hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:21 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

i didn't say all, but many party politic folks follow blindly their leaders of choice
that is true about all political groups, be it the Feminists, the NRA, gay rights political pressure groups and so on. Then we should talk about how we tend to blindly accept what ever an "expert" tells us is truth. This is what happens when education breaks down, people are stupid and they tend to subcontract out their thinking. Our laziness compounds the problem.
0 Replies
 
Buttermilk
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 01:41 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Um you and I are saying the same thing.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 03:15 pm
@Buttermilk,
Fair enough, but it appeared to me that you were focusing on access to guns.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 04:04 pm
Quote:
It's easy to mock Rodger's assertion that he "deserved" a girlfriend. But the only system he understood was one in which good behavior was rewarded, and bad behavior was punished. Do your chores, and you get your allowance. Break a neighbor's window, and you're grounded. When Rodger found himself punished for what he thought was nice-guy behavior, he responded with self-pity, which gradually gave way to anger.

But how could Rodger—or any lonely psycho—react differently? During adolescence, hormones turn your body into a walking Viagra disclaimer, and your thoughts into a pornographic loop. But girls perplex and terrify your childish mind. They're just so different—as Jeffery Eugenides wrote, they're "women in disguise" who are impossible to fathom. Often, they don't even seem human; like Prufrock, you can only comprehend them as collections of parts—faces, voices, arms, and, of course, the eyes that pin you, wriggling, to the wall.


http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dispatches/2014/05/i_could_have_been_elliot_rodger_young_frustrated_and_full_of_rage_toward.html

Rodger's understanding was perfect in this regard, he had no doubt been told since birth that being good was the way to get what you want, as well as that males must be non threatening. This is what we the collective teaches our youth, not only teach but beat into them, sometime literally. But it was all a lie, nice guys usually finish last, in no small part because a huge chunk of the females actually have no use for a nice guy, this is not what they want. So Rodgers was first very confused, and then he was shattered I believe when he discovered that those he trusted had lied to him over his entire life, when he more than most was counting on them to tell him the truth because he had difficulty reading social situations. I think almost all youth figure out by grades 7-8 that the adults are mostly full of it, but Rodgers was an overly trusting fool, he figured this out way late, too late to adjust to the truth. He was hopelessly out of step with his peers, so i just gave up trying to interact with them. His reason for giving up interacting with adults ( and not trusting his shrinks) is self evident.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 04:07 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:
And we still have A2K for the moment, I will miss it when it is gone (TWO THUMBS UP TO ROBERT)
nononono wrote:
He's shutting this down eh? That's too bad. Some posts and people here seem to be quite informative.
Miller wrote:
I will miss it too, when it's gone. Could the exit be approaching?

I don't know if there is a shutdown approaching, but there have been predictions that the planned revamping of the ignore switch to turn it into an offensive weapon will make the site useless as a forum for intelligent discussion.

I think there is some confusion about my post here.

I am not saying "the planned removal of the ignore switch".

I am saying "the planned revamping of the ignore switch, to turn it into an offensive weapon".


Specifically, I am referring to the plans to modify the ignore switch so that anyone who you place on ignore, cannot read anything that you post (in addition to the traditional mechanism where you do not read anything that they post).

Being able to block selected people from ever reading what you post has much potential as an offensive weapon.

For example, if everyone in this thread placed Firefly on ignore, it would appear to her as if this were an empty thread where no one was posting anymore, even if there were in reality page after page of fresh posts that she might prefer to voice an objection to.

It has been predicted by some that this modification will be the downfall of a2k. It was those predictions that I was referring to.

I do not know if it will be the downfall of a2k, but it does seem to me that new tactics will have to be developed.

It might be that people will start temporarily placing people on ignore based on a rolling judgement call of which person will make the strongest arguments against their position at any given moment.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 04:18 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It's easy to mock Rodger's assertion that he "deserved" a girlfriend. But the only system he understood was one in which good behavior was rewarded, and bad behavior was punished. Do your chores, and you get your allowance. Break a neighbor's window, and you're grounded. When Rodger found himself punished for what he thought was nice-guy behavior, he responded with self-pity, which gradually gave way to anger.

But how could Rodger—or any lonely psycho—react differently? During adolescence, hormones turn your body into a walking Viagra disclaimer, and your thoughts into a pornographic loop. But girls perplex and terrify your childish mind. They're just so different—as Jeffery Eugenides wrote, they're "women in disguise" who are impossible to fathom. Often, they don't even seem human; like Prufrock, you can only comprehend them as collections of parts—faces, voices, arms, and, of course, the eyes that pin you, wriggling, to the wall.


http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dispatches/2014/05/i_could_have_been_elliot_rodger_young_frustrated_and_full_of_rage_toward.html

Rodger's understanding was perfect in this regard, he had no doubt been told since birth that being good was the way to get what you want, as well as that males must be non threatening. This is what we the collective teaches our youth, not only teach but beat into them, sometime literally. But it was all a lie, nice guys usually finish last, in no small part because a huge chunk of the females actually have no use for a nice guy, this is not what they want. So Rodgers was first very confused, and then he was shattered I believe when he discovered that those he trusted had lied to him over his entire life, when he more than most was counting on them to tell him the truth because he had difficulty reading social situations. I think almost all youth figure out by grades 7-8 that the adults are mostly full of it, Rodgers was a trusting fool, he figured this out way late, too late to adjust to the truth. He was hopelessly out of step with his peers, so i just gave up trying to interact with them. He reason for giving up interacting with adults is self evident.
Elliot simply HALLUCINATED a duty in girls
to sexually approach all boys; or HIM, anyway.

He shud have known better. On some level of mind,
I 'm sure that he DID.

There has been no indication that anyone told him
that the extant social paradigm requires the boy
to take the initiative. His manifesto is silent on that.

Its hard to believe that his social skills counsellors failed to mention that.





David
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 04:20 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Specifically, I am referring to the plans to modify the ignore switch so that anyone who you place on ignore, cannot read anything that you post (in addition to the traditional mechanism where you do not read anything that they post).


Strikingly similar to the just released EU ruling, the so called " right to be forgotten" law, the we have the right to cleanse the internet of references to us. The logic here is the same as claiming the right to erase history books of all mention of us.

Those boys and girls over in the EU keep claiming that they are so much more advanced than we Americans are, but frankly I think it is clear that they are off their nuts.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 04:21 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
So far as can be told Rodgers never even talked to girls, much less touched one. Any claim that he abused females is pure hallucination.

Quote:
There has been no indication that anyone told him
that the extant social paradigm requires the boy to take the initiative
Saw a news account that has one peer straight up telling Rodgers this, the claim is that Rodgers had no comment on the subject other than he was not going to do it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 04:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
So far as can be told Rodgers never even talked to girls, much less touched one.
Yes; that is my understanding,
from his manifesto. He was ruled by un-reasoning fear.

Sadly, Elliot had un-limited faith in the notion
that girls have an abiding DUTY to be BRAVER than he was,
putting THEIR egos on the line, instead of him.

Reading his manifesto, I felt sad for him.
I 'd have liked to befriend him and to argue with him,
if he were willing to do so. I 'd have brought out the point
that it is perfectly proper for chicks to decline our social advances.
I 'm not saying that he 'd have accepted that point of vu; I dunno.




hawkeye10 wrote:
Any claim that he abused females is pure hallucination.
Well, except the 2 whom he murdered.




DAVID wrote:
There has been no indication that anyone told him
that the extant social paradigm requires the boy to take the initiative
hawkeye10 wrote:
Saw a news account that has one peer straight up telling Rodgers this,
the claim is that Rodgers had no comment on the subject other than he was not going to do it.
Elliot brought new meaning
to the concept of being scared to DEATH.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  5  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 05:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Any claim that he abused females is pure hallucination


He murdered a couple. That's pretty abusive.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 06:26 pm
@boomerang,
Black LOL
0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 09:50 pm
I would absolutely vote for Hillary!

For one thing she's got a good head on her shoulders and while I believe that anyone elected as president ultimately becomes a puppet to other factors and organizations pulling the strings, some choices are undeniably better than others. I think Hillary will do more for social issues than anyone the Republicans throw down the chute will.

But mostly I'd like Hillary to win to shut feminists up! Because the moment that there's a female president, feminists don't get the right to bitch anymore as far as I'm concerned! I can't wait for that day!!! Feminists are going to have to shut their big, fat mouth holes about how a man runs the country! It's going to be a GLORIOUS day!

Here are some interesting thoughts about the tragedy. Again written by a WOMAN. Boy, it's a good thing that it's ONLY men out there who believe that the extent of misogyny in society is exaggerated, and believe that "the patriarchy" is a fallacy. :





"Over 77 percent of all U.S. murder victims in 2012 were male; targets of non-lethal shootings are even more disproportionately male. Four of the six homicide victims of Elliot Rodger, the lunatic narcissist who went on a killing spree in Santa Barbara in revenge for female rejection, were male. And yet the feminist industry immediately turned this heartbreaking bloodbath into a symbol of America’s war on women.

The mainstream media and the Internet quickly generated a portrait of America where women walk in fear simply “in order to survive,” as a Washington Post blogger put it, adding that the shootings were merely an extreme example of the “abuse and anti-woman violence” that American women face every day. “If we don’t talk misogyny now, when are we going to talk about it?” a global-studies major at the University of California, Santa Barbara, asked the New York Times. The episode has provoked “a call to end misogyny, inequality, and violence against women,” reports the Huffington Post. Females allegedly have to walk a daily gauntlet of leers, gropings, catcalls, and condescension, simply in order to go about their business, according to the New York Times and posts on #YesAllWomen (as in: Yes, all women experience sexual hatred and violence).

These females are apparently living in a different world than mine. Leave aside the fact that the Santa Barbara killings were clearly the actions of a madman. Rodger’s every gesture and word bespoke monomaniacal, self-pitying delusion, amplified in the hermetic echo chamber of his own deranged narcissism. There is no pattern of gender-based rampages in this country; there is an emerging pattern of rampages by the untreated mentally ill. But the fundamental premise of the feminist analysis of Rodger’s massacre — that the U.S. is “misogynist” — is patently absurd. To the contrary, ours is a culture obsessed with promoting and celebrating female success. There is not a science faculty or lab in the country that is not under relentless pressure from university administrators and the federal government to hire female professors and researchers, regardless of the lack of competitive candidates and the cost to meritocratic standards. Wealthy foundations and individual philanthropists churn out one girls’ self-esteem and academic-success initiative after another; boys are a distant runner-up for philanthropic ministrations, even though it is boys, not girls, who are falling further and further behind academically and socially. (The Obama administration’s flawed initiative to help young minority males succeed has drawn predictable criticism for leaving out girls. No one complained, of course, about the White House Council on Women and Girls or the endless female-empowerment projects that roll forth from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.) Girls hear a constant message that “strong women can do it all,” including raise children on their own. Any female even remotely in the public realm who is not deeply conscious that she has been the “beneficiary” of the pressure to stock conference panels, media slots, and op-ed pages with females is fooling herself. Corporate boards and management seek women with hungry desperation. And even were this preferential treatment to end tomorrow, females, especially the privileged, highly educated ones who make up the feminist ranks, would still face a world of unprecedented, boundless opportunity.

Women “face harassment every day,” a double global-studies and feminist-studies major told the New York Times. (“Global studies” appears to be a previously overlooked arena of left-wing academic propaganda, joining postcolonial studies and other concocted fields.) This portrait of a public realm filled with leering, grasping men may have described 1950s Italy and perhaps some Latin American countries today, but it bears no resemblance to contemporary America. Construction workers have largely been tamed. Groping on subways is thankfully rare — and it is committed by perverts. No one condones such behavior. It is on the very margins of our social lives, not at the center.

Rap music is the one cultural locus that may legitimately be described as misogynist, but of course, the academy and its orbiting feminists are assiduously silent about rap’s portrayal of “ho’s” and “bitches.”

Annoyance at male aggressiveness in trying to pick up females figured prominently on feminist websites and Twitter feeds in the wake of the Santa Barbara slaughter. Such behavior is a far cry from murder. To be sure, some males can be remarkably clueless when it comes to today’s debased version of courtship — groundlessly confident in their nonexistent charms, blindly unwilling to read signs of indifference or repulsion, devoid of any nuance of approach. The feminist assault on chivalry and feminine modesty and the insistence that males and females go mano a mano on the sexual battlefield only exacerbate such boorishness. Here’s a suggestion to offended females: Laugh off such crude manifestations of the unconstrained male sex drive, then put them in perspective. Go to Afghanistan, India, or Nigeria if you want to combat sexual inequality. But don’t pretend that as a gender-studies student in the academic hothouse, you are a brave victim fighting against your own oppression and that of the American sisterhood.

As for the hoary claim that men treat women as sex objects (female students around UC Santa Barbara hear jokes about “what physical features make a woman desirable,” reports an alarmed New York Times), I’ll feel the injustice of that when I see women trade their stiletto heels and tight skirts for sober business suits that reveal as little of their skin and shape as a man’s suit. This month’s Bazaar magazine promises “younger looking eyes,” forswearing for once the usually routine tips about butts and thighs as well. InStyle offers “10 ways to wake up gorgeous.” The gazillion-dollar cosmetics industry is a testament to women’s drive to make themselves sexually appealing. Is all this marketing a patriarchal conspiracy to keep women down? No one is forcing women to buy fake eyelashes and push-up bras, unless you believe that women are so feeble-minded that they have been brainwashed against their will into wanting to attract men sexually.

Rodger’s pathetically grandiose final video bespeaks an entitlement mentality, more than a misogynist one. He believes himself entitled to whatever he wishes for — in this case, college sex — and licensed to kill because he hasn’t gotten what he wants. The first half of that belief is not so unusual in our instant-gratification culture; the second half, pure sociopathy. But that sociopathy tells you nothing about the condition of women today. Do other college-age males feel themselves entitled to sex? When campus administrators hand out tips for better orgasms and on the use of sex toys, it would not be surprising if they did. And the pro-promiscuity feminists have been behind that campus sex-promotion crusade 100 percent. Rodger’s claim that “college is a time when everyone experiences sex, fun, and pleasure” (learning is strictly accidental) is not far from the official truth.

Expect Rodger’s massacre to figure prominently in the Obama administration’s ongoing crusade against the phantom campus-rape epidemic. Needless to say, it will end up in every gender-studies classroom in the country as well. By all means, let us try to “end violence against women,” as the feminists say. But unless those feminists intend to fully resurrect the Victorian understanding of women as deserving special solicitude by virtue of their maternal calling and delicate sensibilities, we should also be trying to end violence against men. And when it comes to mass slaughter, the best hope for doing both is by treating mental illness, not by railing against the imaginary patriarchy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379271/ucsb-solipsists-heather-mac-donald
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 09:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Elliot Rodger never got rejected by any girl.
In his lengthy manifesto, tho he complains about rejection
very redundantly, he offers not even ONE instance
of any girl having declined his invitation to go out.
He never offered an invitation.
That was his downfall; he was disabled by fear.


I think you have a much more accurate idea of what Elliot Rodger was like than Hawkeye does, particularly the fear that gripped him, and probably prevented him from taking the initiative in any social encounter, including with other males.

Do you remember his terror at his graduation, I think it was in 6th grade, because he'd have to announce his name from the stage after receiving his diploma? He wasn't just shy. His social anxiety was massive, and quite debilitating.

But, while other males sometimes did take the initiative with him, the females likely didn't because, as you point out, "the extant social paradigm requires the boy to take the initiative". However, if he was unable to do that, or simply couldn't recognize that was the social paradigm, he would simply transfer the "duty" onto the female in order to satisfy his sense of entitlement. The whole idea of showing interest in another person, or trying to engage them, was beyond him. Not only did he never ask a girl out, his manifesto contains no reports of any efforts, at all, to just have a conversation with a girl.

He really thought that, if he just stood on campus, next to his BMW, wearing his $300 sunglasses, those status symbols really would act like an actual magnet to attract beautiful girls, who would suddenly rush to his side, and immediately announce, "I want to be your girlfriend."
He engaged in a lot of magical thinking like that, and it seemed part and parcel of his generally autistic thinking.
Quote:
autistic thinking-- preoccupation with inner thoughts, daydreams, fantasies, private logic; egocentric, subjective thinking lacking objectivity and connection with external reality


nononono
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 10:11 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Alcuin is accessible only to "invited readers," so I'm not sure how the SPLC knows what's going on it, but it doesn't seem to be capable of spreading a message of hate very far.


Quote:
The Counter Feminist. I think it's a mistake to equate displeasure with "feminists" with misogyny, just as it would be a mistake to equate a displeasure with these sites as misandry. In any case this one doesn't seem to be much of anything.


Quote:
The False Rape Society. This one I expected to find filled with noxious rants about how rape is not the serious crime we all know it to be. Instead I found a Drudge Report format containing links to articles, many from mainstream sources which relate to false accusations of rape.


Quote:
The authors conclude that the number of false accusations amount to between 8% and 10% of all reported rapes, and pointedly note that with approx. 200,000 reported rapes a year that is between 16,000 and 20,000 false accusations. These are not insignificant numbers; especially to the thousands of men whose lives can be ruined by a false charge.



Quote:
Although the SPLC chooses not to address misandristic sites, they are out there too. Here are a couple.

http://dearmisandrist.blogspot.com/
http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm



Quote:
The SPLC has a very definite ideological bias, and is hardly the objective identifier of sources of "hate" they claim to be.



While I'm not personally familiar with any of these sites, you make some very good points here Finn dAbuzz
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 10:36 pm
MRA in this article=Men's Right's Activists.

Quote:
Yes, All Men: Every Man Needs to Understand Internalized Misogyny and Male Violence
By Tom Hawking
May 29, 2014

In the aftermath of the weekend’s ghastly events at UC Santa Barbara, there’s been plenty of discussion about our pervasive culture of misogyny, and the myriad destructive ways in which it manifests. A large part of the narrative has been that men need to shut up and listen to women’s voices on this topic, which is certainly true. But men also need to talk, honestly and amongst ourselves, about the nature of masculinity, and acknowledge our own destructive impulses. This is a problem that men need to be discussing precisely because it’s a problem with men. And it’s only men who are going to fix it.

The most important thing we need to realize is that potential to be the problem lies within all of us — and because only by acknowledging this can we start to look to a solution. I’m not saying we all have the potential to be killers, but we all have the capacity to to be unthinkingly misogynistic, to refuse to examine our behavior and our assumptions, to subscribe to the sentiments that fuel the “men’s rights” movement and its ilk.

We’re brought up that way — not always by our parents, but by the world we live in. (In general, when I say “taught” in this piece, I don’t mean that someone actively sits you down and says, “Now listen, son, this is how to objectify women.” It’s more a case of cultural osmosis than anything else.) No one — least of all kids in their late teens and early 20s, a demographic that accounts for the overwhelming majority of Reddit MRA types — exists independently of the environment that shaped them.

And many of them can relate to the misogyny that drove Elliot Rodger — if not in degree, then at least in principle. The Atlantic‘s Noah Berlatsky wrote an excellent piece yesterday about how he could recognize the sentiment that underpinned Rodger’s video:

Like Elliott Rodger, who killed at least six people in Santa Barbara last week, when I was 22, I had never had a girlfriend. Like him, I had never kissed a girl. Those facts weighed on me, just as they seemed to have weighed on Rodger. Being a virgin, as I’ve written before, made me feel broken and wrong and failed…

Rodger’s horrifying violence, the videos he posted, and the way he saw himself are all extreme. But they’re also a reflection of the way poisonous ideals of masculinity affect men. To some extent, I’ve felt the frustration Rodger felt, and I think other men may feel it as well. This is not an excuse for Rodger’s actions, but something more painful: a confrontation of the ways in which he’s not deviant, but typical. Acknowledging that seems like an important part of making sure this kind of thinking doesn’t remain typical any longer.


I think Berlatsky is dead right. I’ve certainly felt those things. Longing is a default state of mind for adolescents of all genders, of course, but in men that longing manifests a sense of frustrated entitlement, although you don’t recognize it as such at the time — you just feel that you’re getting a raw deal. You see girls and love as things that other people have and you don’t. The idea of having is important here, because you’re taught that women are a thing to be “gotten,” rooted in a sort of faith that one is owed existential reward for Doing It Right.

Look, for instance, at Seth Rogen’s phrasing on Twitter earlier this week:

[email protected] how dare you imply that me getting girls in movies caused a lunatic to go on a rampage.
26 May 2014


This came in response to Washington Post film critic Ann Hornaday’s argument that 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.’” And whatever you think of the merits of using Apatow’s films as an example, the way Rogen spoke of “getting girls” is striking. (As Jessica Goldstein writes for ThinkProgress, “Girls are not a thing you get. They’re not a goody bag at the end of the frat party… Neighbors is… the latest in a long, long line of movies in which men are granted what they desire, always and without question, even if what they desire is not a what, but a who.”)

Clearly, these are ideas that don’t stand up to any sort of serious interrogation, but the point is that you’re never taught to interrogate them. Like many unspoken convictions, they’re just present in our cultural unconscious — or at least they are until someone questions them. And when someone does question them, it’s not a pleasant experience. This is at least part of the answer to the question that my former Flavorwire colleague, the excellent commentator Michelle Dean, asked at Gawker on Tuesday: “Why is it so hard for people to get that Elliot Rodger hated women?” Why? Because for many people — mostly men — acknowledging that requires questioning your entire belief system.

It’s not all clear-cut misogyny, either. Even the ways in which men are often taught (consciously, in this case) to respect women are shot through with harmful assumptions: casting women as exotic creatures who should be loved and revered, fragile beings to be treated like princesses, and all that stuff. Clearly, seeing women as sacred beings instead of objects that exist for your satisfaction is less destructive, and the tradition of educating boys this way is largely rooted in good intentions — the idea of actively teaching your kid not to be an asshole.

But it still involves casting women as “the other.” And there’s still the implication that if you treat them the right way, girls will like you, and thus you will Get Girls. Men would never think of their interactions with other men this way — that if you treat boys right, they will like you, and thus you will Get Friends. We just, y’know, make friends. What we should teach kids is that gender is a social construct that imposes arbitrary expectations on people who are individual humans, just like you. Sadly, as a society we’re still an awful way from seeing gender this way.

The obvious problem with these apparently benign ideas is that if, as a boy, you feel that you’ve done everything right, and you haven’t gotten what you deserve for your good behavior, you become resentful. And the way that men express negative emotions in our society isn’t through talking about it, because that’s not considered manly. Instead, there’s a propensity to lash out at whatever you feel is hurting you, to respond to whatever is causing you pain by causing it pain.

The worst I’ve ever done is throw a half-eaten kebab at my ex after a fight that constituted the nadir of a festival where it rained for three days solid and our tent collapsed. It missed. But I remember clearly the split second of wanting to lash out, to strike at this person who at that moment was causing me pain and anguish. And I also remember how I felt as soon as I’d thrown it — watching this ridiculous kebab fly through the air, as if in slow motion, as I prayed that it didn’t hit her. She was walking away from me. It fell short and landed in a puddle. She never knew I threw it. But I remember.

I’m not telling you this as some sort of confession. I’ve been in three physical fights in my life, all with other men. I’ve never hurt a woman physically. I don’t consider myself good. I consider myself lucky. I never did any real damage before I was old enough or well-read enough to evaluate my behavior and understand where it was coming from. This has, mostly, come through reading feminist writers and discussing gender politics with friends who are smart and willing to teach. And it’s also through a process of coming to know myself.

I’ve already discussed most of this on Twitter, and among the responses has been, predictably enough, a range of variations on “not all men.” Which, look, I understand. After all, if you grew up in a reasonably positive environment, you were taught to treat everyone as equals. You were taught about suffrage and women’s lib, and maybe if your high school English teacher was particularly enlightened, you studied Simone de Beauvoir or Margaret Atwood or Adrienne Rich or Sylvia Plath along with Shakespeare and the rest of the Y Chromosome Canon. Men, as a rule, are better than we used to be. We’re civilized.

The problems with “not all men” have been reasonably well articulated — to start, it’s a strawman, because clearly no one beyond the most radical vanguard of feminism is really suggesting that within every man lurks a rabid misogynist killer, just waiting to get out. And it’s a way of derailing conversations about the role of men in female oppression, because it immediately swings the spotlight back onto you: hey, I’m not like that, thus your entire argument is invalid, see?

But no, actually, it’s the “not all men” argument that’s invalid — or, at least, disingenuous. Maybe it’s not all men — but it is men and only men, and it’s that’s something that we as men need to accept.

And maybe, just maybe, it is all men. Or, at least, it could just as easily be. Because who’s to say that if you weren’t raised in an entirely different environment, you mightn’t be violent too? Not Elliot Rodger — or, ****, at least I hope not — but it’s a propensity that is in all of us. Whether this is biological or cultural is the subject of some debate, but ultimately, that’s kinda beside the point — the fact remains that by pretty much every metric you can think of, men commit more acts of violence than women.

No one wants to think about the fact that underneath all that culture and refinement, men retain within them a possibility for violence, or a possibility for mistreating our fellow humans. Civilization is a comforting concept — it allows us to put some distance between us and our genes, a way of viewing ourselves as somehow better than those who are violent and aggressive, to rise above our baser instincts. To some extent, it’s true — but it’s important to remember that the idea of civilization wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the fact that we have baser instincts that we need to rise above.

Gregory David Roberts, of Shantaram fame (and as masculine a man as you’ll ever meet), likes to talk about the difference between what he calls our “animal nature” and “human nature.” I’m going to quote him at length here, because he’s one of the most thoughtful voices on the nature of masculinity I’ve encountered:

We have two natures. An animal nature and a human nature. Our animal nature is derived from 40 million years of ape history. We are 98.9 per cent chimp DNA. Chimpanzees are territorial, hierarchical, patriarchal and they are competitive-aggressive. We, as social beings, are territorial, hierarchical, patriarchal and competitive-aggressive. But we have something else. The chimps can’t break out of that… [but] human nature breaks boundaries. Our human nature says, You know what, I am going to be free… We are constantly pulled between our animal nature and human nature. We are torn between the two. And it is not resolved in anyone’s lifetime.

Indeed it isn’t, but the first step toward some sort of resolution is acknowledging the conflict. Clearly, this isn’t something exclusive to men, but this is most definitely a gendered problem, and trying to pretend that it isn’t means that you absolve yourself of any responsibility for being part of the solution to it.

One final point here: perhaps the most frustrating thing about the hijacking of the MRA movement by extremists is that there are some valid points that get lost in the noise. There is definitely a discussion to be had about the way family courts handle paternal access to children after divorce, and the distribution of settlements and alimony, and the cultural invisibility of rape and abuse perpetrated against men, and etc.

But here’s something to think about: these are also manifestations of patriarchy. Men don’t talk about violence against them because our culture, shaped by millennia of male dominance, tells them not to, because to do so is unmanly. Men are denied access to children because of gender roles imposed by patriarchy — that the man is the provider, and the woman the carer. And so on.

In other words, if MRA types really want to address the issues that bother them, they should be enthusiastic feminists. This may sound counter-intuitive, and on the off chance that you’re an MRA who’s actually read this far, you’re probably about to leave an excoriating comment. Don’t. Think about this: gender roles are destructive to everyone. And think about how they affect you.

As Socrates, or Thalon, or whoever else it was, said millennia ago: know thyself. Understand how your actions reflect the centuries of patriarchy that have shaped the society in which you live. I read this story on Tumblr yesterday, one of a bazillion #YesAllWomen stories to emerge over the last few days. It’s called “My First Customer of the Morning Just Called Me a ****,” and it relates how a man asked the author, who works in a coffee shop, whether the first customer of the day “gets a hug or squeeze or something.” When she told him, “It isn’t such a good idea to tell women you’ve never met to hug or squeeze you when you’re a customer at their place of work,” he sat and stewed for five minutes, and then he started yelling at her.

Put yourself in his position, in isolation, and you might see how he felt the way he did — to his own eyes, he was no doubt making mildly flirtatious small talk with a girl who, to his eyes, shut him down with unnecessary emotional force. And now he feels like a victim. He didn’t deserve that, he thinks to himself. What’s up her ass, anyway? Why didn’t she enjoy the attention? If you’re a woman reading this, you’re probably shaking your head and saying, “**** that guy.” And of course, you’re right. If you’re a guy and reading this, don’t be that guy.

Understand that your actions don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of a society where literally every woman you will ever meet has a similar story to tell, if she feels safe enough to do so. Understand that society is a large-scale representation of this. Understand that you are owed nothing. You don’t get a gold star for being a good person. It’s the minimum standard of human decency that anyone should be able to expect.

You don’t get taught this stuff. But you can work it out for yourself. Pay attention. Recognize misogyny when you see it. Don’t be an asshole. Listen to women. Believe them. And most of all, understand that they are your fellow humans and deserve to be treated as exactly that: people who share this planet with you. We’re not going to fix society’s ingrained misogyny overnight. It will take generations. But we won’t make any progress until we acknowledge that it exists.
http://flavorwire.com/459699/yes-all-men-every-man-needs-to-understand-internalized-misogyny-and-male-violence

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:35 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Understand that your actions don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of a society where literally every woman you will ever meet has a similar story to tell, if she feels safe enough to do so.


Love it....men suck so bad that " literally" every woman has been abused by a man, so even if you have never abused a woman, even if you dont know of a man abusing a woman, even of you dont know of a woman who has been abused, you should take our word for all this and sacrifice your rights to be treated as a equal.

GO **** YOURSELF!


Quote:
Think about this: gender roles are destructive to everyone.


BUUUULLLL SHIIIT!

Gender roles are responsible for 62.9% of the fun that I have had in this lifetime, and I am not going to give it up just because some twit tells me to. He is a great idea, you and everyone else like you goi forwards as an it, and make sure that we all know that you are a it, so that I can easily know who to avoid as I go about my day. You its go do what ever it is you do, and us women and men will have our fun the way humans have done for thousands of years.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:50 pm
@firefly,
Another case of projection.

0 Replies
 
nononono
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:51 pm
@firefly,
Again firefly ALL you're doing is regurgitating feminist propaganda that the mainstream media has been using to demonize men and further the idea of this imaginary culture of "misogyny".

And I'll tell you exactly why this writer gets discredited immediately if for no other reason...

He named his cat Kathleen Hanna!!!

http://flavorwire.com/author/tomflavorpill

Do you know who Kathleen Hanna is?

She's the singer from the band Bikini Kill. She's WELL KNOWN for her man hating extreme feminist views. I've had personal interactions with her (I'm not a musician, but I've been very active in the music scene where I live all my life), and will tell you unapologeticlly that she's a ROYAL ****. She makes no secret of her extreme feminist views, and how she feels about men. Everybody I know who's worked with her complained about her attitude towards men. Even some well known bands have complained publicly about her.

If this guy is a big enough fan to name something after an extremely hateful feminist like her, as far as I'm concerned that discredits him right there.


I think this sums up the reality of the shooting and men treating women as objects:

"As for the hoary claim that men treat women as sex objects (female students around UC Santa Barbara hear jokes about “what physical features make a woman desirable,” reports an alarmed New York Times), I’ll feel the injustice of that when I see women trade their stiletto heels and tight skirts for sober business suits that reveal as little of their skin and shape as a man’s suit. This month’s Bazaar magazine promises “younger looking eyes,” forswearing for once the usually routine tips about butts and thighs as well. InStyle offers “10 ways to wake up gorgeous.” The gazillion-dollar cosmetics industry is a testament to women’s drive to make themselves sexually appealing. Is all this marketing a patriarchal conspiracy to keep women down? No one is forcing women to buy fake eyelashes and push-up bras, unless you believe that women are so feeble-minded that they have been brainwashed against their will into wanting to attract men sexually.

Rodger’s pathetically grandiose final video bespeaks an entitlement mentality, more than a misogynist one. He believes himself entitled to whatever he wishes for — in this case, college sex — and licensed to kill because he hasn’t gotten what he wants. The first half of that belief is not so unusual in our instant-gratification culture; the second half, pure sociopathy. But that sociopathy tells you nothing about the condition of women today. Do other college-age males feel themselves entitled to sex? When campus administrators hand out tips for better orgasms and on the use of sex toys, it would not be surprising if they did. And the pro-promiscuity feminists have been behind that campus sex-promotion crusade 100 percent. Rodger’s claim that “college is a time when everyone experiences sex, fun, and pleasure” (learning is strictly accidental) is not far from the official truth."


But what really disgusts me is that all these irresponsible pieces have been written in the media (thankfully there are a precious few RESPONSIBLE pieces being written in counter.) I'm pro gun control, but I'm starting to understand why gun owners get angry when activists use a shooting as a battle cry for more control. I think it's DISGUSTING that people are using this tragedy to push their own agendas.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 12:16 am
Quote:
Fighting female objectification and discrimination and violence against women isn’t simply the job of women; it must also be the pursuit of men.

Only when men learn to recognize misogyny will we be able to rid the world of it.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/opinion/blow-yes-all-men.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0

This is great, liking the way a woman looks in a skimpy outfit is now on par with her suffering discrimination or violence. It is misogyny. Under what definition I wonder?

Quote:
Definition of MISOGYNY

: a hatred of women

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

So let me see if I have this...I see a 19yo in a mini sundress walking down the street, and she happens to have nice big tits that are bouncing up and down and shapely ass, so I look a bit longer. Then I begin to have a fantasy about bending her over the arm of a sofa and taking her from behind ( what can I say, I love sex, I love sex with women, I love sex with sexy young women (or the idea anyway, I dont get them at 19 anymore) ....this means I "hate" women??!! I dont think that word means what it used to mean.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 12:22 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
BUUUULLLL SHIIIT!
Gender roles are responsible for 62.9% of the fun that I have had in this lifetime, and I am not going to give it up just because some twit tells me to.

You're such a phony. Laughing You bragged about giving up your traditional male gender role as the family provider, in order to be a stay at home dad with your kids.

If you really didn't willingly trade in your traditional male gender role to do that, then I guess you were just a lazy bum, who laid around the house, and sponged off his wife for many years. Not a very enticing picture of "masculinity" in that. Laughing
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Elliot Rodger
  3. » Page 35
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 11:28:08