> Previously banned member


Okay makes sense.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Faithful Wife said:


> Ok, Dad&Hubby. Fair enough.
> 
> But I still do not understand why if I am talking about one thing, you (or anyone) would talk about another thing in response.
> 
> When I talk about my feelings and fears about male psycho groups, why would you talk about your own guilt?
> 
> Never mind...I know there isn't really an answer.
> 
> I do doubt there will be much more good discussion between us here, however...because soon I will be outta here. We may encounter each other in other ways, however. Peace.


But let me pose a question to you. 

Was it me who responded to you first or vice versa?

I think the more important question is why is it that when I was talking about how all groups have different levels of extremes with good and bad within them, and how we need to be careful with how we approach them in terms not passing judgement on an entire movement (women, men, racial, religious etc) based on the actions of truly negative groups within that movement, why you chose to talk talk about the "not all men" issue? 

Also the topic of "guilt" was to answer one of YOUR questions..

Anyway. I think it is time to walk away from this thread. It's littered with misinterpretations and misunderstandings, probably with me leading the way on that. There are just too many tendrils to this discussion so, even inadvertently, the conversation goes in poor directions.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

Amplexor said:


> Previously banned member


I vote that Amplexor winz the internetz for today!!


----------



## Caribbean Man

Dad&Hubby said:


> I vote that Amplexor winz the internetz for today!!



Lol,

He was faster than Doc Holiday!


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Excuse me, but are you reading the same things I am? These women are saying because they feel unsafe, they are generally in Condition RED all the time out of fear.
> 
> This does not arm them. It does not add 25 extra pounds of muscle so IF something happens, they are pretty much screwed.
> 
> IF this is the world they live in, I understand this attitude. I can't change how they FEEL.
> 
> However, I observe, for the most part, this is a Condition Green world. But they make it out like they live in a zombie apocalypse and I get to guest star as the zombie.
> 
> Keen. Because...not all men are rapists as they fervently point out...but they keep their eye on every man as if he were a rapist? The functional difference? None.


No women do not walk about scared every moment of every day. But a lot of us have experienced some very bad things so we are aware that these things happen.

When I was 21 a guy walked up to me at night and tried to kill me.. he was strangling me and dragging me into a field. I only got away because some people heard my screaming and came out of their house to see what the noise was all about.

When I saw that guy walking down the street in my direction that night I had no reason at all to fear him. I don't fear all men.

But what I learned from that incident is that I cannot look at a guy and know his intent. After that incident, when I'm walking down the street at night I cross the street if a man is walking anywhere near me. Why? Not because I think that every man is going to try to kill me but because I know that there are a few men who do look for women to rape, beat-up and/or kill. And quite honestly I cannot tell the difference just by looking at some guy.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> I am not sure what you are saying, but let me clarify what I am saying so we don't talk past each other.
> 
> I am saying that police are frequently called to analyze 'someone'. A great number of times, nothing comes of it. And the police assessment is spot on, because the person isn't a risk.
> 
> But if I am following you, you are saying that cops would get into trouble for checking up on 'some suspicious black guy' or 'that shifty Jewish person' but society seems perfectly okay to 'check out that loud mouth up the street...I think he's dangerous'.
> 
> The law isn't well equipped to deal with this issue. Not without sacrificing some rights which I am not prepared to do...particularly with the crime stats the way they are.


I am saying nothing more than being worried about this kind of ranting as "crying wolf" is pretty horrifying in light of the fact that these rants precede many violent acts to the degree that there have even been cases where speech itself has been deemed criminal despite its constitutionally protected status.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> I remember reading about fraternity members raping women by getting them drunk and leading to rooms where nobody could hear them scream if they had the will the actively resist. This is misogyny plain and simple.


Agreed. Rape is definitely the expression of misogyny at it's worse.



LongWalk said:


> Sorority sisters don't rape men. But how do they make women who are not good enough to join feel? Is there any misogyny in their value system? Could fraternities exist without sororities?


Misogyny is hate of all women, not mere dislike, or not wanting to associate with, women who do not fit in with the members of a particular sorority.

Yes fraternities could exist without sororities. They did exist for hundreds of years without sororities. There was a very long time when women were not allowed to attend universities but fraternities existed even then.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Now who is using crap statistics.


My statistics come from the Uniform Crime Reporting Bureau of the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics



JCD said:


> I was pretty clear. I cited a 20 year benchmark.


And this is what I mean by cherry-picking. Violent crime spiked at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, then fell back down to more normal levels. But if you take a longer view, you see a steady increase. 




JCD said:


> But this is every single fist fight, assault, etc. Also ignored is that in 1960, the population was only 179,000,000, about 54% of today's population. So your 'four times' is with a stroke only 'two times'.


No, the numbers I cited where only for criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery by force, and aggravated assault. Not every misdemeanor. Also they are population controlled. 

Don't believe me? I will post the forcible rape by rate. 

1970 18.7
1971 20.5
1972 22.5
1973 24.5
1974 26.2
1975 26.3
1976 26.6
1977 29.4
1978 31.0
1979 34.7
1980 36.8
1981 36.0
1982 34.0
1983 33.8
1984 35.7
1985 36.8
1986 38.1
1987 37.6
1988 37.8
1989 38.3
1990 41.1
1991 42.3
1992 42.8
1993 41.1
1994 39.3
1995 37.1
1996 36.3
1997 35.9
1998 34.5
1999 32.8
2000 32.0
2001 31.8
2002 33.1

So, yes, we can say that there's been a decline since 1990, but again the rate has more than tripled since 1960 (when it was 9.6)


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> So you're saying the cops should have had him arrested based on a RANT and have him charged for what ? Misogyny?
> 
> Who would have been the victims and on what grounds would they have convicted him


If his rants talked about violence and his psychiatrists and parents called the police out of concern that he was a danger to himself and others, the police should have taken him in for evaluation. This is actually done in a lot of cases.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> If his rants talked about violence and his psychiatrists and parents called the police out of concern that he was a danger to himself and others, the police should have taken him in for evaluation. This is actually done in a lot of cases.


I basically said the exact same thing in a post i made earlier , two page preceding this one in response to a poster named Miss Taken.

Here's a repost:

Post # 540 pg 36.

" _I fully agree!

*He should have been investigated and put on a watch list or something like that, so he wouldn't have access to a semi automatic weapon.
The university could have also been alerted by the cops and some sort of psychiatric evaluation done in light of his rants online and his youtube videos.*

Ironically, on the bodybuilding forum I belonged to, other guys were calling him on the video he made and calling him on his racist remarks

They also told him that his attitude towards chicks suck and he would never get any of those girls because of his sense of entitlement.

Basically they ridiculed him, maybe that was a contributing factor to his final actions?

Maybe, but to what extent, we don't know..."_


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> I don't think that " mainstream" in the article was meant in a social , everyday , next door neighbor sense. Because I don't see that in men generally either.


It IS. It is SO mainstream that people cannot even SEE it though it is right there. My THIRTEEN YEAR OLD SON came home with news that it is cool to f*** s****. Getting into a woman's pants is seen as a lofty goal. Who gives an f if she is a person. She isn't. She is a p**** to stick you c*** in. Crudeness INTENDED.

It is so mainstream that football coaches seek to cover it up. That an entire thread intended to ask women how they feel about the news is full of men trying to say that this stuff DOESN'T EVEN HAPPEN. But We See It All The Time. But of course, perhaps we are just too sensitive.

FW had a great post about the complicity of your (generalities about several of the male posters on this thread) denial. I have lot a lot of faith, what little I had, in the men save a hand full (Take a bow again, Deejo). You are complicit every time you say things that deny the fact that a giant contingent of your society that you CLAIM to care about experiences All The Time.

I am middle aged. I just had to start wearing my wedding rings (too small) because of a creeper sniffing around me at work. Normal things like heya can you stop coming by so much, I am concerned about getting my work done. Or I am concerned about my boss thinking I am goofing off does nothing. My words are nothing. I am a thing to him. This is NORMAL.

Thankful my son has some choice words to describe the thinking I explained from the thread here. Thankfully my husband is a genuine good man. Thankfully I have a few years yet to prepare my lovely, clueless, giving, caring daughter. The perfect mark.


----------



## Faithful Wife

#yesallwomen

When you know you could report something to your HR department, but you also know they would rather you didn't.


----------



## EleGirl

Eqili said:


> ER's plan was to:
> 1. Kill his male roommates,
> 2. Kill women at a sorority house, and then
> 3. Kill random people of both sexes throughout town.
> 
> It's interesting how some people interpret his plan as:
> 1. Something unimportant,
> 2. Kill women at a sorority house, and then
> 3. Something unimportant.


You are distorting what I and others are saying....

We are saying that his intent to kill the women in the sorority house is important even if he was not able to carry it out.

You and others seem to think that since he was prevented from killing in the sorority house, his intent is unimportant.

1. Kill his male roommates,
2. Not important.
3. Kill random people of both sexes throughout town.


----------



## Caribbean Man

NobodySpecial said:


> It IS. It is SO mainstream that people cannot even SEE it though it is right there. My THIRTEEN YEAR OLD SON came home with news that it is cool to f*** s****. Getting into a woman's pants is seen as a lofty goal. Who gives an f if she is a person. She isn't. She is a p**** to stick you c*** in. Crudeness INTENDED.
> 
> It is so mainstream that football coaches seek to cover it up. That an entire thread intended to ask women how they feel about the news is full of men trying to say that this stuff DOESN'T EVEN HAPPEN. But We See It All The Time. But of course, perhaps we are just too sensitive.
> 
> FW had a great post about the complicity of your (generalities about several of the male posters on this thread) denial. I have lot a lot of faith, what little I had, in the men save a hand full (Take a bow again, Deejo). You are complicit every time you say things that deny the fact that a giant contingent of your society that you CLAIM to care about experiences All The Time.
> 
> I am middle aged. I just had to start wearing my wedding rings (too small) because of a creeper sniffing around me at work. Normal things like heya can you stop coming by so much, I am concerned about getting my work done. Or I am concerned about my boss thinking I am goofing off does nothing. My words are nothing. I am a thing to him. This is NORMAL.
> 
> Thankful my son has some choice words to describe the thinking I explained from the thread here. Thankfully my husband is a genuine good man. Thankfully I have a few years yet to prepare my lovely, clueless, giving, caring daughter. The perfect mark.


And here we go again.

Because your reality doesn't reflect mine nor my wife's , nor most other guys on this thread , we are bad men who don't like women.

Yup...

* Not all men...*
In other words , any man who disagrees with you isn't a " _good man._."

Do you know me?
Do you know my experience?
Do you know how many peoiple including women I've gone out of my way to help and defend, sometimes even to the point of physical confrontations?
Can you grasp that I own a business and choose to employ ONLY WOMEN?
Do you know how many women I've helped start up their own micro businesses?
Have you ever visited a female prison institution to help incarcerated women rejected by their loved ones?
Have you ever felt what it means to a female prisoner when she gets reunited with her kids?

Take a walk in my footsteps and then judge my treatment of REAL WOMEN in real life.


LMAO
You don't know me.


Sigh.


----------



## Faithful Wife

One really great thing I see happening out there...is that there are a lot of websites and forums and blogs who are straight up saying "if you identify with MRA/PUA, we don't want you in our comments". This is happening in lots of places. Very nice to see.

And some of these people are saying "yes we know that not all MRA/PUA are scum bags, but the ones who leave comments on our blogs ARE scum bags, so by your admitted association to them, we don't want you".

Here's a good one:

Burning The MRA Playbook (Or, #YesAllMRAs) « terribleminds: chuck wendig

What I do hope will happen, is that men who really are good and decent men will form new groups that are not full of hatred and misogyny to discuss valid men's rights and concerns. Then we might have groups that really do have nothing to do with the violent creep types, and they can focus on the real issues, and other men and women will listen and work with them.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> One really great thing I see happening out there...is that there are a lot of websites and forums and blogs who are straight up saying "if you identify with MRA/PUA, we don't want you in our comments". This is happening in lots of places. Very nice to see.
> 
> And some of these people are saying "yes we know that not all MRA/PUA are scum bags, but the ones who leave comments on our blogs ARE scum bags, so by your admitted association to them, we don't want you".
> 
> Here's a good one:
> 
> Burning The MRA Playbook (Or, #YesAllMRAs) « terribleminds: chuck wendig
> 
> What I do hope will happen, is that men who really are good and decent men will form new groups that are not full of hatred and misogyny to discuss valid men's rights and concerns. Then we might have groups that really do have nothing to do with the violent creep types, and they can focus on the real issues, and other men and women will listen and work with them.


Interesting, reading the forums, it seems that they have been having problems with posts from MRA types for a while.

I'm all for standing up for the rights of people, men, women, racial groups, etc etc. It's the hate that occurs on the fringe of right groups that gets out of hand. Unfortunately, often the real goals often get lost become the most radical, most hateful elements tend to become the most vocal and most visible.


----------



## Faithful Wife

EleGirl said:


> Interesting, reading the forums, it seems that they have been having problems with posts from MRA types for a while.
> 
> I'm all for standing up for the rights of people, men, women, racial groups, etc etc. It's the hate that occurs on the fringe of right groups that gets out of hand. Unfortunately, often the real goals often get lost become the most radical, most hateful elements tend to become the most vocal and most visible.


Yes, anywhere that MRA's and PUA's comment, they have problems with them. This has been going on for a long time, actually. And as I said, NOW people are willing to say "ok you guys are not just kooks you are scary violent creeps, so we'd like you to ****** off our site, please".

This is why there are watchdog groups on the MRA/PUA groups. These are not new things, this has been going on for a long time.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> And here we go again.
> 
> Because your reality doesn't reflect mine nor my wife's , nor most other guys on this thread , we are bad men who don't like women.


Is that what you see? I said complicit. Do you have such a weak understanding of the English language as to think those 2 words are the same? Or is there some reason for you to not accept what people actually SAY?


----------



## Windwalker

Caribbean Man said:


> And here we go again.
> 
> Because your reality doesn't reflect mine nor my wife's , nor most other guys on this thread , we are bad men who don't like women.
> 
> Yup...
> 
> * Not all men...*
> *In other words , any man who disagrees with you isn't a " good man.."*
> 
> Do you know me?
> Do you know my experience?
> Do you know how many peoiple including women I've gone out of my way to help and defend, sometimes even to the point of physical confrontations?
> Can you grasp that I own a business and choose to employ ONLY WOMEN?
> Do you know how many women I've helped start up their own micro businesses?
> Have you ever visited a female prison institution to help incarcerated women rejected by their loved ones?
> Have you ever felt what it means to a female prisoner when she gets reunited with her kids?
> 
> Take a walk in my footsteps and then judge my treatment of REAL WOMEN in real life.
> 
> 
> LMAO
> You don't know me.
> 
> 
> Sigh.


Caribbean Man, 

You will see that i highlighted the premise of your post and I can't agree with you more.

I encourage you and all the other male posters to just walk away. It's a waste of time. There was a reason this thread was posted in the Ladies Lounge. I will let you come to your own conclusions on that.



NobodySpecial said:


> It IS. It is SO mainstream that people cannot even SEE it though it is right there. My THIRTEEN YEAR OLD SON came home with news that it is cool to f*** s****. Getting into a woman's pants is seen as a lofty goal. Who gives an f if she is a person. She isn't. She is a p**** to stick you c*** in. Crudeness INTENDED.
> 
> It is so mainstream that football coaches seek to cover it up. That an entire thread intended to ask women how they feel about the news is full of men trying to say that this stuff DOESN'T EVEN HAPPEN. But We See It All The Time. But of course, perhaps we are just too sensitive.
> 
> FW had a great post about the complicity of your (generalities about several of the male posters on this thread) denial. I have lot a lot of faith, what little I had, in the men save a hand full (Take a bow again, Deejo). You are complicit every time you say things that deny the fact that a giant contingent of your society that you CLAIM to care about experiences All The Time.
> 
> I am middle aged. I just had to start wearing my wedding rings (too small) because of a creeper sniffing around me at work. Normal things like heya can you stop coming by so much, I am concerned about getting my work done. Or I am concerned about my boss thinking I am goofing off does nothing. My words are nothing. I am a thing to him. This is NORMAL.
> 
> Thankful my son has some choice words to describe the thinking I explained from the thread here. Thankfully my husband is a genuine good man. Thankfully I have a few years yet to prepare my lovely, clueless, giving, caring daughter. The perfect mark.



Lets start out with the comment about complicity.

com·plic·it
kəmˈplisit/Submit
adjective
adjective: complicit
involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.
"all of these people are complicit in some criminal conspiracy"



com·plic·i·ty
kəmˈplisitē/Submit
noun
the state of being involved with others in an illegal activity or wrongdoing.
"they were accused of complicity in the attempt to overthrow the government"
synonyms:	collusion, involvement, collaboration, connivance;

So, the jist I got from your comment was that if we disagree with you in any way shape or from. Then we are complicit in our agreement with all the other woman hating cretins on the planet.

Here I want to point out the reason so many men are piss3d about this whole thread.



Caribbean Man said:


> Do you know me?
> Do you know my experience?
> Do you know how many peoiple including women I've gone out of my way to help and defend, sometimes even to the point of physical confrontations?
> 
> Take a walk in my footsteps and then judge my treatment of REAL WOMEN in real life.
> 
> 
> LMAO
> You don't know me.
> 
> 
> Sigh.


Nothing quite like being insulted, huh?

And now we get a bigger insult.



NobodySpecial said:


> My THIRTEEN YEAR OLD SON came home with news that it is cool to f*** s****. Getting into a woman's pants is seen as a lofty goal. Who gives an f if she is a person. She isn't. She is a p**** to stick you c*** in. Crudeness INTENDED.


So, now are we not only woman hating cretins, murders and rapists, but also have the mental capacity of a 13 year old.

I can promise you that if ANY of my boys ever said that to their mother that they wouldn't be able to walk for a while. And they are all teenagers. Their again, I teach them something called personal responsibility. You are responsible for the words that come from your mouth! 

I have been in more than one fight because I saw a woman get slapped. What good has it ever done. Bloody noses and fat lips, and not one single word of thanks. Many times, just to get attacked by the same woman I was trying to help. Why did I do it? Probably has something along the lines for "it's the right thing to do". 

Nope, I will be the first to tell you that your not the only one who has lost faith and trust in the opposite gender. I have no faith and no trust. There again, I don't must trust the **** sapiens race much either.

You want to talk about how "giant contingent of your society that you CLAIM to care about experiences All The Time.". No. It's your society. I lost faith in it a long time ago. It sure hasn't done me any favors. Fact is, it's done more harm than good.

My top concern is my immediate family. My sons and my wife. I can promise you that I will defend them to the death. I have already told my sons that they should be very wary of the opposite sex. Fact is, I have already offered to pay for all three of them to get a vasectomy once they become of age. I have also instilled in them the fact that they do NOT need a female in their life to be happy. It's not about hate. It's about protecting yourself. 

Nope, there is not need to fear the bad man that I am. Outside of this forum, I avoid contact with the opposite sex as much as humanly possible. I don't need garbage. I don't need or want a sly wink and flirting. I don't need witty banter. All I need is my boys and my wife. 

All I can tell you is to keep on keeping on with your hate. You seem to be doing well with it. But, unless you know me and all of my thoughts and actions that have transpired in this short existence, stop with the insults. 

The opposite of love is not hate. It's indifference.

May a bad man save your in your time of need from one of the truly bad men.

I'm done with this joint. Hate all you wish!


----------



## JCD

NobodySpecial said:


> I am saying nothing more than being worried about this kind of ranting as "crying wolf" is pretty horrifying in light of the fact that these rants precede many violent acts to the degree that there have even been cases where speech itself has been deemed criminal despite its constitutionally protected status.


And how many ranters out there have said the exact same things and NOT done there horrible things?

Is Elliot 1%? .01%? .0001%?

And yet, you suggest that because we have a nut jobber every 10 years or so who does these horrible things, maybe we need to control those pesky ranters...oh...and I don't like those Limbaugh fans either...and that NRA is really annoying. And my political opponent is gaining traction...

I am SO not on board with this that I would fight this. Your implied cure is far worse than the disease.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> My statistics come from the Uniform Crime Reporting Bureau of the FBI. Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics
> 
> 
> 
> And this is what I mean by cherry-picking. Violent crime spiked at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, then fell back down to more normal levels. But if you take a longer view, you see a steady increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the numbers I cited where only for criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery by force, and aggravated assault. Not every misdemeanor. Also they are population controlled.
> 
> Don't believe me? I will post the forcible rape by rate.
> 
> 1970 18.7
> 1971 20.5
> 1972 22.5
> 1973 24.5
> 1974 26.2
> 1975 26.3
> 1976 26.6
> 1977 29.4
> 1978 31.0
> 1979 34.7
> 1980 36.8
> 1981 36.0
> 1982 34.0
> 1983 33.8
> 1984 35.7
> 1985 36.8
> 1986 38.1
> 1987 37.6
> 1988 37.8
> 1989 38.3
> 1990 41.1
> 1991 42.3
> 1992 42.8
> 1993 41.1
> 1994 39.3
> 1995 37.1
> 1996 36.3
> 1997 35.9
> 1998 34.5
> 1999 32.8
> 2000 32.0
> 2001 31.8
> 2002 33.1
> 
> So, yes, we can say that there's been a decline since 1990, but again the rate has more than tripled since 1960 (when it was 9.6)


And you well know that between 1960 and 1980, there were legal changes to the system like rape shield laws, the Feminist movement etc which suddenly caused a huge uptick in REPORTING of this crime.



> WASHINGTON – From 1995 to 2005, sexual violence against U.S. female residents age 12 or older declined 64 percent from 5.0 per 1,000 females to 1.8, and remained unchanged through 2010, according to a report, Female Victims of Sexual Violence, 1994-2010, released today by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).


This says one thing. Your stats say another thing. I do no know why there is this disparity. This was not a case of cherry picking. I went one place...and found this stat.

However you clearly see me as a dishonest debater. Perhaps you should put me on the 'ignore list' since you don't believe anything I say.


----------



## JCD

Ah. I found the issue.



> *These estimates of sexual violence from 1994 to 2010, averaged across two years and reported as the most recent year, are based on data from the annual National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). *Sexual violence against females includes completed, attempted, or threatened rape or sexual assault. In 2010, females experienced 270,000 rape or sexual assault victimizations at a rate of about two victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older.
> 
> *In 1995, 29 percent of rape or sexual assault victimizations against females were reported to the police. This percentage increased to 56 percent in 2003 before declining to 35 percent in 2010*. Of the sexual victimizations reported to the police in 2005-10, about 64 percent were reported to the police directly by the victims, 10 percent by another household member and 14 percent by an official other than the police. About 84 percent of the victims stated that the police came to the victim after being notified.


Different stat measurements.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the rape report percentage was in 1960 vs. 1980, 1990, and 2000?


----------



## Omego

Windwalker said:


> I have already told my sons that they should be very wary of the opposite sex. Fact is, I have already offered to pay for all three of them to get a vasectomy once they become of age. I have also instilled in them the fact that they do NOT need a female in their life to be happy.
> 
> I don't need or want a sly wink and flirting. I don't need witty banter. All I need is my boys and my wife.


This is a really interesting post. I'm sorry to threadjack. I guess it would be better to open another thread. This perception of women in the US is something I've read about a bit. 

I actually discussed this with a client of mine (female) who is also American and lives between several countries. She said that she feels the trend is that women are becoming "harder" and trying to prove that they are equals but going about it the wrong way. 

And this post also brings up the question of how we are going to educate our children with respect to relationships, dating, etc.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

Faithful Wife said:


> One really great thing I see happening out there...is that there are a lot of websites and forums and blogs who are straight up saying "if you identify with MRA/PUA, we don't want you in our comments". This is happening in lots of places. Very nice to see.
> 
> And some of these people are saying "yes we know that not all MRA/PUA are scum bags, but the ones who leave comments on our blogs ARE scum bags, so by your admitted association to them, we don't want you".
> 
> Here's a good one:
> 
> Burning The MRA Playbook (Or, #YesAllMRAs) Â« terribleminds: chuck wendig
> 
> What I do hope will happen, is that men who really are good and decent men will form new groups that are not full of hatred and misogyny to discuss valid men's rights and concerns. Then we might have groups that really do have nothing to do with the violent creep types, and they can focus on the real issues, and other men and women will listen and work with them.


That's quite interesting read.


> Now, not every comment was a septic slap in the face — but for every comment I let slip through, I got another two that weren’t so nice. Many were from self-identified MRAs, *some of whom seemed to think I was a woman*? A bearded lady, perhaps. They called me “****” and “****ing *****” and one of them said I was probably single and had a lot of cats? I dunno. No idea. *Some didn’t think I was a woman but instead wanted to compare me to a woman, which is obviously the worst insult they think they have in their arsenal*.


 The bolded part: quite a few posters here on TAM have actually used that tactic. You know who you are. FYI it didn't work. It's like you can't comprehend the idea of a man discussing about women's issues.

Another tactic these type of posters use is to derail the thread and leave. A couple of posters have used that tactic on this very thread. They fill the thread and bury the original topic with off-topic info, arguments and pointless points so it gets very hard to follow and people get tired and either leave or, like unfortunately on TAM the policy seems to be to close the thread _instead _of banning the offenders so people could discuss the issue peacefully. Either way, they have achieved their goal: *the original issue is not being discussed anymore*. Ironically, this has happened to every thread I've started here on TAM. I must be in lead on that questionable 'statistic.'


----------



## EleGirl

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut,

I am a brilliant decoder of what people are up to on the internet. Clearly you created this account just for this thread... :rofl:


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> And you well know that between 1960 and 1980, there were legal changes to the system like rape shield laws, the Feminist movement etc which suddenly caused a huge uptick in REPORTING of this crime.


Stats I posted are forcible rape only. *forcible* rape. Not affected by definition changes. And *completed*, as in not including accusations or cases where defendant was acquitted or otherwise cleared.

Why do you feel the need to constantly diminish this problem and pretend it doesn't exist?


----------



## richie33

This tragic event makes people start talking, to spouses, to children.....maybe preventing this from happening again. I can't speak for a women as a man, so I cannot understand what they go through on a day to day basis. All I can go on is what I hear from my wife and others. Thankfully living in one of the most populated part of the world luckily my wife has not experienced fear of a man.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> And how many ranters out there have said the exact same things and NOT done there horrible things?
> 
> Is Elliot 1%? .01%? .0001%?
> 
> And yet, you suggest that because we have a nut jobber every 10 years or so who does these horrible things, maybe we need to control those pesky ranters..


There you go again: diminish, diminish, diminish.

Where did those stats come from? Name after name after name is posted here. And those were just the mass or serial killers. In just the last month there was Rodgers and a teenage boy who shot a girl because she wouldn't go to prom with him.

And those are just the incidents I happen to know about. This white happens all the time, and all you wish to do is shrug and diminish.


----------



## Cosmos

Please, won't someone just delete this thread?


----------



## ConcernedDad

I just can't believe where this thread has gone. Ladies, on behalf of men I am really sorry so many want to scoop this under the rug. Guys do this all the time unfortunately. Kind of like when men complain they have to pay more car insurance than women and make "women driver" jokes even though statistics clearly show men are worse drivers. 

I really don't understand why it's so hard for men to grow up and admit they're mistakes, why they have to argue every little thing no matter how ridiculous instead of simply admitting that something like PUA/MRAs are indeed a cancer as well as the guys that are part of them.

I am a man and a father with you ladies 110%!! I want a better future for my daughter but reading threads like these give me little hope.


----------



## LongWalk

If a woman discovers her husband has wasted tens of thousands on drugs, alcohol and prostitutes, she may divorce him and try again. When the second husband abuses her, she may begin to believe men are collectively defective.

Men can go through an analogous process. It will never be possible to change human nature. Hatred born of disappointment will never vanish.

Are our everyday social institutions responsive to the problems of people like this mad killer?

Apparently he had no trouble buying handguns. There is one conspicuous failure.

post script:
I don't see why people are so angry about he direction the thread has taken. What is discourse without disagreement? Isn't the goal to understand others?

More on mental illness and aggression: I wrote earlier about my brother who died of schizophrenia. Sexuality was a problem for him. i don't think the healthy part of his personality was mysogynistic. But when he became the Biblical Paul he was hostile to women and humanity in general. Indeed, in times gone past people like my brother would have likely been in monasteries. This "sacrifice" of sexuality to mate with God(s) is a often a step taken to adjust to mental illness.

Among monks and nuns there are many who have chosen that path to escape the discomfort of sexuality. Those outlet do not exist today in the same way. Furthermore, from the Boy Scouts and Catholic Church sex scandals we know that these institutions were never "the" solution. In part they were a cover up.

Rodgers did seek out society to address his discomfort: online groups. This is an inevitable consequence of the digitalzation of life and the decline of traditional institutions. The old state mental hospitals were closed en masse. And the mentally ill died homeless on streets in the tens of thousands.

My brother was peaceful, until he snapped. Once playing in the sandbox he hit me with a coffee can after I punched him. He escalated violence without the ability to calculate the consequences. Once I found myself in a wrestling match with him. He was extremely upset. I just wanted to let him up and end the conflict. But I couldn't because I sensed he could do anything. It was very disturbing.

Bullies did not go after my brother, although he was vulnerable, for if he went for them in a fight he never stopped. There was no compromise, no surrender, no end. The bully might win the fight at that moment. But he would come away feeling that my brother might pop out at any time and hurt him without mercy.

This was all before the psychosis started.

re: dealing with the sexual rank pecking order
Women complain that they are judged for their looks. This is too true. Men will put up with all sorts of nonsense from a demanding beautiful woman while they ignore ugly women. I can understand why some unattractive women who are never asked out might eventually hate men. And I know there are women like this.

The difference is that these women don't commit acts of violence. Men express themselves violently more than women. That is biologically programmed into us.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## jld

LongWalk said:


> post script:
> I don't see why people are so angry about he direction the thread has taken. What is discourse without disagreement? Isn't the goal to understand others?


:iagree:

It is interesting to hear different thoughts and experiences. I find it stimulating to hear why others see things differently than I do.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Stats I posted are forcible rape only. *forcible* rape. Not affected by definition changes. And *completed*, as in not including accusations or cases where defendant was acquitted or otherwise cleared.
> 
> Why do you feel the need to constantly diminish this problem and pretend it doesn't exist?


I am not pretending it doesn't exist. I outlined a simple fact: that if women suddenly report their rapes 10% more than before because of rape shield laws (or whatever it is), that means that the REPORTS of rape go up, but not the number of rapes.

This is not 'diminishing'. It is called context, nuance and data analysis.

That this fact is very uncomfortable to you is irrelevant. Why would such a fact be uncomfortable to you?

I think vellocet outlined it quite well.


----------



## Cosmos

> I don't see why people are so angry about he direction the thread has taken. What is discourse without disagreement? Isn't the goal to understand others?


Some of us aren't angry at the direction this thread has taken, but rather dismayed at how it continues to go round and round in circles with very little understanding having been achieved.


----------



## Chaparral

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.
> 
> Stats don't stop men from following you home. Stats don't stop men from raping a drunk girl at a party. We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it. Which is being done by men who throw around stats, like that would make a difference to me when I walk out of my house door.
> 
> Violence against women still happens and that makes us feel unsafe.


Have you actually looked up the stats for female abuse of their husbands and SOs and compared them to male on female abuse. My understanding is that they are a lot closer than you would imagine. Even more surprising is the high rate of females raping men.

Another problem is lumping all men together. If you take out one or two subsets of our culture you will find that American men are no more violent than most "safe" countries in Europe and other parts of the world.

The real problem is the judiciary/lawmakers pandering to people that commit crimes.


----------



## Chaparral

jld said:


> :iagree:
> 
> It is interesting to hear different thoughts and experiences. I find it stimulating to hear why others see things differently than I do.


And I find bias and ignorance disheartening. Seeing the effects of the mainstream media at play in shaping opinion is very sad.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> Some of us aren't angry at the direction this thread has taken, but rather dismayed at how it continues to go round and round in circles with very little understanding having been achieved.


I think some validation, or more validation, could work. _Seek to understand, and then to be understood._

And maybe some agreeing to disagree, after lots of the aforementioned validation. _Win/Win, or No Deal._

I really appreciate how vulnerable some members have been willing to be. It helps us understand how personal and strongly held these concerns are, on both sides.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> There you go again: diminish, diminish, diminish.
> 
> Where did those stats come from? Name after name after name is posted here. And those were just the mass or serial killers. In just the last month there was Rodgers and a teenage boy who shot a girl because she wouldn't go to prom with him.
> 
> And those are just the incidents I happen to know about. This white happens all the time, and all you wish to do is shrug and diminish.


No. I am pushing back against the idea that someone, anyone gets to dictate what is and is not 'reasonable' speech. (Just for the record, particularly you)

If my son said crap like the VERY WORST of the MRA types said, I'd probably give him a smack across the chops and a lecture...or maybe just a lecture. This is how I approach the problem.

People kill. Want to know who dies a hell of a lot more than women? MEN! 3.6 *times* more likely to be murdered. This is also a pesky fact which doesn't fit your narrative that women are the most hunted creatures on the planet.

So my son is 3.6 times more likely to be murdered. My daughters are about 45 times more likely to be raped. That is horrible. But that means they have a .18 PERCENT chance of it happening. And if they are cautious, the chances diminish even more. But I will still watch out for them.

This is called 'rational risk calculation', not diminishing


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> I think some validation, or more validation, could work. _Seek to understand, and then to be understood._
> 
> And maybe some agreeing to disagree, after lots of the aforementioned validation. _Win/Win, or No Deal._
> 
> I really appreciate how vulnerable some members have been willing to be. It helps us understand how personal and strongly held these concerns are, on both sides.


:iagree:

But even after pages and pages of posts, emotions are still running high and several members have been banned because of it.

I've now learned that TAM is not the place to discuss or debate highly sensitive issues.


----------



## jld

Chaparral said:


> And I find bias and ignorance disheartening. Seeing the effects of the mainstream media at play in shaping opinion is very sad.


This is how I felt about that Woman has tantrum at lake video. Dh and I watched it and were appalled by the man. I wrote that if the caption had been Sadist tortures nicotine-deprived woman in moving vehicle, popular opinion might have been different.


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> Some of us aren't angry at the direction this thread has taken, but rather dismayed at how it continues to go round and round in circles with very little understanding having been achieved.


Understanding achieved.

Women feel vulnerable. They are much smaller than men. They are also targeted almost singularly for a particular type of violent crime: rape.

People say nasty things. Women fear that this will lead to an upswing in violence. When we actually see it, maybe we can talk remedies.

But so far, violent crime is diminishing. So instead of patting all of ourselves on the back for making things better, we have people lamenting that life isn't perfect and that nasty men are allowed to continue to say nasty things. Nasty talk has increased...but violence has decreased. Huh.

Pointing this out isn't necessarily polite, but it is factual and groupthink is dangerous, even when engaged in by women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ConcernedDad said:


> I just can't believe where this thread has gone. Ladies, on behalf of men I am really sorry so many want to scoop this under the rug. Guys do this all the time unfortunately. Kind of like when men complain they have to pay more car insurance than women and make "women driver" jokes even though statistics clearly show men are worse drivers.
> 
> I really don't understand why it's so hard for men to grow up and admit they're mistakes, why they have to argue every little thing no matter how ridiculous instead of simply admitting that something like PUA/MRAs are indeed a cancer as well as the guys that are part of them.
> 
> I am a man and a father with you ladies 110%!! I want a better future for my daughter but reading threads like these give me little hope.


THANK YOU, Concerned Dad.


----------



## jld

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> But even after pages and pages of posts, emotions are still running high and several members have been banned because of it.
> 
> I've now learned that TAM is not the place to discuss or debate highly sensitive issues.


I hear you, Cosmos, but I feel more educated on this subject because of the contributions of every single poster. 

Some of us do not see things easily first time around. We have to turn things over in our heads for a while. 

We require your patience. And we thank you for it.


----------



## jld

And btw, Cosmos, I love your second sig, about unmet needs. So very true.


----------



## Miss Taken

jld said:


> This is how I felt about that Woman has tantrum at lake video. Dh and I watched it and were appalled by the man. I wrote that if the caption had been Sadist tortures nicotine-deprived woman in moving vehicle, popular opinion might have been different.


Yeah, the thing I don't like about that video is that:

1) We don't know what happened before this between them.

2) It's unclear if she knew she was being recorded in the beginning. I don't think she did. Once the camera was out in the open she was already in a full-blown "tantrum". 

I'm not saying that her behaviour seemed rational, mature or appropriate. It wasn't.

However, he is trying to present himself like he's perfectly reasonable, or Mr. Clean and his wife is the crazy one. The way he's talking to her all calm and collected as if he doesn't also yell, swear or anything. His side of things doesn't seem authentic. He knew it was recorded as he was in control of the recording and was on his best behaviour.

Then he posts it up on the Internet for the world to see and ridicule her for. Sorry, don't buy that he's innocent. Quite likely both are wrong and immature.


----------



## jld

I feel like I am monologuing . . .

Cosmos's second sig is apropos here. The men that are getting into this stuff have unmet needs. But the needs are not for sex and a pretty girl. They have unmet emotional needs for love and acceptance and validation of their worth.

We live in an unhealthy society where people think they have to look and act like movie stars.

There is no shame in being a virgin until you meet the girl that is truly the one for you. This girl accepts you just as you are. She sees your flaws and loves you anyway. She actually inspires you to be a better man. That means a more responsible man.


----------



## LongWalk

re: PUA versus women's magazine advice
Machiavelli is 100% right that women dislike PUA because it describes truths about human psychology. Women exchange the same sort of advice about scoring with men in all the women's magazines. Every issue deals with attracting and controlling men to get what women want.

Much of the practical advice deals with how to, for example, avoid being clingy. How to read and evaluate men is treated as practical wisdom. Are men angry about the way they are objectified in these magazines? Generally, no. Men don't pay attention to figuring out women until they are struggling.

A lot of the advice men give each other in the locker room is not all that good.

What women hate about PUA is that one of the essential messages is that by mimicking an alpha male for a certain period of time a beta dude can bluff his way into a woman's panties. However, women are often not dumb. Once they figure out that the guy has less real substance they will dump him. Thus, the PUA who is really trying to score all the time is ultimately not alpha because the need to keep score ignores that it would be healthier to see women as genuine companions. If you are successful at seducing and dumping women, how will you ever get to know one who would be a good LTR?

For men being burned by the equivalent of PUA by women is that they commit to a relationship with a woman who once married no longer wants sex with him but is turned on by other men and acts on it destroying the family and economy. 

Falling marriage rates and rising divorce rates indicate dissatisfaction on both sides.


----------



## jld

MT, dh and I got a lot of grief for supporting her. We put all of the responsibility on the man. That is where some declare us extremists.

And that makes me think, too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

LongWalk said:


> What women hate about PUA is....


Though I can agree with some of the things in your post, please don't do this. You have no idea what I hate about PUA, or why.

I do not presume to know what all men (or you) think about any topic. Why would you think you can?


----------



## Miss Taken

jld said:


> MT, dh and I got a lot of grief for supporting her. We put all of the responsibility on the man. That is where some declare us extremists.
> 
> And that makes me think, too.


Honestly, I'm trying to keep an open mind but admit I am torn about this one. Yes, her behaviour was off the wall but we don't have all of the facts. 

I know there are women who have issues and become easily unhinged for apparently trivial reasons. I also know there are passive aggressive people that will pick-pick-pick at someone all the while acting rationally until the other person explodes so that then they can play the victim and make the other person seem crazy.

I don't know... it could be authentic but, this just seems like a set-up. To start to record someone after the situation already escalated to that point. In the beginning it seemed he was aware of it being taped and she was not and so he got to choose how to behave with that in mind while she did not. 

The viewers have no idea what happened before this, they don't know if she acts like this all the time, they don't know how he treats her at home. All we see is him acting cool as a cucumber and her in hysterics. 

For all we know is he got her in the truck with the premise of going to the lake and get cigarettes on the way and then set her up... but that's just a supposition. 

To me, posting it on YouTube and making it public is what makes me suspicious of him. It's one thing to keep such a recording for the courts, or a counselor, or the police if trying to get a restraining order. It seems malicious of him to put that on YouTube. "Look at poor me and my bat-sh!t-crazy wife. See how she acts like this for no reason?" That's why I just don't see him as a victim. 

The world needn't be privy to their spat but it seems it would take a sense of enjoyment of seeing your wife ridiculed to want to put it up there. Being capable of that, makes me feel he's capable of more and in private instigates a lot more of this than he chose to let us see.


----------



## Deejo

We are straying pretty far afield. Unfortunately that is also in part due to the fact that the field is so big.

I'm not particularly on anyone's side here. The 'right' fighting going on is disappointing, and it isn't just one gender engaging in it.

All rapists are not misogynists. All misogynists are not mentally ill, would-be killers.

Not all men who attract hoards of women are pick up artists.

Not all men that are looking for resources and support in notoriously skewed family courts is an MRA activist.

Not every woman who wants to stand up against violence toward women is a man hating feminist.

Group dynamics change. Not always towards enlightened and better.

Simple example? TAM is a much different environment than it was in 08. Much ...

I can tell you that in the advent of 'man up' and NMMNG posts here, a number of posters from both genders absolutely lost their sh!t over it. They hated it, and made it clear every time someone would recommend destabilizing strategies. 

There are folks here and topics discussed that are utterly antithetical to how I operate. I don't engage with those individuals or engage in debate about the topic.

Disagreement is to be expected. Respect is appreciated. 

I know first hand how women can be victimized and harmed. I myself and other male family members have been on the receiving end of false allegations by bitter or angry women.

Experience is personal. And when someone marginalizes that experience, it also feels personal. 

I'd like to see some more direct lines of discussion regarding the topic.


----------



## Miss Taken

What I hate about PUA stuff is stuff like this:

Dating Market Value Test for Women

Where a woman's "value" goes down for:

*being of a certain age:* 



> 1. How old are you?
> 
> 15 to 16 years old: +5 points
> 17 to 20 years old: +10 points
> 21 to 25 years old: +8 points
> 26 to 29 years old: +3 point
> 30 to 33 years old: 0 points
> 33 to 36 years old: -1 point
> 37 to 40 years old: -5 points
> 41 to 45 years old: -8 points
> 46 to 49 years old: -10 points
> over 49: you’ve hit the wall. waysa?


*having a high I.Q. *



> 3. What is your IQ? (This relates tangentially to your ability to connect emotionally with a man.)
> 
> Under 85: -1 point
> 85 to 100: 0 points
> 101 to 120: +1 point
> 121 to 145: 0 points
> Over 145: -1 point


*or participating in competitive (male-dominated) sports other than tennis. 
*



> 26. You are highly competitive and often play co-ed team sports.
> Yes, and I will throw an elbow if necessary. My shelf is filled with trophies: -1 point
> I like to exercise on nice days with one on one sports like tennis: +1 point
> I’m competitive with other girls, but not guys: 0 points


*for not enjoying anal sex:*



> 31. Do you do anal?
> 
> Yes, and it makes me come to know how much it pleases my man: +1 point
> Only when I get really drunk: 0 points
> Never. It’s an exit only: -1 point


*for saying more than "damn"* (I failed this one miserably FFS!) 



> 33. How often do you curse?
> 
> I think I said damn once: +1 point
> I blurt out **** and **** a few times a week: 0 points
> My mouth is a gutter: -1 point


*for not wearing hooker heels over 3 inches*



> 34. You’d best describe your sense of fashion as:
> I’m a label *****: -1 point
> I hide my body under baggy tees and ill-fitting jeans: -1 point
> I wear casual clothing that flatters my figure: 0 points
> I wear stylish clothing on weeknights and I can handle heels over 3 inches: +1 point
> My flip flops have my foot imprint in them: -2 points


----------



## Faithful Wife

What would be some more direct lines of discussion, Deejo?


----------



## TurtleRun

The guy was a crazy no way to analyze that!


----------



## NobodySpecial

LongWalk said:


> re: PUA versus women's magazine advice
> Machiavelli is 100% right that women dislike PUA because it describes truths about human psychology. Women exchange the same sort of advice about scoring with men in all the women's magazines. Every issue deals with attracting and controlling men to get what women want.


Yah. They are not worth anything either.


----------



## Machiavelli

Faithful Wife said:


> Though I can agree with some of the things in your post, please don't do this. You have no idea what I hate about PUA, or why.
> 
> I do not presume to know what all men (or you) think about any topic. Why would you think you can?


Solipsism. When he says "women hate PUA," he doesn't mean "women" in the sense of 100% of women. He understands that surely there must be an exception somewhere, perhaps even many exceptions. He is using the generic term in the general sense, not even in the majority sense, since most women haven't thought about it one way or another. But of that group who don't like it, he's right on the money. And ER didn't like it either, because he saw it as the reason low ranking men, by his perception, were getting with high ranking women that should have been with him, since he was such a sensitive, blue pill, lefty, supreme gentleman and all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mansplaining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Cosmos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAnpM9FLCB4


----------



## Miss Taken

Something that is very clear throughout this thread is that no individual from either gender likes generalities and assumptions made about them. Something that started the #Notallmen twitter campaign is that men didn't want to be associated with misogyny or the violent acts committed by Elliott Rodgers. 

Many have even flocked to this thread in defence of the MRM and PUA communities. Saying that it's about self-improvement (true in some ways), it doesn't objectify women (false in some ways). They've also throughout the thread insisted that not all men are the same (something MOST of us women NEVER asserted here in the first place). I know I didn't and as a mother of boys who will grow up to be men - I do not hate men. If I did, I would be doing them a disservice.

However, in my journeys peering into the _manosphere_, I've visited: PUA, MRM/MRA, MGTOW communities, forums, and blogs. Something they all have in common is this.

NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That).​
While it seems that it is fine for a man to assert himself as an individual with his own values, drives, ambitions, thoughts, experiences and actions - it is not okay for a woman to do the same. In fact, it's ridiculed in these communities.

They all take the same stance that the idea that NAWALT, is a myth, a farce and in fact, we are all like that - we are all the same. 

The irony and hypocrisy of this is not lost on me.

------------------------------

MGTOW Community 
Bans women from claiming NAWALT in order to be allowed to post on the site. (video)

From the site, No Maam
Guide to bird watching in the manosphere. Compares women to poultry and foul all the while stating, we're all like that.

Another post ridiculing NAWALT Quotes passages stating how evil and deceitful all of us are.

A Voice for Men

"Women don't care if men are treated badly." That's not some women. That's all of us.

I COULD go on but I won't because it's everywhere on nearly every site and I am not the only one with Google.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbara*



Faithful Wife said:


> What would be some more direct lines of discussion, Deejo?


Hell I'd take d!ck size discussion at this point.

Going back to the OP. I appreciated the fact that Techmom indicated that the red pill community in no way shape or form supported, endorsed or pumped their fists over this deranged young man's actions.

Thought that things may veer into the lane of actually discussing who is deciding who or which groups are misogynistic ... enough ... that you and others are afraid.

No secret you don't like 90% of the red pill stuff.

We lumping that into the same bucket as MRA and pickup?

I think this was actually the initial point that JCD and CM were making.

Who exactly is it that you want to shut down? Where's the line between a very emotionally hurt man or woman venting about their anger and pain, over a lost relationship or marriage, and the kind of stuff this kid was spouting everywhere from puahate to bodybuilding.com. 

Do I want you or any other woman to have an ever present fear of or disdain for men? No I don't. 

Am I going to agree with anyone that the information I learned and put into practice from pickup is 'cancerous' and makes me a loser and a misogynist?

Nope. Never. And I used to be one of the haters.

I don't believe that those sites instigated or contributed to his decision to murder. The hatred was already well entrenched. The sites just gave him a platform to vomit it up.

Now I certainly can understand the concern if you have hundreds or thousands of ER's gathered under the same digital roof, and that puahate subforum and chat that you linked to, concerned me too. The dude talking in detail about all he would need to do to shoot up his school? Needs a hell of a lot more than his computer taken away and a finger wagged in his face. But is he misogynist or an incredibly angry and damaged person?

Are we saying (you) that level of hatred permeates pickup sites, red pill sites and men's rights sites?


----------



## EleGirl

Chaparral said:


> Have you actually looked up the stats for female abuse of their husbands and SOs and compared them to male on female abuse. My understanding is that they are a lot closer than you would imagine. Even more surprising is the high rate of females raping men.


The statistics do not support that there is a surprising high rate of females raping men.

*MEN*

About 3% of American men — or 1 in 33 — have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime.

• In 2003, 1 in every ten rape victims were male.

• 2.78 million men in the U.S. have been victims of sexual assault or rape.

Most rapists who rape men are male.


*WOMEN*

1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape).

17.7 million American women have been victims of attempted or completed rape.

Most rapists who rape women are male.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> Who exactly is it that you want to shut down? Where's the line between a very emotionally hurt man or woman venting about their anger and pain, over a lost relationship or marriage, and the kind of stuff this kid was spouting everywhere from puahate to bodybuilding.


As I recall, no one even ever said anything about shutting anything down. No, that was just a red herring thrown in there so we could keep calling the people who are unnerved by Rodgers and his ilk hysterical and unreasonable.

What I saw was calls for monitoring, and actually maybe taking action when things are going too far (eg the *parents* themselves are frightened about what their boy might do), instead waiting until the corpses are on the floor and then shrugging,"oh, well, what were the chances?"

We all understand that proactive policing and medical treatment is problematic for all kinds of reasons. But we also do it all the time for hate groups, as well as those who are a danger to themselves and others. Both groups are a recognized threat.

And I posted links earlier identifying exactly the sites and activities that are identified as hate, and that, thanks to some consciousness raising, are starting to be monitored.

After all, it's really not just us irrational and annoying TAM feminists that can see the problem.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbara*



always_alone said:


> As I recall, no one even ever said anything about shutting anything down. No, that was just a red herring thrown in
> 
> After all, it's really not just us irrational and annoying TAM feminists that can see the problem.


No there are definitely other kinds of feminists up in the mix ...

Using 'shut down' was meant to be hyperbole. But a rational discussion is probably warranted. Which means I'm not sure we are equipped to have it. Let's face it, we ban people for hateful language. But removing them from the site doesn't make them less hateful.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> No there are definitely other kinds of feminists up in the mix ...
> 
> Using 'shut down' was meant to be hyperbole. But a rational discussion is probably warranted. Which means I'm not sure we are equipped to have it. Let's face it, we ban people for hateful language. But removing them from the site doesn't make them less hateful.


Even, gasp, some non-feminists ..

No, banning people from spreading hate does not end the hate, but it takes away the platform for spreading it. Hate breeds hate, after all. Children aren't born with it. They are taught it through abuse, neglect, or by example. The fewer role models they have for it, the better. The more people who speak out against it, the less likely it is to be perpetuated. The more alternatives there are for addressing the ills of society than grabbing a weapon and killing people, the better.

There are, for example, still hateful racists in this world, but because of activism and because of people taking a stand against it and refusing to condone it, it's no longer an accepted part of mainstream culture as it once was. 

I view this as progress


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo, I expect nothing from this thread, myself. So that's why I asked what you felt would be different lines of discussion.

The things you said in your long post are not really lines of discussion that mean anything to me. You are mixing up all the other stuff yourself, not me. While it is true I have been very vocal about a bunch of the stuff you mentioned, I have not been vocal about it on this thread and I don't intend to as I don't see them all as the same thing. Regardless of how some might try to paint what I'm saying. 

To me, my point has already been made and I do not expect anything further to come of it here, nor do I expect anyone to agree with me.

Awareness among the general population has been expanded about the hateful fringe sections of society that Elliot belonged to. Many did not know they existed. Now they do. This is a good thing for everyone to know.


----------



## LongWalk

Faithful Wife said:


> Though I can agree with some of the things in your post, please don't do this. You have no idea what I hate about PUA, or why.
> 
> I do not presume to know what all men (or you) think about any topic. Why would you think you can?


I don't know everything. I cannot know why you hate PUA if you do not explain why. All of us are coming from somewhere. We see the same sun on the same day but we never see the same sunset. I know the sunset you see is beautiful. I accept that.

By the same token, I know that men have disappointed in women without understanding them and visa versa. A successful marriage is an imperfect compromise. In relationships men are competing against men and women women. Furthermore, men and women are in competition.

Men "ask" women to make an enormous sacrifice – pregnancy. The change to a woman's body is mind boggling. And in our natural state without sophisticated medical care women died in childbirth rather often. PUA folks hardly ever think about the consequences of sex in terms of pregnancy. No wonder women are picky about which men they sleep with. Of course women want men to enter a relationship to have sex and children.

For a man to fail to take fatherhood seriously is an enormous disappointment for a woman. 

When men agree to marry they renounced their desire for other women, although that urge is always there at some level. So when women get men into the relationship and then cheat and/or dump their husbands, the sense of betrayal is terrific. We have a whole thread about women being far more likely to R with a cheating husband that the other way round.

It is quite natural that there is anger and hatred in failed relations. Our selfish genes do not equip us with hearts of stone.


----------



## techmom

Deejo said:


> No there are definitely other kinds of feminists up in the mix ...
> 
> Using 'shut down' was meant to be hyperbole. But a rational discussion is probably warranted. Which means I'm not sure we are equipped to have it. Let's face it, we ban people for hateful language. But removing them from the site doesn't make them less hateful.


I like this post. I feel that there is so much hurt and anger from one gender to the other that we can't see eye to eye on this. Women feel vulnerable and men feel that women shouldn't feel vulnerable. I feel that men should understand when we have discussions like this, it is not to have a male bashing session. It is to discuss our feelings on this tragedy and to heal.

Every time is hear of a rape or murder of a woman by a male I feel vulnerable. I watch my back and guard myself more. This has become instinctive for me. No matter how many good men are out there I still do this. Why, you may ask. Because the good men seem to be blurred behind the jerks, the jerks are louder and get more press. I can't risk my life off of a statistic. Statistics mean nothing when you are walking alone on a dark street praying to get home safe and a man happens to be walking towards you.

Do I take the chance that this is one of the good guys?

Do I take note of the statistics posted on the internet saying that crimes against women are decreasing?

Do I take the chance and continue to stay on the same side of the street with the man walking towards me, instead of crossing the street because, heck he may be good.

I can't chance it, and none of the women who posted on this thread can chance it either.

This is what we are talking about. This is why I felt invalidated when a couple of posters felt that they were doing the right thing in posting stats. Stats don't keep me safe, my cautious instincts keep me safe. This was where I was coming from. Arguing against our points and feeling offended because we were discussing this does not make me believe that the men who posted stating that they were the good guys actually were good guys. They seemed to be the type of guys who wanted women to let their guard down. I don't let my guard down, ever.

I have been leered at in the street, I have had men cat call after me. I have had men yell at me for not smiling at them. These are not events that flatter me, they make me feel unsafe. Maybe some women like this type of attention but I don't. These were my experiences. 

No matter who posts up stats on whatever or states that they are a hero for women and stand up for women, I will still have my guard up and I will still seek to discuss this topic on TAM or any other forum.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

techmom said:


> I like this post. I feel that there is so much hurt and anger from one gender to the other that we can't see eye to eye on this. Women feel vulnerable and men feel that women shouldn't feel vulnerable. I feel that men should understand when we have discussions like this, it is not to have a male bashing session. It is to discuss our feelings on this tragedy and to heal.
> 
> Every time is hear of a rape or murder of a woman by a male I feel vulnerable. I watch my back and guard myself more. This has become instinctive for me. No matter how many good men are out there I still do this. Why, you may ask. Because the good men seem to be blurred behind the jerks, the jerks are louder and get more press. I can't risk my life off of a statistic. Statistics mean nothing when you are walking alone on a dark street praying to get home safe and a man happens to be walking towards you.
> 
> Do I take the chance that this is one of the good guys?
> 
> Do I take note of the statistics posted on the internet saying that crimes against women are decreasing?
> 
> Do I take the chance and continue to stay on the same side of the street with the man walking towards me, instead of crossing the street because, heck he may be good.
> 
> I can't chance it, and none of the women who posted on this thread can chance it either.
> 
> This is what we are talking about. This is why I felt invalidated when a couple of posters felt that they were doing the right thing in posting stats. Stats don't keep me safe, my cautious instincts keep me safe. This was where I was coming from. Arguing against our points and feeling offended because we were discussing this does not make me believe that the men who posted stating that they were the good guys actually were good guys. They seemed to be the type of guys who wanted women to let their guard down. I don't let my guard down, ever.
> 
> I have been leered at in the street, I have had men cat call after me. I have had men yell at me for not smiling at them. These are not events that flatter me, they make me feel unsafe. Maybe some women like this type of attention but I don't. These were my experiences.
> 
> No matter who posts up stats on whatever or states that they are a hero for women and stand up for women, I will still have my guard up and I will still seek to discuss this topic on TAM or any other forum.


I think it is a stretch to say the websites are misogynist (e.g. the ones that put up articles like the one Miss taken just posted). Insulting, sneering doesn't rise to the level of misogyny IMO. but engaging strangers on the street, per examples above, does indicate aggresiive intent in some cases, and women should trust their instincts and take precautions. That "hey I said good morning to you, are you stuck up" stuff coming from a guy you've never seen before - yep, bordering on misogyny at least.

I really think that women and others that feel insecure during their day should be able to carry some kind of nonlethal weapon just in case. Mace etc - local laws that don't allow that should be challenged.


----------



## Windwalker

Omego said:


> This is a really interesting post. I'm sorry to threadjack. I guess it would be better to open another thread. This perception of women in the US is something I've read about a bit.
> 
> I actually discussed this with a client of mine (female) who is also American and lives between several countries. She said that she feels the trend is that women are becoming "harder" and trying to prove that they are equals but going about it the wrong way.
> 
> And this post also brings up the question of how we are going to educate our children with respect to relationships, dating, etc.



I will discuss this all you like, but most definitely not in this thread. So if you want to start a thread on it, may I suggest it be in the general discussion area. 

And it's not about "women in the US". It's about the culture.


----------



## Windwalker

jld said:


> MT, dh and I got a lot of grief for supporting her. *We put all of the responsibility on the man.* That is where some declare us extremists.
> 
> And that makes me think, too.




I have a very serious question. I would like an honest answer to either confirm or deny my thoughts.

Nearly all of your posts have the same theme. That it's the man that should be doing all the heavy lifting in a relationship. That it's the man who is usually at fault. That it's the man's responsibility. Hey, I even bolded it for you. 

My take is that you think that everything falls on the man and that a woman has no faults and is innocent in all things.
Basically, that the onus is and should always be on the man.


Is this correct?

Why?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Bridge said:


> 42 pages... wtf.
> 
> 
> Congratulations, you're delusional.


Yeah, because those stories aren't real or in the news or anything. They're all in her head. Just like men who hear about other men being treated unfairly by the court system; that never causes them to worry about their own court treatment during a divorce right? They're all delusional.

If you're going to insult and name call at least use an appropriate insult.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Windwalker

Bridge said:


> 42 pages... wtf.
> 
> 
> Congratulations, you're delusional.


Really? You must be kidding me.

Being delusional, irrational, or any other "nals" has nothing to do with fear. 

It's much like my fear of spiders. It may not be right or rational, or make any sense to anyone else, but i HATE the damn3d creepy things.





techmom said:


> I like this post. I feel that there is so much hurt and anger from one gender to the other that we can't see eye to eye on this. Women feel vulnerable and men feel that women shouldn't feel vulnerable. I feel that men should understand when we have discussions like this, it is not to have a male bashing session. It is to discuss our feelings on this tragedy and to heal.
> 
> Every time is hear of a rape or murder of a woman by a male I feel vulnerable. I watch my back and guard myself more. This has become instinctive for me. No matter how many good men are out there I still do this. Why, you may ask. Because the good men seem to be blurred behind the jerks, the jerks are louder and get more press. I can't risk my life off of a statistic. Statistics mean nothing when you are walking alone on a dark street praying to get home safe and a man happens to be walking towards you.
> 
> Do I take the chance that this is one of the good guys?
> 
> Do I take note of the statistics posted on the internet saying that crimes against women are decreasing?
> 
> Do I take the chance and continue to stay on the same side of the street with the man walking towards me, instead of crossing the street because, heck he may be good.
> 
> I can't chance it, and none of the women who posted on this thread can chance it either.
> 
> This is what we are talking about. This is why I felt invalidated when a couple of posters felt that they were doing the right thing in posting stats. Stats don't keep me safe, my cautious instincts keep me safe. This was where I was coming from. Arguing against our points and feeling offended because we were discussing this does not make me believe that the men who posted stating that they were the good guys actually were good guys. They seemed to be the type of guys who wanted women to let their guard down. I don't let my guard down, ever.
> 
> I have been leered at in the street, I have had men cat call after me. I have had men yell at me for not smiling at them. These are not events that flatter me, they make me feel unsafe. Maybe some women like this type of attention but I don't. These were my experiences.
> 
> No matter who posts up stats on whatever or states that they are a hero for women and stand up for women, I will still have my guard up and I will still seek to discuss this topic on TAM or any other forum.



You know. Im sorry that you have a fear of men. Hell, I'm sorry any of the other women in this thread have a fear of men. I can't help the way you feel. It matters not what anyone says to these punks. They usually do what they want until someone gets tired of it and puts them in their place. 

I have never once said that there was any way this incident was not a absolute travesty.

I'm not sure what any of the women expect the men here to do.

Here is my honest suggestion.

1. Go get your concealed carry license. Take multiple courses and learn how to shoot.

2. Go and find a stun gun with the highest legal amperage. Voltage matters, but amperage kills. (I'm an electrician)

3. Take a martial arts class. Not only do you learn how to defend yourself, it's great exercise. 

(One of my few joys is martial arts. I have seen many women take down men against their will in class)


Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's OK to Shoot - ABC News

I remember this well a couple of years ago. I'm sure it happens more often. This woman deserves a medal. If more women started putting holes in scum bags, maybe people would take notice.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> When men agree to marry they renounced their desire for other women, although that urge is always there at some level. So when women get men into the relationship and then cheat and/or dump their husbands, the sense of betrayal is terrific. We have a whole thread about women being far more likely to R with a cheating husband that the other way round.


When women marry they also renounce their desire for other men. The is a two way street.

The betrayal is as devastating in this regard for both men and women. 

It does not explain why women are more likely to R with a cheating husband.

I think that it's a socialization thing. Women are taught that a men cheat easily and that the marriage is more important than a indiscretion or so.

Men are taught that if a wife cheats, she's ***** a **** and if he stays with her he's being a weak man.


----------



## always_alone

Windwalker said:


> I'm not sure what any of the women expect the men here to do.


A number of people here have made some great suggestions as to what men can do. Faithful Wife, for example, spelled it out pretty clearly several times. 

Unfortunately, only a few seem interested in the challenge.

Too bad, really, as it really isn't a whole lot to ask and could make quite a significant difference.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> A number of people here have made some great suggestions as to what men can do. Faithful Wife, for example, spelled it out pretty clearly several times.
> 
> Unfortunately, only a few were up for the challenge.
> 
> Too bad, really, as it really isn't a whole lot to ask and could make quite a significant difference.


The biggest disappointment of this thread is how unwilling many people are to HEAR what is being said, instead substituting what they think that they want to hear. Or really run from what they think that they are hearing that they fear to hear. Despite the fact that that is not what is being said.

Edit: You are kinder than I. I would have been inclined more to something like STFU. But the poster to whom you replied does not deserve that I suppose.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> A number of people here have made some great suggestions as to what men can do. Faithful Wife, for example, spelled it out pretty clearly several times.
> 
> Unfortunately, only a few seem interested in the challenge.
> 
> Too bad, really, as it really isn't a whole lot to ask and could make quite a significant difference.


Here's a good article, AA:- An Open Letter To All Men Concerning #YesAllWomen | Thought Catalog


----------



## Duguesclin

Windwalker said:


> I have a very serious question. I would like an honest answer to either confirm or deny my thoughts.
> 
> Nearly all of your posts have the same theme. That it's the man that should be doing all the heavy lifting in a relationship. That it's the man who is usually at fault. That it's the man's responsibility. Hey, I even bolded it for you.
> 
> My take is that you think that everything falls on the man and that a woman has no faults and is innocent in all things.
> Basically, that the onus is and should always be on the man.
> 
> 
> Is this correct?
> 
> Why?


I am JLD's husband. My wife will answer for herself but I thought I could share my opinion.

I do not agree that women have no responsibility in a relationship. However, I believe men have a lot of power. They can make or break a relationship. They have a lot of power for goodness.

Giving a man responsibility and holding him accountable is the only way to have him fully engaged. Men will do as little as they can get away with otherwise.

Male pride is strong. If it is channeled properly it is a tool for good.

Not channeled properly, it can be very destructive.


----------



## Windwalker

Duguesclin said:


> I am JLD's husband. My wife will answer for herself but I thought I could share my opinion.
> 
> I do not agree that women have no responsibility in a relationship. However, I believe men have a lot of power. They can make or break a relationship. They have a lot of power for goodness.
> 
> Giving a man responsibility and holding him accountable is the only way to have him fully engaged. Men will do as little as they can get away with otherwise.
> 
> Male pride is strong. If it is channeled properly it is a tool for good.
> 
> Not channeled properly, it can be very destructive.




"Giving a man responsibility and holding him accountable is the only way to have him *fully engaged*. "

Define fully engaged. What do you mean.



"Men will do as little as they can get away with otherwise."

I see. So men are lazy?



"channeled properly"

By what or whom?


----------



## Duguesclin

Windwalker said:


> "Giving a man responsibility and holding him accountable is the only way to have him *fully engaged*. "
> 
> Define fully engaged. What do you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> "Men will do as little as they can get away with otherwise."
> 
> I see. So men are lazy?
> 
> 
> 
> "channeled properly"
> 
> By what or whom?


In a family situation, if a man is not fully on board, he will not think twice to leave without feeling shame when things get tough.

Yes, men are lazy and selfish. Left alone, they will drink beer and watch TV all day long.... I am one of them.

Channeled properly by the man himself, he needs to put that energy to use for a good purpose.


----------



## JCD

Duguesclin said:


> In a family situation, if a man is not fully on board, he will not think twice to leave without feeling shame when things get tough.
> 
> Yes, men are lazy and selfish. Left alone, they will drink beer and watch TV all day long.... I am one of them.
> 
> Channeled properly by the man himself, he needs to put that energy to use for a good purpose.


And in this grand self analysis of yours (which I am not necessarily disagreeing with, but am thinking about hard), identifying this core 'failing' in men, I would ask your (and jld's) opinion on what the core failing of women is.

If men are, by nature, lazy self absorbed louts, what is the major female failing?


----------



## Windwalker

Duguesclin said:


> In a family situation, if a man is not fully on board, he will not think twice to leave without feeling shame when things get tough.
> 
> Yes, men are lazy and selfish. Left alone, they will drink beer and watch TV all day long.... I am one of them.
> 
> Channeled properly by the man himself, he needs to put that energy to use for a good purpose.




Thank you for your response.

No offence, but more generalities. More of the evils of "bad men"?
Correct?

I think we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Thank you for your time.


----------



## DanaS

Windwalker said:


> Thank you for your response.
> 
> No offence, but more generalities. More of the evils of "bad men"?
> Correct?
> 
> I think we can agree to disagree and leave it at that.
> 
> Thank you for your time.


No, it's called expecting men to be responsible and own up to bad behavior and get other men to as well.


----------



## Windwalker

DanaS said:


> No, it's called expecting men to be responsible and own up to bad behavior and get other men to as well.


In another thread I will debate you all day long. Not in this one. It was a specific question. to which I got the answer I was looking for. The only reason I even came back and posted on this thread was that I was basically asked a question.

Good day.


----------



## Battle_Cats

techmom said:


> I feel that men should understand when we have discussions like this, it is not to have a male bashing session. It is to discuss our feelings on this tragedy and to heal.


I'm late to this party and haven't read the whole thing so forgive me if I bring up something that's already be addressed.

First of all, Elliot Rodgers was a mentally ill young man. To turn around and attribute his actions to clear minded intent based on a desire to smear a certain group of males by projecting an entirely fabricated reasoning and culpability onto them shows IMO, a callous, disingenuous and malicious purpose which WRT this topic seems designed specifically to bash men. That's why you yourself laughed at the #notallmen tag and why you deliberately mischaracterized Elliot Rodger's associations with PUA and MRA. He was a member of neither and in fact was a commenter on PUAHate which is a forum specifically *against* PUAs. 

Now, beside that, do you really need to have it pointed out that the majority of his victims both killed and wounded were male? Rodger's "hate" didn't come from a belief that he was "entitled" to women, his hate came from his envy that men were engaging and competing in something that he could not seem to do himself. Yes, he viewed women as a mark of status much like many women view men (please see every women's magazine and every , "Where are all the good men?" articles and blogpostings. 

Again, Rodger's hate was rooted in envy NOT misogyny and THAT is why more men that women became his victim.

And, lest we continue to pretend that all women are these poor poor helpless fawns always falling victim to the big bad wolf:

Female serial killer Joanna Dennehy admits three murders: 'I've pleaded guilty and that's that' - Mirror Online




> The Old Bailey was stunned into silence yesterday as Joanna Dennehy issued her shock guilty plea.
> 
> The 31-year-old had been expected to deny the brutal knife murders of three men and dumping their bodies in ditches before being formally sent for trial.
> 
> Instead she shocked the court, including her own defence team, by confessing to the serial killings – and the attempted murder of two other men.


As long as women relentlessly harp and nag and repeat the "All men are this, all men are that and men need to do this and men need to do that" mantra ad nauseum, I guarantee you that there will be less engagement by men, not more.

Oh and speaking of hashtag social justice, how about some of the enlightened women here explain #killallmen? 

I'm as willing as the next guy to have a legitimate debate about misogyny or inequality or any other topic of import between the sexes but not when it comes from the typically condescending holier-than-thou attitude that most women have when bringing up these topics.


----------



## EleGirl

Battle_Cats said:


> I'm late to this party and haven't read the whole thing so forgive me if I bring up something that's already be addressed.
> 
> First of all, Elliot Rodgers was a mentally ill young man. To turn around and attribute his actions to clear minded intent based on a desire to smear a certain group of males by projecting an entirely fabricated reasoning and culpability onto them shows IMO, a callous, disingenuous and malicious purpose which WRT this topic seems designed specifically to bash men. That's why you yourself laughed at the #notallmen tag and why you deliberately mischaracterized Elliot Rodger's associations with PUA and MRA. He was a member of neither and in fact was a commenter on PUAHate which is a forum specifically against PUAs.
> 
> Now, beside that, do you really need to have it pointed out that the majority of his victims both killed and wounded were male?
> 
> And, lest we continue to pretend that all women are these poor poor helpless fawns always falling victim to the big bad wolf:
> 
> Female serial killer Joanna Dennehy admits three murders: 'I've pleaded guilty and that's that' - Mirror Online
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as women relentlessly harp and nag and repeat the "All men are this, all men are that and men need to do this and men need to do that" mantra ad nauseum, I guarantee you that there will be less engagement by men, not more.
> 
> Oh and speaking of hashtag social justice, how about some of the enlightened women here explain #killallmen?
> 
> I'm as willing as the next guy to have a legitimate debate about misogyny or inequality or any other topic of import between the sexes but not when it comes from the typically condescending holier-than-thou attitude that that most women have when bringing up these topics.


It's always a good idea to read the entire thread before you make assumptions about what people have said and believe.

You mean like the condescending, holier-than-thou that you are displaying in this post? :rofl:


----------



## Battle_Cats

EleGirl said:


> It's always a good idea to read the entire thread before you make assumptions about what people have said and believe.
> 
> You mean like the condescending, holier-than-thou that you are displaying in this post? :rofl:



Right. And hence the disclaimer: 
I'm late to this party and haven't read the whole thing so forgive me if I bring up something that's already be addressed.


----------



## EleGirl

Battle_Cats said:


> Now, beside that, do you really need to have it pointed out that the majority of his victims both killed and wounded were male? Rodger's "hate" didn't come from a belief that he was "entitled" to women, his hate came from his envy that men were engaging and competing in something that he could not seem to do himself. Yes, he viewed women as a mark of status much like many women view men (please see every women's magazine and every , "Where are all the good men?" articles and blogpostings.
> 
> Again, Rodger's hate was rooted in envy NOT misogyny and THAT is why more men that women became his victim.


Since you did not read the entire thread you apparently missed the fact that ER ranted on about his plan to enter a sorority and slaughter the girls there. 

The first thing that he did was to kill his roommates. His he explains that in his manifesto.

Then he went to the sorority and tried to get in but the doors were locked. He pounded don the door but none of the girls opened it and let him in. So he was not able to pull off his plan .Why do you ignore the fact that his stated plan and his actual actions show that he had planned to kill a log of females.

When he was not able to get into the sorority house, he then started shooting anyone he came in contact with. At that point he was not specifically hunting down males or females. He was killing everyone he saw.

All of the deaths are tragic. He was a mentally kill guy. He was extremely vocal on line with his plans and his hate; hate for women and what he thought he was owed (yes he used the words stating that he felt that the women he desired owed him sex. His anger and violent intent were encouraged by other posters on the PUAHate site. 



Battle_Cats said:


> And, lest we continue to pretend that all women are these poor poor helpless fawns always falling victim to the big bad wolf:
> 
> Female serial killer Joanna Dennehy admits three murders: 'I've pleaded guilty and that's that' - Mirror Online


Another topic that you missed that was covered. No one here denies that a small percentage of serial killers are women. 

Yes there are some women who are serial killers. Female serial killers account for only 8% of all serial killers. Thus the vast majority of serial killers are men, 92%. 

Most of the victims of male serial killers are women. Over 50% of them kill as sexual predators. 44.54% of the victims are male. 55.46% are female. Most female victims are also sexually assaulted/raped/killed.

From 1900 to 2010 there have been 3029 male serial killers and 309 female serial killers (These are US and International numbers)



Battle_Cats said:


> As long as women relentlessly harp and nag and repeat the "All men are this, all men are that and men need to do this and men need to do that" mantra ad nauseum, I guarantee you that there will be less engagement by men, not more.


Another thing you would know if you had read the this thread. No one woman here has “relentlessly harp[ed] and nag[ed] and repeat[ed] "All men are this, all men are that and men need to do this and men need to do that"

You have come to this thread with your angry agenda, talked down the women here, are condescending and then accused the women here of doing things that we have not done.

I don’t know why you are so angry, but most of your posts are like this. I and the other women here have done nothing to harm you.


Battle_Cats said:


> Oh and speaking of hashtag social justice, how about some of the enlightened women here explain #killallmen?


If you want to discuss stupid social garbage being put out on sites like Twitter, then start a thread to discuss it. I’m sure that most if not all here, male and female, will agree that this sort of thing is harmful and should not be going on. If I knew how to stop it I would. But the average person does not have that level of power. 

I don’t hang out on twitter so I am not aware of that particular tag or others used on there.

I do know that the one time I spent a lot of time on Twitter was when one of my nieces was in the news nationally for a physical attack on her. Most of what she got on twitter were pages and pages of hate and death threats. The reason that I was on twitter was to monitor the death threats against her, gather them up.. it was about 35 pages daily for a while. And I was sending them to a contact at the FBI to be monitored. 


Battle_Cats said:


> I'm as willing as the next guy to have a legitimate debate about misogyny or inequality or any other topic of import between the sexes but not when it comes from the typically condescending holier-than-thou attitude that most women have when bringing up these topics.


Like I said, you are the one who is being condescending and holier-than-thou. Have fun with that.


----------



## Omego

Windwalker said:


> I will discuss this all you like, but most definitely not in this thread. So if you want to start a thread on it, may I suggest it be in the general discussion area.
> 
> And it's not about "women in the US". It's about the culture.


I am interested. I may start the thread in The Social Spot.


----------



## JCD

techmom said:


> I like this post. I feel that there is so much hurt and anger from one gender to the other that we can't see eye to eye on this. Women feel vulnerable and men feel that women shouldn't feel vulnerable. I feel that men should understand when we have discussions like this, it is not to have a male bashing session. It is to discuss our feelings on this tragedy and to heal.
> 
> Every time is hear of a rape or murder of a woman by a male I feel vulnerable. I watch my back and guard myself more. This has become instinctive for me. No matter how many good men are out there I still do this. Why, you may ask. Because the good men seem to be blurred behind the jerks, the jerks are louder and get more press. I can't risk my life off of a statistic. Statistics mean nothing when you are walking alone on a dark street praying to get home safe and a man happens to be walking towards you.
> 
> Do I take the chance that this is one of the good guys?
> 
> Do I take note of the statistics posted on the internet saying that crimes against women are decreasing?
> 
> Do I take the chance and continue to stay on the same side of the street with the man walking towards me, instead of crossing the street because, heck he may be good.
> 
> I can't chance it, and none of the women who posted on this thread can chance it either.
> 
> This is what we are talking about. This is why I felt invalidated when a couple of posters felt that they were doing the right thing in posting stats. Stats don't keep me safe, my cautious instincts keep me safe. This was where I was coming from. Arguing against our points and feeling offended because we were discussing this does not make me believe that the men who posted stating that they were the good guys actually were good guys. They seemed to be the type of guys who wanted women to let their guard down. I don't let my guard down, ever.
> 
> I have been leered at in the street, I have had men cat call after me. I have had men yell at me for not smiling at them. These are not events that flatter me, they make me feel unsafe. Maybe some women like this type of attention but I don't. These were my experiences.
> 
> No matter who posts up stats on whatever or states that they are a hero for women and stand up for women, I will still have my guard up and I will still seek to discuss this topic on TAM or any other forum.


I actually appreciate this post.

But to break down what you are saying in simplest terms: you are treating every man as guilty until he is proven innocent.

And since the primary 'attack' group of women are actually 'intimates' i.e. family members, spouses, BFs et al, there ARE no innocent men. 

This has the benefit of candor. But I hope you see where blameless men would resent that on some level even if they understand it. I would prefer my daughters have your level of awareness while still having the grace and guile to at least ACT friendly to people.

I have to say I particularly love it when I go to my daughter's school functions and get stared at and watched like a hawk by ladies....who complain their husbands don't get more involved with the kids. Who want their boys to get a good education and get the emotional support and discipline of male role models...but God forbid there are male teachers in the school.

There is a societal cost for these attitudes. Just be willing to pay it.

But there is no 'insidious plot' to help you drop your guard just so you make yourself easier prey for some predator. Any mention of stats is to try to help you assess risks. If the stats do nothing to help you do that, then they are useless...to you.

Maybe they help someone else. Because if we allow our portrayal of the other gender to be totally based on rumor, graphic crimes and yes, just feelings, it can create inordinate fear. Which does the genders no good.


----------



## jld

Omego said:


> I am interested. I may start the thread in The Social Spot.


Sounds interesting. Why not do it in General?


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> And in this grand self analysis of yours (which I am not necessarily disagreeing with, but am thinking about hard), identifying this core 'failing' in men, I would ask your (and jld's) opinion on what the core failing of women is.
> 
> If men are, by nature, lazy self absorbed louts, what is the major female failing?


Falling for them.


----------



## LongWalk

Haha, too true jld.

Men are more dangerous than women, to women and other men. It's genetic. Women are inclined to get along; men to fight. Men have the higher sex drive. When these instinctual trends are not addressed tragedy occurs.

Women are indirectly responsible for violent crime. A disproportionate percentage of criminals come from single mother households. These women are unable to raise boys. This is repeated over generations.

Should women collectively assume blame for the poor mothers? Should men take the rap for the absent fathers?

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## jld

LongWalk said:


> Haha, too true jld.
> 
> Men are more dangerous than women, to women and other men. It's genetic. Women are inclined to get along; men to fight. Men have the higher sex drive. When these instinctual trends are not addressed tragedy occurs.
> 
> Women are indirectly responsible for violent crime.* A disproportionate percentage of criminals come from single mother households.* These women are unable to raise boys. This is repeated over generations.
> 
> Should women collectively assume blame for the poor mothers? Should men take the rap for the absent fathers?
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


Is that true? I did not know that.

I am sorry that all men bear the consequences of the actions of bad men. Women will probably always have some fear of men.

Instead of complaining, why don't men just accept it and try to make it better?


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Because if we allow our portrayal of the other gender to be totally based on rumor, graphic crimes and yes, just feelings, it can create inordinate fear. Which does the genders no good.


Except this thread was never about all men or judging all of them to be a threat. It was about a particular brand of man who hates women. And much as you like to think they don't really exist, or aren't that much of a problem, the fact is they do, and they pose quite a big problem -- for women.

The only reason you are getting lumped in with those men is because you insist on defending them.


----------



## always_alone

jld said:


> Is that true?


It isn't actually true. When you examine the stats, they show very clearly that single mother households do not breed crime. Rather, it's other socio-economic factors (poverty, lack of opportunity) that are the real problem.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> It isn't actually true. When you examine the stats, they show very clearly that single mother households do not breed crime. Rather, it's other socio-economic factors (poverty, lack of opportunity) that are the real problem.



Sorry AA.

You have absolutely no evidence that poverty or even a lack of opportunity , breeds crime.

I live in the wealthiest country in the Caribbean region , we have the lowest levels levels of poverty , the highest human development index in the region.

Healthcare is free.
Education from cradle right up to Phd level is free.
Schoolbooks are free.
School kids get free tablets and laptops.
Every citizen is entitled to a pension @ age 63, just by virtue of being a citizen.
Pharmaceuticals are free for people with chronic diseases and pensioners.
And I can give a list as long as this page of freebies.

We also have zero unemployment. In fact, we import labor from as far as China and Africa.

But we have one of the highest levels of crime and corruption in the region.

Criminal activity and corruption in any society are as a result of a broken value system, not poverty. Broken value system are linked to broken communities. Broken communities are linked broken families.

And YES.

Long Walk is 100% correct.

A disproportionate amount of violent criminals come from single parent households. Study after study in penal systems around the world, have shown this to be factual.

In case you didn't get it ,
Elliot Rodger was filthy RICH.
The guy drove a BMW.

The common denominator between Elliot Rodgers and the common street thug/ gangster is that they both came from broken families.


----------



## jld

CM, do you have some ideas for fixing broken families?

Wait a minute, it is the broken values that are the root, and that leads to broken families?

Basically, some people are just bad people, and we will all suffer somewhat as a result of their existence?


----------



## ocotillo

Duguesclin said:


> Yes, men are lazy and selfish. Left alone, they will drink beer and watch TV all day long.... I am one of them.


I don't deny that men can be selfish, but in my circle of acquaintances and friends, it manifests itself as an inordinate about of time spent in personal pursuits.

Several friends are resurrecting the hot rod of their youth by acquiring the exact make and model from a junkyard, stripping it down to the bare chassis and rebuilding it from the ground up. Another friend is attempting to get a book published on practical ballistics and spends every free moment collecting test data. Yet another friend is building a second (Or third?) stunt plane from a kit. I'm probably spending too much time myself trying to bring back some of Harry Johnson's lost Paramount hybrids. 

I can't imagine a man drinking beer and watching television all day long unless he has little in the way of intelligence or talent, which is certainly not my impression of you. 

I do wonder though what the situation was the perpetrator of this crime. Some men are glib and adroit with ladies and some aren't. Those that aren't usually have some other talent. This idiot doesn't seem to have had any talent or purpose in life at all.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> CM, do you have some ideas for fixing broken families?
> 
> Wait a minute, it is the broken values that are the root, and that leads to broken families?
> 
> Basically, some people are just bad people, and we will all suffer somewhat as a result of their existence?


It is part of the human condition.

Collectivism cannot solve these problems.

Blaming a gender for the malfeasance of a minority is simply ludicrous and borders on blackmail.


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> Except this thread was never about all men or judging all of them to be a threat. It was about a particular brand of man who hates women. And much as you like to think they don't really exist, or aren't that much of a problem, the fact is they do, and they pose quite a big problem -- for women.
> 
> The only reason you are getting lumped in with those men is because you insist on defending them.


I would like to point out that I never said such people don't exist. We have an example: Elliot Rogers. He hated women. There is no question about that. He was also riding the crazy train. That, more than the hate, IMO caused his actions. You might disagree.

What I took away from the few pages I read was this visceral fear of men...all men, that techmom and a few others discussed.

So I dug up a few stats to see exactly how bad the problem was.

Techmom isn't interested in any stat to influence her actions. Fair enough. It's hard to argue that flying is the safest form of travel statistically if you happen to be on the one burning into the ground. But that isn't the case. She isn't on a crashing plane. She hasn't even been on a crashing plane. She's just avoiding ALL planes. This may be a touch harsh. Rather, she is saying the rosary every time she gets on an airplane and just praying it touches the ground...and avoids air travel whenever possible.

You don't like my stats. Seriously, I just picked up the first ones I goggled. Historical trends in domestic violence, etc. There was no malice or cherry picking involved. It was surprising. Even your UCR stats showed something like a 25% drop in forcible rapes in the last twenty years without any adjustments for population growth and increased reporting rates by women over time.

So...women fear men. I have told women to 'get over' (as you characterize it) men looking at them sexually (or as I put it, it is not a 'fundamental flaw' so much as genetic coding), so this is something men will have to 'get over' as well.


----------



## jld

ocotillo said:


> I can't imagine a man drinking beer and watching television all day long unless he has little in the way of intelligence or talent, which is certainly not my impression of you.


Going to defend Dug here. When I read his post, I told him, "You would not watch TV all day. You would be cycling all day."

He would watch a movie every night, though. And probably drink a Czech beer along with it, but maybe not every day.

I think Dug was just trying to say that a lot of men do tend to take women, and the work they put into marriage and family, for granted. And Dug does fall into that group. He knows I am totally committed to him and our family, and sees that in the women around us, too.

Hard to have a sense of urgency when you have that kind of security.


----------



## JCD

jld said:


> Falling for them.


I wish I could think you were joking. Unfortunately, experience tells me you probably aren't.


----------



## ConcernedDad

jld said:


> Is that true? I did not know that.
> 
> I am sorry that all men bear the consequences of the actions of bad men. Women will probably always have some fear of men.
> 
> Instead of complaining, why don't men just accept it and try to make it better?


I agree with this. How do we expect for women to trust us when men won't even call out other men for bad behavior? I don't see how any decent men can possibly defend PUA for example.

As for women having a fear of men, as unfortunate as it may be it is indeed justified, considering history and even today. But really, if you are a good decent man then you have nothing to worry about, so it's ridiculous to keep arguing over this.


----------



## NobodySpecial

always_alone said:


> It isn't actually true. When you examine the stats, they show very clearly that single mother households do not breed crime. Rather, it's other socio-economic factors (poverty, lack of opportunity) that are the real problem.


I don't know how those factors can be isolated since single parent homes and poverty so often go hand in hand.


----------



## jld

Caribbean Man said:


> It is part of the human condition.
> 
> Collectivism cannot solve these problems.
> 
> Blaming a gender for the malfeasance of a minority is simply ludicrous and borders on blackmail.


But you realize the women who are doing this are shortchanging themselves, right? I did. I still do, when I think in too broad of terms.

TAM really helps with this. I see how more men than I would ever talk with in real life think, and I see the behavior of women unlike the ones I know IRL.

I am starting to see that I need to change how black and white my thinking about the sexes is. I do not think I have had an accurate view.


----------



## jld

JCD said:


> I wish I could think you were joking. Unfortunately, experience tells me you probably aren't.


I don't know if this is the right place to say it, but I think women may have unrealistic expectations of life, including men.

I think we need that other thread.


----------



## NobodySpecial

JCD said:


> I actually appreciate this post.
> 
> But to break down what you are saying in simplest terms: you are treating every man as guilty until he is proven innocent.


This is the thing that folks aren't getting. It is not about men. It is not about their own individual guilt or innocence. It is about women's experience that drives her judgment of safety and respect. In a court of law, you are entitled to a presumption of innocence in the US. You are owed that. And it is right. In the court of interpersonal relationship, you just aren't. The attitude that you are owed a presumption of goodness out of the gate is like the first step to the notion that a man is owed a woman. Or love. Or sex. 

Great men don't even take that first step. They march the other way. If you are a good man, then BE a good man. And the people in your life will see it. Will THAT woman right there that you just met necessarily see it? No. But she does not owe you a good opinion of you. Maybe it's her loss. But she does not owe you a chance to define how you are to be viewed BY HER.

I am using you in the rhetorical sense.


----------



## NobodySpecial

ConcernedDad said:


> I agree with this. How do we expect for women to trust us when men won't even call out other men for bad behavior? I don't see how any decent men can possibly defend PUA for example.
> 
> As for women having a fear of men, as unfortunate as it may be it is indeed justified, considering history and even today. But really, if you are a good decent man then you have nothing to worry about, so it's ridiculous to keep arguing over this.


CD is spot on.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Haha, too true jld.
> 
> Men are more dangerous than women, to women and other men. It's genetic. Women are inclined to get along; men to fight. Men have the higher sex drive. When these instinctual trends are not addressed tragedy occurs.
> 
> Women are indirectly responsible for violent crime. A disproportionate percentage of criminals come from single mother households. These women are unable to raise boys. This is repeated over generations.
> 
> Should women collectively assume blame for the poor mothers? Should men take the rap for the absent fathers?


Perhaps in the case of boys, raised by women only, who turn out to be criminals.. the blame should be put on both the mother and the absent father. That makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## jld

ConcernedDad said:


> I agree with this. How do we expect for women to trust us when men won't even call out other men for bad behavior? I don't see how any decent men can possibly defend PUA for example.
> 
> As for women having a fear of men, as unfortunate as it may be it is indeed justified, considering history and even today. But really, if you are a good decent man then you have nothing to worry about, so it's ridiculous to keep arguing over this.


I would not be able to convince the men in CWI that not all women are cheaters. There is a lot of mistrust there, and for good reason. 

And why should I even try? If those men want to see women in black and white terms, and stew in their own bitterness, they are the ones prolonging their suffering.

It is sunny and warm out for some of us, male and female. We hope others will join us here in the good weather.


----------



## jld

EleGirl said:


> Perhaps in the case of boys, raised by women only, who turn out to be criminals.. the blame should be put on both the mother and the absent father. That makes a lot of sense to me.


I really do not like the whole "blame" idea. Nobody tries to raise a criminal.

Let's just try to figure out the weak spots, and strengthen them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I really do not like the whole "blame" idea. Nobody tries to raise a criminal.
> 
> Let's just try to figure out the weak spots, and strengthen them.


My opinion of weak spots:

Values: Religion over charity and compassion even when the religion supposedly teaches charity and compassion, god fights always win. Self satisfaction and desire over kindness.

Parenting: I could write a book. But a bunch of people smarter than me already have. Growing up is HARD. But is is REALLY hard when your parents aren't raising you with the aforementioned values. But it is an ugly cycle, isn't it? If the parents, themselves were raised in the absence of values, where would they come from to pass to their children?

Society wide solutions? There aren't any. The best that any of us can do is be the best individuals that we can and hope that others choose to do the same.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> I would like to point out that I never said such people don't exist. We have an example: Elliot Rogers. He hated women. There is no question about that. He was also riding the crazy train. That, more than the hate, IMO caused his actions. You might disagree.
> 
> What I took away from the few pages I read was this visceral fear of men...all men, that techmom and a few others discussed.
> 
> So I dug up a few stats to see exactly how bad the problem was.
> 
> Techmom isn't interested in any stat to influence her actions. Fair enough. It's hard to argue that flying is the safest form of travel statistically if you happen to be on the one burning into the ground. But that isn't the case. She isn't on a crashing plane. She hasn't even been on a crashing plane. She's just avoiding ALL planes. This may be a touch harsh. Rather, she is saying the rosary every time she gets on an airplane and just praying it touches the ground...and avoids air travel whenever possible.
> 
> You don't like my stats. Seriously, I just picked up the first ones I goggled. Historical trends in domestic violence, etc. There was no malice or cherry picking involved. It was surprising. Even your UCR stats showed something like a 25% drop in forcible rapes in the last twenty years without any adjustments for population growth and increased reporting rates by women over time.
> 
> So...women fear men. I have told women to 'get over' (as you characterize it) men looking at them sexually (or as I put it, it is not a 'fundamental flaw' so much as genetic coding), so this is something men will have to 'get over' as well.


I don't recall which poster is was, but he said that he is very much aware of his surrounds especially at nights. He's aware that not every man is going to attack him. But he's also very much aware that there are dangerous men out there who might very well attack him.

This is no different from what women here are saying. We don't fear all men. When we go to the grocery store, for a walk in our neighborhood we do not cower in fear every time we see a man, any man.

But we do know better than to put ourselves in a position where we can be harmed, just as that male poster said about himself.

What would you tell your wife to do if you are not home and a man she does not know comes to the door at 2am and says he has an emergency? Would you suggest:

1) that she let him in because statistically it's very unlikely that he will hurt her? After all crime stats are down. 

2) Or would you tell her to not let him in. Perhaps she could tell him through the door that she is calling 911 to get him help.

Which of the two actions would you suggest for your wife? Let this stranger in? Call 911 to get help but not let him in?

I vote for #2. It would be a very bad idea for her to open the door.

If she does not open the door, is she acting as though every man is guilty? Or is she just being careful and smart?


----------



## jld

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, NS.


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> I don't know how those factors can be isolated since single parent homes and poverty so often go hand in hand.


I suppose we could look at children who are raised in two different environments:

1) raised by single mom's in poverty

2) raised by single moms who are financially stable


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> I suppose we could look at children who are raised in two different environments:
> 
> 1) raised by single mom's in poverty
> 
> 2) raised by single moms who are financially stable


I would venture a guess, though I have no evidence to support this, that the group in #2 are way more likely to have fathers in the picture.


----------



## JCD

ConcernedDad said:


> I agree with this. How do we expect for women to trust us when men won't even call out other men for bad behavior? I don't see how any decent men can possibly defend PUA for example.
> 
> As for women having a fear of men, as unfortunate as it may be it is indeed justified, considering history and even today. But really, if you are a good decent man then you have nothing to worry about, so it's ridiculous to keep arguing over this.


DEFEND PUAs?

No. Outlining that they are not part of the 'problem' that lead to Elliot Rogers, yes.

The reason PUAs are mentioned at all is a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. So if political mileage can be gotten from the worst of the hate filled MRA gents (and while it isn't 'ALL MEN', it seems to be 'ALL MRA' types...or at least the brushwork is very sloppy when that paint is slung around), why not also try to tie it to the antithesis of Elliot Rogers, men successful at 'tricking' women into sleeping with them. To whom women are the very currency of what they strive for. Is it a disgusting way to look at women? Sure. But we've known about these guys forever. Women have known about these guys forever...and they still say yes to the occasionally. (Wish they would take some responsibility on THAT front).

But interjecting that PUAs aren't, you know, involved in this whole equation is 'invalidating' i.e. 'my feelings trump any sort of rational point you are trying to make. I hate them and that should be enough.'

Hate away. I certainly don't want to see any of them around my women. But don't make tenuous connections just to not waste a crisis.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> I really do not like the whole "blame" idea. Nobody tries to raise a criminal.
> 
> Let's just try to figure out the weak spots, and strengthen them.


I agree that the word 'blame' does not get us anywhere. I was responding to someone using the terms that they used.

But what we do need is to do a root cause analysis and then as a society we can fight this issue. 

We must be doing something better now then before since violent crime rates are down quite a bit. 

There are way more children raised by single mothers in the last 3 decades then ever before. Since violent crimes rates are down significantly, could it be that the single mother households are not producing as many criminals today and house holds with both mother and father did in past generations? I'm not sure, just wondering about this.


----------



## jld

Both sides here are saying some true things. I wish each could do more validating of the other.

Yep, JCD, if none of the PUA techniques ever worked, they would stop using them. Agreed.

Telling women they are stupid for falling for them is one technique. Explaining more about why it is stupid, and what the consequences will be, might work better.


----------



## EleGirl

NobodySpecial said:


> I would venture a guess, though I have no evidence to support this, that the group in #2 are way more likely to have fathers in the picture.


That too would be something to look at. 

I know quite a few women who make good money who are raising children on their own with their children's father being absent. None of them have children who have grown into criminals.

Keep in mind that in marriages today women earn equally or out earn their husbands in nearly half of all marriages. If these women end up in divorce, they are very likely to do just fine financially if their children's father drops out of their children's lives.

It would be interesting to see the stats in this.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> Both sides here are saying some true things. I wish each could do more validating of the other.
> 
> Yep, JCD, if none of the PUA techniques ever worked, they would stop using them. Agreed.
> 
> Telling women they are stupid for falling for them is one technique. Explaining more about why it is stupid, and what the consequences will be, might work better.


Like everything, there is a range of attitudes and behaviors. There are people who are never going to find love with a real human being if they are unattractive out of the gate and cannot even get near anyone of the opposite gender. For men of this ilk, there is absolutely nothing wrong with educating themselves about attraction, confidence, humor. 

But my son observed in discussing this topic last night that if that was the goal, why would the initiators of such groups name themselves something more appropriate to that end? Why aren't they calling themselves the better man group or some such? But instead they are calling themselves educators in the art of the pick up. And, presumably, the drop.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> That too would be something to look at.
> 
> I know quite a few women who make good money who are raising children on their own with their children's father being absent. None of them have children who have grown into criminals.
> 
> Keep in mind that in marriages today women earn equally or out earn their husbands in nearly half of all marriages. If these women end up in divorce, they are very likely to do just fine financially if their children's father drops out of their children's lives.
> 
> It would be interesting to see the stats in this.


I wonder, too, what educational opportunity contributes to this discussion.


----------



## jld

I think before you get to confidence and humor, you have to work on self-love and self-respect. These guys do not have it. 

If you love yourself, you don't need women to affirm you. You sure do not need them as sexual conquests.

If you respect yourself, you get a job and work hard at it. You are humble and look closely at your character flaws. You try to improve them, without blaming someone else for them.


----------



## NobodySpecial

jld said:


> I think before you get to confidence and humor, you have to work on self-love and self-respect. These guys do not have it.
> 
> If you love yourself, you don't need women to affirm you. You sure do not need them as sexual conquests.
> 
> If you respect yourself, you get a job and work hard at it. You are humble and look closely at your character flaws. You try to improve them, without blaming someone else for them.


This sums up the solution to about a million threads on this board from marriage, to attraction, to parenting, to self esteem. The works. Simple. And very, very hard.


----------



## jld

How about it, NS? Simple, and so very hard. So true.


----------



## LongWalk

Blame, responsibility, accounting, reckoning, moral judgment, all describe our need to distinguish between good and evil.

My brother who was schizophrenic once beat up a taxi cab driver who cheated him. I do not believe my brother was evil, but the driver probably thought my brother demonic.

Lee Harvey Oswald was not well in the head. Was he evil?

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## techmom

ConcernedDad said:


> I agree with this. How do we expect for women to trust us when men won't even call out other men for bad behavior? I don't see how any decent men can possibly defend PUA for example.
> 
> As for women having a fear of men, as unfortunate as it may be it is indeed justified, considering history and even today. But really, if you are a good decent man then you have nothing to worry about, so it's ridiculous to keep arguing over this.


:iagree: 

This. In a nutshell.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Blame, responsibility, accounting, reckoning, moral judgment, all describe our need to distinguish between good and evil.
> 
> My brother who was schizophrenic once beat up a taxi cab driver who cheated him. I do not believe my brother was evil, but the driver probably thought my brother demonic.
> 
> Lee Harvey Oswald was not well in the head. Was he evil?


a short definition of evil profoundly immoral and malevolent.

Oswald might have been not well in the head, but he knew that what he was doing was wrong, immoral. He was definitely malevolent. He did it with intent. 

He was aware enough to choose who he targeted, when and where he did it and to go through significant planning to carry it out.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Sorry AA.
> 
> Long Walk is 100% correct.
> 
> A disproportionate amount of violent criminals come from single parent households. Study after study in penal systems around the world, have shown this to be factual.
> 
> In case you didn't get it ,
> Elliot Rodger was filthy RICH.
> The guy drove a BMW.


That's just it: no they don't. Examination of the statistics show that the disproportionate in criminal activity has nothing to do with single parent households and everything to do with other socio-economic factors.

This is not to say that rich people do not commit crimes, it is to say that lack of opportunity, education, and stereotype threat are the big factors in explaining disproportions in criminal demographics.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75100


----------



## Cosmos

jld said:


> Is that true?


Some single mothers might well rear sons who become criminals, but as a generalization it is utterly ludicrous.

I reared my son alone from when he was 4.5 years of age. He's a university graduate, holds down a good, well-paid job and is a thoroughly decent young man.

I am not unique...


----------



## Omego

ocotillo said:


> I don't deny that men can be selfish, but in my circle of acquaintances and friends, it manifests itself as an inordinate about of time spent in personal pursuits.


:iagree: This is my perception as well, which in my opinion, boils down to selfish behavior. I've even discussed this with my H with respect to his own behavior and he freely admits it. 

@JLD: yes, I think the other thread would be ok for the General Relationship Discussion forum.


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> I really do not like the whole "blame" idea.
> 
> * Nobody tries to raise a criminal.*
> 
> Let's just try to figure out the weak spots, and strengthen them.


Spot on!

It's a pity that more people on this thread couldn't appreciate this.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Caribbean Man said:


> Spot on!
> 
> It's a pity that more people on this thread couldn't appreciate this.


Who are you reading?


----------



## Caribbean Man

jld said:


> *But you realize the women who are doing this are shortchanging themselves, right? I did. I still do, when I think in too broad of terms.
> *


My point exactly.

There is absolutely no need to put unnecessary antagonisms between things that naturally belong together.

Karl Marx in his work " _Entfremdung_" referred to that type of phenomenon as alienation.

A better approach would be "_ how do we fix this problem together. " _ after first identifying the problem.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> That's just it: no they don't. Examination of the statistics show that the disproportionate in criminal activity has nothing to do with single parent households and everything to do with other socio-economic factors.
> 
> This is not to say that rich people do not commit crimes, it is to say that lack of opportunity, education, and stereotype threat are the big factors in explaining disproportions in criminal demographics.
> 
> https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75100



Lol,AA,

You logic simply fascinate me.

So here are the _real_ statistics.

Anyone who has done social work can verify these stats.

" 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (US Dept. Of Health/Census) – 5 times the average..."

85% of all children who show behavior disorders come from fatherless homes – 20 times the average. (Center for Disease Control)

80% of rapists with anger problems come from fatherless homes –14 times the average. (Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)

71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes – 9 times the average. (National Principals Association Report)

75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes – 10 times the average.

*Father Factor in Crime - A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk. A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent*

*70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father.* [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]

Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]

And those are old statistics, and it _gets worse._

Statistics | The Fatherless Generation

From Caligua of Rome to Hitler, to Josef Stalin right down to Idi Amin.There isn't a single ruthless . bloody dictator in the history of man that came from a two parent family background. 

BTW, As Ive mentioned before, I've actually worked pro bono in our penal system, and have also done research with reputable international bodies doing the same.


----------



## Cosmos

> Father Factor in Crime - A study of 109 juvenile offenders indicated that family structure significantly predicts delinquency. Adolescents, particularly boys, in single-parent families were at higher risk of status, property and person delinquencies. Moreover, students attending schools with a high proportion of children of single parents are also at risk. A study of 13,986 women in prison showed that more than half grew up without their father. Forty-two percent grew up in a single-mother household and sixteen percent lived with neither parent
> 
> 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions have no father. [US Department of Justice, Special Report, Sept. 1988]
> 85% of youths in prisons grew up in a fatherless home. [Fulton County Georgia jail populations, Texas Department of Corrections, 1992]
> 
> 
> Fatherless boys and girls are: twice as likely to drop out of high school; twice as likely to end up in jail; four times more likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems. [US D.H.H.S. news release, March 26, 1999]



If this is the case, where _are_ their fathers? We cannot automatically say that single mothers are indirectly responsible for crime (as another poster did), without knowing _why_ those fathers are _not_ playing an active role in their children's lives.

Of course couples split up and the children often become divorce casualties, but there really is no reason why parents cannot work together and continue to parent their children effectively post-divorce. IMO, this is what family courts need to address, and I think joint custody can be a way forward.

Back in my day, joint custody was uncommon and, because I had custody, my ex refused to so much as take our son to school if I was too ill to do so - let alone exercise adequate access to him.

Divorced fathers are stepping up to the plate far more these days, and this is a very positive thing.

As for children who don't even know who their fathers are - short of legislation that prohibits men from spreading their seed and women choosing to have children out of wedlock, I really don't know how we're going to solve that one.


----------



## LongWalk

NobodySpecial said:


> This is the thing that folks aren't getting. It is not about men. It is not about their own individual guilt or innocence. It is about women's experience that drives her judgment of safety and respect. In a court of law, you are entitled to a presumption of innocence in the US. You are owed that. And it is right. In the court of interpersonal relationship, you just aren't. The attitude that you are owed a presumption of goodness out of the gate is like the first step to the notion that a man is owed a woman. Or love. Or sex.
> 
> Great men don't even take that first step. They march the other way. If you are a good man, then BE a good man. And the people in your life will see it. Will THAT woman right there that you just met necessarily see it? No. But she does not owe you a good opinion of you. Maybe it's her loss. But she does not owe you a chance to define how you are to be viewed BY HER.
> 
> I am using you in the rhetorical sense.


This is a perfectly legit mindset and in fact women generally are suspicious of men and their intentions. They know what men are after. PUA is training to overcome feminine defenses.

Historically, religious education and parental advice warned girls not to have sex. Some feminists tell women that sexual desire is natural and normal, so they have a right to sex. However, promiscuity generally harms women's self esteem. To cope with this contradiction feminists often concentrate on the objectification of female sexuality as immoral.

But male sexual desire cannot be stamped out. "Houston, we have a problem."

NobodySpecial would you say that women's caution is to some degree a biological behavior pattern that is hardwired into them?


----------



## LongWalk

EleGirl said:


> I agree that the word 'blame' does not get us anywhere. I was responding to someone using the terms that they used.
> 
> But what we do need is to do a root cause analysis and then as a society we can fight this issue.
> 
> We must be doing something better now then before since violent crime rates are down quite a bit.
> 
> There are way more children raised by single mothers in the last 3 decades then ever before. Since violent crimes rates are down significantly, could it be that the single mother households are not producing as many criminals today and house holds with both mother and father did in past generations? I'm not sure, just wondering about this.


One hypothesis is that the legalization of abortion eliminated many unwanted male children and their absence from the ranks of existence reduced crime.


----------



## Windwalker

Several people shared thoughts about having a thread to discuss some of these matters in a safe and calm environment.


The following thread has been posted in the general discussion area.

Gender relations and the current state of Misogyny/Misandry


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> That's just it: no they don't. Examination of the statistics show that the disproportionate in criminal activity has nothing to do with single parent households and everything to do with other socio-economic factors.
> 
> This is not to say that rich people do not commit crimes, it is to say that lack of opportunity, education, and stereotype threat are the big factors in explaining disproportions in criminal demographics.
> 
> https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=75100


The article at that link is about broken homes, not fatherless children. There is a difference.

My son is from a broken home. We are divorce. He spent about 50% of his time with his father. He is not fatherless.

When surveyed, most people in prison were raised without a father in their lives.


----------



## NobodySpecial

LongWalk said:


> This is a perfectly legit mindset and in fact women generally are suspicious of men and their intentions. They know what men are after. PUA is training to overcome feminine defenses.
> 
> Historically, religious education and parental advice warned girls not to have sex. Some feminists tell women that sexual desire is natural and normal, so they have a right to sex. However, promiscuity generally harms women's self esteem. To cope with this contradiction feminists often concentrate on the objectification of female sexuality as immoral.
> 
> But male sexual desire cannot be stamped out. "Houston, we have a problem."
> 
> NobodySpecial would you say that women's caution is to some degree a biological behavior pattern that is hardwired into them?


No I surely would not. Nor would I say that anyone, anywhere, certainly not in this thread, said that sexual desire needs to be stamped out.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Cosmos said:


> If this is the case, where _are_ their fathers? We cannot automatically say that single mothers are indirectly responsible for crime (as another poster did), without knowing _why_ those fathers are _not_ playing an active role in their children's lives.


The problem isn't single mothers, but _absentee fathers_.

That is what the research worldwide is saying.

My mother was a single parent, our dad disappeared after divorce.
My oldest brother got hooked on drugs and today still is hooked on drugs despite all my efforts to get him to stay in rehab long enough.
But here's the rub.

My sister got married and divorced twice,and her oldest son dropped out of school , got involved in a gang around age 16. He was arrested with a weapon in his possesion and did jail time when he was 18.
Today I am struggling with him to get him to actually _keep_ a job, and stay out of trouble. He's still involved in gang activity.

Thank goodness, I took custody of the second son, and he is way more successful.

Her daughter on the other hand got, pregnant at age 18.
Her mother,[ my sister] also got pregnant at age 18.


----------



## EleGirl

Cosmos said:


> Some single mothers might well rear sons who become criminals, but as a generalization it is utterly ludicrous.
> 
> I reared my son alone from when he was 4.5 years of age. He's a university graduate, holds down a good, well-paid job and is a thoroughly decent young man.
> 
> I am not unique...



Was your child's father not involved in his life?

Over 1/3 of the children today are raised without a father in their lives. 

The number of criminals in our population is much lower than that, probably 10% or less. 

70% of those in prison report having been raised without a father.

If we put that together, about 7% of our population are criminals raised with out a father. That means that about 70% of the children raised without a father do not become criminals. Thus most single women raising children without a father around do not produce criminals.

It not that a woman raising a child with no father involved is absolutely going to produce a criminal child. It's that a child raised with out a father is more likely to become a criminal than if that child had been raised in a two parent home. But the children raised by a single bother with no father around is more likely to not have her children turn into criminals.


----------



## LongWalk

Cosmos said:


> If this is the case, where _are_ their fathers? We cannot automatically say that single mothers are indirectly responsible for crime (as another poster did), without knowing _why_ those fathers are _not_ playing an active role in their children's lives.
> 
> *That poster was me. But I actually pointing out that blaming men collectively for the crimes of other men is not fair. We cannot lay guilt on womankind for the women who have 6 children with 6 different men and let their children run wild.*
> 
> Of course couples split up and the children often become divorce casualties, but there really is no reason why parents cannot work together and continue to parent their children effectively post-divorce. IMO, this is what family courts need to address, and I think joint custody can be a way forward.
> 
> _Most the fatherless children in the high risk groups come into the world to single mothers. The boyfriends seldom marry them. Poor Black men do not marry poor Black women because they cannot afford marriage.
> 
> Studies show that poor Black men and women actually hold marriage in esteem and understand its value better than wealthy people. The problem is that a man making minimum wage cannot contribute enough to support a household. If they turn to more lucrative occupations, e.g., drug dealing, they disqualify themselves from being good husbands and fathers.
> 
> For many Black women marriage is an impossible dream._
> 
> Back in my day, joint custody was uncommon and, because I had custody, my ex refused to so much as take our son to school if I was too ill to do so - let alone exercise adequate access to him.
> 
> Divorced fathers are stepping up to the plate far more these days, and this is a very positive thing.


re: PUA bogeyman
The average guy who read PUA material will probably still struggle to get women to date or have sex. Probably many PUA adherents would be happy to have a nice girlfriend.

re: statistics
*70% of those in prison report having been raised without a father.*

That says it all.


----------



## NobodySpecial

LongWalk said:


> re: PUA bogeyman
> The average guy who read PUA material will probably still struggle to get women to date or have sex. Probably many PUA adherents would be happy to have a nice girlfriend.


Woooooooosh.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> re: PUA bogeyman
> The average guy who read PUA material will probably still struggle to get women to date or have sex. Probably many PUA adherents would be happy to have a nice girlfriend.


I agree with this. 



LongWalk said:


> re: statistics
> *70% of those in prison report having been raised without a father.*
> 
> That says it all.


What do you think it says?


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> That too would be something to look at.
> 
> I know quite a few women who make good money who are raising children on their own with their children's father being absent. None of them have children who have grown into criminals.
> 
> Keep in mind that in marriages today women earn equally or out earn their husbands in nearly half of all marriages. If these women end up in divorce, they are very likely to do just fine financially if their children's father drops out of their children's lives.
> 
> It would be interesting to see the stats in this.


This is off topic, but Freakenomics had a theory that abortion was partly responsible for the drop in crime. Essentially there were almost a million fewer 'least of these' out there. 

The other theory I heard was that mandatory sentencing in prison also works. Crime clusters. A guy who does drugs also tends to hit women, also tends to steal things etc. So putting a guy away for any crime tends to reduce the overall numbers of crime quite a bit. RAND study said that locking up a criminal with a specific number of characteristics would yield GREAT dividends in reducing crime by just incarcerating the right number of proper person.

And as a society, we are starting to do some things right. If, instead of the merry go round of domestic violence calls, the police have to mandatorily jail someone if there is an injury seen (male or female) and they get a jail sentence, why, that is YEARS of domestic violence Fridays and Saturdays which are lower stress. Because the cops know that when Bill and Edna get their paychecks twice a month, they'll likely have to stop by as they can afford liquor.

This is not said to invalidate. It is to say that maybe we as a society might be doing some things better than we have in the past.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> a short definition of evil profoundly immoral and malevolent.
> 
> Oswald might have been not well in the head, but he knew that what he was doing was wrong, immoral. He was definitely malevolent. He did it with intent.
> 
> He was aware enough to choose who he targeted, when and where he did it and to go through significant planning to carry it out.


Crazy does not equal stupid or disorganized.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> This is off topic, but Freakenomics had a theory that abortion was partly responsible for the drop in crime. Essentially there were almost a million fewer 'least of these' out there.
> 
> The other theory I heard was that mandatory sentencing in prison also works. Crime clusters. A guy who does drugs also tends to hit women, also tends to steal things etc. So putting a guy away for any crime tends to reduce the overall numbers of crime quite a bit. RAND study said that locking up a criminal with a specific number of characteristics would yield GREAT dividends in reducing crime by just incarcerating the right number of proper person.
> 
> And as a society, we are starting to do some things right. If, instead of the merry go round of domestic violence calls, the police have to mandatorily jail someone if there is an injury seen (male or female) and they get a jail sentence, why, that is YEARS of domestic violence Fridays and Saturdays which are lower stress. Because the cops know that when Bill and Edna get their paychecks twice a month, they'll likely have to stop by as they can afford liquor.
> 
> This is not said to invalidate. It is to say that maybe we as a society might be doing some things better than we have in the past.


These are all good points. 

One of the things that I think we should do is that if someone keeps calling with domestic violence complaints about their spouse/SO both parties need to have consequences with at least mandatory counseling.

Yea he might have hit her for the umpteenth time.. but what's wrong with her that she is will there so that he can hit her umpteen times?


----------



## JCD

Cosmos said:


> If this is the case, where _are_ their fathers? We cannot automatically say that single mothers are indirectly responsible for crime (as another poster did), without knowing _why_ those fathers are _not_ playing an active role in their children's lives.
> 
> Of course couples split up and the children often become divorce casualties, but there really is no reason why parents cannot work together and continue to parent their children effectively post-divorce. IMO, this is what family courts need to address, and I think joint custody can be a way forward.
> 
> Back in my day, joint custody was uncommon and, because I had custody, my ex refused to so much as take our son to school if I was too ill to do so - let alone exercise adequate access to him.
> 
> Divorced fathers are stepping up to the plate far more these days, and this is a very positive thing.
> 
> As for children who don't even know who their fathers are - short of legislation that prohibits men from spreading their seed and women choosing to have children out of wedlock, I really don't know how we're going to solve that one.


I think you raise ANOTHER valid point.

One of my old neighbors was a single African American mother with three kids. She raised some of the most polite children on the planet. Each of them did well in school, enough so that all of them went on to college. Her house was always clean, her yard neat, and she was very well organized.

And down the very self same street was another set of couples. The daughter was a slag. She lived at home with mom and dad, and she'd spit out 5 kids, each of whom lived on sugar, it seemed. By the time I had moved away, the eldest son was well on his way to becoming a juvenile delinquent.

So...would the first mother have been improved by the addition of a man? It is hard to see how. Maybe she'd have had to work less hard.

Was the mere 'absence' of a man the 'biggest' problem in the second family? No. She came with her own raft of issues.

So as stated 'blame' on just one or another gender in this issue isn't helpful and no one is slamming the ability of SOME women in raising kids.

But the personal characteristics necessary to do that are difficult in even the best of people. When you add the crisis of education, character and resources that 'the least of these' have, they are a disaster of kids waiting to happen.

Still, it's better than 19th Century Five Points in New York...


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Crazy does not equal stupid or disorganized.


I agree but it does show that the person had ample time stop what they were doing.

One of the things that are looked at when a person ties to use the insanity defense is if their crime required them to organize and plan. 

This is something I struggle with, mostly due to dealing with my nephew. He has threatened to kill a lot of people. He has staked a few of those on his hit list. But he has not been able to pull it off because he cannot put a plan together an carry it out.

I just don't know. It's very hard dealing with mentally ill people. And we cannot excuse their harmful actions because they are insane. We have to protect society from those that are violent.


----------



## Cosmos

EleGirl said:


> Was your child's father not involved in his life?
> 
> Over 1/3 of the children today are raised without a father in their lives.
> 
> The number of criminals in our population is much lower than that, probably 10% or less.
> 
> 70% of those in prison report having been raised without a father.
> 
> If we put that together, about 7% of our population are criminals raised with out a father. That means that about 70% of the children raised without a father do not become criminals. Thus most single women raising children without a father around do not produce criminals.
> 
> It not that a woman raising a child with no father involved is absolutely going to produce a criminal child. It's that a child raised with out a father is more likely to become a criminal than if that child had been raised in a two parent home. But the children raised by a single bother with no father around is more likely to not have her children turn into criminals.


Sadly, not. He met someone else shortly after our divorce and was remarried (for the first time) within 9 months. After that, there was never ending drama with the new W feeling threatened every time my ex came to pick up his son, and her resenting the meagre child support he had to pay. In the end, I think he just took the easiest way out and stopped exercising access.

The rest of your post makes sense, EG.


----------



## JCD

Ample time doesn't stop you when you think that the Xandros Aliens have infiltrated the Trilateral Commission with their pod people.

It is a vast change in world view, not a sloppy mental technique. "Of course I have to act normal...otherwise, the Xandros will be on to me..."

Scary I know, but (I hesitate to say it) statistically very rare.

As far as your nephew is concerned, I have never met the boy, but he sounds like an ANGRY kid, not a mentally ill one. I think he is screaming pain at those who have hurt him. Because a baseball bat, a dark night and a bicycle ride isn't that hard to organize if he was serious. Part of this may be attention seeking.

But you know him better.


----------



## techmom

LongWalk said:


> re: PUA bogeyman
> The average guy who read PUA material will probably still struggle to get women to date or have sex. Probably many PUA adherents would be happy to have a nice girlfriend.
> 
> re: statistics
> *70% of those in prison report having been raised without a father.*
> 
> That says it all.


Would they know how to appreciate the nice girlfriend when they get one? Or would they still yearn for the ultimate prize like Elliot was yearning for. Seems as if most of the PUAs shoot for the seemingly unattainable "perfect" woman. They feel they deserve this.

I'll bet that women are available for these men but they don't go for them. This is what the sex rank thing is all about, raising your own sex rank so you will get someone out of your league.

So I don't think these men will be satisfied with just a nice girlfriend, because they are learning game to get the high sex rank women.


----------



## EleGirl

techmom said:


> Would they know how to appreciate the nice girlfriend when they get one? Or would they still yearn for the ultimate prize like Elliot was yearning for. Seems as if most of the PUAs shoot for the seemingly unattainable "perfect" woman. They feel they deserve this.
> 
> I'll bet that women are available for these men but they don't go for them. This is what the sex rank thing is all about, raising your own sex rank so you will get someone out of your league.
> 
> So I don't think these men will be satisfied with just a nice girlfriend, because they are learning game to get the high sex rank women.


This reminds me of another nephew of mine. He lived in the Hollywood area and did special effects for the movie industry.

He would go on and on about how he could not get a woman because all the women went for he good looking Hollywood types with money. He would complain that all they cared about was how good looking they were and how much money a man had.

So I suggested that he stop only looking at Hollywood starlet types who were gold diggers. There are an over abundance of good girls, who are good looking (but not starlets) , who have a career and want to settle down and marry a good man. I gave him ideas of how to find these women. 

But that's not what he wanted. He wanted the starlets on the movie sets.

In my book those are not the cream of the crop. In women, the cream of the crop are the ones who do not hold their looks as the most important part of themselves and they do not value money above all else.


----------



## EleGirl

JCD said:


> Ample time doesn't stop you when you think that the Xandros Aliens have infiltrated the Trilateral Commission with their pod people.
> 
> It is a vast change in world view, not a sloppy mental technique. "Of course I have to act normal...otherwise, the Xandros will be on to me..."
> 
> Scary I know, but (I hesitate to say it) statistically very rare.
> 
> As far as your nephew is concerned, I have never met the boy, but he sounds like an ANGRY kid, not a mentally ill one. I think he is screaming pain at those who have hurt him. Because a baseball bat, a dark night and a bicycle ride isn't that hard to organize if he was serious. Part of this may be attention seeking.
> 
> But you know him better.


Like you said you have never met him and I have not told you the rest of the story.

He is a paranoid schizophrenic. When he's in the middle of a psychotic state, which has lasted months at a time, he thinks that he's a god. He has talked to me for hours about this. He is ascending to god status. His mission on earth is to cleans it from those who have wronged him. 

He also apparently hangs out with Bruce Lee in his apartment. They have long conversations about all kinds of things. He does this with my father as well who died in 1970.

I took care of my nephew for a few years. Believe me he lives in a world that does not exist for the rest of us.

Sure there is anger there but there is a lot more.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Lol,AA,
> Anyone who has done social work can verify these stats.


Yes, this is the conventional wisdom, or groupthink, as you like to call it.

But closer examination of these correlations and controls of them reveal that it is not the "brokenness" of the home, or divorce, that causes the problems, but other socio-economic factors.

For example Native Americans are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, but it is distinctly *not* because they have more broken homes. No, that was cultural genocide.

Similarly black men are disproportionately represented (In US) as well, but again, not because more black people come from broken homes, but because of other socio-economic factors.

The mistake of claiming it is "fatherlessness" is the mistake of assuming a correlation as a root cause.


----------



## always_alone

EleGirl said:


> When surveyed, most people in prison were raised without a father in their lives.


When surveyed, most people in prison smoke too, but it would be ridiculous to say that smoking causes crime, wouldn't it?

And the majority are men, but we wouldn't say that it is maleness.

According to the FBI, over 70% of prisoners say they are Christians.

Does that say it all too?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

always_alone said:


> When surveyed, most people in prison smoke too, but it would be ridiculous to say that smoking causes crime, wouldn't it?
> 
> And the majority are men, but we wouldn't say that it is maleness.
> 
> According to the FBI, over 70% of prisoners say they are Christians.
> 
> Does that say it all too?


You're not seriously claiming that fatherlessness has no bearing on likelihood of criminal behavior in boys/men, are you? Are any others here actually making that argument? Cosmos?


----------



## EleGirl

always_alone said:


> When surveyed, most people in prison smoke too, but it would be ridiculous to say that smoking causes crime, wouldn't it?
> 
> And the majority are men, but we wouldn't say that it is maleness.
> 
> According to the FBI, over 70% of prisoners say they are Christians.
> 
> Does that say it all too?


Interesting that you bring up smoking. 


Most people who smoke, smoke because their parents smoked.

Children whose mother's smoke can have mental health issues related to the mother smoking. I think it's due to the fetus not getting enough oxygen during gestation.

Often boys born to heavy smokers have anger and self control problems. I've seen boys who are like this. It's like there is something missing up stairs.


----------



## Cosmos

nuclearnightmare said:


> You're not seriously claiming that fatherlessness has no bearing on likelihood of criminal behavior in boys/men, are you? Are any others here actually making that argument? Cosmos?


I think being fatherless can leave boys vulnerable to negative behaviour and low self-esteem, which perhaps makes it far easier for them to end up on the wrong path... 

It isn't only boys who suffer from fatherlessness, however. Research shows that girls and young women who have an unstable father figure are more liable to unplanned pregnancy, low self esteem, high school and college drop-out, poverty, divorce and sexually promiscuous behavior.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Cosmos said:


> I think being fatherless can leave boys vulnerable to negative behaviour and low self-esteem, which perhaps makes it far easier for them to end up on the wrong path...
> 
> It isn't only boys who suffer from fatherlessness, however. Research shows that girls and young women who have an unstable father figure are more liable to unplanned pregnancy, low self esteem, high school and college drop-out, poverty, divorce and sexually promiscuous behavior.


:iagree:

Yes. Correlates with anti-social behavior in boys. Good additional point on the effects on girls.


----------



## Cosmos

nuclearnightmare said:


> :iagree:
> 
> Yes. Correlates with anti-social behavior in boys. Good additional point on the effects on girls.


Two goodish articles:-

The Effect on Men That Grow Up Without a Father Figure | Everyday Life - Global Post

The Effects of a Poor Father-Daughter Relationship | Everyday Life - Global Post


----------



## Miss Taken

*Re: Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbara*

I wanted to write more but am at the cottage so no Internet. Seems like much of the vitriol has stalled (a good thing!)

Not really on topic but wanted to say Freakonomics/Superfreakonomics are EXCELLENT books JCD. Though not a parenting book it has impacted a lot of the decisions I make in raising my kids.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Yes, this is the conventional wisdom, or groupthink, as you like to call it.
> 
> But closer examination of these correlations and controls of them reveal that it is not the "brokenness" of the home, or divorce, that causes the problems, but other socio-economic factors.
> 
> For example Native Americans are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, but it is distinctly *not* because they have more broken homes. No, that was cultural genocide.
> 
> Similarly black men are disproportionately represented (In US) as well, but again, not because more black people come from broken homes, but because of other socio-economic factors.
> 
> The mistake of claiming it is "fatherlessness" is the mistake of assuming a correlation as a root cause.



No.
It isn't an assumption, it is a _proven fact_.

African Americans around the Jim Crow era produced the likes of Booker .T.Washington and many others . There was a solid middle class even though they faced systemic and economic discrimination.
But their family structure was firmly intact and that built their community, culture and an economy. 

There is a groundbreaking bestseller by African American intellectual , Thomas Sowell.

_The Politics and Economics of Race, and International Perspective._

I suggest you have a read.


----------



## LongWalk

All children cannot be raised in a nuclear family with their biological parents. It will never happen. Still, we know about the risks of being raised other people. Cinderella's step mom had in for her. One of the dating criteria for a single parent is how the potential new partner treats his/her children from previous relationships.

There is a higher incidence of different forms of child-abuse and mistreatment by stepparents than by biological parents. Statistics have documented the so-called Cinderella effect. 



> Evolutionary psychologists describe the effect as a remnant of an adaptive reproductive strategy among primates where males frequently kill the offspring of other males in order to bring their mothers into estrus, and give the male a chance to fertilize her himself. There is both supporting evidence for this theory and criticisms against it.


Source: Wikipedia

It is no accident that children don't like it when their parents divorce. Instinctually, they know the odds are not good. Sure great step parents are out there and some of them step up to bat and hit a homerun. But the statistics are still in favor of biology.

If you have to entrust a baby or child to someone else, who is likely to be? Family, generally. When people seek babysitters who do they recruit? Generally women. Interestingly teenage girls who have never had children are often babysitters. They are ready to practice nurturing children because that is a role they will take up in the future.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> No.
> There is a groundbreaking bestseller by African American intellectual , Thomas Sowell.
> 
> _The Politics and Economics of Race, and International Perspective._
> 
> I suggest you have a read.


Because Sowell supports your points that fatherless children are the main problem?

Or because he supports mine by saying that disproportions are a consequence of a wide range of factors?


----------



## Runs like Dog

Families are a dying institution in America. That's simply a fact and you are free to make of that what you will. Eventually Mother Government will take on the role of the family in its entirety and you can stop blaming mom or dad because it will no longer have any meaning and I suppose every so called societal problem will devolve to little more than making the VA or the DMV work a little better.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Because Sowell supports your points that fatherless children are the main problem?
> 
> Or because he supports mine by saying that disproportions are a consequence of a wide range of factors?


Or how about because he actually_ did_ the research and his work has been recognized and reviewed by his peers and critics?

Unless of course , you have done some work to support your hypothesis and it has been peer reviewed?

Have you written a book?

Can you give us a link?

I agree with what the research says, not the other way around.[lol]


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> A number of people here have made some great suggestions as to what men can do. Faithful Wife, for example, spelled it out pretty clearly several times.
> 
> Unfortunately, only a few seem interested in the challenge.


I have asked for links to posts from those who are claiming the problems to which you are referring do not exist.

I have also asked for posts from those men that seem to defend the problems to which you refer.

And if you provide such, I'm sure the rest of the good men here, and I, will chime in and call them out on their BS.

So just waiting.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Except this thread was never about all men or judging all of them to be a threat. It was about a particular brand of man who hates women. And much as you like to think they don't really exist, or aren't that much of a problem, the fact is they do, and they pose quite a big problem -- for women.


Who said this type of man doesn't exist or that this type of man doesn't pose a problem for women?



> The only reason you are getting lumped in with those men is because you insist on defending them.


How is he defending those "types of men"?

He has neither said those type of men do not exist or that those type of men do not pose a problem for women. I think everyone realizes its common sense that they do exist and that they do pose a problem for women. I don't think you are reading him right.

But in case I missed it, please indicate which post shows that he is defending men that hate women or where he said they are not a problem for women. Because with a thread this large, its quite possible that if it was posted, I could have missed it. And if I did, you obviously know which posts prove that he did what you say he did. I'd like to see for myself.


----------



## LongWalk

techmom said:


> Would they know how to appreciate the nice girlfriend when they get one? Or would they still yearn for the ultimate prize like Elliot was yearning for. Seems as if most of the PUAs shoot for the seemingly unattainable "perfect" woman. They feel they deserve this.
> 
> I'll bet that women are available for these men but they don't go for them. This is what the sex rank thing is all about, raising your own sex rank so you will get someone out of your league.
> 
> So I don't think these men will be satisfied with just a nice girlfriend, because they are learning game to get the high sex rank women.


I don't know if PUA site members fall into a category. Many probably read about PUA technique and theory but are unable to apply them in real life. Some gain badly needed courage to attempt to date at all. Others, probably a minority, are successful. But I doubt the majority transform themselves fundamentally.

I remember many years ago hearing that there were blogs on the Internet. Blogs what kind of fad was this. I found a young woman's blog. She a writer and it was pretty good. I remember on entry where she woke up and found the ONS guy had on some make of sandals. She couldn't believe she had hooked with a guy who could be so uncool.

I hardly knew about the sandals but to me they were uber trendy and I would have been making a fashion statement if I dared buy a pair. How could I have known that they would have exposed me as having the wrong DNA?

Machiavelli stated that women are attracted to 20% of men. So of course the chase that is unequal in the beginning does not end in satisfaction for all men and women. Such is the nature of any selective process.

Hollywood, porn and romance fiction all contribute to unrealistic expectations. Everyone must adjust to reality. Sometimes the star quarterback in high school doesn't turn out to be a winner later in life. There can be the revenge of the nerds and the quiet plain girls.


----------



## EasyPartner

Caribbean Man said:


> Or how about because he actually_ did_ the research and his work has been recognized and reviewed by his peers and critics?
> 
> Unless of course , you have done some work to support your hypothesis and it has been peer reviewed?
> 
> Have you written a book?
> 
> Can you give us a link?
> 
> I agree with what the research says, not the other way around.[lol]


I didn't write any books about the subject, but I did have criminology classes in university.

And indeed, tendencies towards criminal behaviour can be rooted in various and multiple factors. A lot of them of the socio-economic variety. AA has def a point there, no question about that.

If the stats are correct, there is a correlation between children being fatherless and criminal behaviour. But is it THE ONE root cause? Meh. It can be a contributing factor though.

Thousands of children with absent fathers grow up without turning to crime. And into standup citizens. NB: I do think it is important to every child to at least have a father figure, but that role can also be taken by an uncle, grandfather or stepfather, for example. 

Recent studies in my country have shown that the best predictor for a child having criminal tendencies in the future, is actually that the (not so absent) father is a criminal himself... which would lead to the conclusion that it's better to have an absent father than a not so absent but criminal one...


----------



## Cosmos

EasyPartner said:


> I didn't write any books about the subject, but I did have criminology classes in university.
> 
> And indeed, tendencies towards criminal behaviour can be rooted in various and multiple factors. A lot of them of the socio-economic variety. AA has def a point there, no question about that.
> *
> If the stats are correct, there is a correlation between children being fatherless and criminal behaviour. But is it THE ONE root cause? Meh. It can be a contributing factor though.
> *
> *Thousands of children with absent fathers grow up without turning to crime. And into standup citizens*. NB: I do think it is important to every child to at least have a father figure, but that role can also be taken by an uncle, grandfather or stepfather, for example.
> 
> Recent studies in my country have shown that the best predictor for a child having criminal tendencies in the future, is actually that the (not so absent) father is a criminal himself... which would lead to the conclusion that it's better to have an absent father than a not so absent but criminal one...


:iagree:


----------



## Faithful Wife

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/opinion/blow-yes-all-men.html?_r=0


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/opinion/blow-yes-all-men.html?_r=0


Good article, FW.


----------



## norajane

LongWalk said:


> Machiavelli stated that women are attracted to 20% of men. So of course the chase that is unequal in the beginning does not end in satisfaction for all men and women. Such is the nature of any selective process.


Lol, and Machiavelli knows this how? And why should he be believed?

Makes no sense to me. 80% of the men in this world are not single and/or dateless virgins with no women ever attracted to them. Hell, 80% of the boys in high school are not dateless. Women are attracted to FAR more than 20% of the men in this world.


----------



## Faithful Wife

CoAlpha Forum member on Elliot Rodger: “Had he just butchered as many sorority girls as he could he would have been a true hero.” | we hunted the mammoth

As long as people are still writing message like these, we need to know about it.


----------



## Runs like Dog

It's pretty hard to know what's serious online. It's hard enough in solid world.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EasyPartner said:


> I didn't write any books about the subject, but I did have criminology classes in university.
> 
> And indeed, tendencies towards criminal behaviour can be rooted in various and multiple factors. A lot of them of the socio-economic variety. AA has def a point there, no question about that.
> 
> *If the stats are correct, there is a correlation between children being fatherless and criminal behaviour. But is it THE ONE root cause? Meh. It can be a contributing factor though.*
> 
> Thousands of children with absent fathers grow up without turning to crime. And into standup citizens. NB: I do think it is important to every child to at least have a father figure, but that role can also be taken by an uncle, grandfather or stepfather, for example.
> 
> Recent studies in my country have shown that the best predictor for a child having criminal tendencies in the future, is actually that the (not so absent) father is a criminal himself... which would lead to the conclusion that it's better to have an absent father than a not so absent but criminal one...



My guess is that a reasonable question to ask in light of the discussion would be which one contributes more to criminal or delinquent behavior in kids,
Lack of a father / father figure or socio economic conditions?

Lets look at the question from a different angle.

Which child is more likely to end up committing a crime?

*A]* a single parent child whose mother was financially independent of his dad ,and who never had a father figure?
*B]* A poor child from a terrible socio economic background ,but who had both parents instilling a good value system?


----------



## Caribbean Man

Runs like Dog said:


> It's pretty hard to know what's serious online. It's hard enough in solid world.


And sometimes , people can't tell the difference between the two worlds.

What is real and what isn't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And sometimes...you can tell the difference.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> CoAlpha Forum member on Elliot Rodger: “Had he just butchered as many sorority girls as he could he would have been a true hero.” | we hunted the mammoth
> 
> As long as people are still writing message like these, we need to know about it.


There are a lot of crazy people in this world. Now they all have the internet to find each other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This particular group found each other quite awhile ago and have had time to build up to a fever pitch together for years now.


----------



## Deejo

*Re: Re: Misogyny and the shooting rampage in Santa Barbara*



Faithful Wife said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/opinion/blow-yes-all-men.html?_r=0


Read the comments. At least our disagreement is not unique. Commentary on that article is very similar to what is going on here


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sorry, I could care less what the comments say.


----------



## SoWhat

norajane said:


> Lol, and Machiavelli knows this how? And why should he be believed?
> 
> Makes no sense to me. 80% of the men in this world are not single and/or dateless virgins with no women ever attracted to them. Hell, 80% of the boys in high school are not dateless. Women are attracted to FAR more than 20% of the men in this world.



I think the question is not whether or not men are dateless/single. I think he's stating that women are not sexually attracted to 80% of men. 

80% might be pushing it, but I don't think many people would deny that heterosexual women generally find fewer men physically attractive than heterosexual men do women. There was an online dating study a few years ago that had:

1) men "rating" women on a bell curve for attractiveness;
2) women rating 80% of men below "average" looking (below 5 on a 1-10 scale). 

There will be problems with the study source, obviously, but I think it accords with what most of us experience in real life. Women and men both call people "HOT" - it's just men are calling more women hot than vice versa. Women just have higher standards, and that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

We have twice as many female ancestors as male - there's a reason for that. 

Now, I'm not sure how this plays into everything we're talking about here. I think some guys get hung up on stuff like this and get depressed about it. To me, it's not really a big deal. A man's socio-sexual dominance is nearly as importance as his looks for creating attraction. 

Plus, as mentioned, most men will find someone for both dating and longer-term relationships. Are those women necessarily lusting after them? Maybe not, but there will likely be shared experiences, shared preferences, difficult times that shape them together, and love. We all get ugly eventually.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> I agree with what the research says, not the other way around.[lol]


As do I! Apparently we agree on this and even the conclusions.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> As do I! Apparently we agree on this and even the conclusions.


Well it's nice to see we agree with what the studies say, so what's your opinion on this question I asked above?

_Which child is most likely to end up committing a crime?_

*A]* a single parent child whose mother was financially independent of his dad ,and who never had a father figure?
*B]* A poor child from a terrible socio economic background ,but who had both parents instilling a good value system?

Notice the term I used was "_ most likely._'
In other words, it's a hypothetical question and it would be nice if you could give some justification for your answer.


----------



## EleGirl

SoWhat said:


> I think the question is not whether or not men are dateless/single. I think he's stating that women are not sexually attracted to 80% of men.
> 
> 80% might be pushing it, but I don't think many people would deny that heterosexual women generally find fewer men physically attractive than heterosexual men do women. There was an online dating study a few years ago that had:
> 
> 1) men "rating" women on a bell curve for attractiveness;
> 2) women rating 80% of men below "average" looking (below 5 on a 1-10 scale).
> 
> There will be problems with the study source, obviously, but I think it accords with what most of us experience in real life. Women and men both call people "HOT" - it's just men are calling more women hot than vice versa. Women just have higher standards, and that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.
> 
> We have twice as many female ancestors as male - there's a reason for that.
> 
> Now, I'm not sure how this plays into everything we're talking about here. I think some guys get hung up on stuff like this and get depressed about it. To me, it's not really a big deal. A man's socio-sexual dominance is nearly as importance as his looks for creating attraction.
> 
> Plus, as mentioned, most men will find someone for both dating and longer-term relationships. Are those women necessarily lusting after them? Maybe not, but there will likely be shared experiences, shared preferences, difficult times that shape them together, and love. We all get ugly eventually.


How can anyone (in general) have twice as many female ancestors? It takes one man and one woman to make a baby.

The population is generally close to half female/half male.

On that voting for who is hot.. there is a possibility that the people who set it up just picked a group of men who were indeed mostly not hot and mostly not representive of the general population. Or they picked to use more hot women then non-hot women.


----------



## SoWhat

EleGirl said:


> How can anyone have twice as many female ancestors? It takes one man and one woman to make a baby.
> 
> The population is generally close to half female/half male.
> 
> On that voting for who is hot.. there is a possibility that the people who set it up just picked a group of men who were indeed mostly not hot and mostly not representive of the general population. Or they picked to use more hot women then non-hot women.


http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...-your-family-tree/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males

For an extreme example:
Let's say Genghis Khan knocked up 1,000 women. 
For each time each woman was pregnant, another man was not passing on his seed. Now, it's quite possible and highly likely that some of these women either (a) previously mated with another man, or (b) went on to mate with another man. However, there's now a significant reduction in the chances that someone else will produce a child with many of those women - some will die in childbirth, some will not have the chance to find someone else, etc. 

More simply: 

What's happened is, more often, that one man has produced children with multiple women, while many other men have not produced any children.

Yes, it takes one man and one woman. However, it's very often been the SAME man and different women.


----------



## EleGirl

SoWhat said:


> http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...-your-family-tree/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> 
> Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males
> 
> For an extreme example:
> Let's say Genghis Khan knocked up 1,000 women.
> For each time each woman was pregnant, another man was not passing on his seed. Now, it's quite possible and highly likely that some of these women either (a) previously mated with another man, or (b) went on to mate with another man. However, there's now a significant reduction in the chances that someone else will produce a child with many of those women - some will die in childbirth, some will not have the chance to find someone else, etc.
> 
> More simply:
> 
> What's happened is, more often, that one man has produced children with multiple women, while many other men have not produced any children.
> 
> Yes, it takes one man and one woman. However, it's very often been the SAME man and different women.


OK so you are saying talking about the over all population, not any one particular individual.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> OK so you are saying talking about the over all population, not any one particular individual.


The entire population throughout many, many thousands of years of human history. It was one of the revelations of the human genome project.


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> The entire population throughout many, many thousands of years of human history. It was one of the revelations of the human genome project.


I understand that. It was the way he worded the sentence that I found confusing.


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> OK so you are saying talking about the over all population, not any one particular individual.


Yes it happens.

My ex best friend got two other girls pregnant and also his fiancee,
AT THE SAME TIME.

Yet I remained friends with him.


Until we started a business together and he tried to cheat me out of my share of a contract I negotiated.
Then I realized he was a POS.


----------



## SoWhat

EleGirl said:


> On that voting for who is hot.. there is a possibility that the people who set it up just picked a group of men who were indeed mostly not hot and mostly not representive of the general population. Or they picked to use more hot women then non-hot women.



That's possible. I'd love to see the study done in a more systematic way.

Also possible: 

Women have a much greater investment for each conception - 9 months of pregnancy, only one opportunity for procreation within that nearly-year-long span - than men do. 

A man could theoretically impregnate 1,000 women in that span. Men like Genghis Khan actually got close to those numbers. 

As a result, women (who have just as much to gain by passing on "good" genetics as men do) evolved to have a preference for a higher standard of mate than men did. If a woman passed on the genes of a man with "inferior genetics" and the child never made it to reproducing age himself, she lost the chance to pass on her own genetics for that child. 

A man could take the risk with a woman with relatively worse genetics because it's not much of a risk for him. 


Now, I'm not sure that this is relevant today for any moral/ethical considerations. This sort of calculus meant a lot for a select group of people in hunter-gatherer cultures - men and women at maximal fertility (14-25ish?) and not much else. I don't think this sort of evolutionary logic should guide our conscious decisions, but I think it explains certain attitudes/reactions.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> I understand that. It was the way he worded the sentence that I found confusing.


Okay.

I'm not sure I'm understanding the implied cause and effect myself. The most obvious reason for the phenomenon would seem to me to be a long and bloody history of tribalism and warfare. Were women "Attracted' to conquering chieftains and warlords or did they simply have no choice?


----------



## SoWhat

ocotillo said:


> Okay.
> 
> I'm not sure I'm understanding the implied cause and effect myself. The most obvious reason for the phenomenon would seem to me to be a long and bloody history of tribalism and warfare. Were women "Attracted' to conquering chieftains and warlords or did they simply have no choice?


Genghis is an extreme. Although our prehistoric ancestors were prone to raiding and kidnapping, there weren't a ton of Khans. There weren't enough chieftains to make up the stagger. 

Some guys are really reproductively successful. That's the way things have always been. The most obvious reason is because they're the ones women most want to sleep with.

Edit: the ******* chart. http://blog.*******.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/

Could be that they picked troll men. Given the guys pictured, it's more likely, IMO, that women simply have higher standards of physical beauty and often seek out men for reasons beyond attractiveness when it comes to planning for longer-term relationships. 

I think I'm taking this topic off course. I'll just say - when I was in HS, the good-looking star running back had - by most accounts - slept with a goodly number of girls on campus. In a pre-historic society, from which we all evolved, this was pretty much the age demographic where reproduction happened the most. 

Like I said, way off-topic and many apologies for it.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Was that a _"freudian slip"_ on pg 50?


----------



## DanaS

Everyone should look at this: Video: Staind Frontman Loses It in the Middle of a Concert After Allegedly Seeing Something Very Disturbing Happening in the Crowd | Video | TheBlaze.com

Now THAT is what REAL men act like and behave!


----------



## Cosmos

SoWhat said:


> http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com...-your-family-tree/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
> 
> Genetic Evidence for Unequal Effective Population Sizes of Human Females and Males
> 
> For an extreme example:
> Let's say Genghis Khan knocked up 1,000 women.
> For each time each woman was pregnant, another man was not passing on his seed. Now, it's quite possible and highly likely that some of these women either (a) previously mated with another man, or (b) went on to mate with another man. However, there's now a significant reduction in the chances that someone else will produce a child with many of those women - some will die in childbirth, some will not have the chance to find someone else, etc.
> 
> More simply:
> 
> What's happened is, more often, that one man has produced children with multiple women, while many other men have not produced any children.
> 
> Yes, it takes one man and one woman. However, it's very often been the SAME man and different women.


It took me a while to get my head around your previous post, but I now understand what you're saying!

This puts things very clearly:- http://www.geneamusings.com/2007/08/do-you-have-more-women-ancestors.html


----------



## LongWalk

norajane said:


> Lol, and Machiavelli knows this how? And why should he be believed?
> 
> Makes no sense to me. 80% of the men in this world are not single and/or dateless virgins with no women ever attracted to them. Hell, 80% of the boys in high school are not dateless. Women are attracted to FAR more than 20% of the men in this world.


Perhaps Mach will pop up to reveal his sources

*The story of He-who-could-not-get-laid*

I can add a little more about PUA in real life. I have written a bit about a friend of mine, a training buddy with whom I swam a lot of laps. He was a good guy. A little quirky, extra jovial, but that was just him, until he started spilling his guts to me and another one of our group.

Pool dude was not getting laid and he was in a state of depression and had totally lost self confidence in his ability to attract women. This didn't make much sense to me or the other guy. He had a good pay check with stock options, as a low level manager in a major corporation. Just the name of company would give women a stamp of approval. He was fit. Had sports hobbies.

He described his interactions with women and made it seem as it he were trying to dock to vehicles in outer space. There was no sensation, just anxiety about lining up all the radio controlled mechanical parts. He quoted up PUA books and was so despondent that only alpha males could get laid. He didn't have chance. Life was rigged. He was not entitled to sex but disentitled. 

He fell in love with one our teammates and made a complete arse of himself by approaching and repelling her over and over. First he coached her on playing technique but this was a covert contract to try and date her. She didn't mind. She liked him. But his anxiety about getting closer was caused him to act bizarrely.
She understandably wanted nothing to do with him.

He actually quit our club because he could not bear to see her. He was in his 30s but acting like a 16-year-old boy.

"She is a man," he said, running her down. Pure misogyny. Calling her a man was unbalanced. (She actually just had a baby, which proves that she is not a man. She is a super well balanced person, in fact.).

Other buddy and I now found ourselves in a difficult position. We felt sorry for him and but he now latched on to us and needed male bonding free psychotherapy. Other buddy had two small kids and a long commute home and yet we could not let he-who-could-not-get-laid have nervous breakdown. We even went one evening to his ratty apartment after training for pizza. He wanted to treat us to beer and food in exchange for our ears.

We reassured him that he just needed to relax and not take every word a woman said to mean enormous life changes. Sitting in a cab together after the first date did not mean that he had to ask if they were a couple. If he did that, we explained, they would most certainly not be a couple. He had trouble grasping simple rules of communication.

We concluded that he had Asperger's or something.

One positive development was that he started a cyber webcam sex relationship with a woman in California who had a thing for men in our sport. She was a single mom and apparently was very raunchy.

"Now that's some straight talking," our buddy enthused about her lust.

We thought this woman, a single mom, was not completely right in the head. She was some sort of dysfunctional character herself, but to our friend she was mistress of clarity. We were half curious and slightly hinted that he should record her (masturbating) and share the clips with us. He never let the conversation go in that direction, so I guess he had some integrity.

When he went to America on business trip she wanted him to visit but he was very wary of meeting her IRL, although clearly he would have gotten laid, the central priority of his life.

We still did not consider this a relationship. We wanted him to have a girlfriend because we didn't want him to languish in this hell, but we also wanted to spend less time, going over the same points with him over and over again. We did not need his rehash of PUA theory and his bitter conclusion that he was not alpha and therefore a loser.

After some ONS he contracted genital herpes. This started him into a new world of agony. Curiously, the was completely uninterested in pinning responsibility on the woman for infecting him. You would have thought that he would hate women more, but he now felt that he could never have sex without endangering his partner. So when should he tell? This moral dilemma spun like a broken record.

His hypothetical pick up line literally verged on: "Hi I'm XXXXX and I would like to ask you out, and by the way I herpes, just to be up front."

We told him don't tell, just don't have sex when you have a sore and always use a condom.

His fixation with the rules – tell or not tell, also gave us a clue to his personality disorder. He could function well at work because the big corporation set down all sorts of rules. He like rules because he could not interpret ambiguity.

One day he came back from a short sunshine destination holiday and happily reported that he had met a young German woman and her mother by the pool. He had scored with the young woman. That was great, we told him. Clearly he was in much better spirits. A few days or a week or so later the young woman, apparently smitten, contacted him and asked if she could come and visit him.

He was not interested. WTF? Here was an attractive young woman who was willing to spend her own money to come over to have NSA sex and he was turning her down. Why? Fear of intimacy is apparently part of his personality disorder.

From this time on he became less needy. His confidence had returned and he was able to hook up. In fact, instead feeling sorry for him, we were now jealous. But he was just picking them up, fvcking a while and dumping them. He became a PUA.

While we were happy that he was no longer clinically depressed we did not feel comfortable that was breaking women's hearts without any purpose. Couldn't he find a girlfriend? I felt terrible for the German girl. She lifted him up and he paid her back by rejecting her. Anyway his neediness disappeared since he figured women out. Of course he still does not understand women. He is just a mechanical PUA.

We drifted apart since he switched clubs but the other day I met him on a train with a girlfriend! A colleague. We had a chance to chat and on another occasion I met her alone, going into the city. We had a good conversation. She seems nice enough but having been on TAM, I can now guess that she comes from dysfunctional family. There must have been alcoholism or something that turned her into a woman who would be with a man who cannot understand emotions.

She must have learned in part by being a co-dependent how to interpret his mindset. She must now think not merely about enjoying a relationship with him but saving him from his disordered thinking. If she is very clever, she may actually bring it off but it must be exhausting. Her choice.

So why would the selfish gene have allowed my friend to exist? My guess is that in a more primitive and violent world my buddy would be more functional. He would have been able to hunt and fight. He could male bond. He would have been gruff and odd to women but people only lived in to their 20s and 30s if they were lucky. His genes could hack that.

Is he evil? Not at all, he wants to be a good guy. He just doesn't have the same antena for emotional conversation. He copes. He is probably one sort of PUA. There must be other patterns.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Who said this type of man doesn't exist or that this type of man doesn't pose a problem for women?


Vellocet, I'm not quite sure why you are putting this all on me, as many people --women and men--are making exactly the same points.

And since I already spend far too much time here, I'm not terribly inclined to wade through past posts to itemize the evidence you desire. 

But, in the interest in good faith, let me provide a recap:

1. One of the early responses to OP basically said that Rodger's hatred of women was incidental. If he didn't hate women, he would have found something else to hate.

Now, maybe this would've proved true in some alternate universe where there were no women for him to hate. But it is still most certainly a denial of the *significance* of his misogyny.

2. To observations that misogyny was the killers *stated motive*, he practically sang it from the mountaintops, the response was that just because PUA types say this stuff, it doesn't mean anything. Most of it is harmless and pathetic men jawing.

Another denial of the *significance* of misogyny.

3. To reminders that we are talking about a killer here, who planned this for ages, and a pattern of killers that target women simply because we are women, we were "reassured" that the chances of this happening to us is vanishingly small. Rodgers only killed two women in a world with several billion of us after all. In fact he killed more men than women.

A denial of the *scope* of the problem

4. To claims that women face misogyny in daily life, the response was that women are not calculating risk in a rational way, basing their judgements on feeling instead of fact. 

A flat out denial of the problem itself.


----------



## LongWalk

Always Alone,

Misogyny was most definitely a driving force in his madness and his actions. Are men in general guilty of misogyny? Should men be more aware of misogynistic thinking?

Men who approve of rape as punishment for women as a class of people are haters. Men who consider PUA techniques may merely be trying to get NSA sex by seducing women. Is this misogyny? Don't women increasingly want NSA sex, too?

Many a young dude has spent the night and got nothing more, despite needy calls and emails. Is that misandry?

Is MRA misandry? I don't know what MRA is exactly. If some men believe the family court system is rigged against them, there may be some truth to it. If they warn that all women are likely request an RO as a tactic to win advantage in divorce and custody conflicts that they have unleashed, that is misogyny.

When a bitter divorced woman urges her girlfriend to dump her husband because she wants to spread her happiness and freedom, that may be misandry.


----------



## always_alone

Caribbean Man said:


> Well it's nice to see we agree with what the studies say, so what's your opinion on this question I asked above?
> 
> _Which child is most likely to end up committing a crime?_
> 
> *A]* a single parent child whose mother was financially independent of his dad ,and who never had a father figure?
> *B]* A poor child from a terrible socio economic background ,but who had both parents instilling a good value system?


Frankly, I think it's a bad question. You're pitting two variables against each other without balance or definition. Why is it we know the 2-parent home is "instilling good values"? Do we also know this of the single mother home? And how are we defining "good values"?

On the other side you're pitting "poor from a terrible socio-economic background", which could mean almost anything, against financial independence. It isn't even possible to compare.

So, my answer is that I can't really answer your question.

Regarding 1, Cosmos and Elegirl already hashed this out some and concluded that the numbers who do become criminally involved are quite small. Likely even smaller if we're restricting the sample to only single mothers who have sufficient financial resources, and who are "instilling good values".

Regarding 2, depending on what types of socio-economic problems we are talking about, I would think this group much more likely to become criminal. People without opportunity, living in unhealthy communities with poor infrastructure and inadequate resources, for example, are more likely to fall in with gangs and other criminal activities to improve their standards of living. Despite the parents' best efforts to instill good values.

And sometimes, the 2 parents in this situation don't have the wherewithal or the good values to instill.


----------



## Caribbean Man

LongWalk said:


> Always Alone,
> 
> Misogyny was most definitely a driving force in his madness and his actions. Are men in general guilty of misogyny? Should men be more aware of misogynistic thinking?
> 
> .


Funny thing is, more information is surfacing showing that Elliot Rodgers had planned to kill his father , and his 6 yr old step brother , because he was more popular than him and then his step mother.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/05/27...esto-kill-brother-family-plans-ucsb-shooting/

Not that I think it would make a difference on this thread though.


----------



## Caribbean Man

always_alone said:


> Frankly, I think it's a bad question. You're pitting two variables against each other without balance or definition. Why is it we know the 2-parent home is "instilling good values"? Do we also know this of the single mother home? And how are we defining "good values"?
> 
> On the other side you're pitting "poor from a terrible socio-economic background", which could mean almost anything, against financial independence. It isn't even possible to compare.
> 
> So, my answer is that I can't really answer your question.
> 
> Regarding 1, Cosmos and Elegirl already hashed this out some and concluded that the numbers who do become criminally involved are quite small. Likely even smaller if we're restricting the sample to only single mothers who have sufficient financial resources, and who are "instilling good values".
> 
> Regarding 2, depending on what types of socio-economic problems we are talking about, I would think this group much more likely to become criminal. People without opportunity, living in unhealthy communities with poor infrastructure and inadequate resources, for example, are more likely to fall in with gangs and other criminal activities to improve their standards of living. Despite the parents' best efforts to instill good values.
> 
> And sometimes, the 2 parents in this situation don't have the wherewithal or the good values to instill.



Goodnight AA.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Funny thing is, more information is surfacing showing that Elliot Rodgers had planned to kill his father , and his 6 yr old step brother , because he was more popular than him and then his step mother.
> 
> Elliot Rodger’s Full Manifesto — UCSB Shooter Planned To Kill Brother - Hollywood Life
> 
> Not that I think it would make a difference on this thread though.


Look at the body language in the photo on that web page. It shows clearly Elliot's taking himself out of a close relationship his family. That's probably was his normal body language.


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> Funny thing is, more information is surfacing showing that Elliot Rodgers had planned to kill his father , and his 6 yr old step brother , because he was more popular than him and then his step mother.
> 
> Elliot Rodger’s Full Manifesto — UCSB Shooter Planned To Kill Brother - Hollywood Life
> 
> Not that I think it would make a difference on this thread though.


It's a badly written article. Read further down to find this:

"Elliot also left his father, George Rodger, sister, Georgia, and mother out of his killing plans. He specifically wrote about how he wouldn’t have the stomach to kill his father."


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> It's a badly written article. Read further down to find this:
> 
> "Elliot also left his father, George Rodger, sister, Georgia, and mother out of his killing plans. He specifically wrote about how he wouldn’t have the stomach to kill his father."


No it isn't badly written.

Remember Soumayah was his step mother , and the 6 yr old boy his step brother.
So he left his direct family out of the plans because he couldn't bring himself to do it.

The others weren't killed possibly because like the other girls in the dorm room, he couldn't get to them.

I also understand that he ran his BMW into about a dozen people on campus . They were hospitalized.

I've got some more links to articles that went into more details of his manifesto and throws some more light.

I will probably post them tomorrow.


----------



## EleGirl

An interesting read:

» Elliot Rodger’s Manifesto Analyzed


----------



## Caribbean Man

EleGirl said:


> An interesting read:
> 
> » Elliot Rodger’s Manifesto Analyzed


Excellent analysis.

Exactly what I've read on other websites/ forums about the incident and what I've been trying to say throughout this entire thread.

here's an excerpt from the first comment;

*"Jane Hu • 16 hours ago*

_" This article was very well written. After reading Elliot's manifesto, and after reading couple of analytical reports about his mental condition *it is clear that he had major signs that pointed to narcissistic personality disorder. He had absolutely NO empathy just belligerent rants and antagonized people in his story..."*_


----------



## EleGirl

Caribbean Man said:


> No it isn't badly written.
> 
> Remember Soumayah was his step mother , and the 6 yr old boy his step brother.
> So he left his direct family out of the plans because he couldn't bring himself to do it.
> 
> The others weren't killed possibly because like the other girls in the dorm room, he couldn't get to them.
> 
> I also understand that he ran his BMW into about a dozen people on campus . They were hospitalized.
> 
> I've got some more links to articles that went into more details of his manifesto and throws some more light.
> 
> I will probably post them tomorrow.



You wrote the following stating that he had planned to kill is father.



Caribbean Man said:


> Funny thing is, more information is surfacing showing that Elliot Rodgers had planned to kill his father , and his 6 yr old step brother , because he was more popular than him and then his step mother.
> 
> Elliot Rodger’s Full Manifesto — UCSB Shooter Planned To Kill Brother - Hollywood Life
> 
> Not that I think it would make a difference on this thread though


This paragraph is in the article: 

"n the chilling document, which he sent to friends and family before shooting up the UC Santa Barbara area, Elliot coldly writes about his plans to murder his family members, including his six-year-old step-brother,* Jazz*.* Did he also plan to kill his mother and father, who were racing to find him when he began his killing spree?*.

This is why I said it was badly written.. it gives the impression early on that the he was going to kill his father. Then much further down in the page it says that he specifically said that he was not going to kill his father and why.


----------



## EleGirl

Link to the manifesto:

http://www.owndoc.com/pdf/My-Twisted-World-Elliot-Rodger.pdf


----------



## Caribbean Man

Take a look at every single pic of him and notice how he tilts his head, and his expression.
In almost every pic , he does the same pose.


----------



## EleGirl

"His disdain for women grew more intense with each day, leading him to have severe fits of rage when seeing attractive couples walking around Santa Barbara. He began to think of assaulting couples in public, particularly one blonde girl and her Mexican boyfriend he saw while visiting with his father. It was not long before he began assaulting couples.

“I had to make up for all the years I lost in loneliness and isolation, through no fault of my own! It was society’s fault for rejecting me. It was women’s fault for refusing to have sex with me.”

The first physical assault on a couple that Elliot partook in was at Starbucks when he observed a blonde woman with her “punk” boyfriend. He felt intense anger and followed them to their car, splashing his coffee all over them before running away. This would not be the last time he used coffee as a weapon, later splashing hot coffee on two girls he saw standing at a bus stop who did not return a smile he gave them. His violent thoughts were intensifying as he assaulted people In public in this petty fashion. In his writing, he repeatedly expressed a desire to pull the skin off of his “enemies.” His rage against couples and pretty women was interfering with his ability to eat in public, attend classes, and function daily in general. It was no longer just jealousy; it was a phobia. He was convinced, despite his lack of attempts to make friends or speak to women, that they treated him with disdain.

“I wanted to kill them slowly, to strip the skins off their flesh.” – 19

Those girls deserved to be dumped in boiling water for the crime of not giving me the attention and adoration I so rightfully deserve!”

Soon after returning to Santa Barbara, he verbally attacked college students in a park, full of rage, before shooting them with a water gun and then running away. The adrenaline it gave him was intoxicating.


----------



## EleGirl

More from the analysis of his manifesto..

"To say that this shooting could have been prevented by women, or that it was not a sexist act, is to say that women everywhere should make a conscious attempt to offer sex to lonely shut-ins in order to not be shot. Elliot was a Narcissist who believed himself so superior that he should not have to lift a single finger to get the life he wanted, and no amount of psychological counseling or hand-outs would have prevented his delusions from growing more intense with age.

It could be argued that Elliot should have been locked away due to his mental state, but Elliot was not insane. He did not experience psychosis, and he knew the consequences of his actions. Elliot was well aware that he was using women as a scapegoat for what he called his “miserable and pathetic life.” In his final days, Elliot was more calm than he had ever been, because his social anxiety was dying the closer he got to death – and the closer he got to becoming a murderous god. Seven people are dead, and only one of them can truly be blamed."

“I am the closest thing there is to a living god.” – 22


----------



## Cosmos

Caribbean Man said:


> Funny thing is, more information is surfacing showing that Elliot Rodgers had planned to kill his father , and his 6 yr old step brother , because he was more popular than him and then his step mother.
> 
> Elliot Rodger’s Full Manifesto — UCSB Shooter Planned To Kill Brother - Hollywood Life
> 
> Not that I think it would make a difference on this thread though.


He stated in his manifesto that he was going to have to kill his half brother, Jazz, because the confidence the boy was already exhibiting indicated that he was going to have a happier life than him.

He also stated that he would kill his step-mother because of her perceived ill-treatment of him over the years.

He contemplated considering killing his father, but concluded that he wouldn't be able to.


----------



## LongWalk

Getting into the head of mentally ill person is a difficult and unpleasant exercise. Most don't do it until compelled by circumstance. I mean how many people sit around and fantasize about what it like to have a short-circuited cortex?

By the way, the amount of money going to research mental illness is far lower than for other diseases because people are scared and disgusted by mental illness. Someone will ask you to donate to cure breast cancer. Few come round to speak for research into schizophrenia or manic depression.

Is it important to understand the relationship between Rodgers' misogyny and his actions? Could be.

Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to be Marxist. Marx recommended violent revolution. Who is really interested in Oswald the political thinker? Not many.



> Oswald was court-martialed after accidentally shooting himself in the elbow with an unauthorized .22 handgun, then court-martialed again for fighting with a sergeant whom he thought was responsible for his punishment in the shooting matter. He was demoted from private first class to private and briefly imprisoned in the brig. He was later punished for a third incident: while on night-time sentry duty in the Philippines, he *inexplicably* fired his rifle into the jungle.[44]


Rodgers' parents tried to stop him. The mechanisms to prevent the mentally ill from acting on violent urges are limited by civil liberties.

This thread has not discussed the US's lax gun ownership regulations. Is it misogyny to allow people to buy handguns with so little control. Women are statistically the victims more than men.


----------



## TiggyBlue

LongWalk said:


> Getting into the head of mentally ill person is a difficult and unpleasant exercise. Most don't do it until compelled by circumstance. I mean how many people sit around and fantasize about what it like to have a short-circuited cortex?


:iagree:
Mental illness is very difficult to diagnose let alone treat.


----------



## LongWalk

But mental illness is largely due to brain chemistry.


----------



## TiggyBlue

LongWalk said:


> But mental illness is largely due to brain chemistry.


I'm not sure if what I said came across that it wasn't due to brain chemistry :scratchhead:


----------



## Cosmos

LongWalk said:


> But mental illness is largely due to brain chemistry.


It isn't quite as simple as that. Most mental illnesses are due to a combination of factors - biological, psychological and environmental.

*Biological*

Genetics (heredity): Mental illnesses sometimes run in families, suggesting that people who have a family member with a mental illness may be somewhat more likely to develop one themselves. Susceptibility is passed on in families through genes. Experts believe many mental illnesses are linked to abnormalities in many genes rather than just one or a few and that how these genes interact with the environment is unique for every person (even identical twins). That is why a person inherits a susceptibility to a mental illness and doesn't necessarily develop the illness. Mental illness itself occurs from the interaction of multiple genes and other factors -- such as stress, abuse, or a traumatic event -- which can influence, or trigger, an illness in a person who has an inherited susceptibility to it.


Infections: Certain infections have been linked to brain damage and the development of mental illness or the worsening of its symptoms. For example, a condition known as pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder (PANDA) associated with the Streptococcus bacteria has been linked to the development of obsessive-compulsive disorder and other mental illnesses in children.


Brain defects or injury: Defects in or injury to certain areas of the brain have also been linked to some mental illnesses.


Prenatal damage: Some evidence suggests that a disruption of early fetal brain development or trauma that occurs at the time of birth -- for example, loss of oxygen to the brain -- may be a factor in the development of certain conditions, such as autism.


Substance abuse: Long-term substance abuse, in particular, has been linked to anxiety, depression, and paranoia. 


Other factors: Poor nutrition and exposure to toxins, such as lead, may play a role in the development of mental illnesses.


*Psychological*



Severe psychological trauma suffered as a child, such as emotional, physical, or sexual abuse


An important early loss, such as the loss of a parent


Neglect


Poor ability to relate to others


*Environmental*


Death or divorce


A dysfunctional family life


Feelings of inadequacy, low self-esteem, anxiety, anger, or loneliness

 
Changing jobs or schools


Social or cultural expectations (For example, a society that associates beauty with thinness can be a factor in the development of eating disorders.)


Substance abuse by the person or the person's parents

Rodgers had undergone both psychiatric and psychological evaluations and, without knowledge of those findings, we have no way of knowing what caused his issues. All we do know is that he was obsessed with his perceived rejection by women which resulted in a pathological hatred of them - as also the men who _were _successful with them.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> This thread has not discussed the US's lax gun ownership regulations. Is it misogyny to allow people to buy handguns with so little control. Women are statistically the victims more than men.


That's because there already enough threads on that topic.

Guns do not experience misogyny.

More men are killed by other men using guns then women are killed by guns.


----------



## JCD

I was thinking on the 'body size' thing about the danger represented by men vs. women.

That reminded me of a video I saw.

Michelle Watterson is the Invicta Champion for the Atomweight category. She weighs in at 105 pounds. While I have my suspicions on how good a fighter she is compared to her peers, she obviously has a good idea what she is doing and is in great physical shape!

This is not the case for the majority of women.

She had some promotional bout with a MMA guy. The man could not throw her. He could not punch her. He could not run away from her. Essentially, she had three minutes to try to put him on the ground.

Now, they both had gloves and he had protective head gear, but the bout they had here was laughable. The guy looks about 170-180. He is not a mountain gorilla of a man. In shape, knows how to block, but that was all he was allowed to do.

It's an issue. A big one. Short of tying this guy to the floor and giving her a baseball bat, I am not sure what she could have done to hurt him. Getting away from in another matter.

The only mental equivalent I can see is for a guy to be in prison (not an FBI officer visiting a prison) and spend a lot of time in the weight room with the monsters there.


----------



## Runs like Dog

Caribbean Man said:


> And sometimes , people can't tell the difference between the two worlds.
> 
> What is real and what isn't.


I was pointed to Canadian blog by some unhinged feminist loon who went on and on about "white privilege". I guess she missed the point that Rodgers was as 'white' as Obama.


----------



## JCD

EleGirl said:


> That's because there already enough threads on that topic.
> 
> Guns do not experience misogyny.
> 
> *More men are killed then women*.


Guns, windows, baseball bats...men die more.

It is easy to make the mistake in this talk of vulnerability and threats to forget this simple fact.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Guns, windows, baseball bats...men die more.
> 
> It is easy to make the mistake in this talk of vulnerability and threats to forget this simple fact.


And it seems to be a very serious problem for y'all. Which makes me wonder why you don't have your own threads in the clubhouse to talk about it in detail, instead of jacking every thread where women are talking about the threats and issues we face.


----------



## LongWalk

Misogynistic violence and male versus male violence may be related. We are programmed to compete for resources and women. Channeling male instincts into socially acceptable activities is essential for peace and public safety.


----------



## Cosmos

LongWalk said:


> Misogynistic violence and male versus male violence may be related. We are programmed to compete for resources and women. Channeling male instincts into socially acceptable activities is essential for peace and public safety.


I would say that it's absolutely essential that we channel _human_ instincts into socially acceptable behaviour...

I think deep down we're all capable of committing violent acts, but fortunately most of us have a moral filter that prevents us from doing so.


----------



## SoWhat

Cosmos said:


> I would say that it's absolutely essential that we channel _human_ instincts into socially acceptable behaviour...
> 
> I think deep down we're all capable of committing violent acts, but fortunately most of us have a moral filter that preents us from doing so.


No doubt that we're all capable of committing those acts. Men are much more likely to do so and the reason is very likely to be hormonal and neurological. 

That doesn't mean it's more morally acceptable, or that men lack the ability to do otherwise - not at all. It's an explanation of a discrepancy, rather than a justification for individual actions which (when combined) account for the discrepancy. 

Unlike our ancestors, most men don't ever fight in a true battle. Homicide rates are significantly lower than they were in the Dark Ages. We've got football instead of gladiator duels. These are pretty positive developments and I think most of us would agree to that.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Vellocet, I'm not quite sure why you are putting this all on me, as many people --women and men--are making exactly the same points.


Because you are also making different points as the others here.

You are the ones saying that people here are saying things like misogyny and violence against women are not a problem, when nobody is saying any such thing.

When you talk about someone here and what they supposedly said, and try to make it the truth, then you need to show where they said these things. Because I'm sorry, nobody here is denying that of which you are accusing them of.

You said, and I quote: "Except this thread was never about all men or judging all of them to be a threat. It was about a particular brand of man who hates women. *And much as you like to think they don't really exist, or aren't that much of a problem*, the fact is they do, and they pose quite a big problem -- for women."

So I am responding to what YOU said and asked who said this?

The reason I asked is because NOBODY said this.

And if I'm wrong, surely you can back up your assertion.

I don't see other women, or men, here saying that someone here is saying its not a problem.




> And since I already spend far too much time here, I'm not terribly inclined to wade through past posts to itemize the evidence you desire.


You never do....because you won't find it because you are blowing smoke.

You want to accuse someone of saying something or feeling a certain way, then back it up.




> But, in the interest in good faith, let me provide a recap:
> 
> 1. *One of the early responses to OP basically said that Rodger's hatred of women was incidental*. If he didn't hate women, he would have found something else to hate.


*Show me the response.* And for the sake of argument if that was said, then that is absolutely correct. He was putting in the proper context. He never said hatred towards women was not a problem. It was incidental to the issue at hand.

Do I think misogyny had something to do with what happened? I think so. But it doesn't guarantee its so. Seems he had a problem with everyone.



> Now, maybe this would've proved true in some alternate universe where there were no women for him to hate. But it is still most certainly a denial of the *significance* of his misogyny.


No, its not. And I think if you were to ask him, he'd disagree he is denying the significance of misogyny.

I think you need to read that post again. If you show me which one, I'll read it too and give you my assessment. If it looks as if he is saying misogyny isn't a problem, I'll let you know and tell you that you were correct.



> 2. To observations that misogyny was the killers *stated motive*, he practically sang it from the mountaintops, *the response was *that just because PUA types say this stuff, it doesn't mean anything. Most of it is harmless and pathetic men jawing.
> 
> Another denial of the *significance* of misogyny.


*Show me the response*.



> 3. To reminders that we are talking about a killer here, who planned this for ages, and a pattern of killers that target women simply because we are women, we were "reassured" that the chances of this happening to us is vanishingly small.


And that would be accurate. Its still not saying misogyny is NOT a problem.

Your chances of being killed in a plane crash are minute. But problems that cause an aircraft crash are still a problem.





> Rodgers only killed two women in a world with several billion of us after all. In fact he killed more men than women.
> 
> A denial of the *scope* of the problem


Sure, a denial of, whatever you consider the scope, of the problem.

Still not denying misogyny is NOT a problem.



> 4. To claims that women face misogyny in daily life, the response was that women are not calculating risk in a rational way, basing their judgements on feeling instead of fact.
> 
> A flat out denial of the problem itself.


*Show me the response.*

As far as this requested response, or the others, I'm not saying someone didn't say what YOU think they are saying, but rather you twist it into whatever you like. 
You have been called out in another thread accusing men of "dissecting" you, but when asked to show the posts, you cannot do it, because it didn't happen.

And if it did, like I said, I'll chime in and put any man in his place for mistreating a woman.(so long as there wasn't mistreatment from the women prior)

After all you posted I STILL don't know who said misogyny is not a problem or that hatred against women is not a problem. I wasn't looking for someone trying to explain this particular situation with you trying to incorrectly interpret their words as "hatred against women is not a problem"

And back to your original question of why I am putting this all on you and not others who have a similar argument. The others don't have, estimated, 80%+ of their posts with the "men this" "men that" theme to it. You claim not to hate men, I'll have to take you at your word, but then its odd that your reason seemingly for being here is to rail against men more times than not.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Cosmos said:


> I would say that it's absolutely essential that we channel _human_ instincts into socially acceptable behaviour...
> 
> I think deep down we're all capable of committing violent acts, but fortunately most of us have a moral filter that preents us from doing so.


I actually don't think men are any more likely than women to commit violent acts. The reason women don't commit more of them is that we have been conditioned.

However, this successful conditioning proves it can happen. If we conditioned men similarly, there would be less violence.


----------



## SoWhat

Faithful Wife said:


> I actually don't think men are any more likely than women to commit violent acts. The reason women don't commit more of them is that we have been conditioned.
> 
> However, this successful conditioning proves it can happen. If we conditioned men similarly, there would be less violence.


Then we'd see equal levels of violence in societies where men have been "conditioned" differently, right?

Unfortunately, all records we have indicate that men have been mostly responsible for the violence in every society ever. 

What about in similarly-hormoned primates? Well, who do you think commits most violence in chimp societies? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/science/22chimp.html?_r=0

"Most days the male chimps behave a lot like frat boys, making a lot of noise or beating each other up. But once every 10 to 14 days, they do something more adult and cooperative: they wage war.

A band of males, up to 20 or so, will assemble in single file and move to the edge of their territory. They fall into unusual silence as they penetrate deep into the area controlled by the neighboring group. They tensely scan the treetops and startle at every noise. “It’s quite clear that they are looking for individuals of the other community,” Dr. Mitani says.

When the enemy is encountered, the patrol’s reaction depends on its assessment of the opposing force. If they seem to be outnumbered, members of the patrol will break file and bolt back to home territory. But if a single chimp has wandered into their path, they will attack. Enemy males will be held down, then bitten and battered to death. Females are usually let go, but their babies will be eaten."


These are our closest genetic relatives.
It's not an accident that our behavior mimics theirs and vice versa.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Check out the rhesus monkey and their culture. Females run everything and are violent, and males are conditioned to comply and basically are "now allowed" to be violent. Females will murder non-society females, but will welcome males as sex partners. Females will also essentially gang rape a male.

I can post some stuff later, but there are reasons to believe that the chimp is not actually our closest relative and there are ways in which we are nothing like them, but are much more like bonobos and rhesus monkeys.


----------



## SoWhat

Faithful Wife said:


> Check out the rhesus monkey and their culture. Females run everything and are violent, and males are conditioned to comply and basically are "now allowed" to be violent. Females will murder non-society females, but will welcome males as sex partners. Females will also essentially gang rape a male.
> 
> I can post some stuff later, but there are reasons to believe that the chimp is not actually our closest relative and there are ways in which we are nothing like them, but are much more like bonobos and rhesus monkeys.



I appreciate the response and look forward to it! I'm always interested in learning more about stuff like this. 

On that point, though, does that mean female rhesus monkeys are conditioned to do so? Do you think widespread behavioral similarities, even between societies who have zero contact, indicates something deeper than social contingencies? 

Because the sort of behavior described for the warring chimps - nighttime raids, murdering men and children but keeping the females alive - is something you see in prehistoric societies from Papua New Guinea to East Africa to Germany 30,000 years ago. 

I think that means there's more to the story than historical accident.


----------



## ocotillo

Violence in primates is strongly tied to sexual dimorphism. It doesn't automatically make males more violent in species where it is pronounced, but it does give them the capacity to be violent with little to stop them.


----------



## Omego

LongWalk said:


> This thread has not discussed the US's lax gun ownership regulations. Is it misogyny to allow people to buy handguns with so little control. Women are statistically the victims more than men.


I discussed this (tried) on the other thread concerning the shooting. I didn't have the stats (I see you have many) but I questioned the current restrictions or lack thereof on the purchase of semi-automatic weapons.

I don't see why any layman should be able to purchase such a weapon.


----------



## LongWalk

Faithful said:


> I actually don't think men are any more likely than women to commit violent acts. The reason women don't commit more of them is that we have been conditioned.
> 
> However, this successful conditioning proves it can happen. If we conditioned men similarly, there would be less violence.


Women are certainly capable of violent behavior. But you cannot seriously believe men and are instinctually identical in this respect. When in the history of mankind was there a people who sent bands of women out to take territory, loot and kill? Any examples must be exceptional.

re: football
We now know that football at all levels causes some brain damage and yet we are not going to stop playing it. Tells you something about the strength of the male instinct to fight.

The sport of MMA has eclipsed boxing. It is all about the art of fighting more or less without mercy.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores? | Video on TED.com

This has a lot about primates and how close they are to us, or not.


----------



## always_alone

Okay, vellocet, let me point very clearly at one poster and one post that demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about: you and your most recent post:




vellocet said:


> And for the sake of argument if that was said, *then that is absolutely correct. He was putting in the proper context.* He never said hatred towards women was not a problem. It was incidental to the issue at hand.


I said specifically (and with emphasis) that the claim that misogyny is incidental is a denial of the *significance* of the problem.

And here you are agreeing that, yes, the problem is incidental. 

By saying this you are both rejecting the stated motives of the killer's, and how misogyny factored in to his rampage.

You backtrack a bit:


vellocet said:


> Do I think misogyny had something to do with what happened? I think so. But it doesn't guarantee its so. Seems he had a problem with everyone.


But then return to simply agreeing that misogyny is not significant in the end.



vellocet said:


> And that would be accurate. Its still not saying misogyny is NOT a problem.


And here you are simply agreeing that the stats show that the chances of being slayed by mass killer are small.

Which, statistically they are. But when you roll together crimes that target women specifically because they are women and hated for that fact (aka misogyny), all of a sudden the statistical position isn't so rosy.

So, keeping bringing back the stats to only include likelihood of being randomly shot by a misogynist is a denial of the scope of the problem.




vellocet said:


> Sure, a denial of, whatever you consider the scope, of the problem.


Yes, exactly. Thank you for noticing.



vellocet said:


> Still not denying misogyny is NOT a problem.


We've been told pretty explicitly on this thread that the men who are spewing hatred against women are "just talking", and that they are "harmless", and that they really just want to be nice guys.

If that isn't denial of the problem, I don't know what is.




vellocet said:


> As far as this requested response, or the others, I'm not saying someone didn't say what YOU think they are saying, but rather you twist it into whatever you like.
> You have been called out in another thread accusing men of "dissecting" you, but when asked to show the posts, you cannot do it, because it didn't happen.
> 
> And if it did, like I said, I'll chime in and put any man in his place for mistreating a woman.(so long as there wasn't mistreatment from the women prior)


Well, thanks for the thought, but fact is that you won't because you don't happen to see it as a problem. You just think I'm blowing smoke because you haven't seen my carcass sliced and pinned to the slab.

I've tried to explain this to you before, but I didn't mean that *I* was *literally* dissected. I meant that women's bodies are, and as a woman, it feels to me like I too am under this sort of scrutiny. (And indeed, some posters here have assured me this is the case, although I do doubt that). But in general women's bodies are subjected to pretty serious scrutiny here, body part by body part. Now maybe that's not a problem for you, but I will reserve the right to formulate my own opinions.


----------



## Cosmos

Faithful Wife said:


> Christopher Ryan: Are we designed to be sexual omnivores? | Video on TED.com
> 
> This has a lot about primates and how close they are to us, or not.


Very interesting, FW


----------



## DanaS

Faithful Wife said:


> I actually don't think men are any more likely than women to commit violent acts. The reason women don't commit more of them is that we have been conditioned.
> 
> However, this successful conditioning proves it can happen. If we conditioned men similarly, there would be less violence.


Hmm..So hypothetically in an alternate female-dominated world do you think you'd see women go to war, commit atrocities/genocide like men? Like a female Hitler or Stalin?


----------



## always_alone

Faithful Wife said:


> I actually don't think men are any more likely than women to commit violent acts.


Interesting paper on the myth that males are more aggressive:
http://rakurs.ucoz.com/biblioteka/Biology_Does_Not_Make_Men_More_Aggressive_Than.doc


----------



## fschmidt

Faithful Wife said:


> CoAlpha Forum member on Elliot Rodger: “Had he just butchered as many sorority girls as he could he would have been a true hero.” | we hunted the mammoth
> 
> As long as people are still writing message like these, we need to know about it.


I agree, you should know about it. I run the CoAlpha forum. I encourage you to read a particularly well written comment by one of our members:

CoAlpha Forum - On Elliot Rodger

I would be glad to answer any questions anyone may have.


----------



## LongWalk

AlwaysAlone said:


> I've tried to explain this to you before, but I didn't mean that *I* was *literally* dissected. I meant that women's bodies are, and as a woman, it feels to me like I too am under this sort of scrutiny. (And indeed, some posters here have assured me this is the case, although I do doubt that). But *in general women's bodies are subjected to pretty serious scrutiny here, body part by body part.* Now maybe that's not a problem for you, but I will reserve the right to formulate my own opinions.


Ths is true. Men look at women and judge them. But we still love them. We know we aren't perfect either. We feel bummed out that women judge us by what we do and have, rather than who we imagine we are.

Men and women objectify. Perhaps men are a little worse.

There is a poster who is reviewing the failure of his marriage to a woman who cheated on him three times. He once took her back after the relationship with the first OM failed. After all of the years and troubles he concluded that he never made enough money. And she like male attention too much. He thought she was beautiful.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I just saw this on cracked.com and thought it was pretty interesting. *I know that site is just for fun* but it's still an interesting perspective.

5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men's Rights Movement | Cracked.com


----------



## LongWalk

That critique is very superficial. By pointing out inconsistencies and contradictions in the MRA ideology (granted I haven't studied their websites, aside from having read Tucker Max) you can declare MRA to be invalid. But why does MRA resonate with so many?

Here is a passage of criticism that sets up straw men and knocks them down without any examination.



> They're assuming that women are fundamentally better at arguing (and therefore smarter) than men, because that's the only way "arguing" being less illegal than "beating the **** out of someone" could be unfair to one gender. But obviously their argument hinges on women being dumber than men, too (or "more prone to emotional thinking," whatever the flying **** that means).


Fact: men and women think differently. This can be measured with MRI's or other objective criteria. There was an article the other day about research that had discoverd that women's brains have more left to right hemisphere connections, which accounts for multitasking while men concentrate on one thing at a time.

Men do tend to feel (even if they don't act on it) that beating the shxt out of people is the solution. George Bush, Cheney, Rove and company wanted war and plotted to justify a war. Violence is more likely to be the male solution. Women like to discuss things more. 

Margret Thatcher was called the "Iron Lady" to emphasize her unfeminine characteristic.

Emotional thinking is not dumb. It is another approach to problem solving.

What is happening in the territorial conflict between China, Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Russia is a masculine solution, i.e., military escalation.

Do women seek wars the way men do? I don't think so.

The failure of MRA that is hate based is that hate generally doesn't make problem solving easier.

Read more: 5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men's Rights Movement | Cracked.com


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> Interesting paper on the myth that males are more aggressive:
> http://rakurs.ucoz.com/biblioteka/Biology_Does_Not_Make_Men_More_Aggressive_Than.doc


That was an interesting read, AA.

"_In general we may say that the institutionalized behavior of humans has no homologue in animals. By this I mean not only war, but also the complex hierarchical structures...._"

Do primatologists today accept his assertion? I honestly don't know, but it does seem like there have been a lot of papers on lethal coalitionary aggression in chimpanzees since Dr. Adams wrote this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes they are moving in that direction Ocotillo, namely because of neuroplasticity, and because they understand that culture can override and change biology and heirarchies. Since different cultures can exist within one species, this means that basically "anything could happen" within the biology of that species and still be completely different from another group of the same species.

They have stopped basing everything on Darwin, finally. We cannot say anymore that "evolution" is a straight line, nor that biology is 100% determination of behavior, not even within members of the same culture. 

Nurture can over ride nature in one generation.


----------



## LongWalk

Completely different?

Anthropologists love to describe diversity. But certain aspects of human behavior are hard wired. There has never been a state of war free civilization.

Sexual jealousy is universal. Greed. Etc.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Okay, vellocet, let me point very clearly at one poster and one post that demonstrates exactly what I'm talking about: you and your most recent post:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said specifically (and with emphasis) that the claim that misogyny is incidental is a denial of the *significance* of the problem.
> 
> And here you are agreeing that, yes, the problem is incidental.


That it may be incidental to THIS particular issue.

Was misogyny the reason he killed all those men too?

Again, nobody is denying misogyny is a problem. It absolutely is.
And misogyny was involved in his motive to kill the women. So what was his reason for killing the men? Misandry?




> By saying this you are both rejecting the stated motives of the killer's, and how misogyny factored in to his rampage.


No, his entire rampage is not motivated by misogyny, but part of it is....towards the women.



> But then return to simply agreeing that misogyny is not significant in the end.


Nope, never said any such thing. You need to take your man hating glasses off.

It is significant in the fact that it was his motivation for killing the women in his rampage. The rampage as a whole is not due to misogyny, but rather he is psycho.




> And here you are simply agreeing that the stats show that the chances of being slayed by mass killer are small.
> 
> Which, statistically they are.







> But when you roll together crimes that target women specifically because they are women and hated for that fact (aka misogyny), all of a sudden the statistical position isn't so rosy.


Is that what you want? Tougher crimes for violence against women based on misogyny? Hey, great, I'm all for it.

So let me ask you this.

Man #1 beats up a woman, puts her in intensive care, because she cheated on him. Obviously his ass needs to be behind bars. But he doesn't hate women, his emotions of being cheated on overcame him. He simply is violent and tried to justify it to himself.

Man #2, beats up a woman, although not in intensive care, she had to go to the hospital. There is proof that he hates women.

What would be your punishment for each of these men considering the scenarios.




> We've been told pretty explicitly on this thread that the men who are spewing hatred against women are "just talking", and that they are "harmless", and that they really just want to be nice guys.


*sigh* Don't know why I bother, but here it goes. 

Who said this? Show me the post and I'll be on your side with it. Not saying it wasn't posted, but I don't see it, or I missed it

So help me help you, please provide the proof that someone said this, and I'll respond.

Now there is a difference in this "spewing hatred" and what your definition of it may be. Are we talking about somebody here defending a man that would spew venomous, disturbing "women need to be beaten" hatred?

Or run of the mill displeasure with women of the non-violent nature?

If its the former and someone said its "harmless", then I'd say they are wrong.

If its the latter, then I'd say they would be right.



> Well, thanks for the thought, but fact is that you won't because you don't happen to see it as a problem.


Once again, you are wrong without any facts to back it up.

Misogyny is a problem, never going to deny that. Never did deny that.

I'm saying that, while he is obviously a misogynist, that wasn't the motivator for his rampage. He feels he has been mistreated by everyone.




> You just think I'm blowing smoke because you haven't seen my carcass sliced and pinned to the slab.


No, you are blowing smoke accusing people of saying things they never said, and you never show which posts indicate they said anything of the sort.



> I've tried to explain this to you before, but I didn't mean that *I* was *literally* dissected. I meant that women's bodies are, and as a woman, it feels to me like I too am under this sort of scrutiny. (And indeed, some posters here have assured me this is the case, although I do doubt that). But in general women's bodies are subjected to pretty serious scrutiny here, body part by body part. Now maybe that's not a problem for you, but I will reserve the right to formulate my own opinions.


Nope, and as you well know, I have asked you who has said or done these things, or posted misogyny on this website, which you say is full of misogynistic men, and I will gladly chime in and denigrate that behavior which makes all of us men look bad.

But you never rise to the occasion. You want men to stand up for women, I have given you chance after chance to help make that happen on this site which you say is full of "us men" doing that.
When asked for proof of your assertions, you come back with paraphrasing of what YOU think they are saying. I want to see what they are saying. And if it is happening on this site in droves, then it shouldn't be hard to pick at least one. And in picking at least one, and the misogyny is obvious, then I'd guess there are plenty of women and men there to put them in their place, or mods taking care of the problem.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> IMO, his membership of PUA sites, where he was able to meet with other angry, frustrated, maladjusted virgins, exacerbated his issues by encouraging his self-entitlement and hatred of women.


Yup. People keep forgetting, or ignoring, the fact that he _was_ involved with PUA before he went on this rampage.


----------



## Created2Write

Happyfamily said:


> You get used to this if you have any experience with pick-up artist loser-club misogynists.
> 
> The great thing about having brains is that we can go to their sites, as you have, and read exactly what they are saying amongst themselves instead of listening to the manipulative crap they spew when their tactics are under fire from outsiders.
> 
> I love being told by pick-up artist groupies that they are really giving woman what they want. We WANT to be insulted, lied to, treated as objects instead of as humans, and oh yes the incessant appeals to "primal" behavior.
> 
> The irony of the primal pretenders is that these are always the guys who couldn't make the team in actual competition with other men. But they're going to tell you that they're the modern day reincarnation of Genghis Khan.
> 
> Like this guy. He says he is the ultimate alpha. How is that different from all the other pick-up artist losers?


QFT!


----------



## Created2Write

JCD said:


> Man hated everyone. Girls are part of everyone.
> 
> Ergo, man hated girls.
> 
> Instant misogyny.
> 
> And Created, if he was anti PUA (I am really only skimming over this entire thing, so I may be wrong), then you can't lump him with PUAs.
> 
> What you are saying is 'I hate what HE did and I also hate PUAs...so I want to tangentially lump them together.'
> 
> Sorry, but that isn't logic. I am not denying that PUAs have a strain of misogyny in them. But trying to tar them with the same brush 'just because' doesn't work and very much downplays the points you are trying to make.
> 
> Separate the two issues. Because...as stated: there are MILLIONS of PUA types. Female deaths and drive-by's? Rare as hen's teeth. So the connection isn't being made.


Your opinion. I see PUAs as a very dangerous group of men who don't see women as anything but objects, which automatically makes them less than human in the eyes of PUAs. No matter how hard they try and justify it, as many men here have, no matter how hard they try to make it normal and acceptable, seeing _anyone_ as an object makes it that much easier to commit a crime against them. 

And, since you skimmed, I'll repeat something I said before that you clearly missed: I don't think that all PUAs are ticking murderous time bombs. I think there are many who are just lost, alone, and completely confused. They buy into the PUA stuff because they're desperate for female attention. But the general misogynistic ideas of PUA are consistent with Elliots opinions of women, and you can say it's "illogical" all you want, it doesn't change what I see. 

Elliot was involved with PUA, that we know. We also know it didn't work for him, and that he couldn't take it, when he joined anti-PUA websites, however, the misogynistic tendencies of PUA were still there. Someone else already posted quotes of him from the PUAhate website, where he's talking about men beating the sh!t out of women. I've seen very much the same attitude on many different PUA websites, so don't tell me they're not related.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> Quite. And not all poisonous idealogy has its roots in mental illness...
> 
> This guy _certainly_ had mental health issues, but there was a lot more to it than that, IMO.
> 
> Saying that misogyny wasn't a factor here is rather like saying Hitler wasn't a Nazi.


Exactly. I'm boggled about this. I really am. If it had been a woman killing men over her hatred of them, especially where there were countless of posts and videos of her discussing her desire to beat and oppress them and how much she hated them for ignoring and rejecting her, there wouldn't be any doubt that it was misandry. Yet it's _not_ misogyny now?

Unbelievable.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> No, his entire rampage is not motivated by misogyny, but part of it is....towards the women.


We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Ample evidence has been repeatedly posted on this thread that shows the killer's *stated motive* was to kill women who deserved it, and that his reasons for killing those men *also* had to to do with his hatred of women.




vellocet said:


> Now there is a difference in this "spewing hatred" and what your definition of it may be. Are we talking about somebody here defending a man that would spew venomous, disturbing "women need to be beaten" hatred?
> 
> Or run of the mill displeasure with women of the non-violent nature?
> 
> If its the former and someone said its "harmless", then I'd say they are wrong.
> 
> If its the latter, then I'd say they would be right.


*All* of the quotes and links on this thread pointing to misogyny have been the former, eg saying that women deserve to be beaten or to die, that Rodgers is some kind of hero and so on. Sickening stuff.

And yet several posters called it "harmless", "just venting", "tavern" talk, and pathetic men who really just want to be good guys.

I know, I know, you want me to link to these exact posts so you can tell me whether said posters really meant that, or whether you think I'm a man-hating smoke blower.

Well, let me save you some time and trouble: No doubt you'll find several reasons to justify what these posters have said. They are, afterall, just pointing to statistical facts, simply acknowledging that some rage is "just venting", only suggesting that I am blowing this way out of proportion, and the problem isn't all that great. 

Well, yes, as it happens, I did actually understand what they were saying. But I have also posted stats, links, and reasons as to why I think this both diminishes and denies the problem.




vellocet said:


> But you never rise to the occasion. You want men to stand up for women, I have given you chance after chance to help make that happen on this site which you say is full of "us men" doing that.
> When asked for proof of your assertions, you come back with paraphrasing of what YOU think they are saying. I want to see what they are saying.


I have given you example after example which I thought would be enough, as we are talking about the same threads. I have even deliberately used the same language, so that if you really did want to know, you could easily search for these posts yourself. Since none of that has made one iota of difference, I can't imagine there is anything to be gained by listing posts so that we can rehash what each one meant. 

You've already made it clear that you don't much like my POV, so honest question, why would you even want to bother?


----------



## Created2Write

Miss Taken said:


> Yes, it's all just about self-improvement.
> 
> Because I also have Google and reading comprehension abilities, I thought I'd call bullsh!t on the above.
> 
> No One Would Have Died If PUAHate Killer Elliot Rodger Learned Game Link is to PUA site from which I got the following excerpt.
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s pick this apart for a second should we?
> 
> 
> 
> We entitled women duly punish men by existing whilst failing to give sex to those we don’t desire.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and? How unfair because men are _never _encouraged to bag as many chicks as possible before settling down like EVAR! (Except that it happens in most social circles save the strictly devout (and often even then).
> 
> 
> 
> "expected to keep his mouth shut"... as opposed to what? Freely slvt-shaming her for behaving the same way that men are encouraged to?
> 
> And yes, plucked, booby-trapped, snatched, kidnapped et al. as the man is helpless in his choice for a girlfriend or wife. And, "Informational TORTURE," 'nuff said.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, she’s tainted if she’s had another penis in her mouth and vagina before you. The traces of which will be left on the foreheads of your children at night when she puts them to bed. Dozens of penis imprints will be EVERYWHERE!!! Think of the steam-cleaning bills!
> 
> As for you though, Casanova-to-be; it doesn’t matter if you’ve performed cunnilingus, PIV and anal on multiple women – because that’s alpha. A woman sleeping around however – the thought of it is *torturous*. We’re supposed to be pure and chaste, only to turn into porn stars in the bedroom the minute you come along because your panty-dropping game should make us that way.
> 
> NO, there’s no entitlement there whatsoever. None.


Makes me sick that people could actually say those kinds of things. And I've seen many of those things said on this forum as well. Just...gross.


----------



## Created2Write

techmom said:


> Unfortunately, stats don't make me feel safe when my friends talk about having to cover their drink at the bar for fear of being drugged, having to travel in groups and carrying their keys in their hand while walking to their car in a dimly lit parking lot. These things among many are things women do to feel safe. We can't afford to leave things to stats.
> 
> Stats don't stop men from following you home. Stats don't stop men from raping a drunk girl at a party. We live in a world where it is acceptable to make excuses for rape and brutality against women, or to minimize it. Which is being done by men who throw around stats, like that would make a difference to me when I walk out of my house door.
> 
> Violence against women still happens and that makes us feel unsafe.


Precisely. And, as we see when he responded to your post, the danger is, again, belittled because of the "statistics". Men don't like it when women assume that men, in general, are dangerous. By holding my keys in my hand when I go through the parking lot, or picking up my phone and calling my husband so I can talk to him while I walk alone through the parking lot, I am assuming that any man I meet on the way to my car is potentially dangerous. Unfair? Sure. Necessary for my personal safety? Yep. 

I couldn't care less if I hurt a man's feelings, or make a man on this forum angry, by saying that yes, if I am alone at any time of day in a place without any witnesses around, and I see/pass a man, I am going to assume that he is dangerous. The "statistics" say that he probably isn't, and would sooner come to my rescue than harm me, but I am a petite woman with limited physical strength; I am not going to give a stranger that could easily overpower me the benefit of the doubt just because "the statistics" tell me I'm, probably, safe. Interestingly enough, *men* have they key to making these assumptions stop. Acknowledge the dangers women face, stop down-playing things like PUAs and MRAs and their opinions of women, work _with us_ to fight the problem, not sweep it under the rug, and we wouldn't have to choose between our own safety and whether or not we want to think men, in general, are dangerous. 

I *don't* actually think most men are dangerous. But if I am alone, I _am_ going to act like they are. I would absolutely LOVE not to be forced to make that choice. But, as things currently sit, it's a choice I have to make.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> This is the thing that folks aren't getting. It is not about men. It is not about their own individual guilt or innocence. It is about women's experience that drives her judgment of safety and respect. In a court of law, you are entitled to a presumption of innocence in the US. You are owed that. And it is right. In the court of interpersonal relationship, you just aren't. The attitude that you are owed a presumption of goodness out of the gate is like the first step to the notion that a man is owed a woman. Or love. Or sex.
> 
> Great men don't even take that first step. They march the other way. If you are a good man, then BE a good man. And the people in your life will see it. Will THAT woman right there that you just met necessarily see it? No. But she does not owe you a good opinion of you. Maybe it's her loss. But she does not owe you a chance to define how you are to be viewed BY HER.
> 
> I am using you in the rhetorical sense.


GREAT post. Absolutely 100% true. It doesn't have to be this way, either. But too many men(and women) are busy defending those who _aren't_ dangerous, that those who are go unnoticed until a tragedy occurs.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created2Write said:


> I *don't* actually think most men are dangerous. But if I am alone, I _am_ going to act like they are. I would absolutely LOVE not to be forced to make that choice. But, as things currently sit, it's a choice I have to make.


And you are actually far more likely to survive any kind of attack, because you are military trained and have guns. Yet even with those advantages, your chance at beating down an attacker are slim.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> "_In general we may say that the institutionalized behavior of humans has no homologue in animals. By this I mean not only war, but also the complex hierarchical structures...._"
> 
> Do primatologists today accept his assertion? I honestly don't know, but it does seem like there have been a lot of papers on lethal coalitionary aggression in chimpanzees since Dr. Adams wrote this.


I don't know enough about it either for a definitive comment, but it surely does seem that we humans have been increasingly humbled by the sophistication of animal social structures as we get to know more and more about them.

That said, I would think there's still room for quibbling on what counts as homologous. For example, chimps may have well coordinated raids, even rituals around them, but they don't yet have war rooms and arms races. And I think we still clearly "win" on the "red tape" criterion.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> And you are actually far more likely to survive any kind of attack, because you are military trained and have guns. Yet even with those advantages, your chance at beating down an attacker are slim.


I lock my doors every time I leave my car. I check to see if my windows are broken before I get back in, and I also look in my backseat to see if someone broke in and is hiding. I always park where there is/will be light in a parking lot. I always have my keys out and in my hand before I get to my car. When it's dark, I always call my husband when I'm walking to my vehicle. I always keep my head up, looking around so I know where people are around me. 

There was one time I was legitimately scared for my safety after rejecting a drunk guy at my college. He asked me twice for my phone number, and the number of the girl I was with, and I said no and told him I was married. He said, "They're always married" in an angry way and sulked off. He came back and said he asked because he wanted to have sex with me, and I repeated that I was married. He asked the friend I was eating with, and she was super shy and nice and froze up. I could tell she was intimidated, and he asked her twice for her number and she wouldn't say anything. I told him she had a boyfriend(which was true), and he, again, sulked off. I forgot about him until I went to leave for the day, and saw him sitting outside of the caffeteria. He'd been sitting there for over and hour. I was terrified that he was waiting for either of us. Luckily, she had class and walked away in the opposite direction. I was going to my car to leave, and took the largest key on my keychain and put it between my knuckles so it stuck out like it knife as I made a fist, and I walked confidently, and quickly, to my car. He didn't follow, and probably didn't even see me come out of the building, he was so drunk. But this was in broad daylight and I was terrified. 

So the dismissal of the dangers women face in this society from many of the men here feels not only intentional and personal, but cruel. I recently traveled to NY for a friend's graduation. I was by myself in a place I've never been before. I knew no one, apart from my friend and her family. I spent hours, alone, at the airport. I'd hired a private taxi service to take me to the ceremony and back to the airport, and I was on edge the entire time. There were two men who were in the van with me both from the airport and back to it, and they were very nice, showing me the different tourist places as we passed them, but I was still suspicious and scared. I had my phone always in my hands to text my husband or call 911 if something went wrong. 

I live with these things each and every day of my life. I can't tell you how many times I told myself on my trip, 'You're going to be fine. You're overreacting. Stop being so judgmental and presumptuous.' And then I hear on the radio about a man who lured young Mexican women to NY with promises of a better life, only to force them into prostitution, and the details of his upcoming trial. I remind myself that I am in a place where very few people expect to hear from me; I could disappear for hours before anyone would really notice, and by then, who knows where I'd be. It is mentally, emotionally, and physically exhausting, and to see it all belittled here only serves to reinforce just how serious this is. The sooner more men accept the seriousness of this tragedy and others like it, the sooner we can fight PUAs and MRAs and make society safer for women.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Again, I'm so confused about the "oh you women aren't safe, boo hoo" responses here. Utterly confused by it.

And again, it makes me appreciate my husband even more. Because he doesn't just care about *my* safety, he would say on any open forum and to any group of women that they are far more physically vulnerable than men and that there can predatory men lurking anywhere. It is irritating when some of the men here say "oh boo hoo" but then turn around and say "oh but of course I protect MY woman and of course I know there are predatory men out there". As if protecting their own woman is noble but saying "oh boo hoo, we don't care if you feel unsafe" to other women should be acceptable.

The only way we will change this is when MEN stand up against other MEN. My husband doesn't even know about the Elliot tragedy, yet he knows the mindset that kid had is held by many. How does he know this? He has heard it from men themselves his whole life. And when he encounters a man who has that mindset, he stands up to them if they are an acquaintance, and avoids them completely if they are not. He would never excuse the mindset and he would never befriend anyone with it, as he knows what that mindset leads to. He would never befriend such a man. Though he knows many men who also seem to excuse those men with "boys will be boys" stuff and he scratches his head, too.

I'm not talking about just wanting sex or a girlfriend, I'm talking about the objectification of women to the extent that it becomes the potential for violence or rape. Yes, men do talk like this to each other. And in my husband's opinion, if a man stands by for it silently, he's condoning it.


----------



## Runs like Dog

It really speaks to motive. The fact that the leading cause of death for women in the workplace is murder, has less to do with 'misogyny' and almost entirely about domestic violence - which isn't misogyny it's domestic violence. 

Are we clear?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Mansplaining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are we clear?


----------



## Created2Write

Wanting to oppress and control women is an aspect of misogyny _and_ a motivation for domestic violence against women, therefore misogyny is an underlying root of domestic violence against women, Runslikeadog. It is, actually, very clear if people want it to be. One of the issues here is that too many men don't want it to be clear. And, really, I get it. Misogyny is used for the motivation for a lot of things, and I think a lot of men have gotten tired of it. Extreme feminism is partly to blame for this I think, which is unfortunate because it actually hurts the cause of equality. 

But even that is just a cop out. The people who can make the most difference in this by rising to the occasion and standing _with_ women in the fight against misogyny by calling it out in tragedies like this, and thereby doing away with a lot of the dangers women face(and, ipso facto, doing away with the need for women to see men, in general, as dangerous for their own safety), are *men*. Ironically, the very fact that so many men are so averse to the idea that misogyny could be a motivator in this situation actually proves that women are right to make such an assumption; not so much that the men here are or would be dangerous at all, but that they simply do not see the very serious and present dangers women face every day. Until you(men in general) see these prevalent dangers, we(women in general) will be left to the best that we can do ourselves, which really isn't much in the face of men boiling with hatred and rage against our entire sex.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Mansplaining - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Are we clear?


There is SO MUCH of this that goes around. Ugh.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> There is SO MUCH of this that goes around. Ugh.


This thread has been full of virtual head pats.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> We are just going to have to agree to disagree on this. Ample evidence has been repeatedly posted on this thread that shows the killer's *stated motive* was to kill women who deserved it, and that his reasons for killing those men *also* had to to do with his hatred of women.


We know the killer's stated motive. What we were discussing is the idea that someone here said that kind of misogyny isn't a big deal. I've seen nobody say that.




> *All* of the quotes and links on this thread pointing to misogyny have been the former, eg saying that women deserve to be beaten or to die, that Rodgers is some kind of hero and so on. Sickening stuff.


Ok, if that is the case, then I agree. But I need to see this for myself since you refuse to point out the posts.

And now you are saying that someone else is implying Rodgers is some kind of hero??
I know you aren't going to like this, but again, here goes.....WHO said this and what post was it?



> And yet several posters called it "harmless", "just venting", "tavern" talk, and pathetic men who really just want to be good guys.


Please show me the post(s)



> I know, I know, you want me to link to these exact posts so you can tell me whether said posters really meant that, or whether you think I'm a man-hating smoke blower.


No, because if that is what is really happening, I would agree with you.





> Well, let me save you some time and trouble: No doubt you'll find several reasons to justify what these posters have said.


Not if you are telling the truth about what they said. I'm one of these guys that if I read it and you are correct, there isn't any point in me denying it. It would appall me if someone thought this guy was, as you say, a hero or that it was just "harmless" talk when obviously it wasn't since he went on a killing rampage.

So I'd like to know who said someone that said the things Rodgers said is "harmless" especially after he went on a rampage.




> I have given you example after example which I thought would be enough



No, you gave me YOUR words in a "heard it through the grapevine" sort of way.

Its obvious that you are either completely lying about someone here thinking he is a hero, or twisting what they say. Its obvious because you can't, or don't want to show us who actually said the things of which you accuse them.




> as we are talking about the same threads. I have even deliberately used the same language, so that if you really did want to know, you could easily search for these posts yourself.


That's a cop out. If you know exactly which posts they are, then you can get them quick.

And I can't find them if I'm not seeing them. And I am not seeing them because I don't believe anyone said anything remotely close to what you are saying they are.

If I accuse someone of saying something, and someone asks me who said it, I'll point them right out to the post so they can see their own words for themselves.



> Since none of that has made one iota of difference, I can't imagine there is anything to be gained by listing posts so that we can rehash what each one meant. You've already made it clear that you don't much like my POV, so honest question, why would you even want to bother?


Nice cop out again.

You won't produce that which backs up your accusations because you can't.

So there you have it folks. Next time she goes on one of "those men" rants and accuses someone of saying something that wasn't said, just take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Or maybe someone could just stop reading her posts and not respond to them if they don't like what she's saying? Plenty of us know exactly what she's saying and what she means.


----------



## Created2Write

Vellocet, the fact that you're more concerned about proving a poster on this forum to be what you think her to be, rather than actually discussing the topic at hand(you know...the crazy misogynistic killer who hated women and wanted to beat the sh!t out of them) is just another example of why posters like AA and myself, and others on this thread, take this so seriously. You're more concerned with yourself than the safety of the women you're talking to, as are many other men in this thread. Frankly, I think she's right not to waste her time.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> This thread has been full of virtual head pats.


Yep. Some have come dangerously close to patting Rogers on the head, too. But very few of the men will see it that way. It is interesting, I think, that some of the primary PUA pushers on this forum have disappeared. lol. Good timing, eh?


----------



## LongWalk

Created2Write said:


> Someone else already posted quotes of him from the PUAhate website, where* he's* talking about men beating the sh!t out of women. I've seen very much the same attitude on many different PUA websites, so don't tell me they're not related.


He's talking about assaulting women. Do PUA sites recommend beating up women to get laid? That is rape. I though PUA was supposed to seduce or persuade.


----------



## Created2Write

LongWalk said:


> He's talking about assaulting women. Do PUA sites recommend beating up women to get laid? That is rape. I though PUA was supposed to seduce or persuade.


Yeah, PUAs try really hard to make it sound innocent. I've read far too many PUA forums where physical intimidation was encouraged and discussed. And if a woman dared to reject them? The universal responses were that she was a b!tch and he "wished he could have put her in her place" or he "wished he'd smacked her into submission" and many other violent reactions like that.

PUAs here have tried to convince me that it's harmless, but all you have to do is read the many forums on failed pick-up attempts, and the contempt these losers have for women becomes very clear. I have yet to meet a true PUA who didn't hate women, no mater how much they tried to argue the other way.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes, many PUA sites advocate date rape. Basically, "seduction" to them means, get them drunk and don't listen to a "no". And those are the NICE ones. The worst ones literally line out a rape plan.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Yes, many PUA sites advocate date rape. Basically, "seduction" to them means, get them drunk and don't listen to a "no".


And this A LOT. "She doesn't mean what she says. She just playing hard to get. Even if she's physically pushing against you and saying no, she'll give in eventually. Just keep pushing. The moment you back off is the moment you've lost her. You'll look week if you second-guess yourself, so don't." A literal piece of "advice" I saw given on a PUA forum. 

Another guy agreed and said that if she kept saying no, slamming his fist into the wall behind her would break down her final inhibitions. 

Another guy said that the OP was an idiot who hadn't gotten her drunk enough.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> There is SO MUCH of this that goes around. Ugh.


Yes it does. One of my female colleagues has to talk to people about issues with electricity and distribution with customers. Men will call her and assume she knows nothing because she is a woman, and I only know this because I hear her talking to them and you can tell she is trying to explain something to some pig headed jerk.

I did get one of the calls from one of the guys she talked to when he called back later and he told me that she doesn't know what she is talking about. I would have loved to have told him that she knows more than his dumb ass, because it was obvious when talking to him, but I'd have lost my job.
But I did tell him in a nice way that what she described to him was 100% accurate. But his chauvinist ass probably didn't get that I was telling him that he doesn't know jack.


----------



## vellocet

Faithful Wife said:


> Or maybe someone could just stop reading her posts and not respond to them if they don't like what she's saying? Plenty of us know exactly what she's saying and what she means.


She could do the same of these guys who supposedly are saying what she says they are.

Works both ways.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> Yes it does. One of my female colleagues has to talk to people about issues with electricity and distribution with customers. Men will call her and assume she knows nothing because she is a woman, and I only know this because I hear her talking to them and you can tell she is trying to explain something to some pig headed jerk.
> 
> I did get one of the calls from one of the guys she talked to when he called back later and he told me that she doesn't know what she is talking about. I would have loved to have told him that she knows more than his dumb ass, because it was obvious when talking to him, but I'd have lost my job.
> But I did tell him in a nice way that what she described to him was 100% accurate. But his chauvinist ass probably didn't get that I was telling him that he doesn't know jack.


:smthumbup:


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> She could do the same of these guys who supposedly are saying what she says they are.
> 
> Works both ways.


Classic turn around. lol. Never mind _you_, keep pointing it all back to her.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> Vellocet, the fact that you're more concerned about proving a poster on this forum to be what you think her to be, rather than actually discussing the topic at hand(you know...the crazy misogynistic killer who hated women and wanted to beat the sh!t out of them) is just another example of why posters like AA and myself, and others on this thread, take this so seriously.


I was addressing the topic at hand by asking her to provide that which she claims is happening, so that someone, mainly a man, myself, can stand up with her and denigrate a guy who is out of line and denounce misogynistic comments.




> You're more concerned with yourself than the safety of the women you're talking to, as are many other men in this thread. Frankly, I think she's right not to waste her time.


It simple, she lied about what men are saying here. Not talking about the statistics of the likelihood of a woman being attacked, because stats are irrelevant to that.

Do you not find it odd that she is even now saying that men here are insinuating that this nutjob is a "hero" to them?

The issues in this thread are real. The women here have good arguments about the issue of misogyny.

But those issues are impossible to discuss with someone whose sole purpose for being on this site, a marriage site, is to fill the majority of her threads/posts with negative comments about men, and lie about what men are saying here.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> Classic turn around. lol. Never mind _you_, keep pointing it all back to her.


LOL. Problem is she is getting all worked up about things that didn't happen. 

So not only am I not supposed to read her posts if I don't like her words, but nobody suggests the she not read the posts if she doesn't like the words that weren't even written to begin with? :rofl:

And the defense of someone who hates men and has to lie about what men say here do not help the legitimate arguments the other women are making.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always is making plenty of legitimate statements, she does not "hate men", and she is not lying about anything.

The fact that you see it otherwise is just one more example of the whole problem with trying to talk about this with men on TAM. 

Thankfully we have those like Concerned Dad who get it.


----------



## vellocet

Faithful Wife said:


> Always is making plenty of legitimate statements, she does not "hate men", and she is not lying about anything.


Ok, who here is she talking about that thinks this Rodgers is a "hero"?

And she does not hate men? Ok.

Let me ask you this. If a man comes to this site and about 80% of his posts where negative comments about women, you would say that he doesn't hate women? Or at the very least doesn't like them much?




> The fact that you see it otherwise is just one more example of the whole problem with trying to talk about this with men on TAM.


I have told her if these men are saying what she is saying, especially saying that this guy's words were "harmless" after he went on a hate filled rampage, or that any man here thinks this guy is a "hero" as she has claimed, I'll be the first to call him out.

But she can't tell me who said or implied these things, because it didn't happen. You say I'm not seeing it. Well show me and if I'm wrong, like I said, I'll be the first, I'm assuming, to call him/them out on it.

I'm not talking about her general idea of the problem of misogyny or what this guy did. He is a misogynist and part of his rampage was fueled by it.

I'm calling her out on her lying that men here think this guy is a hero or that they said THIS guy's misogynistic views were not a problem with regards to his rampage. They absolutely were PART of it. I think AA DOES make a lot of legitimate statements and arguments. But claiming what men here are saying when nothing of the sort was said is not one of them.

You say she isn't lying about anything. Ok, maybe you can help her out. We'll just focus on one of her claims, her most recent. 
WHO said or implied that this guy is some sort of "hero"? If you don't know, then you can't claim she isn't lying. And if you do know, then you can prove that she wasn't at least lying about that, and I'll jump the guy's sh#t


----------



## Faithful Wife

Good luck with your issue.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> I was addressing the topic at hand by asking her to provide that which she claims is happening, so that someone, mainly a man, myself, can stand up with her and denigrate a guy who is out of line and denounce misogynistic comments.


There are other posters showing what this guy said on forums before the attack. Go back and read those posts and respond. But don't use this thread as a platform to attack another poster just because you don't like her.




> It simple, she lied about what men are saying here. Not talking about the statistics of the likelihood of a woman being attacked, because stats are irrelevant to that.
> 
> Do you not find it odd that she is even now saying that men here are insinuating that this nutjob is a "hero" to them?
> 
> The issues in this thread are real. The women here have good arguments about the issue of misogyny.
> 
> But those issues are impossible to discuss with someone whose sole purpose for being on this site, a marriage site, is to fill the majority of her threads/posts with negative comments about men, and lie about what men are saying here.


Then put her on ignore. But stop acting like you're doing anyone a favor. By responding to her and not the thread or situation being discussed you're justifying her views and responses.


----------



## vellocet

Faithful Wife said:


> Good luck with your issue.


:lol:


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> There are other posters showing what this guy said on forums before the attack. Go back and read those posts and respond. But don't use this thread as a platform to attack another poster just because you don't like her.


Ok, you aren't following. I'm not talking about what this Rodgers guy said. With her comments on him I completely agree.

I'm asking her to show where the men on THIS FORUM are considering him a "hero", among other things she is accusing men on THIS FORUM of saying.




> Then put her on ignore. But stop acting like you're doing anyone a favor. By responding to her and not the thread or situation being discussed you're justifying her views and responses.


I'm justifying her lying about what men said in this thread?

I'd ask her to ignore those men who are saying this Rodgers guy is their hero. But how do you ignore that which didn't happen?


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> LOL. Problem is she is getting all worked up about things that didn't happen.
> 
> So not only am I not supposed to read her posts if I don't like her words, but nobody suggests the she not read the posts if she doesn't like the words that weren't even written to begin with? :rofl:
> 
> And the defense of someone who hates men and has to lie about what men say here do not help the legitimate arguments the other women are making.


I have encouraged her to put you and others on ignore on more than one occasion. It's her choice if she does or not. I don't think she hates men. I think her views are biased in some ways, and even she has admitted that. But responses like yours only serve to support her views. And you seem to enjoy stirring up trouble with her and others, and then others follow suit, also supporting the idea that others are out to get her. 

I think you both should put the others on ignore.


----------



## Created2Write

Velocity, this thread is littered with men saying misogyny wasn't an issue in this circumstance. I will go back through and show you each one.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> Ok, you aren't following. I'm not talking about what this Rodgers guy said. With her comments on him I completely agree.
> 
> I'm asking her to show where the men on THIS FORUM are considering him a "hero", among other things she is accusing men on THIS FORUM of saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm justifying her lying about what men said in this thread?
> 
> I'd ask her to ignore those men who are saying this Rodgers guy is their hero. But how do you ignore that which didn't happen?


I don't think she said men HERE think him a hero, rather men on PUA and MRA forums do. Men here have said misogyny wasn't involved in Elliot's rampage; I think you're combining the two statements.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> I have encouraged her to put you and others on ignore on more than one occasion. It's her choice if she does or not. I don't think she hates men. I think her views are biased in some ways, and even she has admitted that.


So if a man comes to this site and probably about 80% of his posts are negative towards women or complaining about women, then his views are just "biased in some ways"?





> But responses like yours only serve to support her views.


By calling her out on the lies about what men are saying here support her views? Uh...ok. :scratchhead:

Now if I'd have told her that her views on what this Rodgers guy did are wrong, then you'd be absolutely correct.
But why does she have to lie about what other men on this forum are saying to try to further her agenda?

If she has something to prove, or and agenda, which is obvious, and her views are correct, she wouldn't have to make things up about what someone else said, or in this case didn't say.


----------



## LongWalk

re: men needing to stand up for women because of the misogynists among us

In junior high school – could it have been 7th or 8th grade? – we had a mixed gym class in the pool, a rare event. We all wore 100% black nylon swimsuits that were provided by the school. The fabric hung a little loosely and the folds some how revealed more of our changing bodies than tight fitting suits would have.

When we came out of the locker room to the pool we hopped in and started swimming. The teacher was not there. We all noticed R, a very pretty blond girl who had gotten the curves of a woman while many boys had just a wisp of pubic hair. R's father was a wealthy local businessman. She was very careful to be one of the girls so that she would not be attacked by jealousy female classmates.

Her looks and popularity made her a potential target for misogyny by other young women. No ideology was involved. Merely envy and jealousy. I remember her always being diplomatic. She played the dumb blond but she had an acute sense of how vulnerable she was.

There was an example of what could happen, J, a new girl who came in 6th or 7th grade. She was tall and completely developed as a woman. She acted maturely. She didn't giggle foolishly. For her maturity she was ruthlessly bullied and ostrasized. The teachers were horrified. Both boys and girls were mean to her. No one defended by being her friend. She left the school after 3 months of hell. We got a lecture on how horrible we had been and how she had suffered a nervous brake down.

R must have seen this and sensed the danger. Of course others were also bullied but for different reasons.

Back to the swimming pool. G a big overweight stupid boy (personality disorder of some kind?) started to feel R up in the pool. He was molesting her. I remember his retarded laughter. Several other boys immediately joined in. R's embarrassed laughter quickly became panic. I was on the outside of the group, wishing that I too could partake of this sudden sexual opportunity. But I heard R crying out in fear and panic. She was being drowned by all the hands seeking breasts and more. I could not see the what my classmates were reaching for, but I knew without knowing how.

I felt ashamed that they were hurting her, threatening her life. I don't think I did anything. The pool was full of children but R was alone in this ordeal with 5 or 6 group would be rapists.

Suddenly the gym teacher appeared and rescued her. He was tough guy and all the boys melted away. R was sobbing hysterically in his arms. I don't remember any consequences, any lecture, any punishment.

I wish I could apologize to her even this day.

Those who empower inchoate misogyny are not only men but women. Women whose sexual jealousy encourages men to do things like slvt shame. I am sure that women have accompanied or even lured their "friends" to fraternities to be raped because it had already happened to them and/or they wanted to earn points with those men.

People are complicated. There are complicated games being played.

Vellocet is trying to explain that. But he is getting slammed. It is a kind of bullying.

This evening at my ex's place there was party for our D soon 19 to celebrate graduation from gymnasium (high school). My ex's ex boyfriend was there and her new one, plus me her ex. How strange was that, but I digress.

An old friend was there. A doctor (MD/PhD) who studies brain chemistry. She is absolutely an intelligent and opinionated person. She noted that her 16 year old son, who is popular with the girls, was having trouble understanding feminism. In his class the hypercritical feminist teenage girls are constantly calling out the boys for being male chauvinist swine, even though they have done nothing. Super aggressive feminism is often just shxt test bullying without any deeper understanding.

Yes, there are jerks, losers and misogynists among PUA and MRA, but there are misandrists and misogynists and beetchs among some women's rights groups. Neither men nor women have a monoply on dishonesty self justification in defense of their rights, i.e., what their selfish genes desire.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> Velocity, this thread is littered with men saying misogyny wasn't an issue in this circumstance. I will go back through and show you each one.


Well point me to one of them, because it obviously WAS part of his rampage. 

Did someone say it flat out had absolutely no part in his rampage, or that it wasn't his sole motivation?

If someone said that it flat out had no part to play, they are wrong.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yeah...poor Vellocet. He's getting slammed and bullied. Funny how you don't see what he is doing as slamming and bullying. He's innocent in this. Sure.

And thanks for sharing the molestation story...that was...sad and painful and most women have experienced something similar which is what we've all been saying. What exactly was the point there? That WOMEN share in the blame for what happened to her? Yeah, thanks.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> I don't think she said men HERE think him a hero, rather men on PUA and MRA forums do. Men here have said misogyny wasn't involved in Elliot's rampage; I think you're combining the two statements.





always_alone said:


> *All* of the quotes and links on this thread pointing to misogyny have been the former, eg saying that women deserve to be beaten or to die, that Rodgers is some kind of hero and so on. Sickening stuff.
> 
> And yet several posters called it "harmless", "just venting", "tavern" talk, and pathetic men who really just want to be good guys.


She said this in response to my asking who was saying these things. I can concede about the "hero" part as if I read it again, it looks as if she is saying all of the quotes on this thread are saying Rodgers is some kind of hero. Perhaps she meant links to other sites.

I took it to mean someone here said Rodgers is some kind of hero. And maybe she didn't.

But she said earlier that men were calling Rodgers words "harmless", now she is saying that they are saying men that think he is a hero are "harmless"? The goal posts kind of moved there. Either way, I'd like to know who thinks either Rodgers words were harmless or the men that think he is a hero are.


----------



## vellocet

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah...poor Vellocet. He's getting slammed and bullied. Funny how you don't see what he is doing as slamming and bullying. He's innocent in this. Sure.


Wag the dog. Care to step up to the plate and prove that men here are defending what this Rodgers did since AA won't back up her assertions? Of course not.

Carry on.


----------



## LongWalk

Faithful Wife said:


> Yeah...poor Vellocet. He's getting slammed and bullied. Funny how you don't see what he is doing as slamming and bullying. He's innocent in this. Sure.
> 
> And thanks for sharing the molestation story...that was...sad and painful and most women have experienced something similar which is what we've all been saying. What exactly was the point there? That WOMEN share in the blame for what happened to her? Yeah, thanks.


The point was stated clearly. Women participate in misogyny and/or enable it when is suits them. People are social animals and to achieve their own agenda, they will gang up on others. I don't feel sorry for Vellocet. He is a grown up and not afraid of speaking up.

Women do nasty things to other women. Why?


----------



## vellocet

LongWalk said:


> The point was stated clearly. Women participate in misogyny and/or enable it when is suits them. People are social animals and to achieve their own agenda, they will gang up on others. I don't feel sorry for Vellocet. He is a grown up and not afraid of speaking up.


Don't worry about it. I got a thick skin.

I agree with just about everything the other women here have said about the issue.

What I don't agree with, and will call out, is someone lying about what other men have said here in an attempt to further their agenda. And to defend that behavior and suggest that I should ignore that person is excusing bad behavior. If anyone wants to agree or defend her points on the topic, I have no problem with that or her points.

But don't defend baseless accusations of what men on this thread are saying.


----------



## Faithful Wife

LongWalk said:


> Women do nasty things to other women. Why?


If you would like to start another thread to discuss this, I'd participate.

Otherwise, since it has nothing to do with the topic of Elliot or men's misogyny, meh. Nice attempt at diversion.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Well point me to one of them, because it obviously WAS part of his rampage.
> 
> Did someone say it flat out had absolutely no part in his rampage, or that it wasn't his sole motivation?
> 
> If someone said that it flat out had no part to play, they are wrong.


Like 2 pages ago someone said he hated everyone, it was not woman hate.


----------



## LongWalk

Almost forgot. A friend of mine's daughter is studying in California and lived on the street where Rodgers killed those women. She heard the gun shots. Unbelievable. His is trying hard to understand the NRA, which is hard for a European woman.

She told her father she might study self defense.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> Wag the dog. Care to step up to the plate and prove that men here are defending what this Rodgers did since AA won't back up her assertions? Of course not.
> 
> Carry on.


Jesus God. Go read the thread. It's not that bad. Men have it much worse. Blah dee blah. I think Mr Chip has selective reading disorder. And a healthy does of selective understanding disorder.


----------



## John Lee

Well I'm late to the thread, but I'll bite. Yeah, I think misogyny played a role here, although it's obviously not the only factor or else there would be a lot more shootings. I think boys get the wrong message about women, maybe partly because we're so afraid to tell the truth and so afraid of hurting people's feelings. Boys should learn that beautiful women don't have to like them just for existing, that attraction is not a level playing field, that no one is entitled to unconditional love from anyone other than their parents. I think if boys learned this at an earlier age, they wouldn't have such anger when they discover it for themselves later.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> She said this in response to my asking who was saying these things. I can concede about the "hero" part as if I read it again, it looks as if she is saying all of the quotes on this thread are saying Rodgers is some kind of hero. Perhaps she meant links to other sites.
> 
> I took it to mean someone here said Rodgers is some kind of hero. And maybe she didn't.
> 
> But she said earlier that men were calling Rodgers words "harmless", now she is saying that they are saying men that think he is a hero are "harmless"? The goal posts kind of moved there. Either way, I'd like to know who thinks either Rodgers words were harmless or the men that think he is a hero are.


Again, not quotes of posters here, quotes of posters in the links to other forums calling Rogers a hero and harmless. 

Here are the post numbers to the posters who said Rogers rampage wasn't about misogyny: 15, 29, 32, 35, 75, 78, 80, 82, 108, 110, 114, 115, 175, 190, 194, 246, 247, 256, 261, 264, 267, 290, 311, 347, 355, 450, 454, 455, 475, and I only got to page 34.


----------



## Created2Write

Vellocet, I think you see what you want to see with AA. Your only participation in this thread has been based on you thinking she's lying, which really is just an attempt to stir up trouble. Reportable to the mods, btw. I've already pointed out one way you could've misunderstood her, I think it's extremely likely that you've misunderstood her altogether.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> Again, not quotes of posters here, quotes of posters in the links to other forums calling Rogers a hero and harmless.
> 
> Here are the post numbers to the posters who said Rogers rampage wasn't about misogyny: 15, 29, 32, 35, 75, 78, 80, 82, 108, 110, 114, 115, 175, 190, 194, 246, 247, 256, 261, 264, 267, 290, 311, 347, 355, 450, 454, 455, 475, and I only got to page 34.


32 was my favorite.


> Sorry but this goes way beyond misogyny. This young man was flawed from seemingly the beginning.


Because, you know, mysogyny is sort of ok. But THIS is flawed.


----------



## Created2Write

Oh, and my list did not include the numerous posts of posters I currently have on ignore.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> Oh, and my list did not include the numerous posts of posters I currently have on ignore.


I can't figure out how to do that.


----------



## EleGirl

John Lee said:


> Well I'm late to the thread, but I'll bite. Yeah, I think misogyny played a role here, although it's obviously not the only factor or else there would be a lot more shootings. I think boys get the wrong message about women, maybe partly because we're so afraid to tell the truth and so afraid of hurting people's feelings. Boys should learn that beautiful women don't have to like them just for existing, that attraction is not a level playing field, that no one is entitled to unconditional love from anyone other than their parents. I think if boys learned this at an earlier age, they wouldn't have such anger when they discover it for themselves later.


You must have missed the discussion on why he did not kill more. ..especially more females. The I reason. Is that when he went to the sorority house where he planned a blood bath, the door was locked. He bo u nded on the door for a while. But none of the girls paid attention. ..so no one open opened the door. If he had gained a access to the sorority as he planned the number of deaths would have been a lot higher.

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cosmos

John Lee said:


> Well I'm late to the thread, but I'll bite. Yeah, I think misogyny played a role here, although it's obviously not the only factor or else there would be a lot more shootings. I think boys get the wrong message about women, maybe partly because we're so afraid to tell the truth and so afraid of hurting people's feelings. Boys should learn that beautiful women don't have to like them just for existing, that attraction is not a level playing field, that no one is entitled to unconditional love from anyone other than their parents. I think if boys learned this at an earlier age, they wouldn't have such anger when they discover it for themselves later.


:iagree:

I think we're all agreed that Rodgers had mental health issues. However, whether those issues alone caused him to be a misogynist doesn't detract from the fact that he clearly was a very dangerous one.

Had his obsession been race, homophobia or religion, it would have been just as important for us to examine those toxic prejudices as it is for us to examine misogyny.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> I can't figure out how to do that.


It's in your user CP on the left.


----------



## Created2Write

His intentions were to kill WOMEN. The men were killed because they were there.


----------



## John Lee

Cosmos said:


> :iagree:
> 
> I think we're all agreed that Rodgers had mental health issues. However, whether those issues alone caused him to be a misogynist doesn't detract from the fact that he clearly was a very dangerous one.
> 
> Had his obsession been race, homophobia or religion, it would have been just as important for us to examine those toxic prejudices as it is for us to examine misogyny.


Right. One of the questions that came to mind was "If this guy shot a bunch of black people, would we call him a racist?" I think we would. The guy hated women, he was deeply angry at women. This is really obvious if you read any of the stuff he wrote, which is perfectly coherent and clear even if it's messed up. Was he also unhinged and disturbed? Sure. But he wasn't responding to the alien voices in his head, he thought a certain way about the world and acted on it, to get revenge.


----------



## John Lee

EleGirl said:


> You must have missed the discussion on why he did not kill more. ..especially more females. The I reason. Is that when he went to the sorority house where he planned a blood bath, the door was locked. He bo u nded on the door for a while. But none of the girls paid attention. ..so no one open opened the door. If he had gained a access to the sorority as he planned the number of deaths would have been a lot higher.
> 
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Sorry, what I meant by "there would be a lot more shootings" was that if misogyny was the only cause here, there would be a lot more men out shooting women, because there are a lot of misogynists in the world and most of them don't kill.


----------



## Cosmos

Created2Write said:


> His intentions were to kill WOMEN. The men were killed because they were there.


And because Rodgers saw them as more successful with women than he was. If he couldn't have women, other men wouldn't either.


----------



## LongWalk

The first three men he killed were his roommates. They were all Chinese American, weren't they? Did racism have something to do with it?

He started with them. The beginning of a mass murder suicide might be significant. How do you know what he was thinking?


----------



## NobodySpecial

John Lee said:


> Right. One of the questions that came to mind was "If this guy shot a bunch of black people, would we call him a racist?" I think we would. The guy hated women, he was deeply angry at women. This is really obvious if you read any of the stuff he wrote, which is perfectly coherent and clear even if it's messed up. Was he also unhinged and disturbed? Sure. But he wasn't responding to the alien voices in his head, he thought a certain way about the world and acted on it, to get revenge.


I think the distinction that he needed to be mentally ill OR misogynistic is errant. Stir those TWO things a soup pot and what a mix. But the thing is, there is enough misogyny around the ether and whatnot, some of it is going to stick on crazy people.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> It's in your user CP on the left.


Oh yeah. I used to even know that. Thanks.


----------



## Created2Write

LongWalk said:


> The first three men he killed were his roommates. They were all Chinese American, weren't they? Did racism have something to do with it?
> 
> He started with them. The beginning of a mass murder suicide might be significant. How do you know what he was thinking?


His plans were recorded in videos and his manifesto. His intentions were to kill a sorority of women.


----------



## Cosmos

John Lee said:


> Right. One of the questions that came to mind was "If this guy shot a bunch of black people, would we call him a racist?" I think we would. The guy hated women, he was deeply angry at women. This is really obvious if you read any of the stuff he wrote, which is perfectly coherent and clear even if it's messed up. Was he also unhinged and disturbed? Sure. But he wasn't responding to the alien voices in his head, he thought a certain way about the world and acted on it, to get revenge.


:iagree:

I think most people would agree that Hitler was undoubtedly mentally ill, but we tend to call him a Nazi rather than a madman - even though he was probably both...


----------



## NobodySpecial

LongWalk said:


> The first three men he killed were his roommates. They were all Chinese American, weren't they? Did racism have something to do with it?
> 
> He started with them. The beginning of a mass murder suicide might be significant. How do you know what he was thinking?


The lengths you go to fail to see that which is as clear as day is amazing. I can't help wonder why.


----------



## Cosmos

LongWalk said:


> The first three men he killed were his roommates. They were all Chinese American, weren't they? Did racism have something to do with it?
> 
> He started with them. The beginning of a mass murder suicide might be significant. How do you know what he was thinking?


Because he stated what he was thinking very clearly in his manifesto.


----------



## Created2Write

NobodySpecial said:


> The lengths you go to fail to see that which is as clear as day is amazing. I can't help wonder why.


This is also happening a lot.


----------



## John Lee

There was just a muslim guy who shot a jewish couple in Belgium in a museum. I haven't heard anyone say he was "insane" yet. I mean, he probably had mental health issues too. I'll bet a lot of terrorists do.


----------



## EleGirl

John Lee said:


> There was just a muslim guy who shot a jewish couple in Belgium in a museum. I haven't heard anyone say he was "insane" yet. I mean, he probably had mental health issues too. I'll bet a lot of terrorists do.


Thanks for clarification. I do however disagree that with the reason you think that misogyny was not what drove him to murder. We all have free will. Just because most misogynists choose to not kill women, it does not mean that none would

Further men who hate women kill women all the time. There are women who are murdered for no reason other then the fact that they are women. I was almost a victim of this kind of murder when i was 21. Some guy just walked up to me as I got out of my car after work one night. And he just started to try to kill me.

What do you think rape is? It's a crime based on hate.

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

John Lee said:


> There was just a muslim guy who shot a jewish couple in Belgium in a museum. I haven't heard anyone say he was "insane" yet. I mean, he probably had mental health issues too. I'll bet a lot of terrorists do.


Have you read elliot rogers manifesto and watched the videos.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LongWalk

Cosmos said:


> Because he stated what he was thinking very clearly in his manifesto.


Consider deeds as well as words.


----------



## Faithful Wife

And.....another one hits the ignore list.

Much better!


----------



## Cosmos

LongWalk said:


> Consider deeds as well as words.


I think lots of consideration has been given to his deeds!

Had his plan to gain access to the sorority house not been thwarted, his deeds would have been a lot worse...


----------



## Created2Write

If I were to write a manifesto about hating homosexuals and how I was going to go shoot up a gay bar, but when I got to the bar couldn't get in and as I went around the back ended up shooting a few heterosexuals, would you say I wasn't a big got? Plans can go awry. Just because his plan wasn't executed the way he wanted doesn't mean the plans aren't relevant. 

If an attempted terrorist attack is prevented, does the person cease to be a terrorist?

If a person plans to kill black people and, in the process kills a few white people, do they cease to be racist? Or if they plan to kill black people, but don't actually act, do they cease to be racist even though they DO hate black people and want to kill them.

If a person is stopped before they steal a car, do they cease to be a thief?

These arguments don't work in any other example, yet so many men insist this situation is different. Makes me even more terrified for myself in society. I also noticed that my posts about fear in situations went ignored by the men here.


----------



## LongWalk

Originally Posted by LongWalk 
The first three men he killed were his roommates. They were all Chinese American, weren't they? Did racism have something to do with it?

He started with them. The beginning of a mass murder suicide might be significant. How do you know what he was thinking?



NobodySpecial said:


> The lengths you go to fail to see that which is as clear as day is amazing. I can't help wonder why.


He wanted to kill women to punish women for rejecting him. He was a misogynist. This is undisputable. Who is denying this?

Please explain why he killed his roommates?

He chose to do it with a knife (knives). He must have planned to do this so that they would be unable to resist or cry out in warning. He planned it, don't you think? What is the difference between the evil of the way he murdered the women and men?


----------



## Created2Write

I was thinking the same FW.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have really enjoyed the Good Men Project during this tragedy. They have story after story about how messed up this crap is, and they keep asking men to stop with the NAMALT crap.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I have really enjoyed the Good Men Project during this tragedy. They have story after story about how messed up this crap is, and they keep asking men to stop with the NAMALT crap.


This really gives me hope for the future. The number of men defending PUAs and MRAs makes me not want to bring kids into this world.


----------



## NobodySpecial

LongWalk said:


> Originally Posted by LongWalk
> The first three men he killed were his roommates. They were all Chinese American, weren't they? Did racism have something to do with it?
> 
> He started with them. The beginning of a mass murder suicide might be significant. How do you know what he was thinking?
> 
> 
> 
> He wanted to kill women to punish women for rejecting him. He was a misogynist. This is undisputable. Who is denying this?
> 
> Please explain why he killed his roommates?
> 
> He chose to do it with a knife (knives). He must have planned to do this so that they would be unable to resist or cry out in warning. He planned it, don't you think? What is the difference between the evil of the way he murdered the women and men?


What IS your point?


----------



## EleGirl

Cosmos said:


> I think you've mixed me up with another poster, EG


I meant to respond to John Lee. Fixed it... hate posting on my cell.


----------



## Created2Write

It either is misogyny or it isn't. That he also killed his roommates doesn't change that. His intentions, outlined in his manifesto, clearly indicates his hatred of women. I'm sure he also hated the men getting sex instead of him, like most PUAs, but he was motivated by his hatred of women for rejecting him and choosing other men.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> Again, I'm so confused about the "oh you women aren't safe, boo hoo" responses here. Utterly confused by it.
> 
> And again, it makes me appreciate my husband even more. Because he doesn't just care about *my* safety, he would say on any open forum and to any group of women that they are far more physically vulnerable than men and that there can predatory men lurking anywhere. It is irritating when some of the men here say "oh boo hoo" but then turn around and say "oh but of course I protect MY woman and of course I know there are predatory men out there". As if protecting their own woman is noble but saying "oh boo hoo, we don't care if you feel unsafe" to other women should be acceptable.
> 
> The only way we will change this is when MEN stand up against other MEN. My husband doesn't even know about the Elliot tragedy, yet he knows the mindset that kid had is held by many. How does he know this? He has heard it from men themselves his whole life. And when he encounters a man who has that mindset, he stands up to them if they are an acquaintance, and avoids them completely if they are not. He would never excuse the mindset and he would never befriend anyone with it, as he knows what that mindset leads to. He would never befriend such a man. Though he knows many men who also seem to excuse those men with "boys will be boys" stuff and he scratches his head, too.
> 
> I'm not talking about just wanting sex or a girlfriend, I'm talking about the objectification of women to the extent that it becomes the potential for violence or rape. Yes, men do talk like this to each other. And in my husband's opinion, if a man stands by for it silently, he's condoning it.


I think what many male posters here are not comprehending - simply don't understand - is why you and others think that all men have a special responsibility for the murderous aggression that exists in some men. Or why men generally have a special capability (or opportunity) to prevent such aggression - a capability that women lack somehow. 
Yes men do associate with other men, and do talk to other men. I, like your husband, do not befriend men who spew a lot of hate speech toward women, or who outwardly show violent tendencies toward women or express tolerance for the same. On the other hand if fewer women would date, have sex with or marry or stay married to such men - that would also have an effect toward their social isolation. If fathers would be more vigilant in raising boys that do not take up such behaviors and attitudes - that might also help. If _*mothers*_ would be more vigilant in raising boys that do not take up such behaviors and attitudes - then that might also help. If both men and women would better support public policies that are less conducive to a culture of violence in certain urban areas and in other places - that might also help.

do you see what I mean? It is the "collective responsibility" that you are claiming is only men's - that is what people are objecting to.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Created2Write said:


> This really gives me hope for the future.


Me, too.

My son has it figured out. Be a male feminist, and the chicks will be throwin' themselves at ya. 

He started by dating one and she gave him an excellent education about it. I actually never discussed feminism when he was growing up. Didn't need to. Now that he's out in the world, he's choosing his own path including his own education about political topics. Mom sure is proud.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> Me, too.
> 
> My son has it figured out. Be a male feminist, and the chicks will be throwin' themselves at ya.
> 
> He started by dating one and she gave him an excellent education about it. I actually never discussed feminism when he was growing up. Didn't need to. Now that he's out in the world, he's choosing his own path including his own education about political topics. Mom sure is proud.


That's awesome.


----------



## John Lee

nuclearnightmare said:


> I think what many male posters here are not comprehending - simply don't understand - is why you and others think that all men have a special responsibility for the murderous aggression that exists in some men. Or why men generally have a special capability (or opportunity) to prevent such aggression - a capability that women lack somehow.
> Yes men do associate with other men, and do talk to other men. I, like your husband, do not befriend men who spew a lot of hate speech toward women, or who outwardly show violent tendencies toward women or express tolerance for the same. On the other hand if fewer women would date, have sex with or marry or stay married to such men - that would also have an effect toward their social isolation. If fathers would be more vigilant in raising boys that do not take up such behaviors and attitudes - that might also help. If _*mothers*_ would be more vigilant in raising boys that do not take up such behaviors and attitudes - then that might also help. If both men and women would better support public policies that are less conducive to a culture of violence in certain urban areas and in other places - that might also help.
> 
> do you see what I mean? It is the "collective responsibility" that you are claiming is only men's - that is what people are objecting to.


I get where you are coming from. I get why the defensive "Not All Men" stuff happens. And I think women could be a little more aware of and sensitive to this. There's a lot of fingerpointing and blaming and shouting. Most men don't go around murdering women, so they don't really like having fingers pointed at them for the murder of women. There's still a big moral difference between someone who has resentment toward women and someone who builds up so much resentment toward women that he decides to take violent revenge on them. I think everyone probably feels some resentment toward the opposite sex at some point in their life. 

But that's not all this is about. There is a cultural problem here. There is something wrong with the way many boys are raised to see women. There is something we aren't doing right I think, and I don't think the antidote is to teach men to be overly delicate with women either, because that's just the flipside of the same problem. Men have to get better at recognizing women as PEOPLE. People who are flawed like men. People who are equal but not necessarily exactly the same. Boys need to learn that girls don't have to like them, that there's no princess in the castle waiting if they beat the game:
Your Princess Is in Another Castle: Misogyny, Entitlement, and Nerds - The Daily Beast

Guys have to face the reality that yes, the hottest girls will usually go for the hottest guys. Why is this made out to be so horrible? Is it bad that the hottest guys want the hottest girls? Maybe if you're not tall and athletic with a chiseled jaw and you're not a super cool musician or a 7-figure-salary wall street guy, you won't have models flocking to you. You might just have to settle for dating a woman who is about as attractive as you are. And when you find a woman, you might actually have to work at things, you might not just get loved purely for "who you are" unconditionally. Life isn't a movie.

I said above I think boys get fed a lot of confused ideas about women. I didn't understand women at all growing up. I still don't completely but I'm getting better at it.


----------



## John Lee

By the way, I respect The Good Men project and appreciate it and all, but I'm not sure that's the answer either. The "good" guys vs the "bad" guys. Things swing too far in the "good" direction and you get a lot of repressed guys who don't realize they're angry, and, sometimes, don't realize that there are still some things wrong with their attitudes toward women. Pushover guys who won't really be happy because they don't know how to speak up for what they want. I think sometimes there's a grain of truth in things MRA guys say, it's just that they carry it to the level of paranoid fantasy.

Teach guys to see women as people, including all the flaws that that comes with, not to be their "good" saviors.


----------



## Cosmos

> I get where you are coming from. I get why the defensive "Not All Men" stuff happens. And I think women could be a little more aware of and sensitive to this. There's a lot of fingerpointing and blaming and shouting. Most men don't go around murdering women, so they don't really like having fingers pointed at them for the murder of women.


But has that actually been happening in this thread? I certainly haven't gained the impression that the women here are blaming the entire male gender for the likes of Rodgers.


----------



## John Lee

Cosmos said:


> But has that actually been happening in this thread? I certainly haven't gained the impression that the women here are blaming the entire male gender for the likes of Rodgers.


To be honest, I haven't read most of the 50-something pages of this thread, so I don't know. I've seen it elsewhere on the internet, not literally blaming all men of course, but a lot of painting men collectively in a negative light.


----------



## LongWalk

Here is an excerpt from this manifesto:



> ... I'll take to the streets of Isla Vista and slay *every single person* I see there. *All those popular kids* who live such lives of hedonistic pleasure while I've had to rot in loneliness all these years. They all look down upon me every time I tried to join them, they've all treated me like a mouse.
> Well, now I will be a god compared to you, you will all be animals, you are animals and I will slaughter you like animals. I'll be a god exacting my retribution on all those who deserve it and you do deserve it* just for the crime of living a better life than me.*
> *The popular kids*, you never accepted me and now you will all pay for it.


Clearly he hated everyone who had better life than his.

I am half Chinese. I assume he hated his Chinese American roommates for being whatever he thought they were. If he hadn't been a homicidal racist he would have simply taken his guns and gone to the sorority. But just because there is evidence that he was racist, I don't blame all non-Asian American Americans for not fighting racism.

When I read _Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee _ as teen, I felt tremendous guilt. Particularly horrifying were the episodes in which the US Federal army men slaughtered men, women and children. Defenseless women lie on their backs and raise their skirts to show that they were not men. They were killed anyway and sometimes their genitals were mutilated. This happened to the men, too. 

I could not find the text of the book, but here is another source:
Link

I had not murdered native Americans. So, why did I feel guilt? I think it is because I had read the propaganda history books about the settlement of America. The pioneer heroes had entered my imagination as my people. Their accomplishment was my heritage. Suddenly all the lying, treacherous genocide (and misogyny and racism) were mine, although my ancestors were neither Puritans nor cowboys. 

I still feel for the injustices. Furthermore, I offer a hypothesis to you. The casinos on Indian reservations are a backward form of financial compensation for the genocide that was committed.

If PUA or MRA espose violence towards women, they should be be called out and criticised for it. But to argue that all PUA and MRA are inherently misogynist and responsible for Rodger's actions is guilt trip for men in general.

Just because an MRA who was screwed by the family court system is angry does not make him a misogynist who is responsible for Rodger's crimes. Likewise a PUA proponent who does not advocate violence of any sort is not guilty of aiding Rodger.



Read more: How Elliot Rodger stabbed 3 roommates before shooting dead three random students | Mail Online 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## John Lee

I think it's always better to try to understand why someone is angry, even if they're blaming the wrong thing. Like when I hear people complaining about "Mexicans taking our jobs" and hating Mexicans, personally, I don't think that's really true, but I also recognize the point -- people are angry because they're having a hard time finding jobs. This guy's worldview was especially distorted. Some MRA/PUA guys have what I think is a distorted worldview too, but their anger comes from somewhere. They feel the world has been unfair to them. Some of the feeling comes from unreasonable expectations. Some of it comes from actually having been humiliated at various times in their lives. A lot of these guys are in pain. Some of them actually have gone through painful divorces. Some of them are virgins who struggle with getting close to women at all.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Cosmos said:


> But has that actually been happening in this thread? I certainly haven't gained the impression that the women here are blaming the entire male gender for the likes of Rodgers.


Some are saying that men collectively have a special responsibility to fix the problem. That's what I am calling b##sh*t on. Look at FWs passage I quoted in my last post.....


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Here is an excerpt from this manifesto:
> 
> 
> 
> Clearly he hated everyone who had better life than his.
> 
> I am half Chinese. I assume he hated his Chinese American roommates for being whatever he thought they were. If he hadn't been a homicidal racist he would have simply taken his guns and gone to the sorority. But just because there is evidence that he was racist, I don't blame all non-Asian American Americans for not fighting racism.


Elliot Roger was half Chinese. His mother is a Chinese women who used to live in Malaysia.

Here is what he had to say about his roommates and why he killed them.

“Two new housemates moved into my apartment for the Autumn semester. They were two foreign Asian students who attended UCSB. These were the biggest nerds I had ever seen, and they were both very ugly with annoying voices. My last two housemates, Chris and Jon, were nerds as well, but at least they were friendly and pleasant. These two new ones were utterly repulsive, and one of them had a very rebellious demeanor about him. He went out of his way to start arguments with me whenever I raised the issue of the noise he made. Hell, even living with Spencer was more pleasant than these two idiots. I knew that when the Day of Retribution came, I would have to kill my housemates to get them out of the way. If they were pleasant to live with, I would regret having to kill them, but due to their behavior I now had no regrets about such a prospect. In fact, I’d even enjoy stabbing them both to death while they slept.”

" After going through every single fantasy I had about how I would punish my enemies, I started to detail all of my exact plans for how the Day of Retribution will play out. On the day before the Day of Retribution, I will start the First Phase of my vengeance: Silently killing as many people as I can around Isla Vista by luring them into my apartment through some form of trickery. The first people I would have to kill are my two housemates, to secure the entire apartment for myself as my personal torture and killing chamber. After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it. I will cut them, flay them, strip all the skin off their flesh, and pour boiling water all over them while they are still alive, as well as any other form of torture I could possibly think of. When they are dead, I will behead them and keep their heads in a bag, for their heads will play a major role in the final phase. This First Phase will represent my vengeance against all of the men who have had pleasurable sex lives while I’ve had to suffer. Things will be fair once I make them suffer as I did. I will finally even the score. "


----------



## Faithful Wife

I'm sure glad my husband sees it as his responsibility to do what he can to change this.


----------



## Faithful Wife

This is hot.


----------



## EleGirl

Here's his plan for his war on women and the final crazy .........

“The Second Phase will take place on the Day of Retribution itself, just before the climactic massacre. The Second Phase will represent my War on Women. I will punish all females for the crime of depriving me of sex. They have starved me of sex for my entire youth, and gave that pleasure to other men. In doing so, they took many years of my life away. I cannot kill every single female on earth, but I can deliver a devastating blow that will shake all of them to the core of their wicked hearts. I will attack the very girls who represent everything I hate in the female gender: The hottest sorority of UCSB. After doing a lot of extensive research within the last year, I found out that the sorority with the most beautiful girls is Alpha Phi Sorority. I know exactly where their house is, and I’ve sat outside it in my car to stalk them many times. Alpha Phi sorority is full of hot, beautiful blonde girls; the kind of girls I’ve always desired but was never able to have because they all look down on me. They are all spoiled, heartless, wicked *****es. They think they are superior to me, and if I ever tried to ask one on a date, they would reject me cruelly. I will sneak into their house at around 9:00 p.m. on the Day of Retribution, just before all of the partying starts, and slaughter every single one of them with my guns and knives. If I have time, I will set their whole house on fire. Then we shall see who the superior one really is! 

The Final Phase of the Day of Retribution will be my ultimate showdown in the streets of Isla Vista. On the morning before, I will drive down to my father’s house to kill my little brother, denying him of the chance to grow up to surpass me, along with my stepmother Soumaya, as she will be in the way. My father will be away on one of his business trips, so thankfully I won’t have to deal with him. If he didn’t go away on that trip, I might even have to postpone the whole plan because of my fear that I might hesitate if I have to kill him. Once I’ve taken care of my brother and stepmother, I will switch over to the Mercedes SUV, and drive it back up to Isla Vista. I will use it as one of my killing machines against my enemies. An SUV will cause a lot more damage than my BMW coupe. 

After I have killed all of the sorority girls at the Alpha Phi House, I will quickly get into the the SUV before the police arrive, assuming they would arrive within 3 minutes. I will then make my way to Del Playa, splattering as many of my enemies as I can with the SUV, and shooting anyone I don’t splatter. I can only imagine how sweet it will be to ram the SUV into all of those groups of popular young people who I’ve always witnessed walking right in the middle of the road as if they are better than everyone else. When they are writhing in pain, their bodies broken and dying after I splatter them, they will fully realize their crimes. 
Once I reach Del Playa Street, I will dump the bag of severed heads I had saved from my previous victims, proclaiming to everyone how much I’ve made them all suffer. Once they see all of their friend’s heads roll onto the street, everyone will fear me as the powerful god I am. I will then start massacring everyone on Del Playa Street. I will pull up next to a house party and fire bullets at everyone partying on the front yard. I will specifically target the good looking people, and all of the couples. After I have destroyed a house party, I will continue down Del Playa, destroying everything and everyone. When I see the first police car come to their rescue, I will drive away as fast as I can, shooting and ramming anyone in my path until I find a suitable place to finally end my life. 

To end my life, I will quickly swallow all of the Xanax and Vicodin pills I have left, along with an ample amount of hard liquor. Immediately after imbibing this mixture, I will shoot myself in the head with two of my handguns simultaneously. If the gunshots don’t kill me, the deadly drug mixture eventually will. I will not suffer being captured and sent to prison. 

I must plan this very efficiently. Nothing can go wrong. It needs to be perfect. This is now my sole purpose on this world. My plans will come to fruition, and I mustn’t let anyone stop me. “


----------



## Nynaeve

nuclearnightmare said:


> Some are saying that men collectively have a special responsibility to fix the problem. That's what I am calling b##sh*t on. Look at FWs passage I quoted in my last post.....


Men have more influence with men than women do.

The men who need to be influenced view women as inferior, objects, sub-human. They hate women. They aren't going to be swayed by women.

So, if men want to see other men behaving better, men have to stand up and do what they can to influence one another.

If you don't want to do your part to put an end to misogyny, no one is going to force you. But don't complain that women see you as a threat if you refuse to do anything to reduce the threat level.


----------



## EleGirl

nuclearnightmare said:


> Some are saying that men collectively have a special responsibility to fix the problem. That's what I am calling b##sh*t on. Look at FWs passage I quoted in my last post.....


I can only speak for myself here. 

I don't think that all men have a responsibility to fix anything. 

What is appreciated is when some men do help to fight problems. It's also good when women do the same thing.

One reason I think that some women are hoping that some men would help out is that there are some men who will not listen to anything a woman who disagrees with them has to say.

A woman trying to reason with the crowd that were cheering Elliot Roger on before and after the killings is not going to hear what any woman has to say. They are much more likely to pay attention to what other men have to say.


----------



## John Lee

If I felt like there was something clear cut I could do I would do it. I guess I can express my opinion on message boards. If I ever have a son, I certainly have some thoughts about how I want to raise him. I guess we can have the guts to stand up and say we don't agree with these views of women, so that other men will see that not all men think that way. Beyond that I don't know, but at least for the sake of my daughter growing up in a good world I would do more if I knew what.


----------



## Nynaeve

John Lee said:


> If I felt like there was something clear cut I could do I would do it. I guess I can express my opinion on message boards. If I ever have a son, I certainly have some thoughts about how I want to raise him. * I guess we can have the guts to stand up and say we don't agree with these views of women, so that other men will see that not all men think that way.* Beyond that I don't know, but at least for the sake of my daughter growing up in a good world I would do more if I knew what.



I think that's all anyone can really do. But I think a lot of people underestimate how much impact that can have.

You can say that a joke isn't funny when it's about rape or violence against women.

You can frown disapprovingly at a man who catcalls.

You can say "that's not cool" when you hear other men talking about women as if we're pieces of meat.

You can be an example.


----------



## Faithful Wife

John Lee...those are the exact things that are needed. I don't think people need to be activists to simply take action in their daily lives. The key thing is to speak out against it (softly if necessary) when your gut tells you something is wrong.

For myself, I would never be friends with a woman who hates men, uses them, objectifies them, is a gold digger...etc. 

If a woman wasn't a total man-hater but still said mean things about men for whatever reason...if she was my friend I would explain to her that these things were offensive to me and were unfair. If she couldn't respect that, no friendship.

But I don't go around pushing an agenda or finding people to correct. I simply distance or call it out when necessary, raised my kids to be respectful and loving. If you don't have kids, you might not know that they can suddenly come home from school one day and announce they are now (what amounts to) a racist, homophobe, or other type of bigot. Their friends will share ideas with them that will sound good in the moment because at that age it is all about being included. So you get the task of explaining to them why that isn't ok. It is not as easy as it sounds, either. Yet it is so important. 

When I look back over the years I see small triumphs I have made in actually increasing understanding between people who didn't have any before. I have also seen (older) relatives go from outright racists to realizing all of that was just a cultural thing...they do not actually "hate" these other races, they don't even know anyone of other races! These changes came about because me and a few other younger relatives put a slow warm push on our older relatives and used logic and love to help them see past the narrow confines of their cultural racism. 

Similar thing with the parents of some gay friends. I have watched them go from "OMG you're going to KILL ME!" upon hearing their child is gay, to being the glowing mother of the bride beaming with joy. Love and logic and a lot of slow determination to understand the problem is how we can convince loved ones to come off those platforms.

I've never been an activist for any cause but I have always taken action for humanity when I see an opportunity. I don't beat myself up if I miss one, either. I'm just trying to reduce misplaced hatred and bigotry in anyway I can.


----------



## always_alone

Created2Write said:


> I don't think she said men HERE think him a hero, rather men on PUA and MRA forums do. Men here have said misogyny wasn't involved in Elliot's rampage.


Yes, exactly.

I never said anyone here thinks Rodgers is a hero. Just those who actually called him one on the PUA and MRA sites. Quite a few of them were linked to here specifically as evidence of the violent-minded misogyny on those threads.

I did, however, point out that some posters on this thread called it harmless venting from guys that are really just trying to be nice --Because, well, because that's what they did.

Thanks for digging up that list of posts, btw. I have to admit I'm a bit curious to see if it affects the interpretation.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Nynaeve said:


> Men have more influence with men than women do.
> 
> The men who need to be influenced view women as inferior, objects, sub-human. They hate women. They aren't going to be swayed by women.
> 
> So, if men want to see other men behaving better, men have to stand up and do what they can to influence one another.
> 
> If you don't want to do your part to put an end to misogyny, no one is going to force you. But don't complain that women see you as a threat if you refuse to do anything to reduce the threat level.


Such strong, extreme feelings usually stem from traumatic childhoods. Mothers practice child abuse as much, or more than fathers. What are you going to do to end child abuse? If you don't do your part then you are also a child abuser.....


----------



## always_alone

John Lee said:


> If I felt like there was something clear cut I could do I would do it. I guess I can express my opinion on message boards. If I ever have a son, I certainly have some thoughts about how I want to raise him. I guess we can have the guts to stand up and say we don't agree with these views of women, so that other men will see that not all men think that way. Beyond that I don't know, but at least for the sake of my daughter growing up in a good world I would do more if I knew what.


Awesome enough, IMHO.


----------



## Nynaeve

nuclearnightmare said:


> Such strong, extreme feelings usually stem from traumatic childhoods. Mothers practice child abuse as much, or more than fathers. What are you going to do to end child abuse? If you don't do your part then you are also a child abuser.....


Trollolol. Being disingenuous doesn't actually bolster your arguments. It just makes you look disingenuous.


FWIW: I work as a guardian ad litem for children.

I speak up against child abuse and neglect. If I ever saw a mother or female caregiver abusing a child, I'd say something.

So. Yeah. I do my part. I have no problem with accepting the responsibility of speaking out against bad things and making bad things socially unacceptable insofar as I am able to do that.

So, troll harder.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm sure glad my husband sees it as his responsibility to do what he can to change this.


It is a subtle way of accusing the whole group of being responsible for the actions of some of its individuals. E.g. if I say that Muslims collectively must do something to prevent future 911s, what does that sound like to you?


----------



## Faithful Wife

And....another ignore. Two in one day! This is fun.


----------



## John Lee

nuclearnightmare said:


> It is a subtle way of accusing the whole group of being responsible for the actions of some of its individuals. E.g. if I say that Muslims collectively must do something to prevent future 911s, what does that sound like to you?


No one said you must do anything, that's in your head. No one here is saying you have to do anything or you are responsible for anything.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Nynaeve said:


> Trollolol. Being disingenuous doesn't actually bolster your arguments. It just makes you look disingenuous.
> 
> 
> FWIW: I work as a guardian ad litem for children.
> 
> I speak up against child abuse and neglect. If I ever saw a mother or female caregiver abusing a child, I'd say something.
> 
> So. Yeah. I do my part. I have no problem with accepting the responsibility of speaking out against bad things and making bad things socially unacceptable insofar as I am able to do that.
> 
> So, troll harder.


It's your same logic. Your same stupid identity politics. So its your responsibility to do something about maternal child abuse, because it's your gender that's doing the abusing.


----------



## Nynaeve

nuclearnightmare said:


> It is a subtle way of accusing the whole group of being responsible for the actions of some of its individuals. E.g. if I say that Muslims collectively must do something to prevent future 911s, what does that sound like to you?



I'm white. I think it's the least that I can do to speak out against other white people who are racist. To call out that behavior, to make it unacceptable. 

That doesn't mean I think I'm to blame for other white people who are racist.

It means that I want to stop racism and I know that I just might have a bit of influence that I can use, more influence with white people than people of color have. So I use it.

I do that because I want to be a good human being.


----------



## John Lee

nuclearnightmare said:


> It's your same logic. Your same stupid identity politics. So its your responsibility to do something about maternal child abuse, because it's your gender that's doing the abusing.


Well, she is doing something about it, and you're doing nothing about anything, and no one is asking you to do anything about anything. So keep on doing nothing about anything.


----------



## Nynaeve

nuclearnightmare said:


> It's your same logic. Your same stupid identity politics. So its your responsibility to do something about maternal child abuse, because it's your gender that's doing the abusing.


It's not the "same logic." Because I never said that all men are to blame for misogynists.

That's where you're being disingenuous. Because you're erecting a strawman.

And, I have no problem taking responsibility to speak out and do what I can to influence people where I can. 

So, your "gotcha, you're a hypocrite" attempt fails utterly. I actually do practice what I preach.

So, seriously, troll harder.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> And....another ignore. Two in one day! This is fun.


I don't doubt that. You're not considering what I'm saying. If I raise my right hand and agree to call myself a feminist,or even better, simply agree to see the world the same way you do, will that open your mind? You've been more than condescending on this entire thread.......

So ignore that


----------



## John Lee

nuclearnightmare said:


> It is a subtle way of accusing the whole group of being responsible for the actions of some of its individuals. E.g. if I say that Muslims collectively must do something to prevent future 911s, what does that sound like to you?


Maybe you feel guilty. Maybe that's why you keep feeling convinced that people are accusing you of things they're not accusing you of. You should try to figure out what's making you feel so angry and guilty.


----------



## Nynaeve

Nynaeve said:


> I'm white. I think it's the least that I can do to speak out against other white people who are racist. To call out that behavior, to make it unacceptable.
> 
> That doesn't mean I think I'm to blame for other white people who are racist.
> 
> It means that I want to stop racism and I know that I just might have a bit of influence that I can use, more influence with white people than people of color have. So I use it.
> 
> I do that because I want to be a good human being.


Another example:

I'm Christian. I regularly call out other Christians for homophobia. I speak up in favor of LGBT rights and marriage equality. 

I think that if I stay silent, I'm complicit.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

John Lee said:


> No one said you must do anything, that's in your head. No one here is saying you have to do anything or you are responsible for anything.


"The only way we will change this is when MEN stand up against other MEN."


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Nynaeve said:


> Another example:
> 
> I'm Christian. I regularly call out other Christians for homophobia. I speak up in favor of LGBT rights and marriage equality.
> 
> I think that if I stay silent, I'm complicit.


As a Christian, have you ever told a Muslim to do something to prevent another 911? You wouldn't put it that way to them, would you. You know why you wouldn't.


----------



## John Lee

nuclearnightmare said:


> "The only way we will change this is when MEN stand up against other MEN."


Can you link to that post?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

And btw.....what exactly did I say in my post 893 that people disagree with? Don't recall saying I refused to take a stand against misogyny or not do anything or any of the other things some posts are saying. I do think both men and women share equal responsibility in creating our culture; in creating the type of men and women that are in it.


----------



## Nynaeve

nuclearnightmare said:


> As a Christian, have you ever told a Muslim to do something to prevent another 911? You wouldn't put it that way to them, would you. You know why you wouldn't.


I know why I wouldn't and it's not for the reason you want it to be.

I wouldn't say that to them because that's an absurd thing to say. You're intentionally framing it in an absurd fashion; presenting a loaded question. It assumes that preventing another 911 would be possible by speaking against hatred. It assumes that I would blame average Muslims for 911 if they failed to speak out against terrorism or hatred. Neither of those assumptions would be true. 

I might very well tell a Muslim that if they want to see an end to hatred within their religion, they need to speak out against it.

That's not actually an outrageous or inflammatory thing to say. Despite how much it seems to bother you that anyone suggests you could do something to participate in making the world a better place.


----------



## EleGirl

nuclearnightmare said:


> "The only way we will change this is when MEN stand up against other MEN."


It's worked pretty well too.

You see wife beating used to be ignored. Shoot here in New Mexico there's an old law on the books that says a man should beat his wife once a week to keep her in line.

But you see women who were interested in equality and rights for women lobbied for laws to be changed, for police forces to be trained to handle domestic violence as a serious offence.

The laws were mostly passed by men (not all men but the men who had the right to vote in the legislatures) and a handful of women lawmakers passed stronger laws against domestic violence. And police departments, mostly run by men added better training to handle these cases.

This is an example of men who could change things standing up to men who abuse women.

:scratchhead:


----------



## Nynaeve

nuclearnightmare said:


> And btw.....what exactly did I say in my post 893 that people disagree with? Don't recall saying I refused to take a stand against misogyny or not do anything or any of the other things some posts are saying. I do think both men and women share equal responsibility in creating our culture; in creating the type of men and women that are in it.


Well, I for one, wasn't addressing post 893.

It was this post that got me to respond:



nuclearnightmare said:


> Some are saying that men collectively have a special responsibility to fix the problem. That's what I am calling b##sh*t on. Look at FWs passage I quoted in my last post.....


But now that you mention it... I disagree with your implied claim in 893 that men don't have any special ability or opportunity to end misogyny.

As I said before, men have more influence over other men than women do. Thus, their efforts are more effective.

If you're not refusing to take a stand against misogyny, then what's your gripe? Why are you so upset when someone suggests that your doing that would go a long way toward combating it?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

John Lee said:


> Can you link to that post?


Don't know how to do that but it is post #817


----------



## Nynaeve

nuclearnightmare said:


> "The only way we will change this is when MEN stand up against other MEN."


Where does this say "men MUST stand up against other men?"

Where does this say "ONLY men (and not women) must stand up against other men?"

Do you honestly believe that we can end misogyny without the participation of men? 

In what way is the quoted statement untrue?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Nynaeve said:


> Well, I for one, wasn't addressing post 893.
> 
> It was this post that got me to respond:
> 
> 
> 
> But now that you mention it... I disagree with y our implied claim in 893 that men don't have any special ability or opportunity to end misogyny.
> 
> As I said before, men have more influence over other men than women do. Thus, their efforts are more effective.
> 
> If you're not refusing to take a stand against misogyny, then what's your gripe? Why are you so upset when someone suggests that your doing that would go a long way toward combating it?


Nynaeve
Fair enough. You and I just disagree on you 2nd para above. Women... mothers especially ....can have a lot of influence on what a man becomes IMO. 
And from your answer on the Muslim example I sense you're starting to understand where I'm coming from.....


----------



## Faithful Wife

John Lee said:


> Can you link to that post?


I said that, John. And I also said a lot of other stuff to support it, explain what it meant, and expand on the idea.

But none of that was quoted. Gee, wonder why?

Strangest thing...even after a few of the men get bored of saying the same thing over and over here to some of us men and women, they move along but then MORE men come in to say the same things. The defensiveness is incredible. 

But thankfully we have several men also on this thread who I am sure completely get what we are saying, and they are saying the same thing themselves. You are one of them. Thank you very much.


----------



## EleGirl

nuclearnightmare said:


> Nynaeve
> Fair enough. You and I just disagree on you 2nd para above. Women... mothers especially ....can have a lot of influence on what a man becomes IMO.
> And from your answer on the Muslim example I sense you're starting to understand where I'm coming from.....


Yes women have a lot of influence over how their sons grow up.

I've raises 2 sons and a daughter. My experience is that very often, there comes a time is the growing up of most boys that they need a man.. usually their father to not only model how to be a man, but also to sometimes get the kid in line.


----------



## Cosmos

nuclearnightmare said:


> Some are saying that men collectively have a special responsibility to fix the problem. That's what I am calling b##sh*t on. Look at FWs passage I quoted in my last post.....


As a feminist, the spoutings of radical feminists disturb me. Should the day ever come when they start advocating male annihilation and one of them goes on a misandrist shooting spree, I'd be one of the first who would be _actively_ campaigning to have the whole bunch of them closely scrutinized and, if necessary, gagged. I certainly wouldn't be dismissing men's fears or attempting to distance myself from the problem. This sort of thing is everyone's problem...


----------



## LongWalk

Emotions are running high on this thread and that can be a good thing to get people to think hard about serious problems. Collective guilt and collective responsibility are not new concepts. They come up in different forms regularly.

Part of the problem is that we are sometimes uncertain of our identity, are we members of the in-group that has oppressed? When a man finds himself behind a woman a lone woman on path in the woods or the street late from public transport, sometimes he will notice that the woman has perceived him as a possible rapist. Her step changes. She hastens herself to shake a possible attack.

A man cannot shout, "I know you are afraid of being attacked sexually, but don't worry I am not one those kind of guys."

She would probably be even more frightened.

If the man is by coincidence following the same route as the woman and she notices that he takes the same exit out of the train station or path through the park, her alarm and anxiety can sky rocket. The only thing a man can do is slow his walk or take a different way as soon as possible.

After an incident like the mass murder committed by Rodger women are no doubt frightened. In some sense Rodger has achieved his sick purpose. How can we (collective humanity) reduce his impact?

– improve mental health care
– restrict access to handguns

The first may get a yes vote, at least until people discuss the cost of health care, at which point, there may be less enthusiasm. Calls for better gun control on TAM always lead to heated discussions.

As to the promotion of feminism, let us consider the concrete proposal. Equal pay for equal work, sure. Mandatory quotas of 50% women on the boards of all publicly listed companies, not so sure about this one.

One summer night I came to a station on the outskirts of the city I live and went take the commuter train. It was Saturday and there groups of rowdy teens who had nothing particular to do, they were immigrants. When I descended to the platform I noticed one adolescent Swedish boy sitting by himself. I could feel his fear. Robbing Swedish kids of their smart phones is a common hate crime. The immigrant kids are hoodlums who justify their actions as a payback for the racism and discrimination they suffer.

I went and sat down by that boy to give him some sense of security. I know it helped him. There was grown up who could stop him from falling victim.

I have also seen immigrant men aggressively trying to pick up Swedish women. When it is unwelcome harassment, I have spoken up and told them to quit already. I do not think that I have done anything special.

It fascinated me that President Obama one day came out and spoke publicly in support of gay marriage. Some people praised him to the sky. Others said that should have done it the first week of his first term in office. For those who like Obama, the defense was that he had to wait until the time was right. There were too many people against him and he had to be careful.

When it comes to collective responsibility things can get very tricky. Should the Turkish state pay compensation to the Armenian survivors of the genocide? Should Turkey admit that genocide took place?

Deny the Holocaust in some countries and you go to jail


> Holocaust denial, the denial of the systematic genocidal killing of millions of Jews by Nazi Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, is illegal in a number of European countries.[1] Many countries also have broader laws that criminalize genocide denial. Of the countries that ban Holocaust denial, a number (Austria, Germany, Hungary, and Romania) were among the perpetrators of the Holocaust, and many of these also ban other elements associated with Nazism, such as Nazi symbols.


Should the US be held responsible for what has happened to Iraq since the invasion led by George Bush? The number of Iraqis who have died probably lies between 800,000 and 1.0 million.



> In 2010 Gere stated that the decision to go to war in Iraq was one that the American people were not in support of and that the administration at the time "bullied" Americans into the decision. He blamed the situation on a very "poor president".[40]
> 
> "I'm very sorry about what the U.S. has done in Iraq. This war has been a tragedy for everyone. I hope that the people of Iraq can rebuild their country," Gere said in a press conference, held on the sidelines of the 34th Cairo International Film Festival.[41]


Geer has been more aggressive in blaming China for persecuting Tibetans. Geer cannot visit China.

I am half Chinese. I know the Chinese government is committing genocide. I don't go around preaching the free Tibet message to Chinese people to raise their consciousness. Most people don't live for causes in everyday life. If we did maybe the world would be a better place, or maybe the streets would be awash with blood. IDK.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Cosmos said:


> As a feminist, the spoutings of radical feminists disturb me. Should the day ever come when they start advocating male annihilation and one of them goes on a misandrist shooting spree, I'd be one of the first who would be _actively_ campaigning to have the whole bunch of them closely scrutinized and, if necessary, gagged. I certainly wouldn't be dismissing men's fears or attempting to distance myself from the problem. This sort of thing is everyone's problem...


:iagree:
Your last sentence....it's EVERYONE'S problem


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> I said that, John. And I also said a lot of other stuff to support it, explain what it meant, and expand on the idea.
> 
> But none of that was quoted. Gee, wonder why?
> 
> Strangest thing...even after a few of the men get bored of saying the same thing over and over here to some of us men and women, they move along but then MORE men come in to say the same things. The defensiveness is incredible.
> 
> But thankfully we have several men also on this thread who I am sure completely get what we are saying, and they are saying the same thing themselves. You are one of them. Thank you very much.


Gee, it was all quoted. In my Post 893. Why didn't you just answer me directly BTW? Simple enough.....


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> As to the promotion of feminism, let us consider the concrete proposal. Equal pay for equal work, sure. Mandatory quotas of 50% women on the boards of all publicly listed companies, not so sure about this one.


I'm not sure why you put the bit about mandatory quotas of 50% women on boards in there. That might be something that someone, somewhere has talked about. But it's not "official" feminism platform. For one thing there is no official feminism platform.


----------



## LongWalk

Some feminists in Europe are calling for quotas. But others are not. Of course there is no single feminist party.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Like 2 pages ago someone said he hated everyone, it was not woman hate.


Thank you. Cheese and rice, was that so hard? (not referring to you NS)

Out of all I have read there is one and this is what he said.



> Man hated everyone. Girls are part of everyone.
> 
> Ergo, man hated girls.
> 
> Instant misogyny.


This would be false and wrong. Why? Although it is correct that if someone hates everyone, it would be hard to pin misogyny on him. Except for the fact that the words spewed by Rodgers indicated MORE than simply hate for everyone.

So while he hated everyone, I think he hated women more.

Now was his rampage due to misogyny? Partly, not completely.

JCD's view is that of if he hates everyone that it isn't misogyny. I don't agree because you have to look at the level of hate and comments towards the men and women of whom he spoke.

But I was commenting on men here supposedly saying that misogyny as a whole is not a problem. If somebody said that, they'd be wrong. Does it mean if a man hates women that he is a threat to them? Not necessarily. Is he a disrespectful chauvinist pig? Absolutely.

And yes, there are some misogynists not right in the head that would take that hatred to the next level. Those men are a threat. Threat or not, misogyny, as well as misandry, is a problem.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Jesus God. Go read the thread. It's not that bad. Men have it much worse. Blah dee blah.


Where did I say anything of the sort? Oh, that's right, I didn't


----------



## Amplexor

Everybody relax and take a deep breath.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Kitteh!!!!!!!


----------



## Cosmos

If Rodgers hated everyone, that would make him a misanthrope and I'm not sure that this was the case. Nowhere in his lengthy manifesto did I get the impression that he had a problem with other males in his earlier life.

Rodgers' ambivalence towards men appears to have been based solely on their relationships (or success) with women. Guilt by association, if you will, and intense jealousy.


----------



## vellocet

Created2Write said:


> Again, not quotes of posters here, quotes of posters in the links to other forums calling Rogers a hero and harmless.
> 
> Here are the post numbers to the posters who said Rogers rampage wasn't about misogyny: 15, 29, 32, 35, 75, 78, 80, 82, 108, 110, 114, 115, 175, 190, 194, 246, 247, 256, 261, 264, 267, 290, 311, 347, 355, 450, 454, 455, 475, and I only got to page 34.


15


soccermom2three said:


> I agree. When I watch his 7 minute YouTube Video, I couldn't put my finger on what it was but this describes it. Sense of entitlement and inflated self worth, (better that everyone else).
> 
> ETA: Also, I think people are focusing on the "hating women" thing but he killed 4 men.


*Nowhere did this "woman" say it was NOT about misogyny*, only that there were more than just women killed. A woman said this.

#29: EasyPartner said "He already felt like a failure at his age and focused this general emotion on women (and more successful men also BTW)" Then went on to say "the ROOT cause [of the rampage] is not misogyny", but rather that he is a nutbag.

*Nowhere did he say misogyny is not a problem*. AA, and obviously the rest of you, want to desperately believe that misogyny was the sole factor of his rampage. Wrong, it was part of it and nowhere did anyone say that his misogyny was harmless. Only that it wasn't at the "root" of his rampage.

And if you read his post again, you'll see that he acknowledges his problem with women. 

What is happening here is if a man doesn't relent and tell this board that misogyny was the main problem, forget the rest of what went on, then someone got upset about it.

#32


sinister said:


> Sorry but this goes way beyond misogyny. This young man was flawed from seemingly the beginning.


He is correct. This is much more than misogyny. * He didn't say misogyny wasn't a problem*. What if you found out that Charles Manson, after all his killings, was also a woman hater? Would that be the ONLY thing you focus on? Of course not, because his psychotic state of mind, as sinister stated, goes way beyond it.

Misogyny was a problem in this rampage, but sinister is right, the problem is much bigger than that......he was psychotic.

#35


Bridge said:


> Video games! Rap music! Pickup artists! Misogyny!
> 
> Coddling our children! Protecting them from cyber bullying! Making them think they are KINGS! Entitlement, the brand new invention of the naughts!
> 
> Why, it could never be that he was just CRAZY


Now here you have a good example of what you are talking about. Also notice, he is banned.

#75, 246
Fozzy. He was talking about people assigning causes to a tragedy. *Nowhere in that post did he say misogyny wasn't a problem or even that it was part of a problem in this case*.
His stance is that he is mentally ill. Doesn't mean he thinks misogyny wasn't part of that. Those desperate for this to be ALL about misogyny are seeing what they want to see.

*78
"He was a threat to all genders" 
This statement is absolutely correct, obviously. *richie33 didn't say Rodgers misogyny was not a problem*. It obviously was a part of the problem.

#80


Fozzy said:


> I agree these people do exist and are threats to EVERYONE. I'm just saying that mental illness is the cause, not whatever the mentally ill person ends up latching on to to give vent to their violence.


Again, he is right. Someone like Rodgers IS a threat to everyone and that his mental illness is the cause of his rampage. So again......wait for it......*he did not say his misogyny was not a problem*. 

*82
I don't know what to say about this one. There is not one part of this whole thread where he is saying misogyny isn't a problem. In fact he highlights Rodgers misogyny pretty well.
*Nowhere did he say misogyny wasn't a problem*. His comments about killing 2X more men than women, in the context of his post, *actually help to reinforce your idea that this was based on misogyny if anything*.

#108
Ok, here you go, along with post #110 are the only 2 guys who tried to downplay the guys hatred of women. Certainly not the droves of men we are lead to believe.

This guy is absolutely wrong. This goes beyond hatred, according to post 108, of just "certain sorority, popular women that he felt he deserved to have"

#114, 115
This guy was an obvious misogynist, and guess what.....he was banned.

#175


As'laDain said:


> he just wanted to kill. i struggle to understand how someone can come up with that decision. to WANT to end the life of another human being.
> 
> he didnt just want to kill women. he wanted to kill everyone.


Again, nowhere did this poster say misogyny is not a problem. This guy wanted to kill women and men, obviously. If you asked As'laDain if misogyny was a problem in general, I'm sure the answer would be "yes".

The rest of your numbers are the same guys saying the same things as I've highlighted above, and with the exception of the couple of guys above that do probably think misogyny is not a problem, the rest/majority of the men's post, and even one woman, are not saying anything of the sort. 

There are a couple guys here that are guilty of what you are saying, and AA.

But when you post all those numbers as some sort of proof that they are saying misogyny isn't a problem, and that you are reaching, you are desperately wanting to taint these men as wanting to deny misogyny. All but about 2 of the ones you listed neither denied Rodgers misogyny or deny that misogyny in general is a problem. They are saying that isn't the biggest problem with this guy. The biggest problem is that he is a psycho. If he wasn't a psycho, he wouldn't have went on a rampage. He just happened to use his mistreatment, mainly by women, to fuel his psychotic desire to kill people.

Yes, he definitely was a misogynist. Yes, it is a problem. We get it (except for the couple I have already stated do not)

But you, and especially AA, are trying to paint some good men here as some sort of jerks because their opinion is that the guy's mental illness and psychotic desires are at the root of the problem....with misogyny being a PART of it. None of the majority of the people you say are saying it, didn't say anything of the sort.


He was a misogynist, he was mentally ill, misogyny was a part of his rampage, just not the root of his main problem. Does that satisfy?


----------



## vellocet

Amplexor said:


> Everybody relax and take a deep breath.


Pretty kitty


----------



## ScarletBegonias

I seriously don't want a cat but I would make an exception for that particular kitty.so adorable


----------



## Faithful Wife

*All kittens are cute*. That's what I have to tell myself when one of them looks particularly cute and seems to be my soul mate.


----------



## vellocet

ScarletBegonias said:


> I seriously don't want a cat but I would make an exception for that particular kitty.so adorable


If only they stayed that small and playful.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

vellocet said:


> If only they stayed that small and playful.


It's good they don't though bc I'd have a whole house full of kittens.I wouldn't be able to resist!


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> He just happened to use his mistreatment, mainly by women, to fuel his psychotic desire to kill people.


Was that a misspeak? Do you believe that he was mistreated by these women?


----------



## Amplexor

Kitten power only lasts so long. Sigh!


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> Was that a misspeak? Do you believe that he was mistreated by these women?


Apologies. Yes, misspeak. He perceives he was mistreated. Doesn't mean he was.

So let me rephrase, he used his alleged mistreatment to fuel his rampage.


----------



## Cosmos

NobodySpecial said:


> Was that a misspeak? Do you believe that he was mistreated by these women?


Rodgers felt ill-treated by women - simply because they failed to notice him. He felt rejected by women, despite the fact that he had never actually asked one for a date (according to one of his friends).


----------



## Faithful Wife

ScarletBegonias said:


> It's good they don't though bc I'd have a whole house full of kittens.I wouldn't be able to resist!


I think they are working on a breed of cat that stays kitten sized. Oh lord am I in trouble if they are successful....


----------



## ScarletBegonias

oh no!! LOL I'll need to disable my internet when that happens so I don't see any pics of available "forever kittens"!


----------



## Cosmos

I live in an apartment that doesn't allow pets, but the neighbourhood furries _know_ that I'm here and visit often It isn't unusual for me to wake up with someone else's kitty curled up next to me, and one morning, whilst lying in the bath, I was visited by three of them!

Here's one of the neighbourhood furries taking over my desk...


----------



## ScarletBegonias

AWWWW!!! *heart melting* that's adorable


----------



## NobodySpecial

Cosmos said:


> Rodgers felt ill-treated by women - simply because they failed to notice him. He felt rejected by women, despite the fact that he had never actually asked one for a date (according to one of his friends).


Yah I know. I wanted to know if V agreed that it was actual mistreatment.


----------



## NobodySpecial

So what CAN men do to help with misogyny's eradication?

- Where ever your son got the idea that being a 13 year old virgin comes from, make it stop.
- If you are a football coach and you learn that your players engaged in a rape, don't cover it up. Expose it.
- If you see someone talking smack in real life or out in the ether, CALL THEM ON IT.


----------



## vellocet

NobodySpecial said:


> So what CAN men do to help with misogyny's eradication?


You won't eradicate misogyny in someone that already holds it in his heart.

All we can do as men is teach our sons better. Nothing will eradicate it. If someone ends up hating, they are going to do so.




> - Where ever your son got the idea that being a 13 year old virgin comes from, make it stop.
> - If you are a football coach and you learn that your players engaged in a rape, don't cover it up. Expose it.
> - If you see someone talking smack in real life or out in the ether, CALL THEM ON IT.


Those are absolutely all things men can do. But it won't eradicate misogyny. Haters are gonna hate and no amount of truth will change their minds.

But that doesn't mean we don't call it out or try to teach our sons better.


----------



## norajane

vellocet, I'll post the meme you posted in the meme thread as a reminder to all of us that we are indeed capable of reducing misogyny.

Just replace the word racism with misogyny:


----------



## norajane

NobodySpecial said:


> So what CAN men do to help with misogyny's eradication?
> 
> - Where ever your son got the idea that being a 13 year old virgin comes from, make it stop.
> - If you are a football coach and you learn that your players engaged in a rape, don't cover it up. Expose it.
> - If you see someone talking smack in real life or out in the ether, CALL THEM ON IT.


It seems we need to go even further back than that. People need to first acknowledge that misogyny exists. And to accept that it is destructive to everyone, including their own families, and that it is destructive to MEN, not just women.

THEN, they can start speaking up when they see it. But until people admit and accept that misogyny exists and that _it is a problem_, they won't even recognize it all around them, much less speak up about it. They might even deny it is all around them, and might claim it's just b*tchy feminazis who hate men who are saying misogyny exists.


----------



## vellocet

norajane said:


> vellocet, I'll post the meme you posted in the meme thread as a reminder to all of us that we are indeed capable of reducing misogyny.
> 
> Just replace the word racism with misogyny:


That meme is a comment that behaviors, such as misogyny or racism are learned.

If someone thinks they were mistreated, they will learn misogyny, racism, whatever.

I can teach my sons to respect women, treat them well. But if he grows up and he either is truly mistreated, or only thinks he is mistreated, I can't force the way he feels. All I can do is talk to him and try to show him that a few bad experiences, whether real or perceived, does not make women bad or evil.

We can do what we can to teach our children best. Yes, we can "reduce" misogyny, or at least attempt to reduce it. But the word used was "eradicate".


----------



## Faithful Wife

norajane said:


> It seems we need to go even further back than that. People need to first acknowledge that misogyny exists. And to accept that it is destructive to everyone, including their own families, and that it is destructive to MEN, not just women.
> 
> THEN, they can start speaking up when they see it. But until people admit and accept that misogyny exists and that _it is a problem_, they won't even recognize it all around them, much less speak up about it. They might even deny it is all around them, and might claim it's just b*tchy feminazis who hate men who are saying misogyny exists.


Also we need to acknowledge that rape culture and harassment exist, and that they are not the same as misogyny but that it can be just as harmful....to both men and women.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Does it mean if a man hates women that he is a threat to them? Not necessarily. Is he a disrespectful chauvinist pig? Absolutely.


I see this a bit differently than you. Misogyny is a threat. Maybe not always a fatal murderous threat, maybe not always a violent threat, but a threat nonetheless. 

For example, I have had abuse hurled at me just for walking down the streets, minding my own business. 

No cuts or bruises, but it spoils my mood.


----------



## LongWalk

Misogyny and misandry have different roots in different cultures. From everything I've read about Egypt, women are treated like shxt. Men there are taught to hold women in contempt and to consider their sexuality a weakness and offense. Egypt practices both male and female genital mutilation.

I do not believe that we should attack Egypt and try to change that society. But if I were in charge of foreign policy, I would not give them 3.0bn dollars in aid each year. Eradication of FGM would be mandatory before they would get another penny.

Saudi Arabia likewise.

The US could put some money toward combating the practice of aborting female fetuses.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> I see this a bit differently than you. Misogyny is a threat. Maybe not always a fatal murderous threat, maybe not always a violent threat, but a threat nonetheless.
> 
> For example, I have had abuse hurled at me just for walking down the streets, minding my own business.
> 
> No cuts or bruises, but it spoils my mood.


IMO, what you described, spoiled mood and all, is a problem. But what about it is a threat? I mean, if it only spoils your mood? If there is a threat, its going to do more than just spoil your mood.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> What is happening here is if a man doesn't relent and tell this board that misogyny was the main problem, forget the rest of what went on, then someone got upset about it.


Again, I see this differently than you. What is happening here is that when people are saying that misogyny isn't at the root, some of are pointing to all of the reasons why it *is* in fact a root cause, and that to say otherwise is to deny and diminish the significance that misogyny plays in this case: It was his stated motive, it was the fuel for his rage and jealousy, it was what set him off on his rampage. 

So, yes, clearly other factors were at play (no one ever denied this), but misogyny was a key one.

He was not psychotic or delusional, he was filled with hate and rage -- at women. He did kill men, but because he hated women and wasn't able to get at the ones he really wanted to kill. 

And my point all along was simply that the refusal to admit this is denying and diminishing the significance that misogyny plays in this case (and to women's lives in general when the topic shifted to PUA/MRA).

So maybe you see this as man-hating or smoke-blowing or whatever else you have accused me of, but really I just see it as a response to your need to pretend that misogyny was neither key in this case or of much threat to women elsewhere.


----------



## norajane

vellocet said:


> IMO, what you described, spoiled mood and all, is a problem. But what about it is a threat? I mean, if it only spoils your mood? If there is a threat, its going to do more than just spoil your mood.


Because living in an environment where a group of men can yell, "hey baby, come over here and suck my ****!" "yeah, baby, I'll show you what you can do with that juicy ass!" while others laugh and/or do nothing makes a woman fearful of walking past groups of men. 

When it happens every day, it's a huge stressor, and stress kills people with the effects on their health. When it can happen anywhere, any time, and it DOES happen anywhere and any time, the stress multiplies. It's always there, always present.

A man doesn't actually have to rape a woman to make her afraid of men, and of simply living among men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I posted this here once before...and one man still said "what's the big deal? why would you feel threatened by that?" Not sure if this point will ever be made unless every man envisions it happening to his own daughter. But the man who said that has a daughter...so even then it may make no difference. All I know is that I am glad my husband cares about these issues, and he gets very angry at men who act like this and if he sees it happen to me, he calls them out. If we can teach young men that street harassment is NOT flattering, we will go a long way.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> All I know is that I am glad my husband cares about these issues, and he gets very angry at men who act like this and if he sees it happen to me, he calls them out. If we can teach young men that street harassment is NOT flattering, we will go a long way.


It's just not the same when the crown of a person's head falls below the level of your shoulder, so it does take a certain amount of empathy for a man to understand that point of view. 

Your husband is a good man.


----------



## vellocet

always_alone said:


> Again, I see this differently than you. What is happening here is that when people are saying that misogyny isn't at the root, some of are pointing to all of the reasons why it *is* in fact a root cause, and that to say otherwise is to deny and diminish the significance that misogyny plays in this case:


Last time I'm saying it. Nobody is saying it isn't a root cause. Its just not THE root cause. The "some" you refer to have been banned, and the one that hasn't, well, he is just plain wrong. So gloss over that if you wish.




> So, yes, clearly other factors were at play (no one ever denied this), but misogyny was a key one.


Exactly, I agree, and I have said as much.



> He was not psychotic or delusional


Uh...:scratchhead:.. really? You really don't think that someone that goes on a killing spree isn't psychotic? Really?




> he was filled with hate and rage -- at women. He did kill men, but because he hated women and wasn't able to get at the ones he really wanted to kill.


Really? So that's it now? He couldn't get to the ones, so hell, might as well off a couple men too? Oh brother.




> So maybe you see this as man-hating or smoke-blowing or whatever else you have accused me of, but really I just see it as a response to *your need to pretend that misogyny was neither key in this case or of much threat to women elsewhere*.


Now you are just flat out lying. I have said misogyny played a role. I have said that it was a problem, and threat, from him in this rampage.

You want to disagree with me, fine. But quit lying.

Yes, misogyny was a key factor in this case.

Yes, his misogyny was a threat. What part of that don't you understand?


----------



## vellocet

Faithful Wife said:


> I posted this here once before...and one man still said "what's the big deal? why would you feel threatened by that?" Not sure if this point will ever be made unless every man envisions it happening to his own daughter. But the man who said that has a daughter...so even then it may make no difference. All I know is that I am glad my husband cares about these issues, and he gets very angry at men who act like this and if he sees it happen to me, he calls them out. If we can teach young men that street harassment is NOT flattering, we will go a long way.


I agree. That illustration, especially with the aggression in most of the example, is a threat. Much more than just a "mood spoiler".


----------



## vellocet

norajane said:


> Because living in an environment where a group of men can yell, "hey baby, come over here and suck my ****!" "yeah, baby, I'll show you what you can do with that juicy ass!" while others laugh and/or do nothing makes a woman fearful of walking past groups of men.


Now THAT is threatening. Much different than something that just "spoils the mood" to which AA was referring.

That kind of talk is aggressive. And men that talk like that, I believe, would get physical with a woman.




> A man doesn't actually have to rape a woman to make her afraid of men, and of simply living among men.


I agree. Those words that you posted that could be spoke by a man would make me afraid if I were a woman.

But if I were a woman and a man whistled and said "very nice", I wouldn't feel threatened. 

"Hey baby, come suck my ****", absolutely threatening.


----------



## ocotillo

vellocet said:


> But if I were a woman and a man whistled and said "very nice", I wouldn't feel threatened.


I think you'd probably have to imagine yourself in prison and having a man with arms the width of telephone poles saying that to you to get a glimpse of how most women view it.


----------



## norajane

vellocet said:


> I agree. Those words that you posted that could be spoke by a man would make me afraid if I were a woman.
> 
> But if I were a woman and a man whistled and said "very nice", I wouldn't feel threatened.
> 
> "Hey baby, come suck my ****", absolutely threatening.


Look at FW's illustration again, please. Some of those comments aren't aggressive, but when mixed in with the ones that are, and when the comments are constant and unrelenting and anywhere, any time, even the non-aggressive comments feel threatening. 

And you never know when the non-aggressive comment will progress to an aggressive one. They often do when a woman doesn't respond. He gets mad that he's being ignored, while she's trying to hurry on out of there as fast as possible to get away from him.


----------



## Faithful Wife

It gets really tiring hearing a man say "well that wouldn't bother/annoy/frighten/spoil the mood/other to ME, so therefore your feelings are invalid".


----------



## NobodySpecial

norajane said:


> vellocet, I'll post the meme you posted in the meme thread as a reminder to all of us that we are indeed capable of reducing misogyny.
> 
> Just replace the word racism with misogyny:


That is my thought. Racism reduction HAS occurred. Why would this be any different? Except people are still arguing that misogyny doesn't exist, is not prevalent, is not that big of a deal.


----------



## NobodySpecial

vellocet said:


> That meme is a comment that behaviors, such as misogyny or racism are learned.
> 
> If someone thinks they were mistreated, they will learn misogyny, racism, whatever.
> 
> I can teach my sons to respect women, treat them well. But if he grows up and he either is truly mistreated, or only thinks he is mistreated, I can't force the way he feels. All I can do is talk to him and try to show him that a few bad experiences, whether real or perceived, does not make women bad or evil.


This is COMPLETELY backwards. If a person does not think that they are owed a thing, they cannot feel mistreated by its absence. "A few bad experiences" is LIFE. And a good experience, as defined by the acquisition of p**** is not owed you. His "bad experience" doesn't reflect one whit on women. It reflects on *A* woman, if that.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Also we need to acknowledge that rape culture and harassment exist, and that they are not the same as misogyny but that it can be just as harmful....to both men and women.


Rape culture and harassment are actions that are driven by a sort of subcategory of misogyny. One could not do that to someone that they considered to be an equal and valuable human being.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> It gets really tiring hearing a man say "well that wouldn't bother/annoy/frighten/spoil the mood/other to ME, so therefore your feelings are invalid".


It does sound an awful lot like I have not had the same experiences you have so you should feel the way I do.


----------



## sh987

If a woman whistled at me, or hit on me as described in the earlier cartoons, I wouldn't feel afraid... But, of course not: I'm a man, and most women don't pose a threat to me. That fact alone is going to inform a certain amount of my attitude towards that situation. My entire experience is changed by the fact that I'm bigger and stronger. What do I have to fear?

The way I see it, the opposite holds true for a woman put in that position by a man. The mere knowledge that he most surely has the power to overcome a woman can't help but change the way she would feel.

This type of crap has to be done away with 100%.


----------



## EleGirl

An occasional whistle or some flirting is not bad. but if only it would stop there. 

There seems to be a type of guy who is driven to yelling out crude things, garbing his crotch while yelling out crude things, the ones who throw things at you, the one who reached out of the car window as they drove by as smacked me (not fun at all). 

I don't understand why it is that a woman cannot walk down the street without getting this kind of attention. It's not every car that goes by. But in an hour's walk, 2 or 3 seem to just be driven to be asshats with filthy mouths.

Oh I forgot... another kind is the one who dropped his pants.


----------



## sh987

Re: Elliot Rodgers. 

When I heard about the shootings, the words that came to my mind were: Marc Lepine. Who? In 1989, Marc Lepine was the lone perpetrator in the Ecole Polytechnique Massacre in Montreal. 

Over the course of several months, he planned out an attack which would see him murder 14 women and 4 men, and non-fatally shot 10 more women and 4 more men at the school before turning the gun on himself. He was enraged about not being accepted into the engineering program, feeling that women were being accepted ahead of him, as part of the school giving in to pressure from feminists, but the truth of the matter is that he didn't even have his prerequisites completed.

On the day of the massacre, he walked into a classroom, split up the men from the women and ordered the men to leave. Telling all in the room that he was fighting feminism, he shot all of the women in the room, killing six. He then moved on to different parts of the school mostly repeating these actions.

There's much more to it to it than just this, as he was raised in difficult and abusive ways, taught by his father that women exist to serve men. After his death a letter was found in his coat pocket, blaming feminists for ruining his life, and had a list of 19 specific women he planned to murder due to their declaration of feminism. 

The specific reasons for their hatred of women seems to have differed: Rodgers was arrogant and believed that women owed him sexually, while Lepine felt he'd been destroyed academically by women. Either way, hate is what they had, and they each set out to murder solely because they were women.

Anyway... That's what I thought of when I heard about this. I'd hoped not to see something like that again, and am relieved that Elliot Rodgers at least didn't achieve the same scale of murder and destruction as did Marc Lepine.


----------



## always_alone

vellocet said:


> Now THAT is threatening. Much different than something that just "spoils the mood" to which AA was referring.


Oh FFS. I say it's threatening, you tell me that I shouldn't feel that way; I tone it down and you tell me it isn't bad enough to worry about. 

I really want to believe you are genuine, but you're making it very difficult.

Imagine you are walking down the street, minding your own business. Now imagine some random ******* calling you a rude name. How do you react? What do you feel?

No imagine this happens regularly. One person calls you a ******, another tells you you're an ugly ******. Another invites you to suck his ****. Tell me, how would you feel?

Possibly like someone wants to start a fight with you? Threatened? Might it spoil your mood?

Is there any way of expressing unhappiness with this state of affairs that you would be willing to accept? Or have you simply decided that no matter what it is, if I say it it must be ****ed?


----------



## Nynaeve

vellocet said:


> But if I were a woman and a man whistled and said "very nice", I wouldn't feel threatened.


How very mansplainy of you.


----------



## LongWalk

Perception is subjective. I remember a woman friend breaking off a conversation because she had to go and comfort a woman friend who was very upset with men. Some guy had left the toilet seat up and for this woman it was a trigger. It sounded ridiculous to me, but do some women reach this point because of very bad personal experiences. Are these experiences suffered in isolation?

Rodger was so awkward and menacing that women immediately repulsed him. Even his attempts to be pleasant were no doubt weird. He was a social leper.

There are women who hate men. The difference is that they seldom act out violently.

re: what can one do IRL
The other day I say a young woman who was so beautiful, stylish and (understated) sexy that I felt an urge to tell her she was elegant, even hot. I did not act on this because it is not the done thing. True, said by the right man in the right way and she might be happy. But in the wrong way it would be creepy and spoil her day.

About once every couple of months I notice young women suffering life threatening anorexia. Some die from this condition. This always evokes an urge to say something like: "You need to eat. You are beautiful."

I don't say anything because it is socially unacceptable. Perhaps this is cowardice? Perhaps everyone should be telling her to eat? This desire to protect an unknown young woman is instinctual. To me it feels like kindness, but perhaps it just the selfish gene, telling me that a starving woman can be fed and then impregnated.

When I see a drunk man, I feel some pity, but the desire to reach out and communicate with him is pretty weak. So, there are subtle attitudes that reflect discrimination. Can attitudes be changed for the better over time?

Traditionally, women and children got places in the lifeboats first. Perhaps today that idea is finished. Are there feminists who would still prefer that there were fewer lifeboats to be rid of men?

I recoginze that there are men who like the idea of women being raped. Although it is socially unacceptable to say "she probably wanted it" anymore, those thoughts must exist.

There are no doubt bitter men and women who are happy to hear about the misfortune of the gender they have come to hate.

When women are raped how are they treated by the police and hospital personnel? I have read that police need special training to say the right things. I am sure that there were and are misogynists among the police who feel that if a young woman partied with the wrong sort of men, got drunk and became a rape victim she deserved it.

There was an interesting court case recently in Sweden. An anti immigrant politician was prosecuted for slander because he said that most of the rapists were Muslim. He presented statistic in his defense, but the court rejected them even though they were true.

Immigrants are disproportionately represented among the prison population. But the media will not discuss this.

There is another phenomenon in Europe: the honor killing. A woman from the Middle East or northern Africa is controlled by the males in her family who insist that she accept an arranged marriage. In some cases young women who lose their virginity or who are sexually active are murdered. Sometimes they are tricked into going back to the old country and there they married against their will and only allowed to return to Sweden once they have children, whose existence is designed to control her.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> I posted this here once before...and one man still said "what's the big deal? why would you feel threatened by that?" Not sure if this point will ever be made unless every man envisions it happening to his own daughter. But the man who said that has a daughter...so even then it may make no difference. All I know is that I am glad my husband cares about these issues, and he gets very angry at men who act like this and if he sees it happen to me, he calls them out. If we can teach young men that street harassment is NOT flattering, we will go a long way.


This sh!t really p!sses me off. No that is terribly wrong. Sick really. It may not be physically violent but it threatens just the same. It is abusive. Guys that do this are more than lame. I also do not buy the peer pressure thing either. No real man worth anything would succumb to such childish nonsense.
All these guys do is demonstrate how limp they are in life itself.

But I am not sure how you teach young men this lesson. I am not disagreeing. It seems cultural. I am old school of course and while I would love to reason with someone my head tells me they need an @ss whoopin. But no this is not acceptable behavior.


----------



## Cosmos

> Longwalk: Rodger was so awkward and menacing that women immediately repulsed him. Even his attempts to be pleasant were no doubt weird. He was a social leper.


Actually, judging from his photographs / videos, I'd hazard a guess that they were more put off by his sulky, petulant demeanor. He was small in stature, so I doubt that he was perceived as menacing...

His outward appearance very much reflected who he was, IMO, and that alone would be very off-putting for young women.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Perception is subjective. I remember a woman friend breaking off a conversation because she had to go and comfort a woman friend who was very upset with men. Some guy had left the toilet seat up and for this woman it was a trigger.


I have never understood the toilet seat thing. I am perfectly capable of putting a toilet seat down.

My bet is that the real issue for this woman was much larger. The toilet seat was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.


LongWalk said:


> About once every couple of months I notice *young* women suffering life threatening anorexia. Some die from this condition. This always evokes an urge to say something like: "You need to eat. You are *beautiful*."
> 
> I don't say anything because it is socially unacceptable. Perhaps this is cowardice? Perhaps everyone should be telling her to eat? This desire to protect an unknown *young* woman is instinctual. To me it feels like kindness, but perhaps it just the selfish gene, telling me that a starving woman can be fed and then impregnated.


The operative words here is “young” and “beautiful”. If you saw and old woman who was frail, would you have this same reaction. What about if it was a woman of any age who was physically deformed? Women know that these words are the MOST important thing to men in general. 

When I was young and good looking there were no shortage of guys willing to help me out with all kinds of things. Now that I’m 65, I have to have the person at the service desk call for someone to help me.. For example to list bags of potting soil, mulch… and other heavy things in a story. 

On the topic of you going up to an anorexic woman and telling her that she needs to eat… That would most likely not be taken well by the young woman. Most people who are anorexic have such messes of self-images that a stranger telling her that would probably lead to hear eating less.



LongWalk said:


> When I see a drunk man, I feel some pity, but the desire to reach out and communicate with him is pretty weak. So, there are subtle attitudes that reflect discrimination. Can attitudes be changed for the better over time?


Your interest in helping young good looking women has to do with you being attracted to them. You are not attracted to drunk men. My bet is that you are also not attracted to old women and unattractive women. Thus your desire to help them is pretty weak as well. 


LongWalk said:


> Traditionally, women and children got places in the lifeboats first. Perhaps today that idea is finished. Are there feminists who would still prefer that there were fewer lifeboats to be rid of men?


That last statement is just weird. Why would feminists want fewer life boats to get rid of men? Geez

The Titanic lead to a lot of change in Martine laws and social norms. Today it’s required for every ship to have enough life boats for every soul on board. Now I think that even with this, children should be allowed to board first. They need one parent/guardian per sibling group to be on the life boat. The parents can decide between them who goes with the children on the first boat off.
When I was a child in the 1950’s I remember this on ocean liners. I still remember the crew taking all the passengers on a tour of the life boats and going over the laws, who goes first… the crew goes last.. to include female crew members.



LongWalk said:


> I recoginze that there are men who like the idea of women being raped. Although it is socially unacceptable to say "she probably wanted it" anymore, those thoughts must exist.


Yes they do exist still. I’ve seen it first hand with some of the women I know who have been raped. 



LongWalk said:


> There are no doubt bitter men and women who are happy to hear about the misfortune of the gender they have come to hate.


I agree



LongWalk said:


> When women are raped how are they treated by the police and hospital personnel? I have read that police need special training to say the right things. I am sure that there were and are misogynists among the police who feel that if a young woman partied with the wrong sort of men, got drunk and became a rape victim she deserved it.


It completely depends on the people who are at the hospital and the police officers. They are individuals. They will treat the victim according to their own personal beliefs.

A woman I know was getting threatening phone calls from some guy. These were not just normal prank calls. He knew her schedule, knew when and where she jogged every day, when get came and went from her home. He would call her and tell her how one day he’s going to get her, cut her up and keep her half alive while he rapes her. This went on for over a year on a daily basis. The local cops refused to do anything for that year. When she was not home to answer the phone, this guy would leave the messages. She and her husband had hours upon hours of these threatening, disgusting calls. And it took months for the cops to care. She changed her phone number constantly and he always knew the new number. It turned out that he worked in at the college she was attending in records and he was the next door neighbor of her son’s best friend. 

He was finally charged, but only after he started telling her that he would be carrying out his murder/rape of her in the next few days. It did go to court. The outcome of the case was that he got 6 months’ probation. The court ordered that this be handled quietly so that his wife did not find out, after all she had 4 kids and was pregnant with her 5th. So keep it a secret. (How about letting her know what a predator her husband is?) He was also not fired from his job at the college.

One of the side stories of this is that in that part of Florida, at that time, every so often they would find some female who was killed, mutilated and raped while she was out walking or jogging. My friend and her husband tried to get the cops to look at this guy for those cases and they just blew it off. The cops basically told my friend and her husband that they were over reacting and being hysterical.

I know of women who were talked out of bringing charges against their rapist by the police. These were stranger rapes… the kind where a guy breaks into her house. In one case the guy kidnapped the young lady, at knife point, around to parties to show off what a great prized he’d captured to rape. His party friends gave him high-5's, etc. Then he took her back to her place and raped/tortured her four hours. The cops felt really bad for him ‘cause he’d had a bad childhood.

There is a very good reason why most rapes are never reported.

I could go on with more situations I know about but I won’t bore you.


LongWalk said:


> There was an interesting court case recently in Sweden. An anti immigrant politician was prosecuted for slander because he said that most of the rapists were Muslim. He presented statistic in his defense, but the court rejected them even though they were true.


This is very disturbing. It is true. I’ve seen the statistics.


LongWalk said:


> Immigrants are disproportionately represented among the prison population. But the media will not discuss this.


Probably because commit the highest percentage of crime. We surely cannot talk about such things.


LongWalk said:


> There is another phenomenon in Europe: the honor killing. A woman from the Middle East or northern Africa is controlled by the males in her family who insist that she accept an arranged marriage. In some cases young women who lose their virginity or who are sexually active are murdered. Sometimes they are tricked into going back to the old country and there they married against their will and only allowed to return to Sweden once they have children, whose existence is designed to control her.


We have had some of those in the USA as well. I lived in East Africa as a child. Things are very very different there then in the Western countries. It’s terrible for women.


----------



## vellocet

Wow, just wow. Even when absolutely agreeing with any of you, I'm still wrong or you just want to argue further.

I'm done, I'm out. You want to think us evil men don't get it, have at it.

Hate on.


----------



## John Lee

vellocet said:


> Wow, just wow. Even when absolutely agreeing with any of you, I'm still wrong or you just want to argue further.
> 
> I'm done, I'm out. You want to think us evil men don't get it, have at it.
> 
> Hate on.


Sounds like you got the confirmation you were looking for all along and decided to call it a day.


----------



## LongWalk

EleGirl said:


> I have never understood the toilet seat thing. I am perfectly capable of putting a toilet seat down.
> 
> My bet is that the real issue for this woman was much larger. The toilet seat was just the straw that broke the camel’s back.
> 
> *Of course. I suspected mental illness or a traumatic childhood, but I did not know the friend of my friend.*
> 
> The operative words here is “young” and “beautiful”. If you saw and old woman who was frail, would you have this same reaction. What about if it was a woman of any age who was physically deformed? Women know that these words are the MOST important thing to men in general.
> 
> *re: my reaction to the victims of anorexia. I agree completely that it is because they are young women. We do not see the elderly, fat people, etc. Young and beautiful are the most important in stimulating desire. When you get to know someone through conversation interest in people changes.
> 
> Struggle, a young woman going through her second divorce, is very pretty. I think she has had trouble matching up her attractive powers/self esteem/relationship boundaries.*
> 
> When I was young and good looking there were no shortage of guys willing to help me out with all kinds of things. Now that I’m 65, I have to have the person at the service desk call for someone to help me.. For example to list bags of potting soil, mulch… and other heavy things in a story.
> 
> *Although men remain possible sex partners later in life. The same thing happens in any case. At the Muslim preschool not far from my place, there were three little girls standing by the fence as I was walking by. One of them asked me: "How old are you?"
> 
> I told them. They looked at me. I had a quart of strawberries in my hand. A staff member was standing higher up the I shouted to her for permission. She said okay. The girls each shyly took one. I trimmed my beard later in the day. But is growing. We all face this (ageing, I mean).*
> 
> On the topic of you going up to an anorexic woman and telling her that she needs to eat… That would most likely not be taken well by the young woman. Most people who are anorexic have such messes of self-images that a stranger telling her that would probably lead to hear eating less.
> *I read somewhere that if they hear that they do not look normal it sometimes makes an impression. I don't know if saying anything would have any effect. People stare at sufferers in any case.
> 
> It is painful to watch them tottering unsteadily on high heels.*
> 
> Your interest in helping young good looking women has to do with you being attracted to them. You are not attracted to drunk men. My bet is that you are also not attracted to old women and unattractive women. Thus your desire to help them is pretty weak as well.
> 
> *I am aware of my false compassion.*
> 
> That last statement is just weird. Why would feminists want fewer life boats to get rid of men? Geez
> 
> *There are some extreme feminists who dislike men.*
> 
> The Titanic lead to a lot of change in Martine laws and social norms. Today it’s required for every ship to have enough life boats for every soul on board. Now I think that even with this, children should be allowed to board first. They need one parent/guardian per sibling group to be on the life boat. The parents can decide between them who goes with the children on the first boat off.
> 
> *Heaven forbid we are ever in such a situation.*
> 
> When I was a child in the 1950’s I remember this on ocean liners. I still remember the crew taking all the passengers on a tour of the life boats and going over the laws, who goes first… the crew goes last.. to include female crew members.
> 
> *There was just a sinking recently off the coast of South Korea*
> 
> Yes they do exist still. I’ve seen it first hand with some of the women I know who have been raped.
> 
> 
> I agree
> 
> 
> It completely depends on the people who are at the hospital and the police officers. They are individuals. They will treat the victim according to their own personal beliefs.
> 
> A woman I know was getting threatening phone calls from some guy. These were not just normal prank calls. He knew her schedule, knew when and where she jogged every day, when get came and went from her home. He would call her and tell her how one day he’s going to get her, cut her up and keep her half alive while he rapes her. This went on for over a year on a daily basis. The local cops refused to do anything for that year. When she was not home to answer the phone, this guy would leave the messages. She and her husband had hours upon hours of these threatening, disgusting calls. And it took months for the cops to care. She changed her phone number constantly and he always knew the new number. It turned out that he worked in at the college she was attending in records and he was the next door neighbor of her son’s best friend.
> 
> He was finally charged, but only after he started telling her that he would be carrying out his murder/rape of her in the next few days. It did go to court. The outcome of the case was that he got 6 months’ probation. The court ordered that this be handled quietly so that his wife did not find out, after all she had 4 kids and was pregnant with her 5th. So keep it a secret. (How about letting her know what a predator her husband is?) He was also not fired from his job at the college.
> 
> One of the side stories of this is that in that part of Florida, at that time, every so often they would find some female who was killed, mutilated and raped while she was out walking or jogging. My friend and her husband tried to get the cops to look at this guy for those cases and they just blew it off. The cops basically told my friend and her husband that they were over reacting and being hysterical.
> 
> I know of women who were talked out of bringing charges against their rapist by the police. These were stranger rapes… the kind where a guy breaks into her house. In one case the guy kidnapped the young lady, at knife point, around to parties to show off what a great prized he’d captured to rape. His party friends gave him high-5's, etc. Then he took her back to her place and raped/tortured her four hours. The cops felt really bad for him ‘cause he’d had a bad childhood.
> 
> *I assume all men have considered rape. Most must conclude that having sex with woman against her will would not be fun. Most men have made out with women who did not want to go further. A man can only persist so long before pushing for sex becomes damaging to respect and friendship. However, there are times when women feel conflicted and may want to have sex once things get rolling but this is a gray zone.*
> 
> There is a very good reason why most rapes are never reported.
> 
> *I think a rape victim, an in fact other victims of violence, want to withdraw and nurse themselves in private.*
> 
> I could go on with more situations I know about but I won’t bore you.
> 
> *I am not bored by your posts.*
> 
> This is very disturbing. It is true. I’ve seen the statistics.
> 
> Probably because commit the highest percentage of crime. We surely cannot talk about such things.
> 
> We have had some of those in the USA as well. I lived in East Africa as a child. Things are very very different there then in the Western countries. It’s terrible for women.
> 
> *Unfortunately.*


----------



## LongWalk

vellocet said:


> Wow, just wow. Even when absolutely agreeing with any of you, I'm still wrong or you just want to argue further.
> 
> I'm done, I'm out. You want to think us evil men don't get it, have at it.
> 
> Hate on.


COME BACK!

I think you refuted many of the points that misconstrued what the posters had written.

We are still left with the question of what men can do to combat misogyny.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> This is hot.


Awesome!


----------



## Created2Write

Nynaeve said:


> Men have more influence with men than women do.
> 
> The men who need to be influenced view women as inferior, objects, sub-human. They hate women. They aren't going to be swayed by women.
> 
> So, if men want to see other men behaving better, men have to stand up and do what they can to influence one another.
> 
> If you don't want to do your part to put an end to misogyny, no one is going to force you. But don't complain that women see you as a threat if you refuse to do anything to reduce the threat level.


QFT! Love this post.


----------



## Created2Write

Cosmos said:


> As a feminist, the spoutings of radical feminists disturb me. Should the day ever come when they start advocating male annihilation and one of them goes on a misandrist shooting spree, I'd be one of the first who would be _actively_ campaigning to have the whole bunch of them closely scrutinized and, if necessary, gagged. I certainly wouldn't be dismissing men's fears or attempting to distance myself from the problem. This sort of thing is everyone's problem...


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> 15
> 
> 
> *Nowhere did this "woman" say it was NOT about misogyny*, only that there were more than just women killed. A woman said this.
> 
> #29: EasyPartner said "He already felt like a failure at his age and focused this general emotion on women (and more successful men also BTW)" Then went on to say "the ROOT cause [of the rampage] is not misogyny", but rather that he is a nutbag.
> 
> *Nowhere did he say misogyny is not a problem*. AA, and obviously the rest of you, want to desperately believe that misogyny was the sole factor of his rampage. Wrong, it was part of it and nowhere did anyone say that his misogyny was harmless. Only that it wasn't at the "root" of his rampage.
> 
> And if you read his post again, you'll see that he acknowledges his problem with women.
> 
> What is happening here is if a man doesn't relent and tell this board that misogyny was the main problem, forget the rest of what went on, then someone got upset about it.
> 
> #32
> 
> 
> He is correct. This is much more than misogyny. * He didn't say misogyny wasn't a problem*. What if you found out that Charles Manson, after all his killings, was also a woman hater? Would that be the ONLY thing you focus on? Of course not, because his psychotic state of mind, as sinister stated, goes way beyond it.
> 
> Misogyny was a problem in this rampage, but sinister is right, the problem is much bigger than that......he was psychotic.
> 
> #35
> 
> 
> Now here you have a good example of what you are talking about. Also notice, he is banned.
> 
> #75, 246
> Fozzy. He was talking about people assigning causes to a tragedy. *Nowhere in that post did he say misogyny wasn't a problem or even that it was part of a problem in this case*.
> His stance is that he is mentally ill. Doesn't mean he thinks misogyny wasn't part of that. Those desperate for this to be ALL about misogyny are seeing what they want to see.
> 
> *78
> "He was a threat to all genders"
> This statement is absolutely correct, obviously. *richie33 didn't say Rodgers misogyny was not a problem*. It obviously was a part of the problem.
> 
> #80
> 
> 
> Again, he is right. Someone like Rodgers IS a threat to everyone and that his mental illness is the cause of his rampage. So again......wait for it......*he did not say his misogyny was not a problem*.
> 
> *82
> I don't know what to say about this one. There is not one part of this whole thread where he is saying misogyny isn't a problem. In fact he highlights Rodgers misogyny pretty well.
> *Nowhere did he say misogyny wasn't a problem*. His comments about killing 2X more men than women, in the context of his post, *actually help to reinforce your idea that this was based on misogyny if anything*.
> 
> #108
> Ok, here you go, along with post #110 are the only 2 guys who tried to downplay the guys hatred of women. Certainly not the droves of men we are lead to believe.
> 
> This guy is absolutely wrong. This goes beyond hatred, according to post 108, of just "certain sorority, popular women that he felt he deserved to have"
> 
> #114, 115
> This guy was an obvious misogynist, and guess what.....he was banned.
> 
> #175
> 
> 
> Again, nowhere did this poster say misogyny is not a problem. This guy wanted to kill women and men, obviously. If you asked As'laDain if misogyny was a problem in general, I'm sure the answer would be "yes".


You see one thing, I see another. In all of the posts above I see human beings dismissing the seriousness of misogyny in this case. Sure, some may have admitted that misogyny was _part_ of the issue, but not enough of an issue to make them angry _at the misogyny_. 



> The rest of your numbers are the same guys saying the same things as I've highlighted above, and with the exception of the couple of guys above that do probably think misogyny is not a problem, the rest/majority of the men's post, and even one woman, are not saying anything of the sort.


To you...a man. 



> There are a couple guys here that are guilty of what you are saying, and AA.
> 
> But when you post all those numbers as some sort of proof that they are saying misogyny isn't a problem, and that you are reaching, you are desperately wanting to taint these men as wanting to deny misogyny. All but about 2 of the ones you listed neither denied Rodgers misogyny or deny that misogyny in general is a problem. They are saying that isn't the biggest problem with this guy. The biggest problem is that he is a psycho. If he wasn't a psycho, he wouldn't have went on a rampage. He just happened to use his mistreatment, mainly by women, to fuel his psychotic desire to kill people.


I disagree, and the reason that I(an AA, and Cosmos, and FW, and Ele and other females here) don't see this the same way you(and other men) do, is because _we are women_. The biggest problem is _not_ that he was psycho. Mental illness can be treated, and there are many mentally ill people in this country who never act out violently in this way their whole lives. The biggest issue is what fueled him to kill these women and write his manifesto, and that was hate. Misogyny. And yes, by saying that the biggest issue was his mental state, you're also dismissing the seriousness of misogyny.

How many times have murderers claimed mental illness? Just because someone goes on a killing rampage doesn't mean they weren't operating with their full mental capacity. He hated women, and _that_ is why he killed them. 



> Yes, he definitely was a misogynist. Yes, it is a problem. We get it (except for the couple I have already stated do not)


I don't think you do.



> But you, and especially AA, are trying to paint some good men here as some sort of jerks because their opinion is that the guy's mental illness and psychotic desires are at the root of the problem....with misogyny being a PART of it. None of the majority of the people you say are saying it, didn't say anything of the sort.


There are a couple of men here I think _are_ jerks. I don't have to paint them that way for it to be obvious. The others, imo, just don't understand how serious misogyny is and how much situations like this effect women. If they think mental illness was the root cause, I encourage them to think again. You, and they, don't have to live each and every day in fear when you walk down the street. You don't have to figure out how to carry your pepper spray when all you want to do is go for a run outside in the sunshine. You don't have to look over your shoulder every time you pass a guy that looks at you just long enough to make you feel uncomfortable. You don't have to look in the backseat of your car every time you come back out of the grocery store. You don't have to deal with the fear of what to do and how to respond when a guy whistles at you; or what to do when a guy and his buddy pull up in their car as you're walking alone through a residential street, and they slow down and try to talk to you; you don't have to memorize the closest businesses/public places that are open during certain times of day to make sure you have someplace safe to run; you don't have to deal with men flipping you off when you don't smile and blush at their rude and sexually insulting calls, whistles, looks, etc. 

_YOU_ don't think misogyny is the root cause because _YOU_ don't have to deal with it. It's really easy to say, "Yeah, he was a misogynist, but the mental illness is what made him violent" because a misogynist isn't ever going to attack you on the street. 



> He was a misogynist, he was mentally ill, misogyny was a part of his rampage, just not the root of his main problem. Does that satisfy?


Nope. Sure doesn't.


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> I assume all men have considered rape. Most must conclude that having sex with woman against her will would not be fun.


I've read that about 50% of men say that they would rape if they thought they could get away with it.



LongWalk said:


> Most men have made out with women who did not want to go further. A man can only persist so long before pushing for sex becomes damaging to respect and friendship. However, there are times when women feel conflicted and may want to have sex once things get rolling but this is a gray zone.


The was not talking about situations with blurred lines. I was talking about situations in which the woman did not know the man. The rapists either broke into her home or attacked her someone else. You know rape by strangers.

Even in this type of situation, I know of a good number of cases in which the police make excuses for the rapist and suggest that the woman not file charges.


----------



## Created2Write

vellocet said:


> IMO, what you described, spoiled mood and all, is a problem. But what about it is a threat? I mean, if it only spoils your mood? If there is a threat, its going to do more than just spoil your mood.


Like I said before, even something that seems harmless like a cat call _is_ threatening to many women. 

I'm lucky in that my experiences in life where I was genuinely afraid for my safety are relatively thin. However, I'm coming to realize that a lot of that was due to my ignorance over just how unsafe this country is. The older I get, the more my illusion of a safe place to live is shattered. I used to never lock my car, or check my backseat. I double-check that my car is locked every time I get out of it, and I triple check that no one broke in and is in my backseat every time I getting back in. 

I'm glad that you see misogyny as a problem in general. But this situation shows just how dangerous misogyny can be. I don't think you're a jerk whose trying to support misogyny. I _do_ think you're making light of it. If you had to live one day with the fear we face everyday, and how that fear effects each decision we make, and the toll is takes on us mentally, emotionally and physically, you'd understand much more.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Created2Write said:


> I don't think you do.


:iagree:


----------



## EleGirl

"How can some men manage to appear polite, kind, even "wonderful" in public while perpetuating sexism under the radar of other men's notice? And how could this dynamic be so obvious to so many women, yet completely foreign to the men in their lives? Some #YesAllWomen contributors suggested men simply aren't paying attention to misogyny. Others claimed they deliberately ignore it. There could also be a performative aspect to this public outpouring of male shock -- a man who expresses his own lack of awareness of sexism implicitly absolves himself of his own contributions to it.

But there are other, more insidious hurdles that prevent male bystanders from helping to fight violence against women. Among men, misogyny hides in plain sight, and not just because most men are oblivious to the problem or callous toward its effects. Men who objectify and threaten women often strategically obscure their actions from other men, taking care to harass women when other men aren't around.
"

Why men can't see misogyny - Winnipeg Free Press


----------



## ocotillo

As a man, I think one problem with the word, "Misogyny" is that it's tossed about too carelessly.

All you have to do to be called a misogynist is to be male and have a strong opinion on a social issue affecting the genders.

Do you disagree with Meryl Streep's criticism of the late Walt Disney? You're a misogynist who doesn't, "Get it." --At least in the view of a fair portion of the internet (I kid you not.)

Are you irritated with the derogatory message studios like Disney have promulgated about the role of fathers for more than half a century? You're a misogynist and possibly an MRA boy with a small peanut too.

You can only have a pejorative hurled at you unfairly so many times before you start developing mental callouses. The word loses its force and the people using it lose legitimacy in your mind. That's just human nature.


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> You can only have a pejorative hurled at you unfairly so many times before you start developing mental callouses. The word loses its force and the people using it lose legitimacy in your mind. That's just human nature.


Please described how the word is "hurled" at *you*, specifically. 

That's the thing. I'm not offended by the people who dislike the views and practices of radical feminists, because I'm not one. So no matter how many times someone discusses them, I will never feel it is "hurled at me". 

Why would anyone internalize and be defensive about something that isn't about them?

Believe it or not, we women face the same thing. We are grouped and stereo typed based on things other women do. And yet...I am not offended or defensive when someone talks about behaviors a specific woman does or a group of women do. I may even totally agree. 

And more to your point...the men who have disagreed and bantered with me and others on this thread? I've never called THEM misogynists and I don't think they are misogynists. I think they are just unaware of some of the issues women face and unaware that some men DO hide their misogyny from them and that's part of why they are unaware. I do not think they are "all MRA's with small peanuts". 

Regardless of the insults some of them have "hurled" at me specifically, I don't think ill of them at all, nor do I think they are bad husbands, etc.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

OK, see if this makes sense to (everyone) - If societal misogyny was the root cause of the Rodgers' mass killing - the most important factor, the dominant cause - wouldn't there be a lot more Eliot Rodgers exploding all over the place. even if one throws in male serial killers (of female vicitims).....still very small numbers statistically. Mass killings are very, very rare. Misogyny is a more signficant influence on society than would be reflected by such small numbers. True?

So I think the linkage to misogyny makes MUCH more sense when we talk of behavior such as spousal abuse, the inability of many young men to comprehend the importance of clear consent in sexual activity, and the street bullying and sexual harassment that have been discussed in the last few pages. These are things that occur at a frequency commensurate with attitudes and beliefs that are not uncommon.

So I think a lot of posters in this thread are saying essentially that, which is not at all an insensitive message IMO. In fact -FW- if you put this post alongside a number of other posts I've made in similar threads...well then you really have to admit that I do "get it." So pull out your list now and put me down alongside your husband, ConcernedDad, Kilgore and John Lee. I AM SENSITIVE!!


----------



## EleGirl

ocotillo said:


> As a man, I think one problem with the word, "Misogyny" is that it's tossed about too carelessly.
> 
> All you have to do to be called a misogynist is to be male and have a strong opinion on a social issue affecting the genders.
> 
> Do you disagree with Meryl Streep's criticism of the late Walt Disney? You're a misogynist who doesn't, "Get it." --At least in the view of a fair portion of the internet (I kid you not.)
> 
> Are you irritated with the derogatory message studios like Disney have promulgated about the role of fathers for more than half a century? You're a misogynist and possibly an MRA boy with a small peanut too.
> 
> You can only have a pejorative hurled at you unfairly so many times before you start developing mental callouses. The word loses its force and the people using it lose legitimacy in your mind. That's just human nature.


I don't know what Meryl Streep said about Disney.

Popular movies show both mothers and fathers as being inept, bumbling idiots. It's not a good thing to have portrayed as the norm, not at all. But Hollywood is looking at the $$ and not at doing the right thing. 

The same things happens with women when we talk about things like women's rights (aka feminism). Look at the discussions here about it. Women are immediately branded as man hating feminists regardless of what they actually believe and state that they believe. 

It's a classic case of no body is really listening to each other.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Please described how the word is "hurled" at *you*, specifically.


I'm not going to give a link to the forum where the word was applied to me, because I'm participating there in full transparency. Like I said though, it really doesn't take much to make the word roll off someone's tongue anymore. In this case it was simply pointing out that Disney was fairly progressive when viewed in the historical context of the time.

And I think that's unfortunate, because words like this should be reserved for more than simple differences of opinion. --Elliot Roger being a good case in point on this thread.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So ocotillo, are you saying it only happened to you once?

Because I have been referred to as a radfem or feminazi at least 100 times since coming to TAM and it still doesn't make me defensive.


----------



## EleGirl

nuclearnightmare said:


> OK, see if this makes sense to (everyone) - If societal misogyny was the root cause of the Rodgers' mass killing - the most important factor, the dominant cause - wouldn't there be a lot more Eliot Rodgers exploding all over the place. even if one throws in male serial killers (of female vicitims).....still very small numbers statistically. Mass killings are very, very rare. Misogyny is a more signficant influence on society than would be reflected by such small numbers. True?


It’s not clear what you are saying here. Are you saying that in the case of mass killings, it is not significance whether or not misogyny was a motivator?

I don’t think that the cause of Roger’s mass killing is societal misogyny. At the root of it was his person misogyny and a group of men on PUA and PUAHate types sties who agree with him and who even cheered him on.

If we want to look at misogyny in society and killing of women based on misogamy, you have to look beyond only serial killers. And I think that we need to look at stats for both murder and violent rape. The numbers for women killed and raped for no other reason that they are women and their killer is misogynistic is very large. A mass killing, such as what Rogers did, is just a small subset of the killings and violence against women in our society.



nuclearnightmare said:


> So I think the linkage to misogyny makes MUCH more sense when we talk of behavior such as spousal abuse, the inability of many young men to comprehend the importance of clear consent in sexual activity, and the street bullying and sexual harassment that have been discussed in the last few pages. These are things that occur at a frequency commensurate with attitudes and beliefs that are not uncommon.


Like I said above, the killing of women done my men who do it out of hate for women is very high.. it happens every day in this country.. many times.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> So ocotillo, are you saying it only happened to you once?


Unfortunately, no.



Faithful Wife said:


> Because I have been referred to as a radfem or feminazi at least 100 times since coming to TAM and it still doesn't make me defensive.


I didn't mention being defensive although I suppose that's a fair observation.

I spoke of the word losing its force through overuse and misuse. For example, if you're a "Feminazi" FW, then how many other women are too? When it's misused, the word is no longer limited to the Valerie Solanas of the world, it becomes inclusive of every woman with a strong opinion on a social issue affecting the genders. And that's hardly accurate.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Correct, and that is why it doesn't make me defensive. And I am still able to hear the real complaint about what those women do and say, and empathize and (usually) agree that it is radical and not helpful.

Yet men around here can't do the same?

Well, a few have done exactly that. But the vocal ones that have to just keep beating back our points....why would they be doing this at all if not because they feel we are blaming THEM? Even though we aren't and we keep saying we aren't.

But whatever. There's no real point in asking why. It doesn't really matter.

I know you are not one of the ones who is defensive and twisting and turning everything we say around backwards, and that you do not excuse the bad behaviors we are talking about. Thank you.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Yet men around here can't do the same?
> 
> Well, a few have done exactly that. But the vocal ones that have to just keep beating back our points...


Maybe it's just my own ethnic love of a robust conversation, but I would say that everybody has their own tipping point and most simply need to be led to it.

I remember like yesterday when it really, truly hit me like a load of bricks. I was walking to the grocery store with my oldest daughter. She was thirteen or fourteen at the time. A truckload of young men leered at her and called out something which I didn't catch, which is irritating, but as a father, it's something you learn to put up with to some extent. Men look at women.

But during the course of a simple trip for eggs and milk, I suddenly realized that every man was leering at her. From boys her own age clear up to seventy year old geezers old enough to be my father. I got in another man's face in the checkout line after he had stared at her rear end for a solid five minutes. I was so mad by the time we got home, I was shaking. I held a CCW at the time and ended up voluntarily renouncing it. 

It's a little embarrassing to admit this, but a lot of us don't realize a problem is a problem until our own ox gets gored.


----------



## LongWalk

i remember one classmate of mine who was doing her PhD and had to work with an old goat professor. We thought of him as a funny old guy who did not do much preparation to teach classes. She told me that he had gone to lunch with her and insisted on paying for her. When she protested he said, "I need a dog; I am paying." WTF.

She needed to have good relations with him because of her studies. While in his office molested her, not violently but he put his hands on her.

When she went to the department and complained there was a cover up because he was only a year from retirement and it would have been a shame to have scandal.

My classmate was outraged. Of course, it is hard for men to imagine this happening. Women professors (did I even have any?) never tried to abuse their power to get sex.

Was the old goat a misogynist? I suppose he at least held women in contempt. Perhaps he was sociopathic to some degree. Calling women subservient (dog like) is certainly a hateful thing to say.

In another building, in another class, a grad assistant teaching math related how a young woman came to his office in hot pants and told him that she was willing to go to his apartment for private tutoring to get a good grade. He told her to study her buns off. He wore a shxt-eating grin when he related this. I wish I had asked one of the women in the class what she made of him.

re: *the relationship between mental illness and sexuality*
Freud had a lot of ideas about the formation "normal" and "abnormal" sexuality. While he was certainly a pioneer the exercise of analysis, it seems fair to say that advances in understanding of neurochemistry have rendered large aspects of his reasoning unconvincing or incomplete. But in one respect Freud was genius - he saw sex and other instincts as driving forces in behavior. Misogyny exists in all civilizations, wouldn't you guess?

Many important swear words are refer to sex organs. Curiously, you can hardly insult someone or imply that they are selfish or stupid by calling them a "breast" or a "tıt". App

Although it possible to mistreat people so terribly that they become mentally ill, most mental illness has an organic component. Rodger was probably psychotic and his psychosis did not begin because of PUA sites.

re: gender conflict and culture
When I see women dressed from head to toe black I consider them victims of a religion that subjugates women and their sexuality. The Old Testament put the blame on Eve for ruining Eden. Is Christianity misogynist?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you, ocotillo. I agree that men look at women and that it will never stop (and is a good thing). But there is a way to appreciate a woman's beauty or sexiness that is ethical...sadly, many men could care less about that.

Even when it is their own daughter, sometimes they don't care.

When my D was 13 or so, she spent the night with a friend. When she came home she said she never wanted to go back to that friend's house again because the friend's dad "kept looking at her funny" and it scared her really bad. Clearly this dad was HAPPY that his young daugther brought other young girls around for him to leer at.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Jimmy Carter Speaks Out On Religion And Equality For Women; Slams Sexist Biblical Interpretations


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Although it possible to mistreat people so terribly that they become mentally ill, most mental illness has an organic component. Rodger was probably psychotic and his psychosis did not begin because of PUA sites.


From what I have read, he was not psychotic.


----------



## EleGirl

Faithful Wife said:


> So ocotillo, are you saying it only happened to you once?
> 
> Because I have been referred to as a radfem or feminazi at least 100 times since coming to TAM and it still doesn't make me defensive.


I've had the same experience here on TAM... as have a lot of the women here.

As you say, if someone calls me those name it does not matter because that's not who I am. It's on the name caller.

But what does get me is the constant use of the name calling to shut down discussing any thing that the name caller does not agree with.


----------



## ocotillo

EleGirl said:


> Popular movies show both mothers and fathers as being inept, bumbling idiots. It's not a good thing to have portrayed as the norm, not at all. But Hollywood is looking at the $$ and not at doing the right thing.


EleGirl, with Disney, it goes a little beyond that. Take, for example the 1953 adaptation of _Peter Pan_, which probably you and I have both seen.

What does the movie say about mothers? A mother is "_..the angel voice that bids you good night. Another word for divine._"

What does the movie say about fathers? It doesn't say anything directly, but indirectly, it says a lot. In _The Little White Bird_, Mr. Darling was a man who agonized over how he could put more food on the table and frantically calculated what personal austerity measures he could take to make that happen (e.g. Giving up tea and tobacco) 

In the movie adaptation Mr. Darling is the alter ego of the villain, Captain Hook. Hans Conreid did both voices with no difference in modulation. Both wage a war on children in their own way; one in a make believe world and one in the real world and neither is worth of any respect. 

This isn't a "Male vs. Female" thing, (All the writers were male) this was a problem in American society during the latter half of the 20th century with the social upheaval and challenges to traditional authority figures we experienced.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> It's a little embarrassing to admit this, but a lot of us don't realize a problem is a problem until our own ox gets gored.


And that's just it. So many want to defend this behaviour as "liking" women and "appreciating" them, not realizing that treating her like a piece of meat devalues her personhood - and fundamentally changes the way women will relate to men.

We fear, we react with hostility, we worry about things like misogyny precisely because we are not really people in the way we are often treated.


----------



## always_alone

Disney is evil through and through. Virtually no redeeming features. IMHO.


----------



## LongWalk

Faithful Wife said:


> Please described how the word is "hurled" at *you*, *specifically*.
> 
> That's the thing. I'm not offended by the people who dislike the views and practices of radical feminists, because I'm not one. So no matter how many times someone discusses them, I will never feel it is "hurled at me".
> 
> Why would anyone internalize and be defensive about something that isn't about them?
> 
> Believe it or not, we women face the same thing. We are grouped and stereo typed based on things other women do. And yet...I am not offended or defensive when someone talks about behaviors a specific woman does or a group of women do. I may even totally agree.
> 
> And more to your point...the men who have disagreed and bantered with me and others on this thread? I've never called THEM misogynists and I don't think they are misogynists. I think they are just unaware of some of the issues women face and unaware that some men DO hide their misogyny from them and that's part of why they are unaware. I do not think they are "all MRA's with small peanuts".
> 
> Regardless of the *insults* some of them have "hurled" at me specifically, I don't think ill of them at all, nor do I think they are bad husbands, etc.


On this thread the word "jerks" has come up. But which males posters were the jerks went unstated. Apparently the jerks were supposed to recognize themselves and feel shame or humiliation for taking part in an open forum discussion. Posters have also stated that they have clicked on ignore. Who exactly they were silencing was not stated.

If people called you a femnazi, that ought to earn them a time out, the penalty box or whatever.

re: Psychotic or not?
Here is an article.

One of the bizarre passages of his writing:

Last year he posted:


> “If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females.
> 
> “You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.”




California shooting: Elliot Rodger's friends thought he was 'a serial killer in the making' - Mirror Online 
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook


----------



## EleGirl

LongWalk said:


> Last year he posted:
> 
> 
> 
> “If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females.
> 
> 
> “You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.”
Click to expand...

He definitely saw many/most other men as rivals.

He saw women as objects… not people with intelligence or a self-hood. IN his mind they are objects that he, being so magnificent, deserved to have.


----------



## hambone

LongWalk said:


> i remember one classmate of mine who was doing her PhD and had to work with an old goat professor. We thought of him as a funny old guy who did not do much preparation to teach classes. She told me that he had gone to lunch with her and insisted on paying for her. When she protested he said, "I need a dog; I am paying." WTF.
> 
> She needed to have good relations with him because of her studies. While in his office molested her, not violently but he put his hands on her.
> 
> When she went to the department and complained there was a cover up because he was only a year from retirement and it would have been a shame to have scandal.
> 
> My classmate was outraged. Of course, it is hard for men to imagine this happening. Women professors (did I even have any?) never tried to abuse their power to get sex.
> 
> Was the old goat a misogynist? I suppose he at least held women in contempt. Perhaps he was sociopathic to some degree. Calling women subservient (dog like) is certainly a hateful thing to say.
> 
> In another building, in another class, a grad assistant teaching math related how a young woman came to his office in hot pants and told him that she was willing to go to his apartment for private tutoring to get a good grade. He told her to study her buns off. He wore a shxt-eating grin when he related this. I wish I had asked one of the women in the class what she made of him.
> 
> re: *the relationship between mental illness and sexuality*
> Freud had a lot of ideas about the formation "normal" and "abnormal" sexuality. While he was certainly a pioneer the exercise of analysis, it seems fair to say that advances in understanding of neurochemistry have rendered large aspects of his reasoning unconvincing or incomplete. But in one respect Freud was genius - he saw sex and other instincts as driving forces in behavior. Misogyny exists in all civilizations, wouldn't you guess?
> 
> Many important swear words are refer to sex organs. Curiously, you can hardly insult someone or imply that they are selfish or stupid by calling them a "breast" or a "tıt". App
> 
> Although it possible to mistreat people so terribly that they become mentally ill, most mental illness has an organic component. Rodger was probably psychotic and his psychosis did not begin because of PUA sites.
> 
> re: gender conflict and culture
> When I see women dressed from head to toe black I consider them victims of a religion that subjugates women and their sexuality. The Old Testament put the blame on Eve for ruining Eden. Is Christianity misogynist?


This reminds me of the old story about the time the girl went to a movie theater with two guys. She's sitting in the middle.

Suddenly, she yells out, "Get your hand OFF my thigh!"

Then in a polite voice. "not you.. I was talking to HIM!!!"


----------



## LongWalk

always_alone said:


> Disney is evil through and through. Virtually no redeeming features. IMHO.


 We have a strange relationship to Disney. Some of the early Disney was good. They even made propaganda films about sex education and Nazism before they were reduced to stealing and ruining great literature and then ruining it to earn money. 

Little Mermaid did not have a happy ending in the orginal.

So, AlwayAlone, if you could order Disney to make a cartoon to attack misogyny and change men, what would its plot be like?


----------



## Entropy3000

Created2Write said:


> Awesome!


That would make an excellent PUA t-shirt.


----------



## Entropy3000

I think calling a guy such a thing when there is no basis is as bad a using the N word against someone. Any language that seeks to demean, degrade and or dismiss someone is hate speech. So just saying it should be used only in some extreme circumstance and even then one should really understand just what it really means. Carry on.


----------



## always_alone

Entropy3000 said:


> I think calling a guy such a thing when there is no basis is as bad a using the N word against someone. Any language that seeks to demean, dismiss and or dismiss someone is hate speech. So just saying it should be used only in some extreme circumstance and even then one should really understand just what it really means. Carry on.


I totally agree that we shouldn't call people names, but I don't see misogyny as being on the same order as the N word (assuming I have the right N word in mind). 

Misogyny is not a dismissive insult, it is a label describing a certain ideology. Just as, say, homophobic is.

Sometimes it may be applied inaccurately, arguably too liberally, but it still isn't hate speech in quite the same way.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> So, AlwayAlone, if you could order Disney to make a cartoon to attack misogyny and change men, what would its plot be like?


I wouldn't trust Disney with any story. Maybe they have one or two good movies, but no way I would involve them in any way.


----------



## LongWalk

always_alone said:


> I totally agree that we shouldn't call people names, but I don't see misogyny as being on the same order as the N word (assuming I have the right N word in mind).
> 
> Misogyny is not a dismissive insult, it is a label describing a certain ideology. Just as, say, homophobic is.:iagree:
> 
> Sometimes it may be applied inaccurately, arguably too liberally, but it still isn't hate speech in quite the same way.


Is calling someone a jerk okay?

Women put up with unwanted sexual attention from men. Some of it is is not hateful. Some of it is threatening, but not really dangerous. Some is both. It is hard for men who would never rape a woman to imagine how common it is.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy3000 said:


> I think calling a guy such a thing when there is no basis is as bad a using the N word against someone. Any language that seeks to demean, dismiss and or dismiss someone is hate speech. So just saying it should be used only in some extreme circumstance and even then one should really understand just what it really means. Carry on.


Right so the language that the PUA/MRA crowd use to demean and dismiss women is hate speech, right?

And those men are the only ones I have had any problem with in this thread (not meaning those men are in this thread, just meaning those men are who I have discussed in this thread).

So why do men here defend those men?

Just because they are men?

Just because they don't like me?

I haven't called any person at TAM a misogynist yet I have been called a radfem and feminazi dozens of times.

So please get it right: there are not women here rampantly calling all men or any man here misogynists. Who exactly do you think you are protecting in your post?


----------



## LongWalk

I think every man who is reading the thread has better understanding of misogyny. And that is a good thing.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> Right so the language that the PUA/MRA crowd use to demean and dismiss women is hate speech, right?
> 
> And those men are the only ones I have had any problem with in this thread (not meaning those men are in this thread, just meaning those men are who I have discussed in this thread).
> 
> So why do men here defend those men?
> 
> Just because they are men?
> 
> Just because they don't like me?
> 
> I haven't called any person at TAM a misogynist yet I have been called a radfem and feminazi dozens of times.
> 
> So please get it right: there are not women here rampantly calling all men or any man here misogynists. Who exactly do you think you are protecting in your post?


Take your anger out on someone else FW. I stand on what I have said. Calling people these things is hate speech. These things are way too liberally used. It is talk to the hand stuff.

Frankly I have no use for either side of such an argument. Not worth my investment. I am saying that hate can perpetuate hate. I choose not to feed it. If some guy does something like you speak of in front of me, it is just as likely he will end up the worse for it. I have already stated I am against disrespect most of all. Are a lot of men utter and complet @ssholes. Oh hell yes. About as many as there are women in my experience. Should these guys be called out. Sure. It just gets to be a feeding frezny all too often IMO. YMMV. 

I have a right to my opions and no one, man or woman is going to decide otherwise. I can listen to differing ideas and improve my views but I decide how I feel and what I find acceptable and act accordingly. 

Two things to ponder here :

1) It is not all about me

2) It is not all about you

Indeed things can affect us and we can speak our minds. Go for it. But calling someone like this is like calling someone a wh0re or a racists or any number of other hateful things. Better get it right. These may or may not be true. Make sure it is clearly true and not just the mood you are in or about something else in your life or point of view.

Most of what you are arguing has nothing at all to do with anything I personally have said. So you must be talking to others through my post. 

I have no doubt this applies to many. Rage on against them. But US against THEM gets mighty old.

Have a freaking nice day.


----------



## Entropy3000

LongWalk said:


> I think *every man* who is reading the thread has better understanding of misogyny. And that is a good thing.


But perhaps not in the way you think.


----------



## Caribbean Man

Entropy3000 said:


> [_I have a right to my opnions and no one, man or woman_ is going to manipulate me into thinking or deciding otherwise.  * I can listen to differing ideas and improve my views but I decide how I feel and what I find acceptable and act accordingly.*


:smthumbup: Well said!

Hope you don't mind me sticking in a few extra words for maximum effect.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy3000 said:


> Take your anger out on someone else FW. I stand on what I have said. Calling people these things is hate speech. These things are way too liberally used. It is talk to the hand stuff.
> 
> Frankly I have no use for either side of such an argument. Not worth my investment. I am saying that hate can perpetuate hate. I choose not to feed it. If some guy does something like you speak of in front of me, it is just as likely he will end up the worse for it. I have already stated I am against disrespect most of all. Are a lot of men utter and complet @ssholes. Oh hell yes. About as many as there are women in my experience. Should these guys be called out. Sure. It just gets to be a feeding frezny all too often IMO. YMMV.
> 
> I have a right to my opions and no one, man or woman is going to decide otherwise. I can listen to differing ideas and improve my views but I decide how I feel and what I find acceptable and act accordingly.
> 
> Two things to ponder here :
> 
> 1) It is not all about me
> 
> 2) It is not all about you
> 
> Indeed things can affect us and we can speak our minds. Go for it. *But calling someone like this is like calling someone a wh0re or a racists or any number of other hateful things. Better get it right.* These may or may not be true. Make sure it is clearly true and not just the mood you are in or about something else in your life or point of view.
> 
> Most of what you are arguing has nothing at all to do with anything I personally have said. So you must be talking to others through my post.
> 
> I have no doubt this applies to many. Rage on against them. But US against THEM gets mighty old.
> 
> Have a freaking nice day.


The bolded part of your post is the only thing I am taking issue with.

I have called actual misogynists misogynists, and that's that. I have called no man on this board a misogynist. So why are you implying that any of us don't know who this word really applies to? Who here is throwing it around at just any man? Quotes? The men I am applying that word to actually are that and none of those men are here.

Maybe you could actually read what people are saying rather than just assume things.

But it is nice your friend CM came to back you up...since he is one of the most offended about our discussion here, even though no one has called him or you or any other man here a misogynist, you both sure are defensive about it.

Why is that?


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

I see there is a common pattern here on TAM where several men gang up on one or two women in these threads regardless if they are right or not. Lot of these posters only try to psycho-analyze the female posters themselves instead of the topic of the threads. Why is that? Is it just so you can argue and demean women? Does it make you feel more powerful?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> I see there is a common pattern here on TAM where several men gang up on one or two women in these threads regardless if they are right or not. Lot of these posters only try to psycho-analyze the female posters themseelves instead of the topic of the threads. Why is that? Is it just so you can argue and demean women? Does it make you feel more powerful?


I have a better question...How can someone with your username be taken seriously on a thread about respect between the genders?


----------



## techmom

My mom used to say if someone in the street called out "hey stupid" and you turn around and answer back, then you must be stupid.

In other words, don't get upset about someone calling you a misogynist if you are not one.

And for the record, no one called anyone a misogynist in this thread. If so, please provide proof.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## over20

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> I see there is a common pattern here on TAM where several men gang up on one or two women in these threads regardless if they are right or not. Lot of these posters only try to psycho-analyze the female posters themselves instead of the topic of the threads. Why is that? Is it just so you can argue and demean women? Does it make you feel more powerful?


I disagree. I don't find a pattern on TAM like this at all. There are debates and sometimes fights on both sides. To generalize, I feel is NOT fair.


----------



## hambone

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> I see there is a common pattern here on TAM where several men gang up on one or two women in these threads regardless if they are right or not. Lot of these posters only try to psycho-analyze the female posters themselves instead of the topic of the threads. Why is that? Is it just so you can argue and demean women? Does it make you feel more powerful?


Hey, the women do PLENTY of ganging up on guys...


----------



## EleGirl

nuclearnightmare said:


> I have a better question...How can someone with your username be taken seriously on a thread about respect between the genders?


Is there a need to have respect for guys who are self named Pick-Up-Artists?

Poking fun at PUA's is not disrespecting the entire male population. Most men are not PUAs.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> Is there a need to have respect for guys who are self named Pick-Up-Artists?
> 
> Poking fun at PUA's is not disrespecting the entire male population. Most men are not PUAs.


All do respect, NN was not referring to PUA's but one poster with a MRA username.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> All do respect, NN was not referring to PUA's but one poster with a MRA username.


OK, so the name is poking fun at the MRA crowd. There is a very radical faction of the MRA crowd. You know like the group that tried to sue Facebook to force them to allow rape jokes... like rape is really something to joke about. My take is that the poster is making a comment about the radical MRA crowd. It's not about all men since then name is not about all men having small peanuts.

Have you seen the pot shots that people around here take at feminists? It's not just the radical feminists who get harassed on this board for even saying that they simple believe in the basics of equal rights for women.


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> OK, so the name is poking fun at the MRA crowd. There is a very radical faction of the MRA crowd. You know like the group that tried to sue Facebook to force them to allow rape jokes... like rape is really something to joke about. My take is that the poster is making a comment about the radical MRA crowd. It's not about all men since then name is not about all men having small peanuts.
> 
> Have you seen the pot shots that people around here take at feminists? It's not just the radical feminists who get harassed on this board for even saying that they simple believe in the basics of equal rights for women.


Thank you for responding. Please explain "pot shots that people around here take at feminists"

I do not see it.


----------



## Entropy3000

Faithful Wife said:


> The bolded part of your post is the only thing I am taking issue with.
> 
> I have called actual misogynists misogynists, and that's that. I have called no man on this board a misogynist. So why are you implying that any of us don't know who this word really applies to? Who here is throwing it around at just any man? Quotes? The men I am applying that word to actually are that and none of those men are here.
> 
> Maybe you could actually read what people are saying rather than just assume things.
> 
> But it is nice your friend CM came to back you up...since he is one of the most offended about our discussion here, even though no one has called him or you or any other man here a misogynist, you both sure are defensive about it.
> 
> Why is that?


Indeed you are the one being defensive here.
But why would I speak up? How about, I choose to. 
I do not have to be personally attacked to engage. 

Charlie Manson was no friend of mine.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Thank you for responding. Please explain "pot shots that people around here take at feminists"
> 
> I do not see it.


The reason you don't see it is probably because you are stanch anti-feminist. You have taken every chance you get to say that you hate feminism. You've stated that you want it reversed so that women have to say home. 

Just stating the facts here.


----------



## Entropy3000

techmom said:


> My mom used to say if someone in the street called out "hey stupid" and you turn around and answer back, then you must be stupid.
> 
> In other words, don't get upset about someone calling you a misogynist if you are not one.
> 
> And for the record, no one called anyone a misogynist in this thread. If so, please provide proof.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I disagree with your mom. With all due respect. And perhaps it was great advice for you and your mom. I am going to look to at least assess the situation going down. Why would anyone do such a thing? Context matters. And indeed it does not have to be aimed at me for me to notice. My world may be bigger than some others. That is my choice.

I take the opposite view here. Go figure. If I am one then I should be ok with being called one. But call me something I am not? You are going to get hell for it. 
But honestly IRL this does not happen to me.

No one said anyone called anyone a mysoginist in this thread. But it is hurled about on TAM. All too often. You can disagree with people all you want. But once one starts calling people these type of things realize that they are by their nature offensive. THIS is my point.


----------



## LongWalk

Men and women have the capacity to feel outrage when they feel mistreated because of their gender. One of the most disquieting things for the average person is the idea that people are discussing them and judging them. There are some who are genuinely secure in themselves but even they face putdowns.

Maria Sharapova just won the French Open. She employs gamesmanship to overcome her opponents, screaming loudly on and delaying between serves. This she does every time, every shot, every serve. She is considered very sexy and attractive by many. Others may consider her an unprincipled cheater who in part gets away with it because of her looks.

Femininity and masculinity accentuate our likes and dislikes. When these feelings become an attitude, then we can get caught up in misogyny or misandry. Is it misogyny to like Sharapova despite her character flaws or to dislike more because of them?


----------



## over20

EleGirl said:


> The reason you don't see it is probably because you are stanch anti-feminist. You have taken every chance you get to say that you hate feminism. You've stated that you want it reversed so that women have to say home.
> 
> Just stating the facts here.


I don't understand why your post is so aggressive. Yes, I am not in favor of stanch feminism. I am allowed to feel that way as you are yours.


----------



## Entropy3000

LongWalk said:


> Is it misogyny to like Sharapova despite her character flaws or to dislike more because of them?


I would say no. However, while I can appreciate physical beauty for what it is, I really would not like the person for that alone. If they were otherwise wretched they would be a complete turn off.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> The reason you don't see it is probably because you are stanch anti-feminist. You have taken every chance you get to say that you hate feminism. You've stated that you want it reversed so that women have to say home.
> 
> Just stating the facts here.





over20 said:


> I don't understand why your post is so aggressive. Yes, I am not in favor of stanch feminism. I am allowed to feel that way as you are yours.


Sure, we are both allowed to believe as we wish. Nowhere did I say that you were not allowed to your beliefs. 
My response was not harsh. It recounted some of the things that you have posted. 

If you want to see things reversed so that woman have to stay home, then you are against more than radical feminism. You are against equality for women. 

And it stated something that I believe... that you would not recognize jabs at non-radical-feminists because you agree with them.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

nuclearnightmare said:


> I have a better question...How can someone with your username be taken seriously on a thread about respect between the genders?


I have no need for you to take me seriously. You can either read or ignore what I write. Though out of interest, what is your issue exactly? Are you one of them yourself?

PS. It's good that at least one of us have a very serious username, nuclearnightmare.


----------



## always_alone

LongWalk said:


> Is it misogyny to like Sharapova despite her character flaws or to dislike more because of them?


You keep asking whether liking or hating this or that individual person is misogyny, which makes me think you don't quite understand what the term means.

An attempt to clarify: Misogyny is hating women. Not just one woman because she has characteristics that you don't like, but women generally and simply because they are women and women are [fill in the blank with hateful generalization].

Now, I'm guessing that your focus on looks in your example is getting at the issue of objectification, and how that is often connected to misogyny. 

Many here would not see objectification as a form misogyny at all. Maybe they are right, but IMHO, the two things are closely related because again, objectification is not about whether you find this or that woman attractive, it is about viewing women and treating them like objects who exist only for male sexual gratification, thereby diminishing their agency, autonomy, and personhood.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy3000 said:


> Indeed you are the one being defensive here.
> But why would I speak up? How about, I choose to.
> I do not have to be personally attacked to engage.
> 
> Charlie Manson was no friend of mine.


Cool, so you agree you weren't personally attacked. 

And I maintain that no other man at TAM was either.

Have a nice freaking day.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Entropy3000 said:


> I disagree with your mom. With all due respect. And perhaps it was great advice for you and your mom. I am going to look to at least assess the situation going down. Why would anyone do such a thing? Context matters. And indeed it does not have to be aimed at me for me to notice. My world may be bigger than some others. That is my choice.
> 
> I take the opposite view here. Go figure. If I am one then I should be ok with being called one. But call me something I am not? You are going to get hell for it.
> But honestly IRL this does not happen to me.
> 
> No one said anyone called anyone a mysoginist in this thread. But it is hurled about on TAM. All too often. You can disagree with people all you want. But once one starts calling people these type of things realize that they are by their nature offensive. THIS is my point.



So lets review.

Some women were talking in this thread about their own experiences as women.

Then you chimed in to make sure to tell us that what is really important here is to make sure no man is falsely called a misogynist.

And you wonder why it looks to women like men always have to control the conversation and shut women down?

Well there you go. You butting to tell us not to do something we weren't doing is one of the many reasons why we think that. You come across as if you are scolding us, yet I wonder on what authority you believe you have any right to try to control the conversation. 

I asked you who you think you are protecting and what women had called someone falsely a misogynist, and you couldn't answer either of those questions...so I am left to assume you just had to step in because you thought the wimmins were getting a bit too uppity. NOW you are stating "no one called anyone a misogynist in this thread"....but you turn your point to "it gets hurled around on TAM all the time".

Sorry but I don't think you are in charge, Ent. And you did simply try to shut us down from talking and even by your own admission, what you accused us of didn't happen in this thread.


----------



## Deejo

I think the subject keeps morphing, as it often does.

I have no tolerance for harassment, denigration of, or violence towards women.

I simply submit that no amount safe-guarding, or outreach on the part of GOOD men, was going to prevent THIS individual from fueling his hate, and escalating to a point that he decided to write down his plan and carry it out.

There is the guy that thinks his female superior is a draconian b!tch kind of misogyny, and then there is Rodgers. 

Are both of those perpetrators painted with same brush?

To me, there is a yawning chasm of difference. Hatred can be challenging to see, unless and until someone chooses to display it.

That NBA owner for example, did anyone believe him to be a racist prior to his comments being made public? Does anyone believe that his views will change as a result of being called out and punished? Or, go on a killing spree as a result?


----------



## NobodySpecial

EleGirl said:


> The reason you don't see it is probably because you are stanch anti-feminist. You have taken every chance you get to say that you hate feminism. You've stated that you want it reversed so that women have to say home.
> 
> Just stating the facts here.


That is a bit horrifying.


----------



## hambone

EleGirl said:


> The reason you don't see it is probably because you are stanch anti-feminist. You have taken every chance you get to say that you hate feminism. You've stated that you want it reversed so that women have to say home.
> 
> Just stating the facts here.


That's a pretty aggressive post...

Let's not mistake opinion for fact.


----------



## always_alone

Deejo said:


> To me, there is a yawning chasm of difference. Hatred can be challenging to see, unless and until someone chooses to display it.
> 
> That NBA owner for example, did anyone believe him to be a racist prior to his comments being made public? Does anyone believe that his views will change as a result of being called out and punished? Or, go on a killing spree as a result?


Hatred can be challenging to see, even if someone wears it pinned to their coat sleeves. And as this thread illustrates, Rodgers is a perfect example of that. He is out there making videos about how much he hates women and wants to kill them, and there is one group calling him a hero, and another shrugging and saying, "oh well, don't bother me until the corpses are on the floor." 

And then those that do call it out as hate are themselves scolded for being too hateful, for slinging the word "misogyny" around too carelessly, and for making mountains out of molehills.

It's true that some people keep their hatred well hidden, but it's also true that lots of others are seeing it and trying to draw attention to it, but the majority refuses to listen, because well, he's a famous and rich NBA owner, he must be a good guy and mean well. 

The good news is that while we can't always change everyone's mind by talking about these issues, we can on occasion open some eyes to just how wrong it is.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hambone said:


> That's a pretty aggressive post...
> 
> Let's not mistake opinion for fact.


It's not her opinion though. I've seen every thing she is referring to. O20 IS anti-feminist,has stated the things about women being at home,and has stated that she hates feminism.


----------



## hambone

ScarletBegonias said:


> It's not her opinion though. I've seen every thing she is referring to. O20 IS anti-feminist,has stated the things about women being at home,and has stated that she hates feminism.


She said she hates ALL feminists?


----------



## over20

ScarletBegonias said:


> It's not her opinion though. I've seen every thing she is referring to. O20 IS anti-feminist,has stated the things about women being at home,and has stated that she hates feminism.


Whoa, whoa, whoa I am against radical feminism that derives energy from hatred towards men. Men are NOT the enemy. That is all I have ever been trying to express here on TAM. I am tired of gender wars. While I do believe that it is an ideal role for a woman to be wife and mother, I am wise enough to know it is not for everyone.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Deejo said:


> I think the subject keeps morphing, as it often does.
> 
> I have no tolerance for harassment, denigration of, or violence towards women.
> 
> I simply submit that no amount safe-guarding, or outreach on the part of GOOD men, was going to prevent THIS individual from fueling his hate, and escalating to a point that he decided to write down his plan and carry it out.
> 
> There is the guy that thinks his female superior is a draconian b!tch kind of misogyny, and then there is Rodgers.
> 
> Are both of those perpetrators painted with same brush?
> 
> To me, there is a yawning chasm of difference. Hatred can be challenging to see, unless and until someone chooses to display it.
> 
> That NBA owner for example, did anyone believe him to be a racist prior to his comments being made public? Does anyone believe that his views will change as a result of being called out and punished? Or, go on a killing spree as a result?



And so what are your thoughts about the men here who are essentially making it clear that they don't want women here to talk about anything on this thread at all unless it matches their thoughts?


----------



## hambone

over20 said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa I am against radical feminism that derives energy from hatred towards men. Men are NOT the enemy. That is all I have ever been trying to express here on TAM. I am tired of gender wars. While I do believe that it is an ideal role for a woman to be wife and mother, I am wise enough to know it is not for everyone.


That is the interpretation that I got from what you posted.


----------



## EleGirl

over20 said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa I am against radical feminism that derives energy from hatred towards men. Men are NOT the enemy. That is all I have ever been trying to express here on TAM. I am tired of gender wars. While I do believe that it is an ideal role for a woman to be wife and mother, I am wise enough to know it is not for everyone.


You have at least one post where you stated that you would like to see feminism reversed to that women stay at home. That's not a statement against radical feminism. That's a statement against basic women's rights.

No one on here has said that men are the enemy.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa I am against radical feminism that derives energy from hatred towards men. Men are NOT the enemy. That is all I have ever been trying to express here on TAM. I am tired of gender wars. While I do believe that it is an ideal role for a woman to be wife and mother, I am wise enough to know it is not for everyone.





EleGirl said:


> You have at least one post where you stated that you would like to see feminism reversed to that women stay at home. That's not a statement against radical feminism. That's a statement against basic women's rights.
> 
> No one on here has said that men are the enemy.


What Ele said.


----------



## over20

I am allowed to FEEL that way. No one has to like it. Even though no one has stated "Men are the enemy" the underlying tone is felt.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Lol!

Yep, it is felt by you, even though it isn't here.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hambone said:


> She said she hates ALL feminists?


"Yes, I am a woman and hate the feminist movement. I believe it has done more wrong than right."

"I am so glad to see this old post!!! I thought I was ALL alone on this forum. It is not PC, as a female, to say you despise feminism. I agree with you on almost everything. I DO like to be put on a leash sometimes, I love how my hubs leads me, he leads with logic and wisdom. I am not a bixch though....and I am a happy homemaker."

Eh,if you want to get technical she doesn't say she hates all feminists in these particular posts. I bet if someone had time to dig and read ALL of her posts they'd find if she doesn't outright say it,she all but says it in various ways.


----------



## over20

ScarletBegonias said:


> "Yes, I am a woman and hate the feminist movement. I believe it has done more wrong than right."
> 
> "I am so glad to see this old post!!! I thought I was ALL alone on this forum. It is not PC, as a female, to say you despise feminism. I agree with you on almost everything. I DO like to be put on a leash sometimes, I love how my hubs leads me, he leads with logic and wisdom. I am not a bixch though....and I am a happy homemaker."
> 
> Eh,if you want to get technical she doesn't say she hates all feminists in these particular posts. I bet if someone had time to dig and read ALL of her posts they'd find if she doesn't outright say it,she all but says it in various ways.




I am allowed to have those thoughts and views.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> I am allowed to FEEL that way. No one has to like it. Even though no one has stated "Men are the enemy" the underlying tone is felt.


You have a habit of feeling things that aren't necessarily there...as made evident by your posts that all the ladies "upstairs" hate you and all the men like you. Example,I don't know you so I don't actually hate you even if I disagree with much of what you say.I still respect your right to say it as long as you own up to it. While I can think of a few men who do actually have a problem with you. So you see,feeling things that aren't necessarily accurate. When you say there's an undertone of "men are the enemy" I have to disagree. I'm very neutral on the gender war and I honestly just do not see it here.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> I am allowed to have those thoughts and views.


Of course you are! No one is denying your right to say those things and feel those things. 

But when you say there's an undertone of men being the enemy here and someone points out the reasons you probably feel that way,it's not to say you can't feel that way. It's to show you that you might perhaps be a bit biased and that's what's causing you to feel the undertone.


----------



## hambone

EleGirl said:


> You have at least one post where you stated that you would like to see feminism reversed to that women stay at home. That's not a statement against radical feminism. That's a statement against basic women's rights.
> 
> No one on here has said that men are the enemy.


They may not have overtly stated that but that certainly the underlying attitude of radical feminists.

There are a lot of feminists that look down their nose at SAHM's. See them as, "just a housewife". A very disrespectful attitude.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Anyway...my point was Ele wasn't just being aggressive or mean.She was trying to help you understand why you might not see things she's seeing bc of your differences.She used your past comments as a way to illustrate it.


----------



## hambone

Faithful Wife said:


> Lol!
> 
> Yep, it is felt by you, even though it isn't here.


Disrespectful


Perhaps, through your feminists filters you don't see it but it exists.


----------



## over20

ScarletBegonias said:


> You have a habit of feeling things that aren't necessarily there...as made evident by your posts that all the ladies "upstairs" hate you and all the men like you. Example,I don't know you so I don't actually hate you even if I disagree with much of what you say.I still respect your right to say it as long as you own up to it. While I can think of a few men who do actually have a problem with you. So you see,feeling things that aren't necessarily accurate. When you say there's an undertone of "men are the enemy" I have to disagree. I'm very neutral on the gender war and I honestly just do not see it here.


Please don't talk down to me.


----------



## TiggyBlue

hambone said:


> Disrespectful
> 
> 
> *Perhaps, through your feminists filters you don't see it but it exists*.


How is that any less disrespectful than what FW said?


----------



## hambone

ScarletBegonias said:


> Anyway...my point was Ele wasn't just being aggressive or mean.She was trying to help you understand why you might not see things she's seeing bc of your differences.She used your past comments as a way to illustrate it.


Not accurate. 

She used HER interpretation of O20's comments. 

I got a different interpretation.


----------



## hambone

TiggyBlue said:


> How is that any less disrespectful than what FW said?


There was clearly a misinterpretation of o20's position.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hambone said:


> There are a lot of feminists that look down their nose at SAHM's. See them as, "just a housewife". A very disrespectful attitude.


This is definitely true.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hambone said:


> Not accurate.
> 
> She used HER interpretation of O20's comments.
> 
> I got a different interpretation.


Based on your views on equality and feminism this doesn't surprise me at all. Obviously we're all going to interpret things differently and it seems some of us will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> Please don't talk down to me.


Please explain to me why you feel I've talked down to you. I've been very respectful of you. Haven't attacked your views in any way and haven't even told you that you're wrong.I'm simply trying to get you to understand what you feel might not necessarily be accurate for what's being posted. I mean,I do that too sometimes especially bc of my bpd. But at some point you have to step back and say "hey maybe what I'm feeling isn't necessarily what people are trying to convey.Maybe my own views are prohibiting me from seeing the other side."

That's all.


----------



## hambone

ScarletBegonias said:


> "Yes, I am a woman and hate the feminist movement. I believe it has done more wrong than right."
> 
> "I am so glad to see this old post!!! I thought I was ALL alone on this forum. It is not PC, as a female, to say you despise feminism. I agree with you on almost everything. I DO like to be put on a leash sometimes, I love how my hubs leads me, he leads with logic and wisdom. I am not a bixch though....and I am a happy homemaker."
> 
> Eh,if you want to get technical she doesn't say she hates all feminists in these particular posts. I bet if someone had time to dig and read ALL of her posts they'd find if she doesn't outright say it,she all but says it in various ways.



Can we separate feminists from feminism?

Is hating a movement the same as hating individuals?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hambone said:


> Can we separate feminists from feminism?
> 
> Is hating a movement the same as hating individuals?


For me,it's a separate issue but I'm not so sure it's separate for others. Until they say otherwise I just don't know.


----------



## over20

ScarletBegonias said:


> Please explain to me why you feel I've talked down to you. I've been very respectful of you. Haven't attacked your views in any way and haven't even told you that you're wrong.I'm simply trying to get you to understand what you feel might not necessarily be accurate for what's being posted. I mean,I do that too sometimes especially bc of my bpd. But at some point you have to step back and say "hey maybe what I'm feeling isn't necessarily what people are trying to convey.Maybe my own views are prohibiting me from seeing the other side."
> 
> That's all.


I see your point. It goes both ways though.


----------



## Faithful Wife

hambone said:


> Disrespectful
> 
> 
> Perhaps, through your feminists filters you don't see it but it exists.


And here once again, I'm being called a feminist;

1. Used in a way as if it is an insult.

2. Even though I have never self-identified as a feminist.


And for the record...I don't hand out respect to people when they haven't earned it from me. So you pointing out that my post was disrespectful? I don't give a crap. The person you are defending has disrespected me dozens of times.


----------



## hambone

ScarletBegonias said:


> Based on your views on equality and feminism this doesn't surprise me at all. Obviously we're all going to interpret things differently and it seems some of us will have to agree to disagree.


Please don't put words in my mouth....

What are my views on equality and feminism?

I believe everyone deserves equal rights, regardless or race, religion, gender, etc. etc.

What's wrong with that?


----------



## ScarletBegonias

over20 said:


> I see your point. It goes both ways though.


I realize that.This is why I'm not telling you that you're wrong for your views.Such as thinking women should be home and that raising children is the highest calling. I absolutely do not find those views to be something I can agree on but I can see and understand why you feel the way you do about it.


----------



## TiggyBlue

hambone said:


> That's a pretty aggressive post...
> 
> Let's not mistake opinion for fact.





> Not accurate.
> 
> She used HER interpretation of O20's comments.
> 
> I got a different interpretation.



Then IMO Elegirl's post is open to interpretation as well. As well as the feeling 'men are the enemy'.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

hambone said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth....
> 
> What are my views on equality and feminism?
> 
> I believe everyone deserves equal rights, regardless or race, religion, gender, etc. etc.
> 
> What's wrong with that?


I'm fairly sure we've read enough of your posts to see where you side and it's not necessarily in the middle as you're stating here. 

You might be for equality but your views have a tendency to be mostly what's good for men and not so much what's good for both men and women. 

Of course,it could just be my own skew on what I've read and someone else might come along and see it differently.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

Well I see FW is banned now. I guess it's time to bow out bc obviously the thread is getting too heated for folks.


----------



## hambone

Faithful Wife said:


> And here once again, I'm being called a feminist;
> 
> 1. Used in a way as if it is an insult.
> 
> 2. Even though I have never self-identified as a feminist.
> 
> 
> And for the record...I don't hand out respect to people when they haven't earned it from me. So you pointing out that my post was disrespectful? I don't give a crap. The person you are defending has disrespected me dozens of times.


Not an insult at all... Since when has being called a feminists an insult? 

Everybody has a particular POV. Feminists see things from a different perspective. Radical feminists... just like radicals in any other realm, are going to see things that others do not see. 

Feminists have a long history of disrespecting SAHM's. 

Why are you so angry? Old Chinese proverb... He who angers first, has lost the debate.


----------



## Amplexor

This thread has been a ban magnet from the start so I'm going to lock it. At this point it's become a round robin of at risk posts. If the other thread becomes the same, it will be closed also until people settle down a bit. We welcome discussion on this subject but at this point people aren't gaining anything of value.


----------

