# 2014 Isla Vista murders



## Jlang (May 25, 2014)

Mods sorry if this is in the wrong sub topic forum I didn't know where it would be best suited.

Has anyone else been following this stuff? This Elliot Rodger was just completely ....ed. He uploaded a bunch of videos recently to his youtube page and it really makes it seem like he was trying to make his legacy with all these videos leading up to the unfortunate events.


----------



## Necris (May 25, 2014)

While some people may not like the comparison, reading excerpts from his 140 page "manifesto" his views on women don't seem too different from what you see coming from most self described "Mens Rights Activists" on the internet, the only distinction is that he had some extra crazy backing him up.

He certainly felt as entitled to sexual gratification from women as those people tend to, and spewed just as much hate towards those women who wouldn't provide it to him.


----------



## liamh (May 25, 2014)

What a nutjob


----------



## Captain Shoggoth (May 25, 2014)

he was basically someone from /r9k/ (deemed likely due to some of his terminology, "feels frog" image folders etc.) who therefore felt like love/sex etc were denied to him...

...except his dad was in the movie business (assistant director on The Hunger Games), was fvcking LOADED, conventionally reasonably attractive and had opportunities most of the sad lonely individuals on that board couldn't have had in a trillion years. He had an enormous entitlement complex to everything material, financial, emotional and sexual and when he realised he couldn't get it instantly (despite actually with a little bit of work given the movie connections he could have got himself into a life that was actually like that) went on a killing spree and killed himself.

I'm not going to mention his mild Aspergers because based on the many decent people I know or have known who were autistic (read: ALL of them) that is no justification for the disgusting acts he did. Shameful.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (May 25, 2014)

Captain Shoggoth said:


> he was basically someone from /r9k/ (deemed likely due to some of his terminology, "feels frog" image folders etc.) who therefore felt like love/sex etc were denied to him...
> 
> ...except his dad was in the movie business (assistant director on The Hunger Games), was fvcking LOADED, conventionally reasonably attractive and had opportunities most of the sad lonely individuals on that board couldn't have had in a trillion years. He had an enormous entitlement complex to everything material, financial, emotional and sexual and when he realised he couldn't get it instantly (despite actually with a little bit of work given the movie connections he could have got himself into a life that was actually like that) went on a killing spree and killed himself.
> 
> I'm not going to mention his mild Aspergers because based on the many decent people I know or have known who were autistic (read: ALL of them) that is no justification for the disgusting acts he did. Shameful.



 I'm also seeing headlines like "Filled Life with Violent Video Games" which just piss me off. He was another ....ed up super entitled kid.


----------



## BucketheadRules (May 25, 2014)

I've seen people on Twitter trying to link this to feminism.

This has jack shit to do with feminism. It's about a man who was able to get hold of a lethal weapon despite having severe mental issues, due to America's pathetic excuse for gun control, and who then committed a horrific crime. (Captain Shoggoth said Rodger suffered from mild Asperger's, but I read it was much more severe, seems like it was something he'd been struggling with throughout his life with little success)

I may be wrong, I'm just assuming at this point, but I think his inability to get laid was only the surface of what was wrong. As has been made clear, he had serious mental health problems which should have been much more closely monitored. There's presumably a lifetime's worth of stuff leading up to this event, that goes into much more depth than just "I couldn't get girls".

Awful either way.


----------



## UnderTheSign (May 25, 2014)

I'd say his ridiculous sense of entitlement and misogyny definitely played a role in this case.

He was, after all, the one to involve feminism... Thank you, mens rights activism!






A number of responses on the internet are equally disturbing.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (May 25, 2014)

BucketheadRules said:


> I've seen people on Twitter trying to link this to feminism.
> 
> This has jack shit to do with feminism. It's about a man who was able to get hold of a lethal weapon despite having severe mental issues, due to America's pathetic excuse for gun control, and who then committed a horrific crime.



Agreed that there should be stricter background checks for obtaining firearms across the board, but I think the problem here is as much to do with America's shitty healthcare system (which includes mental healthcare) and the still lingering worldwide stigma against mental illness. After all, his first few victims were stabbed, so he clearly had murderous intent, guns or no guns.

Some people never get the help they need because they're embarrassed or fear being shunned, others never get it because they simply can't afford it, leaving many people with potentially severe problems undiagnosed. There's no real way to avoid selling to unstable individuals if there's no written history of that person's instability.

This kid did have therapists (several, from what I've read), so there should've been some red flags _somewhere_ that would've triggered some alarms during a quality background check, but it's possible that there's no database that therapists are required to share that sort of information with in order to prevent that sort of thing.

TL;DR: Yes, gun control isn't strict enough here, but this also once again brings to light the terrible state of health care in the US in general, and mental health care in specific.


----------



## BucketheadRules (May 25, 2014)

Some of those responses... Jesus f*cking Christ.

By what possible measure is he "a nice guy treated like shit"? A nice guy wouldn't go on a killing spree, don't you think?


----------



## Hene (May 25, 2014)

Yup, blaming women. That is ....ing stupid!


----------



## ramses (May 25, 2014)

His parent told the press that he had been under constant treatment by multiple psychiatrists since he was 8 years old, for some undisclosed mental problem.


----------



## Explorer (May 25, 2014)

So, not wanting to have sex with an asshole = feminism?

I am definitely a feminist!

Seriously though, i have several friends who either border on wingnut or go past that border, and when women reject them for believing Rush and O'Reilly really speak the truth, they always chalk it up to the women being feminist or lesbian. WTF?


----------



## ShiftKey (May 26, 2014)

From what ive read/seen the guy was basically a dickhead with an ego but zero social skills, shit if only he had gotten into [READ ADDICTED] D&D or some mmorpg none of this would have happend, he could have been famous for being the next leeroy jenkins or something..

I find it odd that the gun control issue is already up seeing as he used a knife on the first few? ban knives then? 





Perhaps what sent him over the edge was he found out gothic kingcobra has a girl of his own 

I feel sorry for the victims families truely, and embarrassed for his parents,I would be embarrassed if my son did that, ZERO real justification for it, shit it wasnt EVEN VAUGELY POLITICAL,they died for NOTHING but a vacuous little cvnt and his ego. 
Even Anders Brevik or Varg Vik in their own fvcked up way had a political/cultural msg,ok it was complete bollocks and a product of loopy thinking etc but still they had a message of sorts. {not supporting them in any way just first two crazies that came to mind--oh add to that the beheading that happened here in the UK--loopy too}

At least in some small way he has shown that you dont have to be religious to hate women,turn crazy and get all stabby stabby.

[Lol and finally hard proof that BMW drivers are wankers BAN BMW's!!!  ]


----------



## liamh (May 26, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> I'd say his ridiculous sense of entitlement and misogyny definitely played a role in this case.



Hmm, I don't really support Men's Rights activism, but to blame this nutter's actions on MRAs (as I've seen many feminists attempt to do) is absurd


----------



## 7stg (May 26, 2014)

It's sad what happened. This guy does not have the first idea of what friendship is or what it is like to be in a romantic relationship. 

The parodies of this guy are comming and hilarity will ensue. 

As I sit in my BMW daddy bought me, living my miserable existence, life is not fair. Just look at those lovers, no one loves me, they disgust me, i'm all alone, I hate them.


----------



## Explorer (May 26, 2014)

Necris said:


> While some people may not like the comparison, reading excerpts from his 140 page "manifesto" his views on women *don't seem too different from what you see coming from most self described "Mens Rights Activists" on the internet*, the only distinction is that he had some extra crazy backing him up.
> 
> *He certainly felt as entitled to sexual gratification from women as those people tend to, and spewed just as much hate towards those women who wouldn't provide it to him.*





UnderTheSign said:


> *I'd say his ridiculous sense of entitlement and misogyny definitely played a role in this case.*





liamh said:


> Hmm, I don't really support Men's Rights activism, but to blame this nutter's actions on MRAs (as I've seen many feminists attempt to do) is absurd



@liamh - My suspicion is that the feminists you are claiming as blaming men's rights activism for this aren't doing so. Instead, I suspect they're pointing out this guy is using the same reasoning as the stating reasoning of MRAs. 

In my reading, it seems that most people are pointing out that the killings were violent misogyny, and then pointing out that many MRAs engage in similar rationales as in the manifesto. That's not blaming MR activism for the violence, it's saying that a certain kind of thinking devalues women *and* leads to looking for like-minded individuals. 

Misogyny causes these individuals to actively seek out other misogynists. Encountering misogynists doesn't automatically convert someone into a misogynist. 

You're taking the cause (misogyny) of the grouping, and instead saying it's the result of the grouping. That's like saying that white males getting together automatically results in the Klan forming.


----------



## liamh (May 26, 2014)

I actually quoted the wrong part of that comment. My bad.
I was meant to quote this:


UnderTheSign said:


> He was, after all, the one to involve feminism... Thank you, mens rights activism!



A sentiment I've seen echoed by a lot of feminists in response to this story.
I'd agree that this guy and some MRAs share attributes (victim complex, misogyny, 'nice guy' delusion, etc.) but that's it. It's a commonality, not a causation. 
I don't particularly like the views espoused by MRAs, but I think it's unfair for feminists to disingenuously pin down the men's rights movement as somehow being conducive to a mass-killing like this.


----------



## tacotiklah (May 27, 2014)

I don't think all feminists are pinning the murder itself on MRAs, rather the sense of entitlement that women "owe" men sex.


----------



## Explorer (May 27, 2014)

liamh said:


> I don't particularly like the views espoused by MRAs, but I think it's unfair for feminists to disingenuously pin down the men's rights movement as somehow being conducive to a mass-killing like this.



Now *that's* a more interesting question.

To be sure we're on the same page:



> conducive - making a certain situation or outcome likely or possible.
> 
> "the harsh lights and cameras were hardly conducive to a relaxed atmosphere"
> 
> synonyms: favorable to, beneficial to, advantageous to, opportune to, propitious to, encouraging to, promising to, convenient for, good for, helpful, instrumental in, productive of, useful for


So, to test this definition, let's ask: Is SS.org conducive to antigay slurs and behavior? The "Vik is a dik" topics show that, although there are some who cry out, "Who will defend the bigots?!," most people are not okay with that kind of behavior, or in defending it. This site is not conducive to such behavior. In fact, it's actively opposed to such behavior.

Is SS.org conducive to stopping such antigay rhetoric? Yes, absolutely.

So, in the same way, and assuming you've done a little reading and research at this point on the whole MRA scene: you know that they aren't in the middle on this.

Are MRA sites actively opposed to, or friendly and conducive to, this kind of rhetoric and thinking? I'd argue they are conducive, based on what you turn up in a quick search. 

It's pretty scary to read, like Clive Bundy being cheered on while talking about black slaves and not paying his rent while threatening violence. That far right wingnut support system was *conducive* to his whole schtick. 

There are definitely men's groups which don't make putting a woman in her place a centerpiece of their thinking. They find ways to strengthen their character, instead of finding ways to demote someone else. 

*Anyway, are these MRA groups which allow and actively promote misogynist rhetoric *conducive* to such thinking and rhetoric? Yes.

And is allowing and fostering that kind of objectification and dehumanizing of females conducive towards treating them as objects and not human? Yes.*


----------



## 7stg (May 27, 2014)

Elliot Rodger - Spring break


Elliot Rodger - Why Do Girls Hate Me So Much


Elliot Rodger - At the golf course




Elliot Rodger - longer cut of final video


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 27, 2014)

oh for the love of christ MRA have plenty of assholes in the mix, but the skeleton of the movement is justified. there are many if not more (because MRA is so small and not accepted) assholes in the 3rd wave feminist movement who if they were anything other than feminists would be run out of academia because their conclusions are just as crazy... also a feminist has not blown anyone away with a handgun.. 

they just try to mob a bunch of church goers topless, spit on them, hit them and then try to storm and vandalize a church  

(i could go on about how systems of law have been screwed over by feminism but that would be too much fro this thread.. just because the violence isn't physical doesn't mean it doesn't exist... more on that later)

wait? these people do not represent the majority of feminists? but the ideals of 3rd wave feminism have led to this causation.... see how this argument is sophomoric? 

now avoiding lazy argumentation, lets move on to the topic of violence. there are two types of violence, the seen physical violence and the unseen (basically the conditions and social situations/constructs which enable the physical violence to manifest and take place). 

so rather than focus on the physical lets look at what factors have allowed these past several shootings to take place. 

the common link between all these shooters is mental instability. its very obvious to the point where its mind numbing nobody has really reported this. 

Yes this should be picked up in a background check, but what information are they looking for? medical records are private, the guy had therapy but that doesn't tell the FBI much when they go looking. not all mental health issues are red flag worthy and you can't really tell that based on how background checks are structured now.

basically medical professionals should be allowed to make judgement calls based on the status of their patients. because as the rules go right now, its very difficult to say "hey i think this kid's a danger to himself and others, police can we do something?" the family as to make the call to institutionalize, no the doctors. 

basically, standardize the background check system and start taking mental health seriously in the US. to emphasize this last point i have something very long for everyone to read Schizophrenic. Killer. My Cousin. | Mother Jones 

EDIT: i see the MRA angle now. Daily Kos picked that up and ran with it despite no affiliation to the shooter and its been traveling the blogosphere ever since. he was a part of some group which hate love gurus but so far that the only link. 

he also was a fan of the young turks.. can we blow that up somehow into a non-story?


----------



## Necris (May 27, 2014)

I don't think anyone is attempting to paint Mens Rights Activism as being a sole cause; I know I'm not, personally, attempting to paint it as a cause for what happened, I'm not sure it was even a factor. I'll even go out on a limb and say I doubt it was.

I hadn't actually seen the MRA angle from anyone before I made my post, I had only read some of what was made available of his 140-page rant and found the viewpoints I often see coming from MRAs similar. The fact that I can read a manifesto from a clearly unhinged individual and see parallels between his views and the views of that group is disturbing though. 

It's certainly not my fault, or anyone elses who isn't a part of that group for that matter, that utter douchebags have become the face of "Mens Rights" activism. 


Also PUAHate, the site he was on (which is currently down), wasn't against pickup artists and love gurus so much as it was a site for people who have paid money for the "advice" and "techniques" of those people, tried to utilize it, failed (read: didn't get laid) and are pissed off about it. The anger, however, was directed at women, not the scammers selling the tips. 

I doubt being a member of said site did anything to temper his viewpoint.


----------



## UnderTheSign (May 27, 2014)

ghstofperdition said:


> I don't think all feminists are pinning the murder itself on MRAs, rather the sense of entitlement that women "owe" men sex.


Exactly this. 

Sam, I don't give a damn what you think of feminism. Wether by MRAs or anyone else, fact is he was encouraged by a group of people to feel said entitlement and whatnot and that is part of what led to these killings. Mental illness may very well have played a part but you can't deny his ridiculous entitlement and misogyny did as well.

edit: since you brought the Young Turks thing in... Lets change the situation. Imagine he killed a number of homosexuals and turned out to be a member of homophobic/anti same-sex marriage communities and his views were encouraged by said groups. Would you argue this was not a homophobic killing? (even though as your video showed, same sex marriages advocates/pro-choicers have tried to mob a bunch of church goers, spit on them, hit them and then tried to storm and vandalize the church). Had he been a member of Stormfront and/or other racist communties and killed a number of PoC, would you argue this was not a racist killing?


----------



## estabon37 (May 27, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> oh for the love of christ MRA have plenty of assholes in the mix, but the skeleton of the movement is justified. there are many if not more (because MRA is so small and not accepted) assholes in the 3rd wave feminist movement who if they were anything other than feminists would be run out of academia because their conclusions are just as crazy



Well, we covered this material in another thread a few months ago, but I guess the short version is that the 'justifiable' nature of many MRA talking points is disputed. If there were a clearer distinction between the Men's Rights group and the Anti-Feminism group, then much of the dispute might be settled already. I'm not saying the two must be mutually exclusive, but the less-mature arguments of the latter are certainly hurting the arguments of the former as a result of the association.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> EDIT: i see the MRA angle now. Daily Kos picked that up and ran with it despite no affiliation to the shooter and its been traveling the blogosphere ever since. he was a part of some group which hate love gurus but so far that the only link.
> 
> he also was a fan of the young turks.. can we blow that up somehow into a non-story?



Explorer outlined above what the link is. It seems to be a strong link; many have made it, and it's not as if it's a huge philosophical jump from one to the other...



Explorer said:


> My suspicion is that the feminists you are claiming as blaming men's rights activism for this aren't doing so. Instead, I suspect they're pointing out this guy is using the same reasoning as the stating reasoning of MRAs.
> 
> In my reading, it seems that most people are pointing out that the killings were violent misogyny, and then pointing out that many MRAs engage in similar rationales as in the manifesto. That's not blaming MR activism for the violence, it's saying that a certain kind of thinking devalues women *and* leads to looking for like-minded individuals.



This is the problem with the extreme comments made by many who claim to be MRAs. Just as it is constantly and consistently argued by many MRAs that the stances of crazy hard-line feminists should be seen as devaluing the feminist cause, the extreme comments of individual MRAs should be seen as devaluing their cause. It seems that neither side considers the other sufficiently devalued based on the commentary. Worse still, the valid arguments and important causes both sides attempt to champion tend to get lost amongst the pointless attacks, accusations, and violence that the lowest demoninators of the discussion prefer to utilise. The big difference between the two sides is that feminists have had a hundred years, three waves, and huge academic support to both refine their arguments and distance themselves from the crazies (most of whom haven't had their theories widely legitimised since the 70s); the current state of MRA at large seems to be less interested in academically, intellectually, or morally supporting their causes than in attacking feminism, which is such a waste.

Last note:



Ibanezsam4 said:


> just because the violence isn't physical doesn't mean it doesn't exist



It's strange how often I've seen that point debated when a feminist tries to make it. The psychological and emotional damage people cause in relationships is often overlooked, regardless of the gender of the aggressor. But, closer to the topic: if the above statement is true, then the videos of the murderer embedded in the posts above show a great deal of non-physical violent intent towards women, and as much of it runs parallel with the talking points of many supporters of MRA, again, as Explorer explained above, then there must indeed be a great amount of non-physical violence being publicly launched at women on a daily basis. As such, I'd say that anybody who is surprised or disgruntled by people making a connection between the Isla Vista murders and the MRAs is either not looking very closely at the links, or is so committed to a belief in one side of the debate that they'll clear whatever psychological hurdles are necessary to tell themselves and others that it isn't possible that many of their supporters are negatively effected by the rhetoric of the vocally extreme MRA members.

EDIT: 



Necris said:


> Also PUAHate, the site he was on (which is currently down), wasn't against pickup artists and love gurus so much as it was a site for people who have paid money for the "advice" and "techniques" of those people, tried to utilize it, failed (read: didn't get laid) and are pissed off about it. _*The anger, however, was directed at women, not the scammers selling the tips.*_



This. Jesus, how is it that so many can say in so few words what it takes me a million to say


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 27, 2014)

wait are we debating whether or not he was misogynistic? that part has to be debated? 

of course he was! and mentally unstable! however you cant skew one vocal minority for a supposed connection when the only thread of evidence is that he was apart of a group which hated on dating websites and love experts (which has zero affiliation to MRA) and was also a misogynist. 

Explorer stated the mindset de-values women and thus leads to violence.. yet i've seen no statement where women should be de-valued; other than by the shooter.. so connections? anyone got them because looking at the actual story doesn't yield these conclusion. pondering out loud to sate the speculative desire is rather... idk... horrible argumentation? especially if in said speculation the poster (any poster) implicates a group of people.

you say the links are strong.. but really they're not. the guy has obvious mental issues which should be the real story. not who influenced his brand of thinking.. especially when these "links" are coming from the Daily Kos or Jezebel 



UnderTheSign said:


> Exactly this.
> Lets change the situation. Imagine he killed a number of homosexuals and turned out to be a member of homophobic/anti same-sex marriage communities and his views were encouraged by said groups. Would you argue this was not a homophobic killing? (even though as your video showed, same sex marriages advocates/pro-choicers have tried to mob a bunch of church goers, spit on them, hit them and then tried to storm and vandalize the church). Had he been a member of Stormfront and/or other racist communties and killed a number of PoC, would you argue this was not a racist killing?



four of the dead are male. three of which were his roommates who he stabbed to death.. im assuming he hated men too.. actually im going out on a limb here and saying he was just a hateful person to begin with.. in his manifesto he claims to hate men who were more successful than him (sexually). in fact i will claim he needed way more help than a facility which taught social skills.


----------



## Necris (May 27, 2014)

If's funny you mention Daily Kos and Jezebel, because to my knowledge I've never read either, I'm certain I haven't went to either for news on this topic, and hadn't heard of the latter until you mentioned it.

I think it's disingenuous to pretend that MRAs and Pickup Artists are mutually exclusive groups.

We're saying that misogyny and Mens Rights Activism are linked. 

We can, of course let the MRAs do the speaking themselves.

Challenging the Etiology of Rape
Rape Hysteria & the Rape Culture Lie Must End
If You See Jezebel in the Road, Run the Bitch Down « A Voice for Men

Some select passages from the first article.


> Do women ask for it?
> 
> I don&#8217;t mean that in the sense that they are literally asking men to rape them (though this clearly does happen outside the context of this post).
> 
> ...


I'm not sure it can be argued that there isn't misogyny in the MRA movement.

Paul Elam of A Voice for Men: In His Own Words | we hunted the mammoth

Some other gems from the guy who wrote the quoted article compiled on a blog, a blog opposed to MRA (fair warning).

I chose to use articles from A Voice for Men since you linked them in a thread of your own. Here: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/politics-current-events/260136-honest-gender-studies.html


----------



## flint757 (May 27, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> ... If there were a clearer distinction between the Men's Rights group and the Anti-Feminism group, then much of the dispute might be settled already. I'm not saying the two must be mutually exclusive, but the less-mature arguments of the latter are certainly hurting the arguments of the former as a result of the association.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...As such, I'd say that anybody who is surprised or disgruntled by people making a connection between the Isla Vista murders and the MRAs is either not looking very closely at the links, or is so committed to a belief in one side of the debate that they'll clear whatever psychological hurdles are necessary to tell themselves and others that it isn't possible that many of their supporters are negatively effected by the rhetoric of the vocally extreme MRA members.



It does get mucked up. I remember the discussion we had on feminism here awhile back and the same problem occurred. All the ideas championed by MRA were basically that 'feminism is terrible', 'feminism is stealing men's rights', 'feminists lie about rape', etc. and not about the issues that only affect men. It seems they need to tear down one group to improve their own rather than giving each their equal attention. There are issues that affect women more so than men and vice versa. There's no reason both can't be talked about without feeling a need to make feminism out to be the devil.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> you say the links are strong.. but really they're not. the guy has obvious mental issues which should be the real story. not who influenced his brand of thinking.. especially when these "links" are coming from the Daily Kos or Jezebel



While I mostly agree, these links do matter (links to agenda and behavior). Why someone does something is just as important as how. Knowing why helps us improve as a society. Frankly, from what I've seen of MRA they sound no better than the '3rd wave of feminism' or at least no better than the way you describe it. I've personally never encountered these 'free bleeders' you were going on about awhile back, but I have met plenty of douche bag misogynists. I've also seen my fair share of overbearing, bitchy women. I think it is safer to assume that we live on a spectrum of behavior and that maybe groups just pointing fingers at each other really solves nothing.


----------



## Explorer (May 27, 2014)

"Free bleeders" was a 4chan hoax. Did Ibanezsam4 present them as serious?

So... Ibanezsam4 brought up "A Voice for Men" in the Honest Gender Studies topic? Let me look...

Ah. After Ibanezsam4 

That's totally chilling. I can see how invested Ibanezsam4 is in this MRM stuff. Necris summarized it best by post #5 in that topic.



Necris said:


> Am I living in an Onion article?
> 
> "Area man finds website which provides ideological feedback loop he's been searching for."



That topic has some scary thinking going on in it. 

So does this one. 

*shudder*


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 27, 2014)

Necris said:


> If's funny you mention Daily Kos and Jezebel, because to my knowledge I've never read either, I'm certain I haven't went to either for news on this topic, and hadn't heard of the latter until you mentioned it.
> 
> I think it's disingenuous to pretend that MRAs and Pickup Artists are mutually exclusive groups.
> 
> ...



Daily Kos part is easy Elliot Rodger, Gunman in California Mass Shooting, was influenced by the "Men's Rights Movement" 

author links the suspect to the MRA movement (no proof of course) beyond that he subscribed to "pick up artist" channels on youtube (because every non-feminist male apparently just wants to bone women.. way to paint with a broad brush Ollie Garky). 

The author's only evidence in the "i got burned by dating websites" group.. again non-affiliated, no evidence, makes the leap anyways because the person who would take this article at face value deserves to have Tommy Boy hit them with a tack hammer... any Tommy Boy fans here? 

Jezebel exists as a dialog, meaning the comments are just as loaded as the authors arguments.

i won't comment on other writers in the movement because 1) they dont represent me, or my views... we have intersections of opinion and my beliefs are certainly less vitriolic but i believe i described my whole feelings about the movement in another thread. and 2) because this discussion detracts from my original question:

Where is the fracking evidence that this guy was MRA? anyone spot the smoking gun yet? cuz you can disagree with a movement but can you prove they were behind it? im still waiting for proof beyond "oh he feels this way it must be true"



flint757 said:


> It does get mucked up. I remember the discussion we had on feminism here awhile back and the same problem occurred. All the ideas championed by MRA were basically that 'feminism is terrible', 'feminism is stealing men's rights', 'feminists lie about rape', etc. and not about the issues that only affect men. It seems they need to tear down one group to improve their own rather than giving each their equal attention. There are issues that affect women more so than men and vice versa. There's no reason both can't be talked about without feeling a need to make feminism out to be the devil.
> 
> 
> 
> While I mostly agree, these links do matter (links to agenda and behavior). Why someone does something is just as important as how. Knowing why helps us improve as a society. Frankly, from what I've seen of MRA they sound no better than the '3rd wave of feminism' or at least no better than the way you describe it. I've personally never encountered these 'free bleeders' you were going on about awhile back, but I have met plenty of douche bag misogynists. I've also seen my fair share of overbearing, bitchy women. I think it is safer to assume that we live on a spectrum of behavior and that maybe groups just pointing fingers at each other really solves nothing.



i did not start the free bleeder thread, i actually claimed that to be a hoax (which it is). all i said was it capitalizes on an image of feminism in the 2000s. and my view is closer to your last sentences, you just can't really get that here because im responding to multiple people. so my narrative is frantic. 

so yeah how about the psycho who shot people because he couldn't get laid?


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 27, 2014)

There is a huge difference between a majority attempting to assert or continue its dominance over a minority, and a minority attempting to assert its rights to be equal with the majority.

Justifying "MRAism" simply because a few out-there feminists exist and rail against male privilege is missing the point. It's like justifying white power movements because Al Sharpton exists.

I'm also interested to see data about how feminism has "ruined" systems of law . . .


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 27, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> There is a huge difference between a majority attempting to assert or continue its dominance over a minority, and a minority attempting to assert its rights to be equal with the majority.
> 
> Justifying "MRAism" simply because a few out-there feminists exist and rail against male privilege is missing the point. It's like justifying white power movements because Al Sharpton exists.
> 
> I'm also interested to see data about how feminism has "ruined" systems of law . . .



lighter prison sentences for women who commit the same crimes as men and divorce settlements that favor the woman despite rising statistics of women earning livable wages within their economic strata. this second problem also carries through to the third problem which is that women are heavily favored to be primary custodians of the child rather than the father. 

seriously you can get this info talking to a cop... or you know google, because its a thing a lot of people use to find information. 

but again, i think the MRA angle is kaput no? so far no substantial evidence to support a connection to the movement, which basically leads to this next question:

how badly does the US need to focus on mental health considering the frequency of what is now a rather repetitive psychological profile for public shooters?


----------



## Demiurge (May 27, 2014)

Of course, before the bodies are even cold, the _-ism_'s in the media start planting their partisan flags in the tragedy. To me, it's almost self-cancelling the way in which "some" feminists and "some" MRAs seem to be the other party's strawmen come to life; lonely solipsists on both sides, IMHO. Not helpful!

I think it's clear that this guy had some serious mental problems, and it's not far-fetched to believe that somebody with a mind set on destruction will latch onto any cause- whether it be politics, religion, or, ahem, _internet gender studies_- to formulate an excuse for their actions. 

But invariably, we have a situation where we should be asking why no one was helping this person, but instead we have internet ideologues helping themselves.


----------



## flint757 (May 27, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> i did not start the free bleeder thread, i actually claimed that to be a hoax (which it is). all i said was it capitalizes on an image of feminism in the 2000s. and my view is closer to your last sentences, you just can't really get that here because im responding to multiple people. so my narrative is frantic.



Ahhh, yeah my bad. Apparently Wings of Obsidian started that thread. Was thinking of something else entirely. 

Understood as well about responding to multiple people. 



Ibanezsam4 said:


> lighter prison sentences for women who commit the same crimes as men and divorce settlements that favor the woman despite rising statistics of women earning livable wages within their economic strata. this second problem also carries through to the third problem which is that women are heavily favored to be primary custodians of the child rather than the father.



That really isn't true by default as far as custody goes. My sister lost custody rights to her boyfriend for her kids and one of them isn't even technically his child. I have seen where women tend to get lighter sentences though.




Ibanezsam4 said:


> how badly does the US need to focus on mental health considering the frequency of what is now a rather repetitive psychological profile for public shooters?



Quite a lot. Sadly politicians aren't interested as it isn't a hot button issue.


----------



## flint757 (May 27, 2014)

Demiurge said:


> But invariably, we have a situation where we should be asking why no one was helping this person, but instead we have internet ideologues helping themselves.



Apparently he was getting help. I thought someone said he was seeing a psychologist or psychiatrists or something of that nature?


----------



## Explorer (May 27, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> ...divorce settlements that favor the woman despite rising statistics of women earning livable wages within their economic strata.
> 
> this second problem also carries through to the third problem which is that women are heavily favored to be primary custodians of the child rather than the father.



Are you conflating divorce settlements with financial child support?


----------



## Necris (May 27, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> four of the dead are male. three of which were his roommates who he stabbed to death.. im assuming he hated men too.. actually im going out on a limb here and saying he was just a hateful person to begin with.. in his manifesto he claims to hate men who were more successful than him (sexually). in fact i will claim he needed way more help than a facility which taught social skills.



The murder of his roommates was part of his plan though. He stated a desire to use his apartment as his own personal torture chamber, where he could draw random victims in and torture them to death at his leisure, noting that he would have to dispose of his roommates to go through with such a plan.

The reason the Misogyny angle is being focused on is due to it being a large part of the 140-page rant (I'm seeing it described as an autobiography now), he was racist too, but the racism came back to the topic of women, namely, his feeling that white women should not date men of other ethnicities. 

His hatred of women seemed to largely revolve around him being deprived of sex by women who he felt owed it to him. 

His hatred of men seemed to arise from his envy for those men who were sexually active with women who he felt owed him sex. He hated the women who would have sex with other men, including those he sees as below him, but not him.

All of the anger he expressed seemed to revolve around women in some way.

I don't think anyone is debating that he was disturbed.




Ibanezsam4 said:


> i won't comment on other writers in the movement because 1) they dont represent me, or my views... we have intersections of opinion and my beliefs are certainly less vitriolic but i believe i described my whole feelings about the movement in another thread. and 2) because this discussion detracts from my original question:
> 
> Where is the fracking evidence that this guy was MRA? anyone spot the smoking gun yet? cuz you can disagree with a movement but can you prove they were behind it? im still waiting for proof beyond "oh he feels this way it must be true"




Your apparent frustration would be more justified if I had actually ever made the claim that you continue to insist I have made/am making. 

I have never said "Elliot Rodger was a Mens Rights Activist" I have also never said "Elliot Rodger was motivated to kill by Mens Rights Activism", what I _have_ said is "Elliot Rodgers views on women seem to have parallels in the Mens Rights Movement". 

Comparing his manifesto (maybe screed is a better term) with real articles written by _real_ Mens Rights Activists and finding similarities is the the only "smoking gun" I need to back up that claim. I have done so.

A Voice For Men is all I need to find claims of male victimhood, claims that feminism emasculates males, claims that feminism reduces men to rapists and potential rapists, claims that feminism has given women the upper hand over men, claims that all women are sluts, claims that all women are manipulative, claims that women were "asking for it" in regards to rape, outright hatred of feminists etc.


I could go on, I could find other sites that are far worse than anything the writers for A Voice for Men have written, but the point is, you can find parallels in Elliot Rodgers manifesto to many of those ideas.



flint757 said:


> Apparently he was getting help. I thought someone said he was seeing a psychologist or psychiatrists or something of that nature?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmir...print-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/


According to that article yes. He was seeing multiple therapists, "counselors" to help him socialize, been diagnosed as "a High Functioning Patient with Asperger Syndrome" and was even prescribed an Anti-psychotic medication by a psychiatrist but refused to take it.


----------



## asher (May 27, 2014)

magic_golem said:


> I find it odd that the gun control issue is already up seeing as he used a knife on the first few? ban knives then?



Guy with severe mental health problems is easily able to obtain multiple firearms and goes on a rampage with them, why _wouldn't_ gun control come up?

Yes, he killed three people with a knife, by (presumably) luring them into his apartment or ambushing them nearby.

Then look at how easily he could do so much more damage with a handgun.

It's not "well, he'll resort to throwing rocks at people like in the olden days, ban rocks!", but ease of access and _the significantly higher lethality of guns_, both from the physics and the relative ease of use.

See also:

âNo Way To Prevent This,â Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens | The Onion - America's Finest News Source


----------



## abandonist (May 28, 2014)

Nothing needs to be changed or addressed because of this. 

Some people are bad and sometimes bad things happen. 

It's part of being alive.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 28, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Quite a lot. Sadly politicians aren't interested as it isn't a hot button issue.



The mother jones article i posted on the first page really goes into how the federal funding for mental health was gutted and it repercussions. it is really sad and then frustrating. 



Necris said:


> The murder of his roommates was part of his plan though. He stated a desire to use his apartment as his own personal torture chamber, where he could draw random victims in and torture them to death at his leisure, noting that he would have to dispose of his roommates to go through with such a plan.
> 
> The reason the Misogyny angle is being focused on is due to it being a large part of the 140-page rant (I'm seeing it described as an autobiography now), he was racist too, but the racism came back to the topic of women, namely, his feeling that white women should not date men of other ethnicities.
> 
> ...



in this case sex was this guy's fixation and his trigger, much like how catcher in the rye was whatshisface's trigger for killing John Lennon. 




Necris said:


> Your apparent frustration would be more justified if I had actually ever made the claim that you continue to insist I have made/am making.
> 
> I have never said "Elliot Rodger was a Mens Rights Activist" I have also never said "Elliot Rodger was motivated to kill by Mens Rights Activism", what I _have_ said is "Elliot Rodgers views on women seem to have parallels in the Mens Rights Movement".
> 
> ...



i dont think you were the one to make the connection initially, i believe you merely replied to a post. my posts were directed at someone else but the debate would've been the same so i'll post my final thought on the matter. 

Many people can have parallels in terms of thoughts with other people. why its dangerous to make these connections in a debate is because you're putting an emphasis on a collection of ideas... not saying they're responsible.. but putting them next to the guilty party in your arguments framework. 

its a slippery slope to be on because conservationists and eco-terrorists have parallels in the beliefs, but environmentalism itself is not responsible for people who resort to violence. <---- this argument can be made with several groups. 

not saying the argument can't be made, but several other implications are made with it.. on top of that it was in line with misinformation which Daily Kos had put out, hence my frustration (can't stand intellectual dishonesty),


----------



## Explorer (May 28, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> Its a slippery slope to be on because conservationists and eco-terrorists have parallels in the beliefs, but environmentalism itself is not responsible for people who resort to violence. <---- this argument can be made with several groups.



Hmm.


We should conserve the environment and end logging.
We should build mantraps to kill those who log.
Is that really a slippery slope to you? Because I don't think one flows from the other.

In the current misogynist murder thing, the MRAs under discussion are not talking about:


We want to support men so all sexes are treated equally..
Therefore, women should be treated as objects to rape, and possibly kill, if they don't give us what we want.
There's no slippery slope between everyone being treated as a human being, but then kill the bitches. 

They're talking about:


Stupid bitches deny us what we want.
Therefore, women should be treated as objects to rape, and possibly kill, if they don't give us what we want.
There's a slippery slope in their rhetoric because it's got that misogynistic element in it from the start. 

I think I mentioned this earlier, but there are men's groups which don't rely on tearing down another group in order to be equal, or more than equal. They don't view women as the enemy. 

These particular groups *do* position women as the enemy. They position themselves as the enemies of women in general, which gets to the core of the bigotry theme in so much of the current SS.org topics. 

I'm sorry you see this as a slippery slope. I see a discontinuity there, where you see an easy progression. 

I see that viewpoint as a red flag.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 28, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Hmm.
> 
> 
> We should conserve the environment and end logging.
> ...



not what i said, thank you for the words in my mouth. A good speech nonetheless. 

his point was parallel beliefs, my point was that exists everywhere.

the real point: the shooter's hate was everywhere. to be focused on the misogyny is only driving the conversation about the real issue (which you've been doing most of the thread): mental health. 

in fact his 140 page filth indicates he hated everybody! but we're focused on one part of it: women not giving him sex. despite that he wanted to kill men for having sex. 

sex was his trigger. is it misogynistic? yes. is it misogynistic in the same sense that a not-crazy person would engage in? no. 

you seem focused on the "women as the enemy" portion of MRAs (internet) but you all seem to be forgetting there's a really good sized amount of people who draw attention (what i've tried to do but have failed miserably at perception apparently) to stats which demonstrate "y'know there's a lot of ways being a male in the first world sucks *inserts alarming stats here*, wanna talk about that?". again i have failed at this, but frankly its in the past why dwell? 

focusing on the women hate is a good argumentative frame but one that screams of bias. or lack of extensive reading. you yourself admit at the start of all of your threads "from my perspective"... so let's all admit what is being thrown around as representative of everyone under an MRA banner is really just subjective.

do i like the women haters? no. do i like stats which show there are inequalities for both genders (specifically beyond hegemonic masculinity)? yes. 
do i feel the 3rd wave (you never see me diss the other waves of feminism) has failed to address this and just concerned itself with reproductive rights? yes. <-- opinion. 

However if you feel that since someone has used similar rhetoric to something you've read on the internet, acted upon that with violence, thus that brand of thinking is responsible for violence.. its.. intellectually irresponsible because it is no better than looking for demons under rocks. 

this kind of thinking is only justified if someone waving a banner advocates for said violence.. other wise your position is conjecture (rock turning). 

so to be more specific: rock flipping in the hope of finding the evil you want to find is dangerous. especially when the correlation is dubious (weak-sauce, not provable in a court of law) at best. 

but continue to flip. its not harming me any. 

EDIT: if we worried about men not getting laid and going postal then the whole Love and Relationships thread just became more sinister.


----------



## TemjinStrife (May 28, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> you seem focused on the "women as the enemy" portion of MRAs (internet) but you all seem to be forgetting there's a really good sized amount of people who draw attention (what i've tried to do but have failed miserably at perception apparently) to stats which demonstrate "y'know there's a lot of ways being a male in the first world sucks *inserts alarming stats here*, wanna talk about that?".



Tell me, how does it suck to be a white male in the first world?


----------



## asher (May 28, 2014)

Also, show us which states are actively passing legislation curtailing a man's control of his body and reproductive choices.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 28, 2014)

TemjinStrife said:


> Tell me, how does it suck to be a white male in the first world?



I want to post a video of a guy named lil' dicky... but its inappropriate in this context. 

poorly phrased on my part, but referring to the higher rates of depression, suicide, drug use, ODs, more prone to gang related violence, more likely to die at the workplace, just as likely to get sexually assaulted, widely sexually assaulted in the military, declining academic performance, etc.. 
its all things that happen but we dont talk about because in traditional culture requires that males be strong silent sacrificial persons and take it on the chin instead of saying "hey.. is this a problem?" 

again, google.. its like the greatest thing ever 



asher said:


> Also, show us which states are actively passing legislation curtailing a man's control of his body and reproductive choices.



and that has what to do with a shooting?

but i'll bite. abortion is federally legal. i have no problem with it so long as other optional medical procedures its paid for privately. i also like Roe v. Wade because its a right to privacy case in addition to being the landmark case which made abortion legal.

abortion as a "reproductive right" is a little tricky as your making an argument that a fetus is a part of a woman's body, because a fetus as we all know is a separate entity. its tricky legally and ethically but hey guess what? do what you want as long as it doesn't physically hurt me or take away from my pocket book. 

==============================================================================

But i'll also keep this on topic because i can do two things at once 

the man most hated on Jeopardy makes an awesome point http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...er-castle-misogyny-entitlement-and-nerds.html


----------



## asher (May 28, 2014)

I'd rather you showed us studies, thanks.

More likely to die at the work place: That might just be a statistical blip, if it's because men hold a much higher number of high-risk jobs than women. That would be my guess, but I certainly may be wrong there.

I also suspect that sexual assault in the military is high and underreported in general, but I doubt that men are _more_ widely assaulted than women. I also doubt general sexual assault rates are at all as equal as you say.

But little of that is a gender specific thing, and not just "these situations suck".


----------



## asher (May 28, 2014)

So the second part of your post appeared only after I wrote mine.



Ibanezsam4 said:


> and that has what to do with a shooting?





Ibanezsam4 said:


> do i feel the 3rd wave (you never see me diss the other waves of feminism) has failed to address this and just concerned itself with reproductive rights?


----------



## flint757 (May 28, 2014)

Women have it worse under the current political climate, to argue differently is kind of silly. That's not to say men aren't facing discrimination in other areas, but that compared to other 'groups' it isn't nearly as rough as some make it out to be. Those issues need to be accounted for and fixed, absolutely, but that doesn't mean tearing down other groups or blaming them for your problems is the answer. Women did not cause 'discriminatory laws' towards men, politicians did. Some laws need to be adjusted and fixed, some definitions adjusted, etc., but we can do that without throwing blame left and right or by taking away rights from others in the process I think.

As for custody rights, I personally understand why the mother is given heavier consideration. In an ideal scenario I'd say it should be 50/50 and only leaning one way or the other if one party wants it to be that way or if one parent is a deadbeat. I think laws tend to favor women in custody hearings because more than a handful of dudes that even I've come across who are weekend parents aren't the best parents. As an example, my dad gave my mom full custody of me basically back when I was about 11. My Aunts husband gave up the rights to 2 women he knocked up back in his 20's and 30's completely.

As for abortion, are you arguing that men should have the right to tell women that they must have the baby even if they don't want to? Physically growing the child inside you trumps your sperm in that scenario as far as I'm concerned. That's not a sexist thing either. I'd feel the same way if the roles were reversed and the father were to somehow bare the child.


----------



## flint757 (May 28, 2014)

Also, since we're on the subject, I imagine workplace deaths, stress, violence, joining gangs, etc. has to do more with our biology and predisposition towards certain activities/behavior than outright discrimination. You've used that argument against women in the past (biology predisposing us to certain actions) so I don't see how it doesn't apply there as well.


----------



## Explorer (May 28, 2014)

I was going to ask for clarification, but realize that I'll only get more confirmation of that Onion story. *laugh*

It's looking like a blend of gender studies from the MRA equivalent of the Discovery Institute, backed by lots of rhetoric. 

----

You know how Michael Jackson would say he just loved children in general as a defense for the sleepovers, but never address the question of why none were girls?

I do agree that institutional male-on-male rape, in the military and prisons, is a horrible problem. 

MRA groups always talk about this as a major issue, therefore women's rights are the problem.

How come I don't see MRA groups actively fighting to change those situations, instead of making it about women? 

The history of those institutions which have those problems shows that they hare had, with few exceptions, males in charge. Why is male-on-male rape int he military about how women's rights should be opposed?

Rape affects everyone who is a victim. They'd even have allies on the other side. Who wouldn't want allies in such an important fight?

Why no fighting the actual things MRM groups claim to want changed?

*Why no fighting male rape, if it's about male rape?

Why no girls, if it's really about all children?*

*The lack of action makes it clear those are just smokescreens hiding the real agenda. *


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 28, 2014)

not even responding anymore. just posting this because its poignant 

 

i dont often say this: thank you amazing atheist 

it starts at minute 21:00 or 22:00 or so.. the rest of the video is a lot of context.. now lets see if anyone watches it


----------



## JoshuaVonFlash (May 29, 2014)

^ Saw it on Memorial Day.


----------



## UnderTheSign (May 29, 2014)

In addition to Explorers post, fun fact - the majority of feminists will tell you male rape is an issue as well and if asked, will provide helpful resources for male and female (and other gendered) rape victims.


----------



## estabon37 (May 29, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> not even responding anymore. just posting this because its poignant
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, I only watched from the 21:00 as suggested, and I've got to say, it's compelling stuff. I have two notes to add to the overall conversation after watching this:

1) I'm always happy to change my stance on an argument when it seems I'm either wrong or wasn't sufficiently informed when I took my stance in the first place. So, I'm going to step back to a more 'neutral' position because now I realise I don't really have all the information I need to properly contribute to the discussion. Having said that ...

2) I think my main point earlier, and it's a point that others made as well, is that Rodgers' rhetoric was so similar to that of many people who self-identify as MRAs that it was easy to assume that he was associated with the movement. Not because Daily Kos told me to think that (I've not heard of that site), and not because anybody else told me to think that. It's just the first thing that jumped into my head. Honestly, in terms of content, the talking points from several of Paul Elam's posts, especially his infamous "If you see Jezebel in the Road..." post, are certainly comparable to the more 'normal' sections of Rodgers' videos. 

So, I jumped to seemingly the wrong conclusion. But just as a question: is it really so surprising that this is the conclusion that I jumped to, when so many of the talking points of MRAs having more to do with 'slapping down' women and feminists than with promoting actual issues men face?


----------



## Necris (May 29, 2014)

Paraphrasing here:
"I want to starve women to death en masse in concentration camps in the hopes of eradicating mens knowledge of women, and thus the male sex drive, because my inability to get a woman to have sex with me and my inability to have a relationship with a woman is making me suffer. I need to protect future generations of men from this pain."

This makes the every other statement he made against directly against women irrelevant?

That is complete and utter cherry picking, it's not even particularly well done cherry picking either, since, as I stated in my previous post in this thread:



Necris said:


> His hatred of women seemed to largely revolve around him being deprived of sex by women who he felt owed it to him.
> 
> His hatred of men seemed to arise from his envy for those men who were sexually active with women who he felt owed him sex. He hated the women who would have sex with other men, including those he sees as below him, but not him.
> 
> All of the anger he expressed seemed to revolve around women in some way.




That single excerpt does not at all refute what I put forward. It reinforces it.


Furthermore those who continue to claim, "This couldn't possibly have been an attack driven by misogyny, he killed more men than women, anyone who says otherwise clearly has an agenda." are off the mark as well in a very similar way. Three of the men killed were identified as his roommates. He stated a need to dispose of his roommates to use his apartment as a torture chamber. 

That these three killings were of necessity to his plans rather than purely driven by hatred for men is glossed over by that viewpoint. 

That he specifically stated a desire to wage a war on women for the crime of depriving him of sex is also glossed over by that viewpoint.

It is abundantly clear that misogyny was a driving factor behind his desire to kill, even if, as with many murderous plots, his plan more or less went out the window once it had to work within the constraints of reality.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 29, 2014)

estabon37 said:


> Well, I only watched from the 21:00 as suggested, and I've got to say, it's compelling stuff. I have two notes to add to the overall conversation after watching this:
> 
> 1) I'm always happy to change my stance on an argument when it seems I'm either wrong or wasn't sufficiently informed when I took my stance in the first place. So, I'm going to step back to a more 'neutral' position because now I realise I don't really have all the information I need to properly contribute to the discussion. Having said that ...
> 
> ...



the rest of the video is highly recommended too... he sets up how his disorder paired with what may have been a high sex drive contributed to the final product. but i understand not many people have the time to sit and listen for almost 30 minutes. so if there's time just revisit the first 20 minutes. 

but no, you're supposed to jump to that conclusion because that's how the debate was already framed (prior to the shooting). 

but it is important to assign blame correctly, or else its a witch hunt. in this case MRAs have their own problems with perception. that's the movement's fault, and i have no intention of carrying their water. 

but even if an organization has been tied to something through rhetoric, yet bares no responsibility, its up to the citizenry, the people, to say: 

"y'know i don't agree with your stances but its not right for you to be blamed for something you have control or responsibility over". 

it was very irresponsible (I actually believe it was quite intentional) The Daily Kos and the movement on Twitter and Tumblr to seize on this story to try and change the narrative to anti-MRA... but never let a good crisis go to waste.


----------



## Explorer (May 29, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> but even if an organization has been tied to something through rhetoric, yet bares no responsibility, its up to the citizenry, the people, to say:
> 
> "y'know i don't agree with your stances but its not right for you to be blamed for something you have control or responsibility over".



I suspect you are omitting a few factors which are obvious to the general person. I think the real version, factoring the bigotry you minimized or ignored, would go:

If an organization's rhetoric and reasoning advocating violence against women matches the rhetoric and reasoning behind some horrible act, even if there is no direct link, it is up to the citizenry, the people, to say:

"HOLY SHlT! This kind of thinking and rhetoric is fukkin' scary! We can't ignore these red flags, because these guys seem to REALLY BELIEVE THE SHlT THEY'RE SAYING! If they're talking about committing violence towards women in general, we need to protect society in general against this kind of person! ...wait, you in the back, what did you say? You/re saying these groups apologize for what they've been saying? Oh, that's actually really nice of them to... Wait! They *didn't* apologize?! You're saying I have to apologize to some guy who's talking about killing my daughter? Get out of the fuggin' room! Who let the nutjob in here! Hey, wait, copy down his ID info, in case he's dangerous too!"

Me personally? I've always watched news reports where someone from the ANP or the Klan or other groups states there is no direct link between themselves and some horrible act which their rhetoric condones. I suspect that they too are just waiting for those apologies to roll in... but it's probably not going to happen until they apologize for what they've been saying and advocating all along.

*Short version: Saying that you owe an apology to someone who never apologizes for much worse is a little clueless.*


----------



## misingonestring (May 31, 2014)

Good god I wasn't that desperate when I was single, and I'm still a virgin. I'm just not insane. 

It's sad that such a pathetic tragedy has to happen. One less lunatic on this planet at the unfortunate expense of innocent human lives who had successful careers ahead of them.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (May 31, 2014)

Explorer said:


> *Short version: Saying that you owe an apology to someone who never apologizes for much worse is a little clueless.*



an admission of not being right doesn't have to come with an apology. it comes with better due diligence. if not you're know better than people who accepted "free bleeding" at face value. 

and drawing attention to "red flags" doesn't need a tragedy to propel it... but again never a let a good tragedy go to waste. 

there's a greater lesson to be learned in this thread about the first amendment and everything... but i wont go into it... instead i'll let ed norton say it 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VDbrvJ848Y

if Mill's harm prinicple is not violated by a group of people we cant persecute them... you can disagree and let the market place of ideas be the judge.




which makes the most perfect segue into this piece i just read this morning which puts the most recent mass killings from the 90s on into perspective.. 

and its actually quite cool, it draws attention to everyone who tries to "brand" every shooting for their own cause 

How We All Miss the Point on School Shootings


----------



## asher (May 31, 2014)

I thought you were done with this thread a page ago 

Will read article when not on phone.


----------



## Explorer (May 31, 2014)

So... that article makes the case that one should not ignore the red flags.

Are you upset that these situations help propel forward discussion of how red flags should be noticed and acted on? Because that's seems to be part of your consistent apologist position. 

From the article:



> Eric Harris&#8217; *friends later said that he would often &#8220;joke&#8221; about blowing up the school and murdering classmates. Even after they discovered he was building bombs in his basement, they never put two-and-two together. They just couldn&#8217;t believe it.* Not Eric. Not the guy they had played video games with and toilet papered girls&#8217; houses with.
> 
> Meanwhile, the wrong sarcastic word at the airport and you can be held in jail for days.
> 
> ...




There's a lot more in the article about this, but I had to move that line because *this shows how the article argues against part of its own case: Killers will drop hints of what's to come, and so it's ridiculous to take precautions against someone joking in an airport. *


The article also makes the case that the MRAs and their participants/members should definitely be under scrutiny because of all the jokes and hints in their rhetoric. 



I understand wanting it to be about empathy for a potential killer, but why not have empathy for the future victims of the killers and stop them? 



Since the article argues that these people were already of a killing mindset, and shows the danger signs *and* the consequences of ignoring them, it makes a great case for paying serious attention to those red flags. (Even if it also belittles paying attention to those red flags, because it's silly to take them seriously, and it's about empathy anyway, right?)


The other thing which strikes me is the article making it seem like the reason *these* people went for it is because they are killers. *That's* not a complex story which needs empathy. That's just labeling them with a one-dimensional name. Oh, the media looked for reasons, but really, these guys were just killers! Why can't you get that? Oh, and let's give them a hug! *laugh*


That article, and your viewpoints, are very instructive and informative. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has really heard your reasoning, and noticed where your sympathies have been expressed. Thanks for posting them!


----------



## Explorer (Jun 1, 2014)

Possible non sequitur, but has anyone here ever heard how some people fall in love with serial killers in prison, and how they expend a lot of energy defending those people as innocent and misunderstood? 

It's amazing how those people can't see what others do, but insight is not something which can be easily learned if one is incapable thinking in certain ways in the first place. 

Love's funny that way, isn't it? 

----

Getting back to the topic, it seems like one person keeps making it about these scary guys being misunderstood, and victims. 

Personally, I'm seeing that as a smokescreen for agreement with the misogynistic attitudes and actions of the segment of society being discussed. Otherwise, we'd see balance through the sympathy expended on those who didn't attack these attackers, the ones who did nothing to deserve the abuses, but only happen to be of the sex targeted. 

Victims and potential victims, versus those targeting them or who want to target them. Jews and Nazis, women and misogynists, blacks and the Klan... the former just because of birth, the others by choice. 

I know which side I defend, and which i oppose. My position is the same whether it's the Vik topics, the various "equal rights for all" topics, and so on. 

Are you proud of who you are? Is your family? Your partner?

Mine all are. 

I am.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 1, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> there's a greater lesson to be learned in this thread about the first amendment and everything... but i wont go into it... instead i'll let ed norton say it
> 
> 
> if Mill's harm prinicple is not violated by a group of people we cant persecute them... you can disagree and let the market place of ideas be the judge.




Can I just ask about a parallel that is easily drawn between the clip you posted and the overall discussion on feminism?

The clip is taken from the film 'The People vs Larry Flynt', correct? I haven't seen the film, but to the best of my knowledge it spans Flynt's life, and the scene is taken from a court case where a guy sues him over libel and emotional distress caused by a satirical piece Flynt published about the guy. Yeah? Yeah.

In the clip Norton speaks of the First Amendment right in terms of people being able to make a choice in terms of whether or not they will support a publication that they might see as immoral, or for many, as being a form of media that oppresses women. One of the most important social realities that keeps those kinds of publications alive is the fact that the women featured in them enter into contracts where they are paid for their work - they consent to performing sexual acts or posing naked or whatever, and whether or not the magazine sells is based on whether or not enough people find the content appealing. It's basic supply and demand. Freedom of speech is important to these kinds of publications because in theory everybody involved in the creation and consumption of the product consents to the material within.

People yammering on the internet about how women are unfairly elevated (however poorly their arguments are structured, and often in ignorance of the genuine good that at least the first two waves of feminism did) is so distantly connected to the clip that I can't tell if it's...

1) Being used as a general statement on freedom of speech and the connection wasn't made between anti-feminist stances and magazines that glorify / objectify women (it's not either / or, it's a little bit of both). If this is the case, I think any other example of somebody using similar words to defend freedom of speech may have been a better choice, and should probably go hand-in-hand with a lengthy conversation about whether or not freedom of speech can be used to justify making statements that outright condemn large portions of the population (there's a loud little church we don't talk about on these forums that make a lot of people question whether or not freedom of speech is worth it). As an Australian, I don't have an explicit right to freedom of speech, I'm no worse off for it, and the aforementioned nasty little church simply wouldn't get away with its antics in this country, which is nice. I'm not saying freedom of speech shouldn't exist, but it shouldn't be used as a defense for making ignorant or oppressive statements.

or

2) It was used with full or partial thought of a connection between magazines that glorify / objectify women and defending freedom of speech. But this is where things get tricky in my opinion, because very few of the people who are the targets of sites like A Voice For Men are consenting to the material. It's not locked behind a paywall, and it doesn't have a plastic cover over it saying "You must be at least 18 years old, sufficiently capable of rational thought, and have an IQ of no less than 90 in order to reduce the risk that these extremely biased and occasionally poorly supported opinions will negatively influence your perspective on 50% of the world's human population without you taking a single moment to critically evaluate the argument". 

I'm not saying that everybody that consumes that media is incapable of rational thought, or even that it's a majority, but it's a sufficient amount to raise concern. I'm also not saying that there aren't feminist websites that are just as bad as A Voice For Men, I just use Paul Elam's site as an example because somebody on this forum linked to that site a few months ago to make an argument against 'extreme feminism' that I've yet to encounter anywhere, and it was the first of several examples of 'Men's Rights' websites and forums that I'm now seeing pop up everywhere. And I wouldn't have a problem with those sites if they actually spent more than 10-20% of their time and effort advocating men's rights instead of railing against feminism, which has so little to do with men's rights that it's like connecting Edward Norton's defense of satire in 'The People vs Larry Flynt' to a defense of people publishing stream-of-consciousness nonsense on blogs. 

Shit. I guess I'd better stop with this stream-of-consciousness nonsense.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

I think the discussion has never been about whether these people have the right to express what they want, as long as they don't come close to a call for action. (That has gotten more than one White Power or violent antiabortion group leader in trouble, because some assume freedom of speech is absolute. You can express your thoughts and opinions, but you can't approach advocating the actions.)

Ibanezsam4 has already recognized that these groups have freedom of speech, i believe. He's never claimed that they have been legally suppressed or repressed. He's just upset that others abhor their views, and that misogynists don't have their views accepted - in other words, he appears not to like that others use their freedom of speech and association to express dislike of such speech and of those who express desires to commit violent acts against half the population, not because of something they did, but because of their sex.

Ibanezsam4 has even posted materials which support looking at such outspoken behavior as potentially lethal to others, advocating that individuals who threaten openly should be viewed as dangerous. 

I don't think he ever attempted to make a case that the dangerous misogynists were ever denied their freedom of speech, and he wouldn't be able to make a plausible case for that occurring. AFter all, he's linking to at least one site which has been mentioned in this topic as heavily misogynistic and expressive of violence towards women in the way his article describes as dangerous, and that site obviously has been allowed to discuss that misogyny. 

To be honest, I don't really know if he has any well thought out agenda, only a knee-jerk reaction to have people not express their rejection of misogyny and those who embrace it. 

And I think he's surprised that things which fly without question on these sites he reads and admires are meeting such resistance in every other situation.


----------



## Necris (Jun 2, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> I want to post a video of a guy named lil' dicky... but its inappropriate in this context.
> 
> poorly phrased on my part, but referring to the higher rates of depression, suicide, *drug use, ODs, more prone to gang related violence, more likely to die at the workplace,* just as likely to get sexually assaulted, widely sexually assaulted in the military, declining academic performance, etc..
> its all things that happen but we dont talk about because in traditional culture requires that males be strong silent sacrificial persons and take it on the chin instead of saying "hey.. is this a problem?"



In this thread you have stated that mental health care is lacking and needs to be taken more seriously in this country. I completely agree. I'm not sure, however, that making mental health a "Gendered" issue does anyone any good.
Higher rates of depression in men than women, even if only a few percentage points higher does fly in the face of the notion that women are far more likely to suffer from depression than men. However, the study I linked also found significantly higher rates of anger and aggression, drug use and risk taking, that too is something that needs to be looked in to.


Moving on, if you, as you stated in your gender studies thread, believe that gender is not purely a social construct then is it possible that males, purely because they are male, are more likely than women to join gangs, more likely to use drugs and more likely to take on jobs that put them at risk of physical harm? 
I've seen this used to attempt to explain the the wage gap in the past.

I'm not going to put that forward, necessarily, but it is a potential conclusion to be derived from the belief that differences between the genders are innate.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jun 2, 2014)

I'd like to point out that the majority of 'bad stuff' is something they either do to themselves or have (partial) control over. What happens to women is often stuff _done by men_.

As for the last sentence in that bit Necris posted - so males too are harmed by gender roles and expectations. Guess what, there are movements that strive to deconstruct those but I've yet to see MRAs do that.


----------



## asher (Jun 2, 2014)

_By definition_ gender is basically a social construction.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

Whoops, wrong topic!


----------



## asher (Jun 2, 2014)

Explorer said:


> Whoops, wrong topic!



I was wondering what that was about


----------



## Explorer (Jun 2, 2014)

UnderTheSign said:


> I'd like to point out that the majority of 'bad stuff' is something they (men) either do to themselves or have (partial) control over. What happens to women is often stuff _done by men_.



Interesting point.


----------



## synrgy (Jun 2, 2014)

I've been intrigued by the National conversation this incident sparked, on the topic of misogyny. It's about time the issue received this level of attention. I'm equally impressed that the dialog (Nationally, or in this thread) hasn't devolved into another endless and largely useless debate about firearms.

I truly don't have much of any consequence to add to the discussion here, except that on a personal level, I've been rather offended to see many of my male friends (or acquaintances.. On Facebook..) jump to the defensive ("#notallmen", etc), effectively missing the entire point.

I'm sure I've been part of the problem at points in my life, and I expect that I continue to be part of the problem in ways I'm less readily aware of. I can only hope that the women in my life will hold me accountable, as needed.

Whatever the case, this kid clearly had a sense of entitlement that went even beyond the boundaries of "extreme". I'm just thankful I don't have people like him in my own circle of friends.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 3, 2014)

synrgy said:


> I've been intrigued by the National conversation this incident sparked, on the topic of misogyny. It's about time the issue received this level of attention. I'm equally impressed that the dialog (Nationally, or in this thread) hasn't devolved into another endless and largely useless debate about firearms
> 
> ...
> 
> Whatever the case, this kid clearly had a sense of entitlement that went even beyond the boundaries of "extreme". I'm just thankful I don't have people like him in my own circle of friends.



I think that last bit is the reason that it hasn't become a conversation about firearms. Rodgers stabbed some people and shot others, and he did it all in the name of a twisted personal ideology that in what I've seen and read never really glorified weapons as much as it objectified people. I've made some staunchly anti-gun posts on this forum, and I'll probably do it again in the future, but there are a few reasons I'm not going to make those arguments in this case, and one of the people who has posted in this thread often outlines the reasons why (it's time for some subversive quoting!)...



Ibanezsam4 said:


> it was very irresponsible (I actually believe it was quite intentional) The Daily Kos and the movement on Twitter and Tumblr to seize on this story to try and change the narrative to anti-MRA... but never let a good crisis go to waste.



I think it would be irresponsible of me to change the narrative about this incident to being about gun control when the majority of people are having a different and equally important conversation. It would also be irresponsible to change the topic when I consider that the perpetrator of the crime was not exactly fixated on wiping out lots of random people, so much as he was fixated on ...



Ibanezsam4 said:


> in fact his 140 page filth indicates he hated everybody! but we're focused on one part of it: women not giving him sex. despite that he wanted to kill men for having sex.
> 
> sex was his trigger. is it misogynistic? yes. is it misogynistic in the same sense that a not-crazy person would engage in? no.



I don't exactly agree with that last word, but it would be intellectually dishonest of me not to include the full context of that passage. Regardless, Rodgers was pretty fixated on sex and blamed men and women alike for his inability to get laid. I think the reason the misogyny is highlighted in the national conversation is that it's far and away the creepiest aspect of his bullshit. When you claim to hate pretty much all of society, but demostrate through your twisted fantasies that you'd only lock away women and keep them for breeding purposes, and not really punish the men that you claim you also hate, then naturally, the conversation is going to be about misogyny, or even eugenics, before it's going to be about gun violence. Or alternatively...



Ibanezsam4 said:


> the real point: the shooter's hate was everywhere. to be focused on the misogyny is only driving the conversation about the real issue (which you've been doing most of the thread): mental health.



I don't really understand why the need to place a greater emphasis on mental health is more of a 'real issue' than the need the lower the amounts of casual or not-so-casual misogyny in society, why the two issues might be kept mutually exclusive, or why only one should be supported instead of both, but none of these factors alter the reality that poor mental health is insufficiently addressed at both the social and institutional levels. For the first, I can understand that it's embarrassing to deal with mental health concerns out in the open, and one might feel that openly admitting to having mental health problems makes them seem weak, or incapable of fulfilling important roles in their life. There's a lot of stigma attached to addressing mental health, so it's not easy to do something about it, even if you have access to the best care. At the institutional level, it's downright daunting. When somebody has a busted bone, a disease, or a faulty organ, there are clear and mostly obvious signs that these things exist, and while they're tricky to diagnose, most patients aren't going to deny the existence of their failing liver. Mental health is less obvious to deal with, and less institutionally supported in most countries.

I realise making these arguments by quoting the dude that I keep arguing against is ... cheeky. I guess I'm trying say that I understand the common ground most of us stand on while we're trying to come to terms with a pretty horrific event. That common ground doesn't involve the conversation about gun control, and I think I've been enough of a dick up to this point about the most alarming aspects of this case that I don't think my attempting to make a case about gun control would elevate the conversation, nor would it do any good for my argument about what is currently a completely separate issue. 

TL;DR - I'm always tempted to argue about gun control, but it's the least relevant factor in this story, so I'd be a dickhead if I tried.


----------



## asher (Jun 3, 2014)

I definitely don't think it's the least relevant factor, but at least this time it's (probably not) the main thrust or the secondary thrust even.

But I still think the damage would have been much lower without one.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 3, 2014)

I've been thinking about a topic for a few days, and talking with friends as well, and I think I've reached a tentative conclusion. First, my thinking.

You know how certain fundamentalists Christian groups and other conservatives argue vehmently against sexual orientation being one of the possible criteria for defining a hate crime?

Similarly, other groups (including, sometimes, those same conservatives) sometimes argue that race shouldn't be a factor. "You don't say that when a minority robs a white guy that it's a hate crime, so why would you say that killing a guy by dragging him behind a truck is a hate crime?"

I think I figured something out, but let me ask you all if this seems reasonable.

These groups and individuals don't want this behavior labeled as hate crimes because, although they aren't actually doing those acts, they understand and are on board with the sentiments against that group while not wanting for anyone to be able to think of them as bigots, not even they themselves. 

These individuals have always thought of themselves as nice people, with reasonable views. And then suddenly, the culture at large has defined their views as bigotry.

And rather than take that as a wake up call, they fight about how intolerant everyone else is, or how they're misunderstood. 

If they never move outside their cultural bubble, then they never get challenged on it. Sometimes though, they fall in with sympathetic people who embrace them... until they accidentally out themselves on national television, as in the recent Clive Bundy situation. Fox News and Sean Hannity had to backtrack, while Bundy insisted that Fox knew and understood him, as he claims they show by what they broadcast in their news and commentary. 

Some people I know also engage in discussions about political correctness, talking about how you can't say certain things, but they refuse to come right out and say the things they themselves think should be okay but recognize as unaccepted (different from unacceptable, incidentally). They are usually unapologetic about their views, but have learned to hide them because the blacks and kikes and spics and feminazis have brainwashed all of society except them. 

The latter normally wind up outing themselves privately when they assume that someone else would share their viewpoints. Like synrgy, I've discovered that people I thought were pretty reasonable can suddenly reveal that they hold someone as less than a full human being. And when they find out they've revealed themselves, either they try to convince others logically that their brand of bigotry is logical, or they have the experience to know the tactic won't work, so they just won't discuss it. 

----

So now, I look at many of the SS.org conversations where most of the members are firmly against bigotry... while a small number consistently argue about how the bigots are being repressed, or are misunderstood, and so on. Sometimes those defenses are focused, sometimes they're just tossed in huge handfuls in the hopes that something sticks, but the effort is vigorous and clearly important to them. 

And now I have to wonder... is it because those people believe in the ways which have been labeled as bigoted, but don't want to think of themselves, or have others think of them, in that way?

That would explain a lot of posts which talk about everything but what most see as the elephant in the room. 

And, of course, some might be okay with hating different groups, and think we're all idiots for not hating them too, but are now smart enough to know how expressing that just convinces others that they don't want to hang with them. 

Yup, I'm concluding that a lot of this topic isn't about, "Oh, you don't understand this other group, for whom I'm advocating fiercely," but is actually, "Oh, you just don't understand me, even if I'm not copping to it." 

Sorry to work through that out loud, or if my conclusions were obvious to everyone else from the beginning.


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 3, 2014)

5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men's Rights Movement | Cracked.com

I think Exlorer's last post is more or less parallel with point #4 in a very recent Cracked article. I haven't finished reading it yet, but because it was written as a response-to-the-response-to-the-Isla Vista murders, I figured I'd post it here before I finished reading. Back to the article...


----------



## Explorer (Jun 3, 2014)

That article definitely puts it's finger on so much of what this SS.org thread has revolved around on the pro-MRA side, along with others pointing out the thinking as this article did. +1 to your rep, Friend. 

The one thought I had while reading that article, which I'll resist acting upon is... 

Many of those I know who are against fighting bigotry talk about the pleasures of cigars, whiskey, guns, bodybuilding and so on. (I'm not saying that those who indulge in that stuff are automatically bigots. I've just noticed the correlation, as the article did too.)

If I took a jump down the rabbit hole, like the YouTube comments topic, and looked at the internet profiles of those who have argued against being anti-bigotry, will I find bodybuilder forums, guns, and whiskey, cigars, and other hyper-masculine stuff? 

*shudder*


----------



## Explorer (Jun 3, 2014)

BTW, from the comments on that article:



> Well, it's official, folks, after a long battle with "being full of liberal retardation and no longer being funny," Cracked has gone full bleeding heart faggot on us.
> 
> You will, however, be able to return to the site to receive your daily dose of white guilt and to laugh at the friend-zoned doormat queers who think sticking up for feminists will help them lose their virginity, just don't expect any laughs from the actual articles.



Besides the fact that this guy outed himself as unable to lose his virginity (why else would he assume that no one else had managed it? *laugh*), he does engage in the hate speech towards other men who don't fit his idea of masculinity. Amazing how dead on that article is....


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 3, 2014)

Yeah, the article doesn't perfectly encapsulate every idea this thread has produced (which is good because that would be weird), and there are a couple of little things within it that I'd still argue against. But the major points it covers are pretty solid, and quite well supported. 

I think more importantly, it manages to deconstruct the ideas, psychological basis and circumstances surrounding the MRA movement without, in my opinion, ostracising or blaming the people who make up the movement so much as the people who themselves ostracise and blame everybody that doesn't support the movement. I wish I was that tactful in my approach to the topic.


----------



## Necris (Jun 4, 2014)

I can't help but wonder what would happen if a person like this somehow ended up in a relationship with a woman. 

I don't think that this person would stop viewing interaction with a woman as a game that, when when played well, entitles the player to sex and I don't see pickup tactics, including emotional manipulation, being discarded immediately, or at all, rather I see the person trying to use them to achieve the goal of having sex. 

I find it hard to believe that the hatred towards women would suddenly disappear or be at all tempered by their sudden relationship, or that their view of women as objects whose sole purpose is to provide sexual gratification would immediately change. 

I can't picture a person like this suddenly realizing they aren't entitled to a womans body.

Disturbingly though it takes no stretch of my imagination for me to picture a person like this physically abusing a woman who has decided that they don't feel like having sex tonight, even forcing themselves upon her and raping her.

If the relationship was ended by the woman I certainly don't see her as being safe having a person like that, angry, sexually frustrated and potentially violent, know where they live or work.

I don't believe it is at all unfair to come to the conclusion that even in a relationship these people would be exactly the same, angry, sexually frustrated, entitled, manipulative, hateful and misogynistic. Even if they had sex, nothing would change.


----------



## Edika (Jun 4, 2014)

I remember some years ago I had read some articles stating that boys are left behind academically due to the way they are expected to behave. That they were expected to behave quietly like girls and due to the excess energy they needed to move more and reduced their attention span. Due to this factors girls would have better grades and later on would out perform boys/men in academic studies, thus resulting to men having less prestigious jobs with lower incomes. 

Of course it was a lot better worded than how I am presenting it and I must admit that it initially drew my attention. I remembered how I was as a child in the classroom how girls in average had better grades than boys and how they could easily focus when studying. My concern of course wasn't that girls would outperform boys and that women will rule the world but whether each part had the best education possible.

Lately I have seen this used as an argument from MRA or MRA sympathizers. However both opinions seem to be coming from USA. Maybe there are people like these in Europe but either they aren't as vocal all I really do live under a rock. 

My point for mentioning the above is that even though the above opinions and studies concerning education might momentarily seem like a logical argument, reality shows the opposite. My studies have been in natural sciences and more specifically Physics. There have been many years since I graduated from the University and while during my time and the present the amount of women in natural sciences has increased, women are still in minority. As this so called feminization of education is going on, shouldn't there be a higher ratio of women over men in jobs that require higher education? I work in the RnD department of a multinational company that doesn't discriminate gender and I still see about 25% of women working her with only one female manager. The percentage of women working in other areas of the factory is even less aside from finance and administration jobs. Less women follow natural science studies than men, even less do postgraduate studies and even less manage to have a high enough position. In the research program that I was working in the majority of professors involved were men but at least the students were better in numbers with most being male.

Even if primary and secondary education is considered and even if boys have more energy and are required to expend it that doesn't mean they don't have to learn patience, diligence and of course discipline. Sure there are things that could be better and more focused to the individualities of each gender but I'm sure girls have a lot of complaints about school.

In the end isn't the choice for a job position based on credentials and experience? Or at least it should be? If that entails that all jobs requiring higher education and better pay would eventually be held by women, wouldn't that mean that men have to try harder and be more disciplined? 

The above wall of text was mainly to address one of the "serious" arguments from MRA people. The crazy stuff has been handled in a really appropriate fashion by other members. Concerning this Rodgers guy the guy was a creep and probably gave off that serial killer vibe that women that wanted to continue breathing wouldn't go near him.


----------



## asher (Jun 4, 2014)

^ In a bunch of the immediate post event coverage, someone had pulled up some of his stuff from a different forum (I recall it being somewhat bodybuilding related, or maybe just a thread on it), and some guy basically telling him "Dude, if you didn't come off so creepy, you'd have no problems at all."

Le sigh.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 4, 2014)

There are hardly any women at all in science related fields compared to men. There are so few women in engineering fields that they can practically go for free and still many do not. I can see where people are coming from to a slight degree about boys under-performing, the problem is MRA's always take the position that women are performing better, not men are performing worse (an important distinction for motivation purposes). The notion that women are 'taking over the world' and 'men need to take it back' is just asinine at best. Anyone who thinks this is just upset that things are becoming much more equal. Like I said a 100 times before, we can focus on men's issues while not degrading women's issues in the process. The goal for the majority of people, women included, is to live in a better world and for everything to be more equal.

You also hardly ever see women in blue collar related jobs yet you never see people arguing that men are 'stealing' these jobs from women (at least I've never heard that argument) so I fail to see why MRA's come to that conclusion about everything else, especially when it isn't even true (as Edika pointed out).



Edika said:


> Even if primary and secondary education is considered and even if boys have more energy and are required to expend it that doesn't mean they don't have to learn patience, diligence and of course discipline. Sure there are things that could be better and more focused to the individualities of each gender but I'm sure girls have a lot of complaints about school.



Exactly. It isn't 'feminizing' boys, it's grooming them to be responsible, patient adults. Many women are just as rambunctious too, that isn't really that gender specific.

Also, since it has been mentioned before, ADHD isn't some made up disorder to punish 'boys for being boys' it is a genuine disorder with medically measurable effects. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't over-diagnosed, but it is hardly in an effort to turn boys into women like someone here has been going on about. I have ADHD. You ask anyone who knows me and there is just no denying that I do. I was never diagnosed in school and teachers never tried to force me into taking medication. I genuinely have a disorder that makes it hard for me to remember things or pay close attention to everything and anything. 



Edika said:


> In the end isn't the choice for a job position based on credentials and experience? Or at least it should be? If that entails that all jobs requiring higher education and better pay would eventually be held by women, wouldn't that mean that men have to try harder and be more disciplined?





Exactly. To work in most jobs that require higher education also require patience, discipline and the ability to sit still. The argument being made, that boys need to be allowed to roam free, actually denounces the idea that men should hold these types of position because only blue collar jobs allow 'boys to be boys'.


----------



## UnderTheSign (Jun 4, 2014)

Can't wait to see this whinefest unfold.
5 Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Men's Rights Movement -Cracked.com PASTEBIN TO PREVENT AD REVENUE : MensRights


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2014)

I think Necris is the first person I've run across to link the thinking behind objectification of women on the part of the Pick Up Artist/Men's Rights Activists to the mindset of certain physical abusers in relationships. This gets to the fact that in addition to trying to stop the assaulters, anyone who doesn't want their daughter(s) hurt will educate girls as to the risks and red flags. Unfortunately, just like programs which sought to teach empathy to sociopaths, there are those abusers and potential abusers who will learn how to fake being a nice guy to remain undetected. 

----

I think you need to see the wage gap disappear before you can talk about how boys and men are at a disadvantage educationally. As it is, I'm personally aware of female students being actively discouraged by male teachers and professors from being focused on non-humanities subjects. It will be a while before the old generation dies out, I suppose.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 4, 2014)

Explorer said:


> I think you need to see the wage gap disappear before you can talk about how boys and men are at a disadvantage educationally. As it is, I'm personally aware of female students being actively discouraged by male teachers and professors from being focused on non-humanities subjects. It will be a while before the old generation dies out, I suppose.



If that was directed at me that wasn't my point. My point is that reality complete conflicts with the notion that men are at a disadvantage. It is just factually untrue 9/10. 




Clicking through the link UnderTheSign linked and then to the forum linked to the article on cracked.com I read something that struck me as true, men are probably 'discriminated' against in some cases, but it is a case-by-case type thing. There is not systematic discrimination like there has been against women and minorities, unless you consider losing privileges you never deserved/earned to be 'discrimination'. To paint the problem like it is systematic, like most sex offenders were only publicly urinating, like a blacked out chick getting taken advantage of isn't rape, like intentionally deceiving women that you are a 'nice' guy isn't sleazy, is just dishonest and downright scary.

There are problems that men only face and there are some systematic problems that exist, sure, but to constantly insist that this is the fault of women or that it is intentional is just asinine. Some things do need to be changed from past generations, but that definitely applies to women and men alike, not just men.

Really when it comes to the discussion of parental rights, when it is clear that the father would make a better parent, I've never seen him NOT get the child. Like I said, my sister lost custody to her children to the dad just a couple months ago because she is a terrible person and it was obvious that she is. I really don't see a pro argument for why men should get first consideration when both parents are good parents. In those instances parents usually share custody anyhow. Even if they didn't, considering a woman has to spend nine months with a child in their belly and then push it through a hole much smaller than the baby actually is, I can understand why the woman may get first consideration. I mean a guy could literally father 1000's of children, a woman cannot. To think a sperm is equal to birthing a child again is asinine. This logic applies to abortion IMO too. Women should have the right to choose. While the discussion should include the father, assuming it isn't a one night stand, he should never have the ability to override the one who will actually have to house the baby for nearly 10 months, deal with complications, be sick, lose pay while on disability leave (not every job offers good maternity leave, most only offer 60% pay) and potentially risk their lives.

A woman in the comment section of the cracked article also pointed out how when she chose to support men's rights they were so stuck on women hating they wouldn't accept her in the community. Her reason for joining was very valid too and she was on their side. She had a cousin who was molested by a woman as a young child who committed suicide in his teens because all of his guy friends thought it was 'cool' that he was molested at such a young age ['lost your virginity to an older woman, congrats brah' (he was like 9 or something)]. Anyhow, anyone with half a brain would actually think that is terrible and is indeed an issue in our culture that affects men, but they are so busy hating women that even when they have valid concerns it gets buried in the bullshit. Why? because MRM is a reactionary movement specifically towards feminism (which is more about equality than female domination).

There are genuine concerns that need to be taken care of, like the idea that guys need to be macho or meet certain standards, but when you can't separate that from women's rights your doing it wrong.


----------



## Edika (Jun 4, 2014)

Explorer said:


> As it is, I'm personally aware of female students being actively discouraged by male teachers and professors from being focused on non-humanities subjects. It will be a while before the old generation dies out, I suppose.



I have witnessed this too as a student, not in the University however mostly in school and by other students and parents rather than teachers themselves. It's true that the biggest percentage of women in Universities are found in the Humanitarian Sciences as mentioned. Everyday simple examples would be when there is a technological issue in my house it will be my job to fix it. My wife is intelligent and she can fix it if she tries, but lack of confidence and dare I say boredom leads to me fixing something.

Not to mention the whole media bombardment. One appalling thing I have seen in Ireland that maybe also in the rest of the UK is the Halloween costumes for kids and adults. All female costumes seem like the ones you'd buy from a sex shop while the male costumes are goofy and normal. Kids costumes are the typical for girls like princesses and all the "girly" professions. No girl costumes of doctors, scientists and high profile work choices. Nurses, secretaries and so on.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 4, 2014)

The wage gap idea wasn't directed at you, flint. I was saying that if someone is positing that males are at a disadvantage, then show me male scores dropping due to educational methods instead of girls' scores improving, or a result like male wages dropping as opposed to women's wages gaining parity.

BTW, I wish there was a way to make a comment a sticky in the Cracked article: "Be sure to notice how many negative comments use the same anti-others arguments that the article mentions. Irony much?"


----------



## asher (Jun 4, 2014)

An excellent essay by Rebecca Solnit.

The Feminist Battle After the Isla Vista Massacre | Perspectives | BillMoyers.com


----------



## estabon37 (Jun 4, 2014)

flint757 said:


> Like I said a 100 times before, _*we can focus on men's issues while not degrading women's issues in the process*_. The goal for the majority of people, women included, is to live in a better world and for everything to be more equal.



 Well, so much for the conversation. Beyond this basic and obvious point, the rest is semantics when I think about it. 

On the topic of gender ratios in higher education, it is rather interesting. The OECD collects data from a few dozen countries and compares the results. This article highlights some of the changing trends in post-compulsory education, and showed that while the gender gap in higher education is actually reversing - as women in several countries now outnumber men in university qualifications - female enrolment in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) fields is still as low as 14%. Generally speaking, women also still earn less than men even when they have the same qualification, and women are still less likely to have full time employment. Things are looking better, and the trends should continue, but it's been slow progress, and it might all be irrelevant being that 47% of all jobs are likely to be automated within the next couple of decades, which is a study that I don't think factors in the possibility that autonomous cars are going to be the end of taxi and transportation jobs. 

That's enough futurology for now I think. My personal experience is in studying education, a field in which I'm personally outnumbered by gender at least 2-to-1 at uni and maybe more than that when I'm actually in schools. Honestly, it's not something I think about unless somebody asks me about gender ratios because I've been very lucky to study and work with a huge number of really intelligent people who are incredibly passionate about the subject. Being that these are the most important factors, I'm not going to argue that 'there should be more men teaching' because unless more men are interested in teaching and aren't taking it on, I don't see a point. Conversely, I've certainly talked to women who have said they're passionate about science and technology fields, who only study those areas through the education field because they're discouraged from doing 'serious' maths and science work. Thankfully, my partner was more discouraged at the thought of working with kids than the thought of studying a field that is 80% dudes, so she got her science degree in statistics (which I don't entirely understand, as she majored in maths subjects for a science degree - I'm assured it's normal, but my brain struggles ).

In any case, if any human being of any age, gender, race, or persuasion is interested in studying in a certain field, I believe they should be encouraged to do so. Many more theorists are now seriously considering the world as transitioning from a resource-based economy to a knowledge-based economy. So, if you're passionate about something, you should be encouraged to get to know it, because it's possible that within a relatively short period of time, a person's knowledge is going to be worth more than what they own or what physical capacities they possess. 

It's an exciting time to be studying education.


----------



## eaeolian (Jun 5, 2014)

Ibanezsam4 can enjoy his three days off. Everyone else, keep it cool. No personal attacks.


----------

