The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity

It doesn't seem right to you because you are absolutely wrong about me. Where do I say "all men"? And I am curious as to why you jump so hastily on the "#NotAllMen" bandwagon and accuse me of blaming all men or having grievances against all me and worst of all, having an agenda?

A word of advice and caution, you don't want to go the way of Balerion. It won't end well for you.

At no time did I ignore his mental illness. Far from it.

As I noted in the other thread, how was it the police thought he was polite and well balanced when they went to interview him after the spate of angry and misogynistic videos were posted online and his own mother called the police? How can police officers, presumably having looked at the video where he refers to all women as whores, sluts, cunts and bitches who needed to die violently by his hand, simply miss that giant white elephant in the room and instead saw him as being polite and a great kid after that quick search of his house. Even he comments on his surprise that they missed it and did not see it. How did they not see something that was so glaring?

Is it perhaps a case that they did not think that level of hatred was abnormal? How is that even possible?

That.. Right there..

That has been the language of his apologists. You may as well be on Fox News. The only reason he killed more men was because he was unable to get inside the Sorority house as he had originally planned. He even detailed how he would go about murdering "the sluts and the cunts" in the sorority house in his manifesto and the videos he had posted in the says leading up to it.

He hated the men because he felt they bragged, that they were beneath him and less worthy of him and yet, they got the beautiful women. He wondered how and why women liked the "oaf" that he saw these men as being. Because he was supposedly better. Did you not read the parts where he fumed and then cried and screamed in rage when men he deemed less than him talked about the women they were sleeping with? He hated the women because had you read the last part of his manifesto, he clearly stated that women turned men, made them stupid, stopped them from reaching their full potential. To claim he hated men more than women.. Honestly, can you make any more excuses for him?

So what? He hated men more than women which is why he went to the sorority house first to murder as many sluts, whores, cunts and bitches as he could? That's hating men more, huh?

He used wow as an escape from reality for many years. But even there, reality followed him. Normal people started playing as the game was introduced to the masses. He was no longer the best, the privileged one in the best guild with the best gear. He stopped playing when he realised his friends were further along than he was after his breaks from it. That was his escape from reality. Otherwise, he would fester and hate, and then tell James about it until in the end, he started to explain how and what he wanted to do to the women he felt he deserved but refused him.

He killed his room mates because they were beneath him. Not superior like he was.

He then went directly to the sorority house, where he planned on murdering every single woman he could find in said sorority house. Men were afterthoughts. He shot the guy randomly, because he was there. His initial targets, the ones he obsessed over and planned for, were as many women as he could murder. The so called "animals" he referred to them as. Because by entering that sorority house, he felt he could show these women finally, that he was the "alpha" male. There to dominate and own them as he hunted them down in that sorority house. And in the end, he was foiled from that plan by they not opening the door. So he shot at the sorority house next door and killed two women who were out the front.

I don't get how you completely ignore this.

It was his sense of entitlement. His sense of privilege. He was "THE FIRST BORN SON". His anger that his mother would not marry someone rich so that he could have the life he felt he was owed. His absolute demands and his disgust that his mother might expect him to get a job if he did not go to school. Him? Work in a job? How dare she suggest such a thing! Those beautiful model like blonde women he wanted, he wasn't envious of them. He was pissed off that they would reject him.. HIM! He felt he was the better one, the one who was owed those women. Those women should have been thanking him for sleeping with them. Not going out with men he saw as being oafs, less manly and gentlemen like than him. He was the privileged and upper class gentleman. They were just ordinary. As an upper class gentleman, he was entitled to whatever he wanted to own, including women.

He didn't long for their misfortune. He longed for their death and their knowledge and understanding that he was the superior alpha male. That it would have been a privilege if he had had sex with them, not the other way around. That he would make them pay for being the sluts they are and rejecting him for men he felt were beneath him. That's not their misfortune. That's hoping for their absolute annihilation. There is a difference..

Who said that all nerds are potential rapists?

There were articles linked that discussed how movies often portray the nerds as the sex starved lunatics, happy for whatever scraps they can get and who plot the murder of the so called jocks so they could then get the women - own them - that sense of ownership and entitlement.

Who is saying they are all potential rapists? Care to link?

But that is not how Rodger saw it, was it?

He felt that women are things to own and control. Not win or earn. That would entail some effort on his part. He was above that, remember? They should have been happy to be with him and thus, should have flocked to him. He even gave them the chance.. "I was giving the female gender one last chance to provide me with the pleasures I deserved from them." That was how he saw it..

And?

Ownership of women in history has a lot to answer for. You know of those times, when women were bargained off, spouses were chosen for her to ensure he had wealth and so that her wealth could be protected. Always marry above your station, never below it. More to the point, fathers were marrying off their daughters whether the daughters wanted it or not. Women were owned like property and thus, had to be kept and controlled. Money had to be protected.

This is how Rodger felt it should be like. That men chose. That men controlled. He even stated it in his manifesto. Did you not read it?

The parents.

Which once again raises the question.. How did no one see it? How did they think it was normal? This consumed his every waking thought. His friends saw it and heard it. His parents did as well. So how was it missed? How did the police miss it? Or was it normal to them? The whole 'this is what boys are like at that age' thing? How did a guy who posted a video of himself online saying how he wanted to harm and kill these women he saw as being whores, sluts, cunts, bitches and every single other misogynistic name under the sun, come off as being normal and polite and well balanced to police who investigated it?

So how was this missed?

I read somewhere that it was probably so pervasive that they simply did not see it..

He was brought up to feel that he was entitled to everything. That he could have everything he wanted by simply demanding it or throwing a tantrum if he did not get it. And he threw many many tantrums, even as an adult.

Oh I'm sorry, now you're assigning gender roles to parenting? Is this the 1900's?

From his manifesto, both his parents pampered him. His father more so since he could financially afford to. His mother refused to marry the rich men and give him the life he felt he was owed, remember? The only one who did not was his step mother.

What a shame no one ever told Elliot Rodger that. You're going this far to pin this on women?

Because to him, women were animals, disgusting animals who corrupted and defiled men who could do no wrong and only did wrong when influenced by a woman.

 

When did you become an apologist for misogyny?

What's in it for you?

See, I don't get this. You are a woman, yet you are doing your best to demand that it wasn't misogyny that led him to doing what he did, even though he clearly and repeatedly explains how and why it is his hatred of women that leads him to do it. He says it, his friends on the PUA sites clearly saw it and responded with glee that it was his true reason and motive - which is why he is their hero - and they keep telling us how women are to blame for it. That it is the fault of women. And how do you respond to it? You quite literally blame women. You blame women for bringing up misogynists and men like Elliot Rodger, you blame women for his violence and then you declare that he didn't hate women (even though he tells us repeatedly in his videos and manifesto just how much he hated and detested them), but was frightened of them (I am guessing you didn't get past his grade school part of his manifesto where he explains how scared he was of new people?) and that he hated men more.. Even though he explicitly describes how it's not the men's fault, but the fault of women, beautiful women who turn men..

So when did you become such an apologist?

And yes, if you want to view it as a threat, then do so. I mean hell, after what you have spouted in this thread, nothing will surprise me. Because you have repeatedly claimed that I have an agenda, that I hate all men, exactly like Balerion has tried to claim in this thread. When I ask you for proof, when I ask you for clarification of what agenda do you think I have, you can't even answer. Instead, you keep blaming women, keep claiming that I have an agenda and that I hate all men. And I am kind of over the stupid and baseless accusations. I have already been soundly abused and shamed for daring to even say what happened to me. He just stopped short of saying I deserved it. And you are heading down the same road as he was with the exact same accusations. "I agree with Balerion"..

What was it that you said? Ah yes..

I was surprised as I was appalled.

I don't know what is worse.. That you blame women for men like Rodger, or that you appear to have such strict and assigned gender roles when it comes to child rearing - gender roles that would have been at home during the times where cars weren't even invented yet..

When did you become such an apologist?

Misogyny is pervasive in society. And yes, many women are misogynists by the way in which they excuse it, attempt to feed it and simply blame women and refuse to even acknowledge it and instead, try to blame everything else. Like when you claimed he killed more men than women, while ignoring the fact that his original and intentional plan from the outset was to go into a sorority house and kill every single woman he could find in there. That was why he went there first. It was why he stood outside and pounded on the locked door, trying to get in. Do you actually think he went there first because he hates men, as you have repeatedly tried to claim? How many more excuses can you come up with to excuse his reasons and to blame women for what he did?

No one has denied his mental illness. But that is not the sole cause. He was clearly mentally ill. He also clearly leaves this out of his manifesto, just as he left out the fact that he was getting therapy since he was 9 years of age. But reading through it, it was clear he was mentally ill. But if mental illness was the only cause, then we would have way more killings than we do. But we do not.

Let me ask you something Trooper..

If a guy wrote a manifesto like Rodger and instead of "women", he wrote Jews. And he rants and raves in the same way that Rodger raves about women, only he's doing it towards Jews.. And then one day, he takes some guns and tries to enter a Synagogue and then when he can't, goes out and simply shoots whomever he can. Is he anti-Semitic? Or is he just afraid of Jews and hates Christians more than he hates Jews because the people he does end up killing are Christians? When the anti-Semitic shooter went to a Jewish hall and shot and killed two Christian people outside, who were walking towards the hall for a talent show, and then got into his car and drove to a Jewish run old people's home and shot dead a young woman outside.. Would you claim he did not hate Jews because he killed more Christians instead of Jews?

That killer was clearly identified as being an anti-Semitic. Because the clear reason for doing what he did was because he hated Jews. Yet when a guy goes out of his way to remind us how much he hates women and tries his best to kill as many women as he can but is foiled by a locked door, and so ends up killing two women outside a sorority house and then shoots another guy after killing his roommates, you don't see the reason for his violence as being misogyny? Replace women with Jews in Rodger's case and replace the sorority house with a Synagogue and then replace the religion of his victims to Christians and then actually try and convince anyone that he didn't do what he did because he was anti-Semitic.. I dare you. Or replace women with black people in his manifesto, the sorority house with a Baptist Church frequented by blacks and his victims as being non-blacks and then try and explain that what led him to do it was not his racism because well, he killed more white people than blacks. I dare you.

Misogyny is very real. Many of their websites are seen as being dangerous enough that they are classified as hate sites by the Southern Poverty Law Center. So stop making excuses and stop blaming women.

Elliot Rodger, who died after allegedly carrying out a series of drive-by shootings from behind the wheel of his BMW last night near the University of California, Santa Barbara campus, wrote in November that he wanted to “overthrow this oppressive feminist system” and create a “world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”

Hours before the attack, Rodger – son of “Hunger Games” assistant director Peter Rodger – posted a deeply misogynistic video on YouTube in which he pledged to exact revenge for being rejected by women. “If I can’t have you, girls, I will destroy you,” he says.

A review of Rodger’s online writing suggests an ideology behind his lust for revenge. As I noted earlier today, Rodger was an active member of PuaHate.com, an online message board whose users lament that women are not attracted to them. The self-pitying participants frequently identify themselves as “incels” – short for involuntary celibate – and engage in misogynistic attacks on women.

Rodger appeared to view himself as something of an incel revolutionary. In November, Rodger reacted angrily to another user who suggested that lucid dreaming might be an acceptable stand-in for sex. “If all incels were to start getting sedated by lucid dreaming, incels will become docile and there will be no revolution,” he wrote.

Instead, Rodger wrote that incels must go on offense: “If we can’t solve our problems we must DESTROY our problems.” He concluded with a call to arms against women:

One day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system.

Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.​

Rodger had a similar reaction a month earlier in October when a user suggested virtual reality as an outlet for incels: “No… this is a dark future for incels. It will only keep them sedated and prevent the revolution that needs to happen.”

In January, another frequent PuaHate user – “The Purifier” – argued that “Incels should go on strike” with the aim of an “Incel Revolution against women and feminism”:

All Incels should go on strike for a few days, our first blow against a society that oppresses us. Women treat us like we are a waste of space, that we are unworthy. Society thinks you are scum, so stop contributing to it by working your shitty, mundane, slave-like jobs. Go on strike until the world gives some recognition to our plight.

This will be a first, incremental step towards the full on Incel Revolution against women and feminism.​

​

Yeah, it's really men that people like Rodger, and those who think like him, hate.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think men who hate women are misogynists - like the guy who kept telling us how he kept his wife in check and how he eventually married a woman who knew her place while whining about feminism and women's rights and how women could dare think she can actually get an education or work outside of the home instead of knowing her place. I thought the guy, who expressed his desire to rape little girls and who argued that it wouldn't be harmful for a baby boy to have sex with his mother if he penetrated her, but then expressed the view that a baby girl could not share that experience with her father because of the possible physical damage it would cause but that she could consent to it once the risk to physical damage was past but they could instead engage in petting and touching until then, was a paedophile and I didn't paint him as a paedophile, I openly declared he was a paedophile - just as I told his friend, who joined this site a few days later to share his experiences and his gripe of how he was jailed for having sex with a minor, that he was also a paedophile - especially after they linked to their child love sites where they try to explain why the age of consent should be abolished just so they can legally fuck children. I also thought the guys who profess how women ask for it by dressing a certain way or acting a certain way excuse rape and I have told men and women who have tried to make that argument on this site that they excuse rape.

Are you going to declare that I was misrepresenting those people?

Those poor men. I am such a mean person. An "alpha female".. Perhaps we should just try to understand them, nurture them and blame their victims for being who they are.

Try harder Trooper.

"Alpha female".. The exact same language that those who post in misogynistic hate sites use. And I give you the creeps? Riigghhtttt...

James R also linked the exact same article.. Are you going to declare that James R also thinks all nerds are rapists?

And your disgusting habit of taking quotes out of context is noted. Why didn't you explain it in the context in which those quotes you took were given? Why did you misrepresent it as you did? Why leave out big chunks and make it look like it clearly was not? Pay particular attention the part I bolded..

But the overall problem is one of a culture where instead of seeing women as, you know, people, protagonists of their own stories just like we are of ours, men are taught that women are things to “earn,” to “win.” That if we try hard enough and persist long enough, we’ll get the girl in the end. Like life is a video game and women, like money and status, are just part of the reward we get for doing well.

So what happens to nerdy guys who keep finding out that the princess they were promised is always in another castle? When they “do everything right,” they get good grades, they get a decent job, and that wife they were promised in the package deal doesn’t arrive? When the persistent passive-aggressive Nice Guy act fails, do they step it up to elaborate Steve-Urkel-esque stalking and stunts? Do they try elaborate Revenge of the Nerds-style ruses? Do they tap into their inner John Galt and try blatant, violent rape?

Do they buy into the “pickup artist” snake oil—started by nerdy guys, for nerdy guys—filled with techniques to manipulate, pressure and in some cases outright assault women to get what they want? Or when that doesn’t work, and they spend hours a day on sites bitching about how it doesn’t work, like Elliot Rodger’s hangout “PUAHate.com,” sometimes, do they buy some handguns, leave a manifesto on the Internet and then drive off to a sorority house to murder as many women as they can?

No, I’m not saying most frustrated nerdy guys are rapists or potential rapists. I’m certainly not saying they’re all potential mass murderers. I’m not saying that most lonely men who put women up on pedestals will turn on them with hostility and rage once they get frustrated enough.

But I have known nerdy male stalkers, and, yes, nerdy male rapists. I’ve known situations where I knew something was going on but didn’t say anything—because I didn’t want to stick my neck out, because some vile part of me thought that this kind of thing was “normal,” because, in other words, I was a coward and I had the privilege of ignoring the problem.

I’ve heard and seen the stories that those of you who followed the #YesAllWomen hashtag on Twitter have seen—women getting groped at cons, women getting vicious insults flung at them online, women getting stalked by creeps in college and told they should be “flattered.” I’ve heard Elliot Rodger’s voice before. I was expecting his manifesto to be incomprehensible madness—hoping for it to be—but it wasn’t. It’s a standard frustrated angry geeky guy manifesto, except for the part about mass murder.

I’ve heard it from acquaintances, I’ve heard it from friends. I’ve heard it come out of my own mouth, in moments of anger and weakness.

It’s the same motivation that makes a guy in college stalk a girl, leave her unsolicited gifts and finally when she tells him to quit it makes him leave an angry post about her “shallowness” and “cruelty” on Facebook. It’s the same motivation that makes guys rant about “fake cosplay girls” at cons and how much he hates them for their vain, “teasing” ways. The one that makes a guy suffering career or personal problems turn on his wife because it’s her job to “support” him by patching up all the holes in his life. The one that makes a wealthy entrepreneur hit his girlfriend 117 times, on camera, for her infidelity, and then after getting off with a misdemeanor charge still put up a blog post casting himself as the victim.

And now that motivation has led to six people dead and 13 more injured, in broad daylight, with the killer leaving a 140-page rant and several YouTube videos describing exactly why he did it. No he-said-she-said, no muffled sounds through the dorm ceiling, no “Maybe he has other issues.” The fruits of our culture’s ingrained misogyny laid bare for all to see.

And yet. When this story broke, the initial mainstream coverage only talked about “mental illness,” not misogyny, a line that people are now fervently exhorting us to stick to even after the manifesto’s contents were revealed. Yet another high-profile tech resignation ensued when the co-founder of Rap Genius decided Rodger’s manifesto was a hilarious joke.

People found one of the girls Rodger was obsessed with and began questioning if her “bullying” may have somehow triggered his rage. And, worst of all, he has fan pages on Facebook that still haven’t been taken down, filled with angry frustrated men singing his praises and seriously suggesting that the onus is on women to offer sex to men to keep them from going on rampages.

So, a question, to my fellow male nerds:

What the fuck is wrong with us?

How much longer are we going to be in denial that there’s a thing called “rape culture” and we ought to do something about it?

No, not the straw man that all men are constantly plotting rape, but that we live in an entitlement culture where guys think they need to be having sex with girls in order to be happy and fulfilled. That in a culture that constantly celebrates the narrative of guys trying hard, overcoming challenges, concocting clever ruses and automatically getting a woman thrown at them as a prize as a result, there will always be some guy who crosses the line into committing a violent crime to get what he “deserves,” or get vengeance for being denied it.

To paraphrase the great John Oliver, listen up, fellow self-pitying nerd boys—we are not the victims here. We are not the underdogs. We are not the ones who have our ownership over our bodies and our emotions stepped on constantly by other people’s entitlement. We’re not the ones where one out of six of us will have someone violently attempt to take control of our bodies in our lifetimes.

We are not Lewis from Revenge of the Nerds, we are not Steve Urkel from Family Matters, we are not Preston Myers from Can’t Hardly Wait, we are not Seth Rogen in every movie Seth Rogen has ever been in, we are not fucking Mario racing to the castle to beat Bowser because we know there’s a princess in there waiting for us.

We are not the lovable nerdy protagonist who’s lovable because he’s the protagonist. We’re not guaranteed to get laid by the hot chick of our dreams as long as we work hard enough at it. There isn’t a team of writers or a studio audience pulling for us to triumph by “getting the girl” in the end. And when our clever ruses and schemes to “get girls” fail, it’s not because the girls are too stupid or too bitchy or too shallow to play by those unwritten rules we’ve absorbed.

It’s because other people’s bodies and other people’s love are not something that can be taken nor even something that can be earned—they can be given freely, by choice, or not.

We need to get that. Really, really grok that, if our half of the species is ever going to be worth a damn. Not getting that means that there will always be some percent of us who will be rapists, and abusers, and killers. And it means that the rest of us will always, on some fundamental level, be stupid and wrong when it comes to trying to understand the women we claim to love.

What did Elliot Rodger need? He didn’t need to get laid. None of us nerdy frustrated guys need to get laid. When I was an asshole with rants full of self-pity and entitlement, getting laid would not have helped me.

He needed to grow up.

We all do. ​

Context is everything..

 

And I don't think you want to know how you are coming across here either..

Read his quote again and then read what you wrote..

No distinction. Who is raising all these misogynists and then to ask 'pamper and protection; is that a man's duty?' - in other words, raising misogynists and then assigning gender roles to child rearing..

Now, Fraggle's comments touches directly on ownership culture. "it has always been the duty of every man to protect his woman".. Note the "his woman".

Is it "his woman"?

No one said it was the only thing guiding him. What people are saying is that it was a major factor in his decision to do what he did. He told people often enough, he wrote it often enough in his manifesto. Why can't you bring yourself to believe him?

What you have been doing in this thread is spout the exact same arguments and words spouted by the likes who post on PUA sites. "Alpha female"? Really? Could it be more pathetic? That I have a male hating agenda because I dare to even speak about misogyny? I hate men because I wanted to discuss rape culture and how it is acceptable in society? Your arguments could have been lifted word for word on the apologetic sites that supported and raged against women in their zeal to celebrate Rodger. Where women who dare speak of misogyny obviously simply hate all men, where discussions about rape culture and ownership culture and male privilege that is at the crux of such belief systems means that I think all men are rapists and it makes me an "alpha female". That when I question your argument that he hated men more than women, even though he repeatedly asserts that is not the case, that I am obviously a danger to society and thus, I should not have access to your IP addresses and locations.. Could you be more of an apologist?

Who said that it was?

Then you clearly misunderstood the reasons... The reason that people scoff at the "#NotAllMen" hashtag that you so proudly proclaimed to utter when you hear men label women, is that it is wholly unnecessary. That women know not all men are like this because if we believed all men were like this, then no woman would ever associate with a male voluntarily. "#NotAllMen" was the response by men and women who felt offended when women decided to speak out about their experiences with the specific men who abused, sexually assaulted, raped, mistreated them. These women never said that it was "all men". Far from it. We know it's not all men. So why do men and women feel this obsessive need to keep telling us that 'it's not all men'?

And really, you respond with "not all men" when you hear a man label women as gold diggers, non-logical and overly emotional? So you defend the men who are not like those men who use such labels.. Okay then. Good for you.

I don't know? Is he?

When someone enters a thread about rape and defends a guy who has often and repeatedly claimed that rape wouldn't happen if women just gave men what they wanted and didn't dress in a way that invited it, and then that person tries to redefine rape, is he supporting rape? I mean is it really rape? Or just a biological imperative to fuck because he's horny? Is such a question supporting a rape?

I don't know. Are you?

What about Capracus?

What?

What are you on about now?

Or are you angry when I called Syne out after he tried to label all homosexuals as hating and abusing children because they are homosexual - by accusing one of our gay members of this out of the blue and then whined repeatedly about how homosexuality was somehow connected to paedophilia and I questioned his motives in obsessing over it? Context.. as I said, is everything..

You also believe that Rodger didn't really hate women. Your impression, at the moment, kind of means diddly squat..

As I said, change "women" for Jews or blacks in his manifesto and change the sorority house for a synagogue or church frequented by blacks, and his victims to Christian or white and try to argue that he didn't hate Jews or blacks, but hated Christians or whites more because he killed more Christians, or try to argue that he was afraid of Jews or blacks and see how far you'd get. I'll give you a hint. You wouldn't get far without being correctly called an anti-semite or racist. Yet you think that when a guy repeatedly carries on about how he hates women and wants to kill women and wants to destroy all of them and he tries to do it but ends up being foiled by a locked door at a sorority house full of the women he detested and wanted to destroy, it doesn't make him a misogynist or hate women.. As I said, your impression mean diddly squat.

 

What trolling?

What's the matter? Don't like it that you don't get to have free reign and you are actually challenged about your ridiculous claims that Elliot Rodger did not really hate women? Poor you and those like you.

Can't answer the question?

See, people like you are so so quick to find excuses that when faced with your own comments, you cannot even answer for it.

Would it Elliot Rodger have been an anti-Semitic or racist if his manifesto had railed against Jews or blacks? Would you have argued that he was afraid of Jews or blacks and that he clearly did not hate them because he killed more Christians or whites?

Would you have dared make such an argument?

I'd imagine that you would not, because if Elliot Rodger had made it about Jews or blacks, there would be little doubt of his visceral bigotry and hatred. And to doubt it and cast questions and blame on his victims, to state that anyone who identified him as a hateful bigot, in such a case, as having an agenda for Jews or blacks against white people, would clearly classify you as somewhat of a bigot and an apologist for such hateful ideology. So why, pray tell, do you do it when it's against women?