Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Uh, seriously.... Not true.
It seems to imply that men in general have a misogynous nature.
The Broad Brush? Women and Men; Prejudice and Necessity
- Thread starter Asguard
- Start date
- Status
Uh, seriously.... Not true.
It seems to imply that men in general have a misogynous nature.
Bells
Staff member
Women rarely see it either unless it is right in their face, being flaunted like a nuclear explosion or something. It's all pervasive.
We see it in hindsight.
Look at Elliot Rodger as a prime example. In all of those years where he was literally having fits of crying, screaming and his constant ranting that he couldn't have what he felt he was owed, a blonde beautiful woman, no one saw it? No one noticed it? Well his friend James noticed it when he got really bad, when he started talking about how he wanted to kill them all, strip the skins off their backs and the men who slept with them, when he started to call them sluts, cuts and whores.. I'll give you an example.. He recounts how around 7 police officers arrived at his apartment to have a chat to him about the videos he was posting online. He had already planned his "Day of Retribution", as he called it, when he planned to go to a sorority house and murder all the "sluts" in there, to show them that he was the "alpha male".. His mother saw those videos and called the police. Not a single one of them noted his obvious misogyny. They didn't ask him about his hatred of women. Not at all. It didn't even register on their 'there's something not quite right here' radar. Instead, they reported that he was a polite young man, apparently well balanced. Because polite young men often go online and rant about sluts and whores? So how did they miss what was so bleeding obvious?
One of the articles posted in this thread actually discusses how we simply do not see or recognise that type of misogyny when confronted with it. Like the so called 'geek' who clearly stated that when he read that manifesto, he saw nothing new - well except for the murdering women bit - but the ideas behind it was not new. He had seen and heard men, 'geeks', espouse the exact same feelings. If you read his manifesto, it's exceptionally well written. It's actually engrossing in a way. Like this well written chapter in a book. And he even breaks it down into chapters, detailing parts of his childhood and his milestones as a child, teenager, and man. And he recounts it in such a way that literally captivates. However the prevailing part of his story is his hatred of women. He recounts how he was friends with girls as a child, but then reminds readers that it was girls like them that he would come to hate, that it was they who ruined his life, because they would not choose him or have sex with him, that they would deny him what was rightfully his. And this is the main part of his manifesto. That women were denying him what was rightfully his. He also posted the exact same message in the videos he posted online. That women were denying him his birthright. What should have been his for the taking. By the end of the manifesto, beautiful women and women in general were mere sluts, whores, cunts and bitches, who had deliberately set out to deny him what he saw should have been his to own, control and use as was his right. He also cites this in his videos. Yet not a single one of the police officers who went to his house to speak to him thought it was wrong or misogynistic, that they didn't even ask him about it?
One writer who commented about this stated that it was because his misogyny was so encompassing, that it permeated everything, that people simply did not see it. What he was saying was nothing new, it was not what has not been said before. The media is awash with it, as several of the 'geek' writers comment. The geeks and nerds who are sneaky to rape women, to claim what is rightfully theirs. Not the oafs the women prefer.
As I said, all those people who watched Rodger's videos, not one of them commented on his misogyny until after he killed and released his manifesto, because by then, it was impossible to ignore. Well most. Others just tried to flub it and claim that it wasn't really misogyny. Even in hindsight.
As Elizabeth Plank notes:
On Friday evening ahead of Memorial Day weekend, a drive-by shooting near the University of California, Santa Barbara, left seven people dead, including 22-year-old suspect Elliot Rodger.
Just as past school shootings in America, the media has reacted by isolating the event as a monstrous and heinous act with no precedent. Rather than seeing Elliot Rodger as a product of society, the media has depicted him as a bloodthirsty madman, a mere glitch in the system. And yet the facts show a very different story.
Judging by the chilling YouTube video Elliot Rodger left behind, the gunman knew exactly what he was doing when he went on a shooting rampage with a semi-automatic. Frustrated by the fact that women, inferior creatures he felt like he was entitled to, rejected him romantically, he decided to get even. An excerpt from the video and a transcript from the Daily Kos show how deeply misogyny informed his worldview.
"It's not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don't know why you girls have never been attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice, a crime, because I don't know what you don't see in me. I'm the perfect guy, and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentleman."
"I will punish all of you for it," he said before erupting in an almost satanic laugh.
"On the day of retribution, I will enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB, and I will slaughter every single spoiled stuck up blonde slut I see inside there. All those girls that I've desired so much, they would have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them. While they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes. I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true Alpha Male."
What happened in Santa Barbara is nothing less than a hate crime, and yet mainstream news outlets are distilling the issue to "mental illness" and "premeditated mass murder." Although we should be shocked by Elliot Rodger's actions, we should not be surprised. In fact, most school shootings share chillingly similar characteristics. It's time we stop treating these incidents as anomalies and start recognizing the deep societal issues at play.
Just as past school shootings in America, the media has reacted by isolating the event as a monstrous and heinous act with no precedent. Rather than seeing Elliot Rodger as a product of society, the media has depicted him as a bloodthirsty madman, a mere glitch in the system. And yet the facts show a very different story.
Judging by the chilling YouTube video Elliot Rodger left behind, the gunman knew exactly what he was doing when he went on a shooting rampage with a semi-automatic. Frustrated by the fact that women, inferior creatures he felt like he was entitled to, rejected him romantically, he decided to get even. An excerpt from the video and a transcript from the Daily Kos show how deeply misogyny informed his worldview.
"It's not fair. You girls have never been attracted to me. I don't know why you girls have never been attracted to me, but I will punish you all for it. It's an injustice, a crime, because I don't know what you don't see in me. I'm the perfect guy, and yet you throw yourselves at all these obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentleman."
"I will punish all of you for it," he said before erupting in an almost satanic laugh.
"On the day of retribution, I will enter the hottest sorority house of UCSB, and I will slaughter every single spoiled stuck up blonde slut I see inside there. All those girls that I've desired so much, they would have all rejected me and looked down upon me as an inferior man if I ever made a sexual advance towards them. While they throw themselves at these obnoxious brutes. I'll take great pleasure in slaughtering all of you. You will finally see that I am in truth the superior one. The true Alpha Male."
What happened in Santa Barbara is nothing less than a hate crime, and yet mainstream news outlets are distilling the issue to "mental illness" and "premeditated mass murder." Although we should be shocked by Elliot Rodger's actions, we should not be surprised. In fact, most school shootings share chillingly similar characteristics. It's time we stop treating these incidents as anomalies and start recognizing the deep societal issues at play.
How many times do people like Elliot Rodger have to declare how and why they hate women before we start to realise that this is a major problem.. or better yet, recognise it for what it actually is?
The misogyny and misandry displayed by Elliot Rodger was a result of a lifetime of psychosocial dysfunction. His attitudes ran the gamut, there were times in his life when he desperately wanted to be liked and respected by the very men and women he had grown to despise. The broken social compass he was issued led him onto one wrong street after another, and his frustration over the inability to navigate to his desired destination ultimately led to the road rage that ended the lives of five men and two women.
Bells
Staff member
So all the men who participate in PUA and the men's rights websites he frequented were also mentally ill?
I wouldn't say it was so much his desired destination as it was his feeling that it was what he was entitled to as his right. That these women should be coming to him and offering themselves to him, to be his girlfriend, because that is what he was entitled to..
On PUAhate, a site that was taken down after the murders, Mr. Rodger expressed his disgust at women, questioning how they could resist his charms. He would urge other “incels” — or involuntary celibates — to fight back. “One day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system,” he wrote. “Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”
The videos he posted on YouTube and Facebook were theatrical, even hammy, with him narrating scenic drives under palm trees, winking at the camera as he bobbed his head to bouncy songs like “Walking on Sunshine” — all to demonstrate to women how absurd it was that they did not find him alluring. “They should be on me,” he wrote.
Others in Mr. Rodger’s new community sometimes expressed solidarity with him, but soon turned on him: He was attacked as desperate, insecure, pretentious, entitled, bitter and whiny. And at times, as happened in high school, they mocked him for his small stature. (He was, by his account, 5 feet 9 inches tall and 135 pounds.) One taunted him as “an average looking manlet,” provoking a response from Mr. Rodger.
“I am a drop-dead gorgeous, fabulous, stylish, exotic gem among thousands of rocks,” he wrote.
As Mr. Rodger’s “Day of Retribution,” as he called it, approached, there were signs of what he was plotting. One poster on Bodybuilding.com, another website where he shared his views, noted that Mr. Rodger had taken down a video titled “Why Do Girls Hate Me So Much?” This person said the video had made him look like a serial killer. “I’m not trying to be mean, but the creepy vibe that you give off in those videos is likely the major reason that you can’t get girls,” he wrote.
Mr. Rodger’s response now seems particularly chilling.
“My parents discovered the videos, so I temporarily took them down,” he wrote. “They will be back up in a few days, along with more videos I’ve filmed.”
On the night of the killings, members of Mr. Rodger’s online world instantly drew the connection between the violence in Isla Vista and the man they had been jousting with online.
“Could someone tip off the police just in case?” one wrote, even as six people had already died at Mr. Rodger’s hand.
“Why?” another asked.
“Don’t,” someone else posted. “Whatever happens. We didn’t do anything so just let it happen if it does.”
The videos he posted on YouTube and Facebook were theatrical, even hammy, with him narrating scenic drives under palm trees, winking at the camera as he bobbed his head to bouncy songs like “Walking on Sunshine” — all to demonstrate to women how absurd it was that they did not find him alluring. “They should be on me,” he wrote.
Others in Mr. Rodger’s new community sometimes expressed solidarity with him, but soon turned on him: He was attacked as desperate, insecure, pretentious, entitled, bitter and whiny. And at times, as happened in high school, they mocked him for his small stature. (He was, by his account, 5 feet 9 inches tall and 135 pounds.) One taunted him as “an average looking manlet,” provoking a response from Mr. Rodger.
“I am a drop-dead gorgeous, fabulous, stylish, exotic gem among thousands of rocks,” he wrote.
As Mr. Rodger’s “Day of Retribution,” as he called it, approached, there were signs of what he was plotting. One poster on Bodybuilding.com, another website where he shared his views, noted that Mr. Rodger had taken down a video titled “Why Do Girls Hate Me So Much?” This person said the video had made him look like a serial killer. “I’m not trying to be mean, but the creepy vibe that you give off in those videos is likely the major reason that you can’t get girls,” he wrote.
Mr. Rodger’s response now seems particularly chilling.
“My parents discovered the videos, so I temporarily took them down,” he wrote. “They will be back up in a few days, along with more videos I’ve filmed.”
On the night of the killings, members of Mr. Rodger’s online world instantly drew the connection between the violence in Isla Vista and the man they had been jousting with online.
“Could someone tip off the police just in case?” one wrote, even as six people had already died at Mr. Rodger’s hand.
“Why?” another asked.
“Don’t,” someone else posted. “Whatever happens. We didn’t do anything so just let it happen if it does.”
As someone who was so quiet, he was certainly very vocal and open about who he hated and why.
Reading his manifesto, he appeared to be very manipulative also. He manipulated his parents to give him whatever he wanted. There were no 'no' boundaries. I suspect, with his mental illness, always getting what he wanted, even if it was through manipulation, he never understood that women were not objects, but were human beings. That lack of boundaries was on full display when he explicitly recounted listening to his sister have sex. He didn't retreat from that. He stood there and listened.
As one forensic psychiatrist noted in the article you linked, his manifesto was written very well. He did not rant or rave. He told it like it was a story. “It has none of the raving quality that you see in the writing of people with psychosis,”... And it was, as the article states, very "clear and precise".. So was his mental illness what led him to to write it as he did? Or was that his true self?
Misogyny exists, and it isn't a sign of mental illness. His retreat into the online community, where that sense of entitlement and where women are viewed as objects and not actual people, it fed his sense of ownership. Everything had to revolve around him. As one person noted in one of the links above, his angry response that his parents dared to presume that he should share his gaming console with his sister. Him.. share?
I don't know if it is his mental illness that resulted in his parents simply just giving him everything. But even before he started to receive treatment, that was how he was brought up - by his own telling. He got what he wanted, when he wanted it.
One of the most telling things about what he wrote, filmed himself as saying and what he ultimately did was that he knew it was wrong. He clearly knew it was wrong. And he knew why it was wrong. Like when the police arrived on his doorstep to speak to him after he posted the videos. He knew and he was scared that they had caught him out. And his relief that they didn't search his room properly, or they would have found his weapons. Or when he tried to push those women off the ledge at that party. He knew he was wrong to do it. He even said it. But he felt that that was his right, his sense of entitlement that declared he could do it because well, they were just sluts and whores, women who would not sleep with him. But he knew it was wrong and why. For someone with a mental illness that he had, he was very very clear about it and very vocal about it.
So much so that when he did do it, the people he had been speaking to figured out it was him. He never hid it. And he never hid about why he wanted to do it.
So how come no one saw that part of it, in particular?
He had initially wanted to do it last year. It was a long time in the works. He had even flagged Valentines Day for it.. For obvious reasons. The police released a statement today, stating that the motive for his shooting was that party, where he was pushed off the ledge after he had tried to push several women off said ledge. Where in his manifesto, he describes climbing up on that ledge and making his finger into a pistol and aiming at all the beautiful blonde girls there and imagining killing them.. Then he tried to pushed them off the ledge, until he was stopped and I think by his telling he was pushed off or fell off and was beaten up and broke his leg in the fall. And how he lied to the police as to why it happened.. The women he tried to hurt/kill that day and the other people at that party all said that he'd tried to push them off.. And he lied, because he knew what he tried to do was wrong. And he gloated about how he had managed to not be arrested for it. He was certainly mentally ill. But I think to deny his sense of entitlement and privilege and his misogyny is also a denial of what he's spent years trying to tell the world about himself and how he truly felt.
Hatred, or that type of hatred, is not always just caused by mental illness. Those men on the PUAHater's sites aren't all that mentally deranged. But they all express the same views. We recently banned one guy who linked and encouraged members here to read his side of why he sided with Elliot Rodger - the site was - to say the least - the biggest load of misogynistic claptrap you could come across and on that site, this individual openly supported the mass killing of women who were not the docile and virginal women he felt were worthwhile. He even posted and linked a video of one woman and asked who would feel sad or angry if she were to be murdered by the likes of Rodger.. And that sense of entitlement was throughout that forum. That as men, they were entitled as is their right to whatever it was they wanted... that whatever included women. When I linked this guy's post to my all male colleagues, by the way, they were as horrified as I was. And these guys aren't mentally ill. Quite a few of them have children and the one who posted on this website stated he homeschooled his children so they would share his ideology.. That women are not really people, that it's okay to kill people who are not of your culture (he was an American who lived in the US and he did not feel that America was his culture - so he openly advised that it's okay to massacre Americans and it wouldn't be murder) and to plunder their resources for your personal gain and wealth. That ideology is pervasive.
We see it in kids. Most kids grow out of it. We teach them that no, they can't get everything they want. My son's still try to demand the new gaming consoles, ipads, ipods, iphones, etc. They know I can buy it for them.. They know I can buy them anything they want. I still tell them no. They tell me how their friends have this and that and how it's just not fair that they that I won't just give it to them. The latest is this $5000 Alienware laptop. I laughed out loud.. My youngest has tried to throw in the tears along with it. My response to that is to usually run my fingers down my face and make a blubbering sound followed by a simple "no". Not only do they actually not need such items, but they feel they are entitled to it. The few times they tried to convince me how it's their right to be given these things, convinced me of why I won't give it to them. If they want it, they can be old enough to work part time and buy one for themselves.
Elliot Rodger never had that. Well he did get that when his mother refused to marry the rich men he felt she should marry for him. But she still gave him the expensive car, they still got him the expensive clothes, the computers he wanted after he whined about having to share his Nintendo 64 with his sister (oh how he whined about that). So he felt he was entitled to it all. And his feelings towards women were the same. Someone pretty.. Because he wants it.. And it was the one thing his parents couldn't just give him as he felt was his right. And because women are individual beings, their refusal.. well.. he's never really been told no before. Mental illness certainly played a huge role. But his sense of entitlement, privilege, ownership and his downright misogyny played just as big a role. And certainly, it could have been caused by his mental illness. I don't believe it was. I think it was caused by his sense of entitlement and his belief that he should get whatever he wants and coupled with his mental illness.. we know how it ends.
@Bells
Who are you arguing with?
What's your point?
Is he a misogynist? Definitely.
A misanthrope too.
Is he mentally ill? Quite likely.
Nobody is disagreeing with those points are they?
How do you manage to find arguments, even when everyone is in agreement?
Who are you arguing with?
What's your point?
Is he a misogynist? Definitely.
A misanthrope too.
Is he mentally ill? Quite likely.
Nobody is disagreeing with those points are they?
How do you manage to find arguments, even when everyone is in agreement?
As I was saying earlier, malicious envy seems like the primary motive to me. Isn't that why Cain allegedly murdered Abel? Malicious envy played a key role throughout his entire life.
"It may be intertwined with other emotions, such as fear or anger, but it is distinctly different from them.
Aristotle defined hate as a dislike for someone based on our negative perception of that person's nature, so intense that whoever feels it wants to cause real harm to another. Aristotle also noted that a person could hate another person or a whole group of people who were seen as bearing the same stain.
Hate involves a certain amount of reasoning and rumination. Diogenes Laertius defined hate as "a growing or lasting desire or craving that it should go ill with somebody," and included it among the irrational urges that plagued humankind. While humans have the basic neural wiring to hate, getting an entire group of people to hate requires convincing them that another person or group of people is evil or dangerous."
"It may be intertwined with other emotions, such as fear or anger, but it is distinctly different from them.
Aristotle defined hate as a dislike for someone based on our negative perception of that person's nature, so intense that whoever feels it wants to cause real harm to another. Aristotle also noted that a person could hate another person or a whole group of people who were seen as bearing the same stain.
Hate involves a certain amount of reasoning and rumination. Diogenes Laertius defined hate as "a growing or lasting desire or craving that it should go ill with somebody," and included it among the irrational urges that plagued humankind. While humans have the basic neural wiring to hate, getting an entire group of people to hate requires convincing them that another person or group of people is evil or dangerous."
Bells
Staff member
How do you manage to act like the troll all the time?
Why don't you ask Trooper and Balerion? Trooper doesn't think he even hated women, but hated men more because, well.. he killed more men than women while she obviously ignores his plan and attempts to go to the sorority house to murder as many women as possible.. So it's not really misogyny, but his hatred of society and men in particular and he apparently didn't hate women at all. Then she went on this little spiel blaming women.. Balerion.. who the hell knows what he's on about really. Just the usual pure hateful bullshit, to the point where he's pulled a George Will and tried to claim that I was somehow reaping the rewards of being raped, by hating men on this forum, and then tried to shame me and abused me for daring to mention what happened to me, to the point where he just stopped short of saying I deserved it.. he said everything else.. but just skimmed around that.. Lucky me apparently.. Then of course we come to the so called "agenda", the usual misogynistic bullshit often uttered when a woman dares to challenge misogyny. And Trooper being the apologist that she is, used the exact same language often used by women haters..
So who are you arguing with here? Or are you just here to be a fanboy troll? You know, to argue with me because well, I'm a bitch bitch bitchy bitch?
Someone recently commented to me that it's spectacular to see just how low people will go to fight against me just to fight against me. Kind of pathetic really. It's like watching a sick and twisted game of limbo. How looooooowww can they go?
Lets see..
We have one who in his zeal to fight with me, because well, I'm such a bitchy bitch and all, who tried to claim that rape isn't really always about power, but because men have a biological need to fuck, so when the urge hits and they want to fuck they will fuck whatever is near and so, is it really right to call it rape?
Then we have the one who 1) accused me of hating men and being racist for commenting on the historical aspect of white male privilege and you should have seen his reaction when I commented on the history of feminism and how many non-white non-Western feminists felt locked out of feminist dialogue - so I am also a racist and a bigot - although that wasn't as funny as his reaction to when I said 'only in 'Merica - which was akin to the reaction that some Americans had by demanding they rename French Fries.. 2) Shamed and abused me for discussing what happened to me.. 3) Declared that I have some sort of agenda.. 4) Declared that I was using being rape as a leverage against men on this site and that it was unfair that I had such a privilege.. Because you know, rape is such a fucking wonderful thing and all and women should be shamed and abused for even mentioning it happening to them because well, it's so mean and hateful to men and all..
Then we have the next one, who doesn't think a guy who wrote a 137 page litany of how much he hates women, made numerous videos of how much he hates and wants to kill women, really hates women and who declared that my saying he did hate women and that it was one of his reasons for committing the crime he committed was just me spouting my man hating agenda after declaring how she agreed with the guy who shamed and abused me for saying I had been raped and that I was apparently such a danger with my so called agenda that I could not be trusted with people's IP addresses because I apparently know where everyone lives and that I'm just creepy because of all of this.. And I am not even touching on how this person became offended when I queried one guy's obsession with sex with children each time the word homosexual was uttered after this individual had accused a homosexual member of hating children and apparently endangering children by being a homosexual and when I asked the guy who declared that it can't really be called rape when it's really just a biological need to fuck why he was excuses "rape" by trying to call it something else..
So how low can we really go?
And I am leaving out the vague accusation that I support the murdering of children because I am pro-choice.
I mean what's going to be next from the foil hat brigade?
Oopps.. Best be careful that you don't annoy me.. So run away little boy.. Because in my bitch bitch bitchy bitch man hating, child murdering, rape privileged, IP stalking agenda, I may turn my evil eye on you..
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Not to be disrespectful, but I'm a guy and I see it.
Bells
Staff member
You're not being disrespectful.
Most people cannot see it. Those police officers did not see it. His friends saw it and stopped talking to him.. The people he spoke to online saw it, many agreed with him, others thought he was coming off like a serial killer.. Is it because we are just so used to it? When my former sister in law exploded at me for turning her ex husband into the police, she accused me of being irrational and blowing it out of proportion and that it was just sex. And why couldn't I see that? She clearly did not see it and I wonder if it is because this is what she was used to. I was devastated and livid when she said that to me, but now I wonder if this is her normal. It's just sex? I mean he broke onto my property while I was sick and asleep, entered my home, my first awareness of him was his pinning me down with a hand over my mouth and then taking that hand away as he removed my underclothes and then punching me so hard in the face that I nearly blacked out while he raped me because I dared try to scream, the biting, the punching, scratching, hair pulling, slapping, the name calling.. That's just sex? She didn't really see anything wrong with that. Apparently he just wanted sex and I should have just, well, let him and not called the police and reported it as rape. Talk about misogyny! And she doesn't see it that way. And the stories go on and on and on and on. My ex husband didn't notice the comments our his former brother in law made, the staring at my boobs, the offensive and rude and overtly sexual comments he used to make at me.. It was dismissed and pfft, don't be silly.. He's harmless.. Now what? Blame it on he just wanted sex and he is mentally ill and unstable and so, cannot be held responsible for what he did? That this is what I should be used to? Like the dolt from the Washington Post who declared that rape creates a privileged culture for women against men and institutions.. Ermm okay.. Apparently this is not misogyny. Nor is leaving a 137 page manifesto and countless youtube videos with the most awful comments about women, misogyny. You go to some of the men's rights sites and they blame feminism for his crime. Or they blame women. They don't see it as misogyny. Some here even feel that way, that it's not really hating women. You know, he hates everyone, not just women. Are we so used to it that we don't see it?
Aside from his self obsession with himself and all that is so wonderful and great about him, the running theme was his hatred of women and how they would refuse such a catch like him, both in his manifesto and his videos. So how did no one see it or feel concern about that? He was explicitly vocal about it, so much so that when news first broke out about it, those he communicated with online instantly thought it was him. So how come no one else noticed the object of his hatred? That running theme?
It would be irresponsible to lay this violence at the feet of the men’s rights activists with whom Rodger seemed to find support for his rage. Rodger is alleged to have murdered six women and men. No amount of Internet vitriol — no unfulfilled threats of violence — can equal that. But it also denies reality to pretend that Rodger’s sense of masculine entitlement and views about women didn’t matter or somehow existed in a vacuum. The horror of Rodger’s alleged crimes is unique, but the distorted way he understood himself as a man and the violence with which he discussed women — the bleak and dehumanizing way he judged them — is not. Just as we examine our culture of guns once again in the wake of yet another mass shooting, we must also examine our culture of misogyny and toxic masculinity, which devalues both women’s and men’s lives and worth, and inflicts real and daily harm. We must examine the dangerous normative values that treat women as less than human, and that make them — according to Elliot Rodger — deserving of death.
There is an angry part of me — a frightened part of me — that wants to tear Rodger’s video manifesto apart in the pettiest terms imaginable. Point to how cliched it all is — the tired self-importance, the god comparisons, his lazy use of “sluts” and “brutes” to describe the women and men he would allegedly target and murder only hours later. I have seen these videos before. Women have heard these threats before, and been forced to consider how seriously they should take an anonymous man who says he knows where they live and tells them, “I am the one who is going to kill you.” If Rodger had posted his angry monologue to YouTube or fired it off in an email and then gone about his day — seething privately and without violence about his wounded sense of entitlement and the sting of having his resentful and warped desires unfulfilled — the country wouldn’t be talking about him. Because until the moment that he is alleged to have killed six women and men, Elliot Rodger was every bit the same as the other men who are defined by their resentment toward women and their sense of bitter victimization in the world. Men who threaten women in person and online in an attempt to control their lives. Men who feel that girls and women owe them adoration, sexual gratification, subservience. Men whose sense of rage and entitlement has rotted their brains and ruined them.
And this anger — this toxic male entitlement — isn’t contained to random comment boards or the YouTube videos of disturbed young men. It’s on full view elsewhere in our culture. Earlier this week, a writer for the New York Post quoted a member of a men’s rights group as the sole source in a report on Jill Abramson’s ouster at the New York Times. Mel Feit of the National Center for Men told columnist Richard Johnson that Abramson was systematically firing men and replacing them with women. He said that our society gives women preferential treatment. On his website, Feit bemoans a culture in which men are subject to the powerful whims of vindictive women who exist on “sexual pedestals.” He argues that men can’t be blamed for rape after a certain point of arousal. These views about women and violence are replicated in our criminal justice system. They filter into our media. This is what makes Rodger’s misogynistic vitriol so terrifying — the fact that in many ways it’s utterly banal.
There is an angry part of me — a frightened part of me — that wants to tear Rodger’s video manifesto apart in the pettiest terms imaginable. Point to how cliched it all is — the tired self-importance, the god comparisons, his lazy use of “sluts” and “brutes” to describe the women and men he would allegedly target and murder only hours later. I have seen these videos before. Women have heard these threats before, and been forced to consider how seriously they should take an anonymous man who says he knows where they live and tells them, “I am the one who is going to kill you.” If Rodger had posted his angry monologue to YouTube or fired it off in an email and then gone about his day — seething privately and without violence about his wounded sense of entitlement and the sting of having his resentful and warped desires unfulfilled — the country wouldn’t be talking about him. Because until the moment that he is alleged to have killed six women and men, Elliot Rodger was every bit the same as the other men who are defined by their resentment toward women and their sense of bitter victimization in the world. Men who threaten women in person and online in an attempt to control their lives. Men who feel that girls and women owe them adoration, sexual gratification, subservience. Men whose sense of rage and entitlement has rotted their brains and ruined them.
And this anger — this toxic male entitlement — isn’t contained to random comment boards or the YouTube videos of disturbed young men. It’s on full view elsewhere in our culture. Earlier this week, a writer for the New York Post quoted a member of a men’s rights group as the sole source in a report on Jill Abramson’s ouster at the New York Times. Mel Feit of the National Center for Men told columnist Richard Johnson that Abramson was systematically firing men and replacing them with women. He said that our society gives women preferential treatment. On his website, Feit bemoans a culture in which men are subject to the powerful whims of vindictive women who exist on “sexual pedestals.” He argues that men can’t be blamed for rape after a certain point of arousal. These views about women and violence are replicated in our criminal justice system. They filter into our media. This is what makes Rodger’s misogynistic vitriol so terrifying — the fact that in many ways it’s utterly banal.
Elliot Rodger isn't the first of this type of killer and after reading through some of those websites he frequented, he won't be the last either. As I noted earlier, change women to Jews or black and no one would be trying to claim he didn't hate Jews or blacks. It's just that we are so used to comments, stories, etc of women rejecting men, that Rodger's experiences was men, as was his response to his perceived rejection.. Meh.. Nothing to see here folks, been there done that..
What made this one so unusual was how eloquent and direct he was about it all. Too bad his parents, therapists and police officers never actually noticed the running theme in his videos.. Or if they did, they may have just seen it as the sexually frustrated young guy.. I once told a rape apologist that if we want to end rape, then we need to teach our kids not to rape. His response was that I was being ridiculous and that women should simply just be more careful..
I think the problem is that so few do see it.
And I think it's awesome that you do. If only more were like you and saw it and spoke out about it..
Corrections
Funnily enough, this is precisely Trooper's point. It doesn't appear to be complicated. The only thing you're adding is rage.
Well, since you're confused again, the answer is clearly no to all those 'questions', and especially to the malicious way in which they were posed. I realise you'll just run from these again, but: in which way did I defend this person again? Where has he done these things? What exactly am I 'defending' in that thread? Where did I 'redefine' rape? So many questions. None of which will be answered, on basis of... well, there's cowardice, I guess, to start with. Intellectual dishonesty. There are probably others. I've bolded the more egregious idiocies; please feel free to write back and ask for clarification on the points you don't understand, although you won't dare. It astounds me that a character with so much purported association with social justice and law doesn't comprehend the most basic points about not slandering other people.
Context is everything in the situations in which you proclaim that it is, apparently. In other situations where you don't like the context, you seem to supply your own context and, ultimately, meaning.
Funnily enough, this is precisely Trooper's point. It doesn't appear to be complicated. The only thing you're adding is rage.
Well, since you're confused again, the answer is clearly no to all those 'questions', and especially to the malicious way in which they were posed. I realise you'll just run from these again, but: in which way did I defend this person again? Where has he done these things? What exactly am I 'defending' in that thread? Where did I 'redefine' rape? So many questions. None of which will be answered, on basis of... well, there's cowardice, I guess, to start with. Intellectual dishonesty. There are probably others. I've bolded the more egregious idiocies; please feel free to write back and ask for clarification on the points you don't understand, although you won't dare. It astounds me that a character with so much purported association with social justice and law doesn't comprehend the most basic points about not slandering other people.
Context is everything in the situations in which you proclaim that it is, apparently. In other situations where you don't like the context, you seem to supply your own context and, ultimately, meaning.
Bells
Staff member
Say it ain't so GeoffP..
And who was not completely wrong?
When I commented about the prevalence of prison rape and noted that it was about power and dominance (and there is a wealth of information supporting this very issue), you responded with:
I and others were horrified and disgusted. What the hell were you thinking?
When I explained why I disagreed with you and noted:
How did you respond to this particular point?
The urge you may have to beat someone up because they are a jerk in a checkout line or cut you off or because you are greedy is not biological. As a biologist, I would have assumed this was kind of clear to you. It seemed not.
I asked for clarification in that thread. This was the tripe I got in response.
And it just kept going.. on and on and on..
My favourite part?
Power, privilege, ownership, domination.. naw.. All those studies must be wrong.
I wasn't the only one disgusted by your argument, GeoffP. It was a giant pile of tripe and poo. In the face of all evidence to the contrary, this was the tripe you went with. And it was utter crap.
Virtual Raphanophobia
Well, it is always risky to bet on the neurotic pool, but I think at some point we might actually see that nexus of circumstances in which a situation comes to a head and someone tries to explain just how much of an asshole you are for failing to realize that he or she is just kidding with their defense of misogyny, and how dare you take them seriously, and all that. It is rare that a situation evolves to the point that one can try that maneuver, but it's more frequent in online discussions; face to face usually results in some manner of intervention to prevent a fistfight.
The only thing that really matters is the fight in the moment, because when one falls back to the argument about how it's your fault for taking him seriously or daring to presume he's functionally intelligent, the idea that they have been fucking around with the discussion for so long and so many pages, and inherently denigrating people and their experiences over the course of so many posts and pages and threads is absolutely irrelevant.
This is because you're not real. Do they give their mothers those filthy tongues?
You might as well be a phantom radish or a robot warpig. That is to say, gibbing bright red, winged bulbs on legs with rifles off the buildings like a ginormous pinball is one thing, and the carnage is amazing. I remember one time, high as a kite, after I discovered the ragdoll velocity multiplier, finding myself unable to play the game I was laughing so hard at the spectacle of the bodies pinballing all over the map, getting blown out of the arena because someone toe-tagged them.
I would hope that, barring actual apocalyptic absurdity as I'm about to die, that I wouldn't be laughing at the idea of human wreckage flying about like that. But the virtual psyche that emerges would be shocking if I wasn't so amused and fascinated by watching how it works. Within the game environment I have become, as a result of that morbid hilarity, Raphanophobic, a racist against radishes. It's easy to do when the character on the screen has no vital connection to the person on the other end of the intertubes.
What you're seeing in some of our tinfoil faction is a similar detachment; it only stands out more because the nature of the combat isn't instagib with virtual bullets. Rather, when the tools are the words themselves, this is what blind panic fire looks like. These arguments are the intellectual equivalent of the dumbfart chatter that goes on throughout such games.
Your future avatar? I'll have to get a better picture.
But here's the catch: Neither, in their minds, do you get to have an opinion about the idea that they have such a piss-poor attitude about something so important, unless of course that opinion is to praise their genius.
The issue is secondary.
The people is secondary.
The only thing that counts is their egos, because that's all that ever counts to them.
Bells said:
Well, it is always risky to bet on the neurotic pool, but I think at some point we might actually see that nexus of circumstances in which a situation comes to a head and someone tries to explain just how much of an asshole you are for failing to realize that he or she is just kidding with their defense of misogyny, and how dare you take them seriously, and all that. It is rare that a situation evolves to the point that one can try that maneuver, but it's more frequent in online discussions; face to face usually results in some manner of intervention to prevent a fistfight.
The only thing that really matters is the fight in the moment, because when one falls back to the argument about how it's your fault for taking him seriously or daring to presume he's functionally intelligent, the idea that they have been fucking around with the discussion for so long and so many pages, and inherently denigrating people and their experiences over the course of so many posts and pages and threads is absolutely irrelevant.
This is because you're not real. Do they give their mothers those filthy tongues?
You might as well be a phantom radish or a robot warpig. That is to say, gibbing bright red, winged bulbs on legs with rifles off the buildings like a ginormous pinball is one thing, and the carnage is amazing. I remember one time, high as a kite, after I discovered the ragdoll velocity multiplier, finding myself unable to play the game I was laughing so hard at the spectacle of the bodies pinballing all over the map, getting blown out of the arena because someone toe-tagged them.
I would hope that, barring actual apocalyptic absurdity as I'm about to die, that I wouldn't be laughing at the idea of human wreckage flying about like that. But the virtual psyche that emerges would be shocking if I wasn't so amused and fascinated by watching how it works. Within the game environment I have become, as a result of that morbid hilarity, Raphanophobic, a racist against radishes. It's easy to do when the character on the screen has no vital connection to the person on the other end of the intertubes.
What you're seeing in some of our tinfoil faction is a similar detachment; it only stands out more because the nature of the combat isn't instagib with virtual bullets. Rather, when the tools are the words themselves, this is what blind panic fire looks like. These arguments are the intellectual equivalent of the dumbfart chatter that goes on throughout such games.
Your future avatar? I'll have to get a better picture.
But here's the catch: Neither, in their minds, do you get to have an opinion about the idea that they have such a piss-poor attitude about something so important, unless of course that opinion is to praise their genius.
The issue is secondary.
The people is secondary.
The only thing that counts is their egos, because that's all that ever counts to them.
Try reading what people actually write, rather than what you would wish them to have written.
Then you won't need to have big rows over nothing.
Read it slowly.
He....... was....... a........ misogynist.
Well I would, except that it does appear to be so. You select deliberately to misrepresent.
Ahh - darksidz! And? When Hitler wanted to get the trains running on time, he wasn't 'wrong' there either. You're sort of dissant-interested in Venn diagrams: there is overlap between darksidz's reprehensible opinions and his propositions, but it is possible for him to identify something with a factual basis now and then, as a broken clock is right twice a day. Ideas are not innately wrong because of he or she who voices them. Let's have an example here: if darksidz says that the sky is blue, is that wrong by definition of the speaker? That's classic ad hominem and is dismissed on that basis. It hardly means I'm defending him in essence, Bells. Nuance. Remember that thing?
Yes, and by creating an offensive scenario designed to attack my own feelings, which as I recall is something you've done before. I'm not sure why it is you have to create fantasies about sexual assault on myself to argue your point, here, but I'd like it to stop, immediately. I allowed a little license on that front for the sake of collegiality, but your attitude indicates no such collegiality. It's offensive, and probably illegal, so cut it the fuck out. I would never make such a post leveled against you and it's disgusting that you think you can do this to me. Just what the hell is wrong with you?
You also included the phrase "And it's not just about having sex." Done. Your link goes to the symbolism of war rape: that also implies the existence of non-symbolic undertones, something social scientists seem a little dissant about themselves. Why did medieval invaders take concubines? As an exclusive symbol of power? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. The basis is probably a lot more heterogenous than they'd like to believe. Here's the very first paragraph from your other link: "Rape and sexual abuse are not just a by-product of war but are used as a deliberate military strategy, it says." There's that word again: just.
In context of the slanderous way you've carried on here, the hell with your pretensions. I was thinking you might have an intelligent comment. You're invested absolutely in rape as the sole expression of power, and have never even once addressed my points regarding other possible underlying bases. Not once has there been an intelligent rebuttal by you of why it's selected over simple assault; instead, you clutch some offensive political dynamic and go for the smear. You still have not apologised for this. Reprehensible.
Yes, let's have that:
GeoffP said:
Bells said:
That is ridiculous poppycock. Aggression is a very biological phenomenon, well aside from the intellectual construction of aggression in humans. Don't comment about issues you don't comprehend. There is no more license to attack a human being for any of the above than there is license to sexually assault them for any possible basal biological trigger. I get that you don't like the concept of biological psychology: don't use your distaste in libel format again. The only person attempting to excuse such behaviour is you: time and again you imply that such a trigger could or would be an excuse. I don't. Don't give me this shit that humans don't engage in power struggles for no apparent intellectual cause.
Oh, yes: the social scientists invested in their own narrative couldn't possibly be off base in any way.
It's the very proof that they've solved all of society's problems that surely illustrates how off-base any other writ must be. Identify one other, and when you have: Tough shit. Think or get off the pot. I'm horrified by the idea that you think a biological basis would excuse sexual violence, and doubly so that you think that anyone veering from your stagnant political line must secretly be out to get women, you sick freak.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I see it every day. And if you say something about it you must then of course have a thing for her. That or they suddenly hate you and you become the subject of mockery yourself. Anyway, I'm not in any sort of mental state atm to do your posts any justice. I'll probably reply later in a bit more detail.
Bells
Staff member
Maybe you could try doing the same.
Wait, it wasn't you writing that ridiculous claptrap?GeoffP said:
Let's see..
darksidZz said:
You think this is correct?
Then it is clear you have never actually studied "rape". You know, that is the word that is used for it. "Rape".
It's because of comments like that from Darkside that people refer to him as a stupid neanderthal. And you? You think that is correct.
Darkside doesn't believe women have the right to say no, GeoffP. Which is why to men like darkside, rape is just about sex. It is just about the rapist taking what he wants from the thing denying it to him. Women aren't people to the likes of darkside. Mere objects for men to dominate or control.
No one is saying that you can control your arousal. What rape advocates believe (like darkside), that men should not have to control their arousal, that they should simply just be able to fuck when they want to fuck and it is up to women to not a) be sexy or b) just fuck the men when they want to fuck.
You are arguing that a man forcing his cock into someone without that person's consent is just biological? You are insulting all men in doing so. Why? Because the greater majority of men don't even see rape as biological, but as the inherent need for the rapist to have power and control over his victim. Ask any guy, if he keeps his erection if he's having to pin her down and take her by force and she keeps saying no and tries to move away if she's conscious? A rapist can and does. In fact, a rapist feeds off it, that is part of what he gets off on. That element of control that he has over his victim, whether that victim is male or female. And sometimes, when they lose their erection, they rape their victims with objects, you know, just so they know who is in control.
And what do you say? Well, it's biological and is about the "sex".
That, sir, is what defense lawyers say all the time for their rapist clients. And that is the leading argument about how and why women should simply act differently, so that men don't get turned on and want "sex".
When I was 19, I decided to have sex with a man I had known my whole life. I went to his house in my favorite outfit—jeans and a trendy sweater. Under it were my favorite matching baby blue bra and panties. We made out on his sofa, and I followed willingly when he led me to his room.
By the time we got to his bed, I was naked from the waist up. I remember being ashamed of the tiny pooch of my belly, worrying that he would find an extra inch of flesh unacceptable. I shucked my own panties and jeans before I climbed into bed.
You will have to forgive me if I cannot offer a complete narrative of what happened after I entered the bed. I know how guys who excuse rape, like George Will, feel about women who pass out during sex—that they deserve whatever happens. So I know that some will mock me when I freely admit that between pain, shock, and blood-loss I lost consciousness several times.
The man who sexually assaulted me did it with such force that he tore my vagina from the opening through the cervix. I gushed blood, which he later licked up as if he were a vampire. He continued to pound me after he had torn me, banging my intestines for what felt like hours and spreading bacteria throughout my peritoneal cavity.
I drove myself to a friend’s house, and she took me to the hospital. By the time that I got there, I was in critical condition. I coded twice before they could get me stabilized. I saw the white light and had a near-death experience. Surgery and blood transfusions saved my life.
By the time we got to his bed, I was naked from the waist up. I remember being ashamed of the tiny pooch of my belly, worrying that he would find an extra inch of flesh unacceptable. I shucked my own panties and jeans before I climbed into bed.
You will have to forgive me if I cannot offer a complete narrative of what happened after I entered the bed. I know how guys who excuse rape, like George Will, feel about women who pass out during sex—that they deserve whatever happens. So I know that some will mock me when I freely admit that between pain, shock, and blood-loss I lost consciousness several times.
The man who sexually assaulted me did it with such force that he tore my vagina from the opening through the cervix. I gushed blood, which he later licked up as if he were a vampire. He continued to pound me after he had torn me, banging my intestines for what felt like hours and spreading bacteria throughout my peritoneal cavity.
I drove myself to a friend’s house, and she took me to the hospital. By the time that I got there, I was in critical condition. I coded twice before they could get me stabilized. I saw the white light and had a near-death experience. Surgery and blood transfusions saved my life.
That is not a biological imperative to have sex.. Most guys who would rip someone's vagina opened like that would stop. He didn't.. In fact, he licked up her blood afterwards.
But to those who believe like darkside, this isn't rape. In fact, the man who did this to her never even saw the inside of a courtroom. Because to the police who investigated it, it was just sex.
But keep defending the rape apologist, GeoffP. You do it so well.
Oh you mean the scenario you took and blew out of proportion and turned it into a short story to prove how Bubba isn't really raping his victim, but is just horny and wants sex, when I used that minor scenario to discuss rape in prison? You turned that scenario into something offensive.
Bells said:
And it went on and on and on. You became so descriptive. Even when I provided you with evidence of why prison rape happens, you kept going on and on and on... Just like your excuse for soldiers who rape their victims or captors..
As I noted, there is a reason why rape is a tool of war and provided you with evidence of how some soldiers are even given viagra and told to rape, you know, to terrify the enemy.. You still kept arguing that it was just sexual. Because apparently from your experience, soldiers are apparently "pretty horny", and so, it is sexual and biological. And not about power and control.
What a damn shame you didn't read the rest of it.
And what a damn shame that you still don't understand why it's even a war crime and seen as a form of genocide.
Rape and sexual abuse are not just a by-product of war but are used as a deliberate military strategy, it says.
The opportunistic rape and pillage of previous centuries has been replaced in modern conflict by rape used as an orchestrated combat tool.
And while Amnesty cites ongoing conflicts in Colombia, Iraq, Sudan, Chechnya, Nepal and Afghanistan, the use of rape as a weapon of war goes back much further.
Spoils of war?
From the systematic rape of women in Bosnia, to an estimated 200,000 women raped during the battle for Bangladeshi independence in 1971, to Japanese rapes during the 1937 occupation of Nanking - the past century offers too many examples.
So what motivates armed forces, whether state-backed troops or irregular militia, to attack civilian women and children?
Gita Sahgal, of Amnesty International, told the BBC News website it was a mistake to think such assaults were primarily about the age-old "spoils of war", or sexual gratification.
Rape is often used in ethnic conflicts as a way for attackers to perpetuate their social control and redraw ethnic boundaries, she said.
"Women are seen as the reproducers and carers of the community," she said.
"Therefore if one group wants to control another they often do it by impregnating women of the other community because they see it as a way of destroying the opposing community."
A report by Medecins Sans Frontieres says it first came across rape as a weapon in the 1990s.
"In Bosnia systematic rape was used as part of the strategy of ethnic cleansing," it said.
"Women were raped so they could give birth to a Serbian baby."
The same tactic was used in a "very strategic attack" by state-backed Pakistani troops during the fight for Bangladesh's independence in 1971, Ms Sahgal said.
"They were saying 'we will make you breed Punjabi children'," she said, with the aim of weakening the integrity of the opposing ethnic group.
Amnesty this year accused the pro-government Janjaweed militias in Sudan's Darfur region of using mass rape in order to punish, humiliate and control non-Arab groups.
Such attacks cause women and children to flee their homes, lead to fragmentation of communities and bring the risk of infection with HIV/Aids.
Sexual violence is also used to destabilise communities and sow terror, Amnesty says in its Lives Blown Apart report.
In Colombia, rival groups rape, mutilate and kill women and girls in order to impose "punitive codes of conduct on entire towns and villages", so strengthening their control.
It's not about biology or sex, you dolt. But ultimately about control and domination.
Possibly because your point was to excuse it under the basis that perhaps he's just horny and wants sex.
I addressed your points and provided you with ample proof and evidence of why you were wrong. Instead you kept harping on that it's simply a biological urge to have sex.
Nice changing your quote.. Talk about ridiculous poppycock.
Because the desire to punch someone who cuts you off is the same as the biological desire to stick your penis into someone as they keep telling you no and try to fight you off? I am well aware that aggression is biological, dumbass. But you are demanding that all the years and years of research in rape simply be ignored because you think it's just a biological urge to have sex. Even though it has been proven to you repeatedly that you are wrong, you provide nothing in return except your words.
You believe that when a man rapes a woman, it's biological, they are horny, circumstance and all the pure drivel you tried to argue.. It's not. It's about asserting dominance and control over that person and I have years and years of research backing me up on this. You have diddly squat. Just because you believe it is so, to the point where you are agreeing with a well known rape apologist and rape advocate on this site, does not mean that it is true.
I mean sure, in the days where men believed that women were chattels, mere objects for men to use at their leisure, your point would have fit right in. But we have moved beyond that now and know better.
Yes, and the guy who openly admits to not having even read up into the subject has to be correct just because that's what he thinks it is.
Most of the staff, actually.
And yeah, don't try and twist your perverted ideals about rape onto me. That level of intellectual dishonesty is not going to get you anywhere. You are the only one, well aside from the guy who doesn't even think rape is real, who thinks that rape is biological and as I pointed out repeatedly, men who think that often think it is the excuse to avoid prosecution, and it is exceptionally clear that they (and you) are wrong.. that it isn't biological but actually about power and control.
And before you call me a sick freak because I disagree that rape is not biological or because men are just horny like you have tried to argue, does not mean that I am arguing a political line, remember, you're the one who was taking so much joy dreaming up and enhancing a prison rape scenario and arguing that it wasn't really rape, reminding us how you were typing with only one hand, but really just a man's biological need to have sex and to fuck because he's horny and all and how soldiers are pretty "horny" and all, and that is why they rape their victims. Nothing to see here folks, you keep asserting. It's just biological.
As I noted, my rapist and his ex wife claimed the same thing as you have argued in this and the rape thread. Funny that, huh? How people who try to excuse their violence often resort to the same twisted and sick argument for their violence. I'd suggest you read up on rape instead of just mouthing off and trying to argue that it's biological and that men are simply just horny and then trying to redefine rape to suit your sick ideology. The ideology you defend, can be seen in darksidZz when he used to post here under the name of Sdrenzi. This is what you are defending - you know the biological aspect of rape..
You can see his comments in ToR's posts, they were so bad, that we had members requesting we pass on his details to the police. Why? Because darksidZz's argument falls along the line of the biological need and imperative to simply fuck, that you so openly defended. This is the history that you defended and continue to defend.
I'll leave you with the biological ideology you are proclaiming is the issue with rape:
Horny soldiers, etc..
And I'm the sick freak for disagreeing with this kind of rubbish? Ya, keep telling yourself that.
Last edited:
You've caught me on a lucky pleasant day. =)
No, I think you're thinking of your absurd narrowed definition of what 'is' based on social presupposition.
I have certainly come across forced copulation and rape from the biological perspective. I don't say that Palmer and Thornhill, for example, are completely right - reviews of their book also describe their univariate stance as extremist - but it stands to reason that some residual impulse of this behaviour must exist. Atavisms occur in a variety of species and it seems very intuitive that sexual assault has some grounding in this. A thing isn't a modern phenomenon just because it's taken up as a social narrative, Bells.
Well, as to that, I could hardly disagree.
Again, ad hominem. Refer to my earlier points about stopped clocks, etc. Surely you of all people are familiar with such a concept. If you don't understand it, look it up.
And in the case of such people - and, as repugnant as darkside is, I don't know if he's said that specifically and so hesitate to support your characterisation uncritically - there certainly is a social element, in that such a choice is being selected and represented in cold print. That is the human social dimension, which is probably the majority of the basis of the phenomenon.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa: "rape advocates"? Okay. This is where we run into a problem. Are you saying that darkside, as (again) reprehensible as he appears, is a rape advocate? If so, that requires some serious support. And if so, that is grounds for banning from the site. Where are you getting this from?
Bells, why do you see every issue as binary? Are you incapable of thinking in any greater dimension, or is it just easier and lazier to do so? I've described the possible biological inputs several times, and at no time have I characterised it as "just biological". Sheer idiocy. You're doing the same thing with Trooper on another debate. More to this:
Let's take up with your assertion that rape is "just biological" - and make no mistake, this must be your assertion, because it sure as hell isn't mine. So if rape is "just biological", then what you think is that men are unable to control themselves? And you think I'm insulting men by suggesting that there might be a partial biological basis, like an atavism? That's ridiculous. If there exists such a behavioural atavism, then surely there exist similar behavioural atavisms for simple assault, theft and murder. Can men - since men constitute the majority of offenders for such crimes - not control those impulses either? If you're going to push this biology-as-only-answer line, Bells, then it requires serious support also. I would like an answer to this.
Well, just as your ignorance is not my problem, their ignorance - malicious or accidental - is not my problem. Why are you posting stories about assault victims?
Get your stance straight. You're the one calling it "just biological". I'm the one arguing for different inputs.
No, I turned what was essentially borderline sexual harassment into a joke. It wasn't a very funny joke, but it sure as hell wasn't funny when you went down this track with me again. Your not-infrequent inferences about me are, well, not too infrequent. I've asked you to stop. I suggest that you do.
Again, since you've committed and engaged to be offensive and harassing, don't compound it with ridiculous misrepresentations of my position. It's not my fault you don't know what the word "heterogenous" means. Let's demonstrate again, shall we?
Notice that bolded word there? It means that the phenomenon doesn't have a single cause. They contradict themselves here:
You can't replace something that is not just something else. It's an incompletion. But again, their ignorance is not my problem. Note:
Well, I wonder what their exit poll results show. I'm sorry, but none of the situations you're citing is very convincing that the social scientists involved either had the training or the statistical latitude to perform any such investigation as would be required to identify a situation of heterogenous inputs. It sounds more like reporting at distance: that's fine, as a social descriptor, but it's nowhere near a test of the hypothesis I'm proposing. In fact, give birth to a Serbian baby sounds very much like a sick group reproductive strategy, which is the essence of the proposition. In fact, though, neither supposition is testable: this is Medecins Sans Frontieres, which is MDs. I've worked with MDs - they're great people, and they're very interested in patient welfare, but they have nothing like the statistical background required for any such investigation. MSF is dismissed in this case.
In this part of the article, the impetus now is political, rather than based on the dynamic of individual misogynistic power imbalance: it undermines your argument and suggests heterogenous inputs. There's no reason to conclude that rape for social deconstruction is the same as individual dominance. Do you have any evidence that these are the same effect as part of a larger axis?
Stop using words like "proof" and don't describe my position: you haven't demonstrated that you understand either. But from the first sentence above, it's clear that you do understand how to exercise power inequities and apply such power over other people. I could demand an apology for that crap again, but I know you're not capable of it and that, on basis of your position, you could just dismiss it. So while you're probably an expert onusing power inequalities, I don't find you any kind of authority in statistics or biology.
Well, you're apparently functionally retarded. Those edits are for context, in order to give the sentence meaning so that you can't deliberately misinterpret that content. I realise you've looked up the word "context" (like "ethics"), but you have to actually know what it means if you want to make it part of your social repertoire. Actually, I guess I give you Tiassa's Choice: dumb, or dishonest. Pick. Though Option #1 seems likely:
Are you deluded or deliberately obtuse? No pair of atavisms has the same basis. I realise that you want to pretend that, but no one's proposed it, and it just isn't so. So if you want to defend the position that they have the same cause, go ahead.
Bells, of all people, you are the least capable of 'proving' anything on the forum. None of your articles begin to address such a possibility, and you couldn't possibly begin to describe how they could. Meanwhile, you post sick fantasies about me which you refuse to apologise for. I think I'm done here.
"Ideals"? I don't have any ideals about rape, Bells. What are your ideals about rape? Is proposing a scenario of prison rape one of those ideals? Certainly seems to be, with the way you keep defending it.
That was you, freak. Oh, I made fun of it, all right, since I knew there was no way you'd possibly ever apologise for it, and since it seemed most appropriate to take the power of that inference back from you.
Cite. Immediately and honestly.
No, Bells, your libel is never funny, I assure you. It's a constant reminder of the power inequities here, and your own marked deviation from ethics, honesty and integrity. BTW: none of that is my fault either.
No, I think you're thinking of your absurd narrowed definition of what 'is' based on social presupposition.
I have certainly come across forced copulation and rape from the biological perspective. I don't say that Palmer and Thornhill, for example, are completely right - reviews of their book also describe their univariate stance as extremist - but it stands to reason that some residual impulse of this behaviour must exist. Atavisms occur in a variety of species and it seems very intuitive that sexual assault has some grounding in this. A thing isn't a modern phenomenon just because it's taken up as a social narrative, Bells.
Well, as to that, I could hardly disagree.
Again, ad hominem. Refer to my earlier points about stopped clocks, etc. Surely you of all people are familiar with such a concept. If you don't understand it, look it up.
And in the case of such people - and, as repugnant as darkside is, I don't know if he's said that specifically and so hesitate to support your characterisation uncritically - there certainly is a social element, in that such a choice is being selected and represented in cold print. That is the human social dimension, which is probably the majority of the basis of the phenomenon.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa: "rape advocates"? Okay. This is where we run into a problem. Are you saying that darkside, as (again) reprehensible as he appears, is a rape advocate? If so, that requires some serious support. And if so, that is grounds for banning from the site. Where are you getting this from?
Bells, why do you see every issue as binary? Are you incapable of thinking in any greater dimension, or is it just easier and lazier to do so? I've described the possible biological inputs several times, and at no time have I characterised it as "just biological". Sheer idiocy. You're doing the same thing with Trooper on another debate. More to this:
Let's take up with your assertion that rape is "just biological" - and make no mistake, this must be your assertion, because it sure as hell isn't mine. So if rape is "just biological", then what you think is that men are unable to control themselves? And you think I'm insulting men by suggesting that there might be a partial biological basis, like an atavism? That's ridiculous. If there exists such a behavioural atavism, then surely there exist similar behavioural atavisms for simple assault, theft and murder. Can men - since men constitute the majority of offenders for such crimes - not control those impulses either? If you're going to push this biology-as-only-answer line, Bells, then it requires serious support also. I would like an answer to this.
Well, just as your ignorance is not my problem, their ignorance - malicious or accidental - is not my problem. Why are you posting stories about assault victims?
Get your stance straight. You're the one calling it "just biological". I'm the one arguing for different inputs.
No, I turned what was essentially borderline sexual harassment into a joke. It wasn't a very funny joke, but it sure as hell wasn't funny when you went down this track with me again. Your not-infrequent inferences about me are, well, not too infrequent. I've asked you to stop. I suggest that you do.
Again, since you've committed and engaged to be offensive and harassing, don't compound it with ridiculous misrepresentations of my position. It's not my fault you don't know what the word "heterogenous" means. Let's demonstrate again, shall we?
Notice that bolded word there? It means that the phenomenon doesn't have a single cause. They contradict themselves here:
You can't replace something that is not just something else. It's an incompletion. But again, their ignorance is not my problem. Note:
Well, I wonder what their exit poll results show. I'm sorry, but none of the situations you're citing is very convincing that the social scientists involved either had the training or the statistical latitude to perform any such investigation as would be required to identify a situation of heterogenous inputs. It sounds more like reporting at distance: that's fine, as a social descriptor, but it's nowhere near a test of the hypothesis I'm proposing. In fact, give birth to a Serbian baby sounds very much like a sick group reproductive strategy, which is the essence of the proposition. In fact, though, neither supposition is testable: this is Medecins Sans Frontieres, which is MDs. I've worked with MDs - they're great people, and they're very interested in patient welfare, but they have nothing like the statistical background required for any such investigation. MSF is dismissed in this case.
In this part of the article, the impetus now is political, rather than based on the dynamic of individual misogynistic power imbalance: it undermines your argument and suggests heterogenous inputs. There's no reason to conclude that rape for social deconstruction is the same as individual dominance. Do you have any evidence that these are the same effect as part of a larger axis?
Stop using words like "proof" and don't describe my position: you haven't demonstrated that you understand either. But from the first sentence above, it's clear that you do understand how to exercise power inequities and apply such power over other people. I could demand an apology for that crap again, but I know you're not capable of it and that, on basis of your position, you could just dismiss it. So while you're probably an expert on
Well, you're apparently functionally retarded. Those edits are for context, in order to give the sentence meaning so that you can't deliberately misinterpret that content. I realise you've looked up the word "context" (like "ethics"), but you have to actually know what it means if you want to make it part of your social repertoire. Actually, I guess I give you Tiassa's Choice: dumb, or dishonest. Pick. Though Option #1 seems likely:
Are you deluded or deliberately obtuse? No pair of atavisms has the same basis. I realise that you want to pretend that, but no one's proposed it, and it just isn't so. So if you want to defend the position that they have the same cause, go ahead.
Bells, of all people, you are the least capable of 'proving' anything on the forum. None of your articles begin to address such a possibility, and you couldn't possibly begin to describe how they could. Meanwhile, you post sick fantasies about me which you refuse to apologise for. I think I'm done here.
"Ideals"? I don't have any ideals about rape, Bells. What are your ideals about rape? Is proposing a scenario of prison rape one of those ideals? Certainly seems to be, with the way you keep defending it.
That was you, freak. Oh, I made fun of it, all right, since I knew there was no way you'd possibly ever apologise for it, and since it seemed most appropriate to take the power of that inference back from you.
Cite. Immediately and honestly.
No, Bells, your libel is never funny, I assure you. It's a constant reminder of the power inequities here, and your own marked deviation from ethics, honesty and integrity. BTW: none of that is my fault either.
Trooper:
Bells wrote at least two lengthy posts directed to you before this reply of yours. Instead of responding to her questions and points, you posted this one-line response. Is that really the only response you have?
And then...
And this after Bells pointed out the rampant misogyny in Rodger's "manifesto".
Now, admittedly, Trooper, you did at one point agree that Rodgers was a misogynist, but you think ... what? That his misogyny was a minor motivator in the crimes he committed, and that really they were mostly about envy?
I'd like to ask a question that Bells already asked you and that you avoided: why do you think that Rodgers made such a point of making women his targets in his manifesto? (It doesn't matter a jot that in practice he killed more men than women. As it turned out, and as Bells has pointed out, he was denied the opportunity to carry out his killings as planned.)
and then we come to GeoffP:
It must be complicated, because we seem to have a basic disagreement on what motivated Rodgers to go out and shoot women.
To me, it seems like you and Trooper are bending over backwards trying to find reasons why Rodgers couldn't have been on a power trip to get revenge on the women who he perceived had scorned him and not recognised his "superior" status.
Why is that?
Also, GeoffP, it sounds to me like you think that most, if not all, rape has a biological (i.e. sexual) urge behind it, while you're going to some effort to downplay the elements of dominance, power and control that rape involves. Why is that? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Bells wrote at least two lengthy posts directed to you before this reply of yours. Instead of responding to her questions and points, you posted this one-line response. Is that really the only response you have?
And then...
And this after Bells pointed out the rampant misogyny in Rodger's "manifesto".
Now, admittedly, Trooper, you did at one point agree that Rodgers was a misogynist, but you think ... what? That his misogyny was a minor motivator in the crimes he committed, and that really they were mostly about envy?
I'd like to ask a question that Bells already asked you and that you avoided: why do you think that Rodgers made such a point of making women his targets in his manifesto? (It doesn't matter a jot that in practice he killed more men than women. As it turned out, and as Bells has pointed out, he was denied the opportunity to carry out his killings as planned.)
and then we come to GeoffP:
It must be complicated, because we seem to have a basic disagreement on what motivated Rodgers to go out and shoot women.
To me, it seems like you and Trooper are bending over backwards trying to find reasons why Rodgers couldn't have been on a power trip to get revenge on the women who he perceived had scorned him and not recognised his "superior" status.
Why is that?
Also, GeoffP, it sounds to me like you think that most, if not all, rape has a biological (i.e. sexual) urge behind it, while you're going to some effort to downplay the elements of dominance, power and control that rape involves. Why is that? Or am I misunderstanding you?
JamesR said:
Bells said:
Bells said:
We can't conclude that misogyny over mental illness was the root cause. When we do, we run the risk of trivializing the more serious issue at hand, mass murder.
"Elliot Rodger was a complex person, with features of both psychopathic and schizotypal personalities. His narcissistic entitlement, delusions of grandeur, paranoia, masochistic obsession with his own suffering, devastating envy, and sadistic fantasies of vengeance all resulted in horrific acts of violence."
Elliot Rodger: A Psychotic Psychopath?
- Status