Was Elliot Rodger's recent attack an attack on women?

28 views and no response? Quite interesting.

28 views and no response? Quite interesting.

So in which areas do you believe women should be inferior or be denied equal opportunity?

HUH?

well, there is that whole writing their name in the snow thing, that should remain the domain of men

as to the question, sure it was, on one level, but even if we went back to the 40's or 50's, who's to say this guy would have got any action, in the end, he was a troubled young man, if it wasn't the perceived threat of feminism, it would have been something

Why are you talking about feminism? I don't see any connection between feminism and that video.

There is no question that Elliot Rodger had extremely misogynist views which, in his case, were irrational and extreme--and his manifesto provides sufficient information about that. And his hatred of women was a large component of the motive for these murders, but the intensity of his rage, and the distortions in his thinking that led to the rage, were irrational. He was emotionally disturbed/mentally ill. I don't think the women in that video failed to see that, it simply wasn't the issue they were addressing.

Elliot Rodger's rage toward women, and the men who were successful with them, was all based on a perception of women as sex objects, and objects of sexual gratification for men, and not much beyond that. He didn't see women as people at all--he saw them only as sex objects, and trophies to be gained in his competition with all other men. And he made that clear in his obsession with having only the most coveted of those trophies, the beautiful girls. That basic view of females, in mainly sexual terms, and as objects of male entitlement and possession, is not unique to Elliot Rodger, it is shared by many men, and it is expressed, and promoted, in various ways in our culture. And those sexist attitudes and perceptions are what many women consider to be misogyny, because it is essentially a demeaning view of women, and it affects many women in various negative ways in their everyday lives.

That CNN discussion wasn't about a "war on women" with Rodger's murderous violence as evidence that that extreme hatred exists on a general basis. It was more about his sexist attitudes toward women--that type of everyday misogyny--and how it affects women, and how it contributes to harassment and violence in women's lives. And, following the murders, women began sharing their everyday experiences with that sort of misogyny on Twitter, particularly on #YesAllWomen.

And that's what the women in that video clip were doing. They were talking about the outpouring of female responses on Twitter, following revelation of the manifesto, where women were talking about their own experiences with that sort of everyday misogyny. And these sorts of experiences are something some men may have difficulty understanding, because they are not subjected to this sort of thing--they aren't the target of hoots or comments in public, from strangers, about their sexual attractiveness, or groping attempts by strangers, or overly pushy advances from strangers, etc.--many men don't even usually see these sorts of things being done to women, because the men who do such things don't generally do these things in front of other men--unless it's a like-minded group. Some men may even accept this as the norm for male behavior in the treatment of women. But on #YesAllWomen many women, and some men, took the opportunity to express themselves on this matter.

So I don't understand where feminism fits into any of this. Women, all kinds of women, were simply voicing their feelings and thoughts on this matter on #YesAllWomen and on several cable news programs similar to the one you posted the clip from. And I think the best thing most men might do in response, is simply to listen--just listen, without getting defensive, without countering with all the awful things some women do to men, and without trying to dismiss the things women are saying.

As an example of the sort of thing that females have to put up with, consider what went on at Yale a few years ago.

A Yale University fraternity, Delta Kappa Epsilon, decided to induct a new class of pledges with the following chant, that rang out on the campus one night, as they marched through a residential triangle :

"No means yes!
Yes means anal!
No means yes!
Yes means anal!
No means yes!
Yes means anal!
No means yes!
Yes means anal!

******* sluts!"



Does a female have to be a "feminist" to feel outraged and insulted and offended by that sort of thing being chanted under her housing window?

And that's closer to the sort of "climate of misogyny" I've heard women complaining about in the past week, than anything like a "war on women"--although it's not hard to see how that sort of chant, by those males, might contribute to trivializing the real problem with sexual assault that is going on on our campuses--and that trivializing is going to upset females as well, because they are the main group on the receiving end of those sexual assaults.

Yes, to the extent that his manifesto contained extensive rants of hatred toward all women. And these verbal attacks were replete with his fantasies of how he would like to put all women in concentration camps and starve them, kill them all etc. And such feelings led to his selecting a sorority house, a particular sorority house, as a specific target for his planned shooting spree--it was the only specific target he had on the street where the violence took place--and he did kill two women who were standing outside of that house, and he badly wounded at least one other woman who belonged to that sorority.

But it would be incorrect to describe his murderous thoughts and acts as only an attack on women, and one that was solely based on his hatred of women. Many other factors were at play here, including mental illness and an inability to cope with reality, his general despair about his life and his suicidal ideation in response to that, and a paranoid irrational final solution to his suffering that included his own suicide, as well as a plan to kill as many other people as he could first, both because he blamed other people for his own personal misery, and as an expression of his greater superiority over them, because he had the power to kill without caring about doing that. He was going to prove he was "the real Alpha male" by his power to torture and kill without having any compunctions, or guilt, about doing it, and then he'd kill himself. And that's what his murderous spree was about. And he did end it by killing himself.

It was as much about his crazy ideas of what constitutes a "real man" as it was about his hatred of women. Mainly it was about a very troubled young man who could not cope with reality, and who could not function adequately, in any social life situation, and who knew his entire future, as an adult, would be extremely limited because of that. It wasn't just about his problems attracting females--that was the mere tip of the iceberg.

This deserves an answer.

My mentioning of feminism was an assumption on my part due to the participants of the video, plus the typical attitudes that I notice per the readings of the likes of the Catherine Mackinnon types. All I'm saying is in the video these women allude to Rodger's behavior as some sort of unspoken problem as if this type of dangerous misogyny that exists in America. Rodger's action's are not common and although misogyny exists and it hurts both men and women, I think Rodger's actions were nothing more than the action's of an unstable man. He had both medical and psychiatric problems, his misogyny is the result of the irrationality of his psychiatric disorder, its not some reflection of some culture that exists.

The participants in the video were 3 women--at least that's all I saw.

Why would a discussion among 3 women automatically lead you to any assumption about feminism or any association to feminism--do you connect all discussions by women to feminism?

The topic they were discussing was misogyny--demeaning and negative and hostile attitudes/behaviors toward women.

Do you honestly think a woman has to be one of those "Catherine Mackinnon types" to be concerned about demeaning and negative and hostile attitudes/behaviors toward her entire gender?

Yes, mass murder is uncommon, but that's really beside the point. Misogyny does exist, and it can be harmful even when expressed in less dramatically violent ways.

The highly negative perceptions and attitudes Rodger expressed regarding women, were validated and confirmed for him when he visited certain men's sites on the internet, where he found other males expressing similar views. So his thinking wasn't unique to him. In some circles, his attitudes and perceptions of women are accepted as understandable and justifiable.

I also gave the example from Yale simply to illustrate one of the many ways in which misogyny expresses itself on a college campus, and those sorts of attitudes/behaviors can contribute to a problem with sexual assaults. Marching around chanting, "No means yes!" really shouldn't be considered funny, or something trivial, unless you find the idea of rape funny and trivial. Elliot Rodger also had fantasies of holding women down and raping them.

Misogyny, like racism, exists on a continuum, from the blatant and virulent, to the more subtle and culturally imbedded. And misogynistic actions, like racist actions, are also expressed on a continuum from the most violent to the simple uttering of a verbal slur or a demeaning media depiction. And misogyny, like racism, harms everyone, most particularly those in the target group. And that's why expressions of either misogyny, or racism, even on the mild end of the continuum shouldn't be considered acceptable.

Misogyny, like racism, is most often "an unspoken problem"--we generally avoid both topics unless something, generally something violent, happens that triggers a national discussion. So discussions regarding racism occurred after the killing of Trayvon Martin, and now Rodger's manifesto and killings have provoked discussions of misogyny.

That's good, we need to have these discussions to raise our collective awareness, they are opportunities to listen and learn. After the killing of Trayvon Martin, whites needed to listen to African-Americans voice their perceptions of racism, particularly regarding racial profiling and the criminal justice system, and how that affects their lives. And now, after Elliot Rodger, men need to listen to women express their perceptions of misogyny, in all of its manifestations, and how it affects their lives. We bridge divides, and move toward reducing these problems when we start listening to each other.

The trouble is, we have these national discussions, about either misogyny, or racism, for a brief time, then we simply turn our attention elsewhere, and they return to the realm of the "unspoken"--but misogyny and racism don't go away just because we stop taking about them, and we really shouldn't stop talking about these issues, ever, because they adversely affect people's lives in all sorts of ways every day.

The trouble also is that people on different sides of a divide don't always want to listen to the target group. So whites, who felt "attacked" by African American assertions of racism, or who didn't want to listen to African Americans talk about racism, in the wake of Trayvon Martin's killing, tried to dismiss and discredit them by calling them "race baiters". And I tend to see something similar going on with the current discussion regarding misogyny--men who, feel "attacked" by assertions of misogyny, or don't want to listen to women's perceptions and views of the matter, are trying to dismiss them all as fanatical or radical "feminists". That sort of maneuver benefits no one, and it doesn't make the problem go away.

Without having watched the video, I think mental instability is a subject that needs more study and understanding before we try to arrive at cause and effect.

I doubt it was only "an attack on women," and I also believe feminism only confuses the issue that needs to be addressed.

It's been my observation that discrimination against women have a very long history, and there will always be pros and cons about the subject of feminism.

Violence has no rational purpose or reason. Why some women kill their children while others do everything they can to save their children from harm are the realities of life.

We can only conclude that psychosis impacts many from all walks of life. How they act out in society can't always be analyzed or predetermined.

Mental health is not an easy topic for many who have family members that have been violent against others.

I don't believe women seeking equality is a bad thing even at the risk of being called a feminist.

I would post here but I'm up to my neck in the earlier thread.

I never heard of MacKinnon and now that I know more am not interested.

There is an important difference between African-American activiests assertions of racism, and some of the feminist assertions of sexism. I happen to be a white man. I have listened quite a bit to civil rights leaders, even the most provocative ones, I sympathize with the concept of White privilege and I can accept that I have benefited from it.

The important thing, is that through all the discussion of race, I have never felt demonized for simply being White. Yet when I listen to feminists, I am not just hearing about injustice in society. I feel I am being personally attacked just because I am a man.

I have never been told that stereotypically White things I enjoy, from mayonnaise to Folk Dancing was oppressing anyone. The discussion about race is largely about equality and opportunity, and for the most part I feel a participant in the discussion of how to have a better fairer society rather than a part of the problem.

I feel quite a bit different about the feminist discussion. I have heard that my sons are inherently dangerous and need to be "trained" from an early age. My dating relationships are questioned. I am presumed to be an inferior parent, and the aggressor in any conflict with my ex wife.

As a White male, I feel much more on the defensive as a male then I am as a White person. This is the reason I am very supportive on racial issues, and I am equally supportive on gender issues (e.g. I strongly support efforts on pay equality).

But feminism rubs me the wrong way. The ridiculous excesses of the reaction to this attack are just another example.

With this joker, don't hold your breath.

Your incoherence is breath-taking. Is English not your native language? Are you on drugs?

Like you, I've heard the name in the past, but never paid attention to it, and, like you, I also really have no interest in the academic/philosophical feminists, or their speculations about gender issues.

However, I'm really glad the name of Catherine MacKinnon was brought up, because it provoked me to learn more about her.

This woman is also an exceptionally good lawyer, and legal thinker, and she was able to use legal reasoning to show that sexual harassment in the workplace is a form of discrimination by gender. That valid legal view--raised by her--resulted in the current laws we now have against sexual harassment by employers or in the workplace environment--and the Supreme Court has affirmed that such sexual harassment is discrimination by gender.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharine_MacKinnon#Sexual_harassment

So, I view that as a very important accomplishment on her part--and a positive one. And, for that, I would tip my hat to her.

But I still wouldn't run out and buy, or read, her books.

Who did you hear that from, about your sons?

That's not my discussion or the discussion of maybe my hundred female friends. What the hell are you reading?

Yes, boys are considered "threats" that need to be "trained".

I heard a recent horribly on-sided piece of propaganda on NPR on On Point. The principal guest was a woman named Soraya Chemaly who used the word "threat" and said that boys should be "trained" directly. She went as far as to tie "Men's rights groups" in with this murder (tying men who feel they should be given a chance to get custody of their children in with rapists and child molesters).

This stuff really turns me off from anything labeled feminism. It can also be counterproductive.

If boys grow up with the message that they are dangerous threats, it is going to be difficult to see any positive change in society. Yes, I have see these messages given to my sons.

Normal male sexual desire, which is not abusive, is demonized with words like "objectification". Female sexual desire seems to be downplayed or worse blamed on males. How are young adults going to develop healthy relationships based on middle-aged hangups?

Catherine MacKinnon work on workplace harassment may be cool, but her prudish views are sexuality are not.