Playing with politics

Every time a mass murder happens people play politics with it. They blame the lack of mental health resources. They blame the gun lobby. They blame video games. They blame political groups. They blame religious groups. They point the finger at everyone but themselves.

Yet what happens when the actual events do not follow they desired political narrative? What if, for example, someone wanted to frame a recent mass murder as yet another case of misogynistic killing when the majority of the victims are male?

Enter the case of Elliot Rodger:

After promising a “day of retribution” on YouTube, a heavily armed, mentally disturbed 22-year-old went on a killing spree in a California college town, authorities said.

He fatally stabbed three men in his residence, shot two women to death in front of a sorority house, shot a man to death inside a deli, exchanged gunfire twice with police and injured 13 people as he drove from block to block, the Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office said Saturday night.

Elliot Rodger, 22, ended the Friday night rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara, apparently by fatally shooting himself in the head while sitting behind the wheel of his wrecked BMW, Sheriff Bill Brown said.

Rodger claimed in his 140-page manifesto:

My orchestration of the Day of Retribution is my attempt to do everything, in my power, to destroy everything I cannot have. All of those beautiful girls I’ve desired so much in my life, but can never have because they despise and loathe me, I will destroy. All of those popular people who live hedonistic lives of pleasure, I will destroy, because they never accepted me as one of them. I will kill them all and make them suffer, just as they have made me suffer. It is only fair.

It is not fair; it is delusional.

Rodger’s manifesto shows a person who wallowed in self-pity for so long that he believed what he thought was true. That may be part of his mental illness. It is not uncommon for people who suffer from untreated mental issues to assume the world is against them. Often their mental illness makes it difficult for them to relate to others, which only worsens the situation. Yet Rodger goes well beyond this. Rodger thought his life sucked and intentionally blamed others for it, even those trying to help him.

Enter the feminists. They gleefully jumped on Rodger’s manifesto and wrote dozens of articles about how the men’s rights movement spawned Rodger’s “misogynistic” murder-spree. They are all wonders to behold, but my personal favorite is Joanna Schroeder’s Why I Don’t Want to Write About the Santa Barbara Shooting.

Schroeder writes:

No, I’m not shocked by the mass murder that happened last night in Santa Barbara. I’m horrified, distraught, devastated and depressed, but I’m not surprised. Why not? Because it’s something many of us who are aware of the anti-woman hatred of certain (scarily popular) online groups have felt building for years. It’s something many of us were afraid of since we were little kids, well before these online groups brought attention to it: The anger of a man rejected. The anger of a man who hates women. […] Many are wondering why this shooter would (allegedly) choose to do this. Well, we don’t have to wonder. He told us. He told us he’s mad that he was rejected by women for so many years. He told us that he is angry that certain men get the women he thinks he’s entitled to. […] But ultimately, this murderer wouldn’t have targeted these young women had he not hated women and felt they had robbed him of something he was entitled to. I can’t say for sure that he wouldn’t have done it without the nurturing of his hatred by the online groups he is reported to have associated with, but one can’t help but wonder. Ultimately, one thing we can’t ignore about this story and others like it is that teaching boys they’re entitled to women’s bodies and attention will lead not only to frustration and rage on the boys’ part, but also a dangerous world.

Here is the problem: Rodger killed four men and two women. Specifically, he shot two women in front of a sorority and a man in a deli, but stabbed his three male roommates, Cheng Yuan Hong, George Chen, and Weihan Wang. Anyone working in law enforcement and psychology will tell you that stabbings are a more intimate crime. The assailant typically holds a grudge against the victim and feels the need to kill the victim up close so that the assailant can experience the death. It is an incredibly vicious and personal intent behind stabbing someone.

That level of violence suggests those three men were or represented the people Rodger was actually angry with. If he had a similar hatred of women, as Schroeder and other feminists claim, he would have stabbed women. He did not. He shot two women at random. He specifically targeted his roommates and stabbed them to death in their sleep. He even mentioned in his manifesto the joy he would take from killing them:

“These were the biggest nerds I had ever seen, and they were both very ugly with annoying voices,” he wrote. “If they were pleasant to live with, I would regret having to kill them, but due to their behavior I now had no regrets about such a prospect. In fact, I’d even enjoy stabbing them both to death while they slept.”

“After that, I will start luring people into my apartment, knock them out with a hammer, and slit their throats. I will torture some of the good looking people before I kill them, assuming that the good looking ones had the best sex lives. All of that pleasure they had in life, I will punish by bringing them pain and suffering. I have lived a life of pain and suffering, and it was time to bring that pain to people who actually deserve it.”

That does not sound like someone hellbent on punishing women.

Let us deal with the facts. Fact: Rodger killed four men and two women. Fact: the two women were chosen at random and shot from a distance. Fact: three of the four men Rodger knew and specifically targeted because of his anger towards them.

That leads to a very basic conclusion: this was not a crime motivated by misogyny, rejection by women, or male entitlement. If it were, Rodger would have targeted women and likely stabbed them to death.

Of course, that does not fit Schroeder or other feminists’ narrative. Or as Theorema Egregium put it on Schroeder’s post:

exchange 0

That led to this exchange between Schroeder and Eagle:

exchange 1

Which led to this exchange between Schroeder and Theorema:

exchange 2

There was no manipulation of Schroeder’s words. Theorema states, “Yes, I know, the murderer had a profound hate of women and wanted to take revenge on them. They are the important victims. They are the plot. The men just got in his way, like in an action movie the heros will mow down male enemy mooks by the scores without long justification speeches, agonizing or moving death scenes afterwards.” Schroeder responds with, “The reason he was mad at the men, according to himself, was because they got girls and he didn’t. See how girls are at the center of it?” That looks very much like, “Men were killed, but they don’t matter, it was not about them, they were just in the way, no hard feelings, nothing to see here.”

Threatening to ban someone from commenting on the entire site for calling you out on your flawed argument is rather childish. It also shows proves Theorema’s point. Schroeder, and other feminists like her, are more concerned with exploiting the murders to further their political agenda than the facts. They do not care about the victims who do not fit into their narrative. They simply want to present the “all men are bad” trope.

To this point, Schroeder quotes Ariel Chesler who quotes bell hooks who states:

Even though masses of American boys will not commit violent crimes resulting in murder, the truth that no one wants to name is that all boys are being raised to be killers even if they learn to hide the killer within and act as benevolent young patriarchs.

Neither Schroeder or Chesler question that statement. Chesler goes on to add that boys learn to be violent from other men and it gets worse when they hit puberty. Schroeder does not mention it at all until Gary Dietz points out the statement’s absurdity, to which Schroeder states, “I think the quote refers to a system rather than individuals. I DEFINITELY do not think all boys, literally every individual boy, are being raised to be killers.”

Note that Schroeder does not dismiss the idea altogether. She equivocates, claiming that hooks meant a “system” when there is no mention of a “system” in the statement, and then quickly adds the obligatory “I don’t think ALL boys are raised to be killers” despite her article suggests otherwise.

This is what happens when you play politics with serious issues. Instead of addressing the actual problems, you end up putting your head so firmly up your ass that you cannot help but talk shit. And that is all the feminist commentary on this horrific act of violence has been: shit.

They have added nothing to the conversation. They have offered no new insights, no better understandings, no lost truths. They have only used Elliot Rodger’s crimes as a means of attacking men and the men’s right movement. And they have done it at Cheng Yuan Hong, George Chen, Weihan Wang, and Christopher Martinez’s expense.

To feminists like Schroeder, those four men are not as important as Katherine Cooper and Veronika Weiss. They are in the way of her narrative. In many ways, Schroeder’s comments read like Rodger’s manifesto. They read like someone trying to convince herself that her projected anger and envy are justified.

It then comes as no surprise that Schroeder is only one of dozens of feminists–and it is only feminists–writing the same misandrous, delusional screed. Perhaps it is, as she states, “because unstable minds seek each other out for validation.”

Unfortunately, like Rodger, some of those unstable feminist minds act on their perceived slights. They often target the men and boys around, leading the very anger and hatred against women feminists decry.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Playing with politics

  1. Pingback: Playing with politics | Manosphere.com

  2. Danny, that is a very powerful letter. This part stands out the most: “The fact that you weren’t compatible with those tastes doesn’t mean something was wrong (with their tastes or you) that needed to be fixed or some sort of wrong that called for justice.”

    I think that is the lesson that gets lost in these conversations. They always begin and end with there being something wrong with men and boys who cannot find dates. There is nothing wrong with them. It just takes time to find someone that fits them. If we spent more time teaching men and boys that, along with teaching women and girls that the other side has feelings too, I think this sort of violence can be avoided.

    As for Hickey’s article, I read it and found it okay. However, she did eventually get into the blame game on Schroeder’s article. She wrote:

    Couldn’t agree more, Joannna, and the Internet has allowed an amplification of this hate, and a way for these types of men to find each other and bond over amplifying this message…which of course contributes to men thinking it is much more pervasive than it is. On another note, I know a lot of women who have had a hard time finding men and feel it is because the men always go for the “hot” women and won’t “settle” for average-looking or below-average-looking women, even when the men themselves are not gorgeous. So it goes both ways. But somehow, we don’t hear about that female experience, and those women are not going postal. Also, as someone who did online dating, it’s true I got a lot of messages, but the majority of them were crude and sexual. Who wants THAT?? Most women I know say the same thing about the myth of choice for women…that the “choices” are mostly men making very crude sexual overtures to them on dating sites, which is not the “choice” they want.

    On another note, as much as I love the Internet and consider it mostly a force for good, there are times–and this is one of them–that the Internet is destructive, and creates these havens for disaffected individuals to find each other and incite hate. It sets men back. They’d be better able to attract women if they didn’t fester in these hateful subcultures so much, because it’s true that women then avoid them for those associations and their very transparent disdain for women and sense of entitlement to their bodies.

    As Chris Rock said, that train is never late. I do wonder where feminists got the idea that women never complain about their lack of relationships. Most of daytime television is dedicated to that very idea. There are countless books, articles, and programs about that issue. A substantial portion of online feminism is based around those complaints. The difference is that when women rage they target people they know. They are more likely to assault their children or relatives or go after a specific person, which often hides the causes of that violence.

  3. I will say I’ve at least been allowed a couple of vaguely MRA-supportive comments there. We’ll see how this one goes. Maybe it’s the old saw of some authors being more mod-happy than others. JS is pretty quick to threaten banhammer, I notice.

  4. A lunatic kills twice as many males as females. It begs the question…how high does that ratio need to be before it ISN’T all about misogyny?

  5. I have an additional comment, JacobT, in reply to hers. It”s currently being held in the spam filter and I doubt It’ll see the light of day. In fact, I wouldn’t put it past Joanna to delete it then summarily ban me from The Good Men Project altogether.

    Here it is:

    ME: He targeted men because a specific type enraged him; the “Alpha Male”. It wasn’t solely due to hatred of women.

    Look, I’m as outraged as anyone on this site that this tragedy happened but can we please not ignore the facts?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/elliot-rodgers-killing-spree-what-happened/2014/05/24/207778ec-e3b2-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html

    The article states that he stabbed and killed three male roommates in the beginning.

    There is also another male victim counted among the dead: Christopher Martinez. So far, that makes four men and two women deceased. Doesn’t count the number of innocent pedestrians he fired upon and critically wounded in his drive-by, which includes law officers.

    Now before you, or anyone here, jump all over me with claims of misogyny, sexism, derailing or whatever impulsive charge that is in vogue these days, let me offer a very personal opinion as to why I’m choosing to act contrarily here even though my head will end up on a pike anyway for all the good it’ll do me.

    Articles like this frighten and sadden me. Not because its improper to highlight victims and loathe the criminal. I’m talking about unnecessary hype ballooning into one big wave of hysteria, facts be damned, against an entire gender that frankly doesn’t deserve to be lumped in with this psychopath.

    For example, look at this quote you put your support behind:

    “Even though masses of American boys will not commit violent crimes resulting in murder, the truth that no one wants to name is that all boys are being raised to be killers even if they learn to hide the killer within and act as benevolent young patriarchs.”

    I would’ve thought that you, a supposed “Good, Egalitarian Feminist” who cares for the issues men face along with women’s issues, would’ve fought against such attempts to tar and feather every young male/boy on earth. Do you honestly endorse such harmful assumptions like boys being raised as killers even if they learn to hide the killer within? Benevolent young patriarchs?

    If I were a teenage boy harmed by BOTH genders, how do you think this endorsement would make me feel?

    It’s tough, really tough, enough as it is even for an ADULT male like me to get his story to count. The louder the hysteria, the harsher the accusations against men as a whole, the more I fall into a vicious cycle where I believe I’m some alien from another planet yearning to get off the merry-go-round before before I die from vertigo. Because according to the climate that feeds this, I’M the bad guy for bringing some semblance of balance. Some villain twirling his mustache, even though all I want is to get the other side, MY side, acknowledged on an equal level since I have experienced how BOTH genders can harm and cause traumatic experiences. That’s what equal rights, equal supports is all about. Isn’t it?

    This is what matters to me: The yin and the yang together. I’m not here to drown these dead women out. I’m here to make sure these dead men stay afloat alongside them and that the innocent men left in this world do not get unfairly guilted by association to this killer.

    You remember Boko Harem? It’s the an exact reflection. Young boys were murdered in cold blood but the minute 300 girls are kidnapped, the media hype and premature impulsive reactions go into a frenzy replete with “War On Women”, “Misogyny must die!” etc while treating it like those boys never existed in the first place.

    It happened with Mary Koss erasing Male Victims out of statistical research on sexual abuse, it happened with feminist special interest groups convincing the school system to tailor their curriculum and teaching methods to girls when research showed that boys were struggling as well, and finally it happened with those same special interest groups lobbying The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence into law where only men are perpetrators and women victims, giving rise to Primary Aggressor laws where police are ordered to arrest the male in a domestic dispute situation, regardless of the fact that male victims do exist.

    Which brings me to:

    *Author’s note: We will be deleting any defenses of the groups this mass-murderer may have been associated with. If you continue to comment in this manner, you will be swiftly and permanently banned.”

    Even now, the media and feminist groups are linking Mens Rights to this psychopath. I happen to be sympathetic to Mens Rights. Now if I were to state the fact that there is no sufficient evidence linking even this man’s 141 page manifesto to MRAs, I face comment deletion and eventual permanent banning from this site.

    Fine. If that’s how you want it, then let it be. You are the author, you wrote the disclaimer, you have total control over this thread.

    But know this: I did a lot of good for this site.

    One article on the lack of awareness towards girls and women bullying boys and men, two additional articles on being a male survivor. I also collaborated with people here to open a forum where Male Survivors of sexual abuse could share their stories in a safe environment.

    Heck, OP, I even collaborated to get a forum open for Good Egalitarian feminists like yourself since, at the time, you were getting denounced without a chance to explain your context.

    You ban me, then that means those good deeds don’t count now since I dared to stick up for a group getting unjustly associated with this man. It also means you”ll be taking this magazine into territory reserved for “Jezebel” and the like. If Tom Matlack were here right now, he’d find it all abhorrent and a disgrace to what he original intended this magazine to represent.

    That’s all I’ll say on the issue.

  6. But will it see the light of day over there, OrishM, is the question. We shall soon find out.

    I regret nothing. If there’s an issue I have a problem with, I speak out. Nothing will stop me.

    I don’t need to fall in lock-step to the approvals of people like Joanna anymore.

  7. Well:
    While I co-sign pretty much what Toysoldier said verbatim, it must be pointed out in the service of accuracy that the guy not only video-logged and wrote in his manifesto about a plan to attack a sorority but actually attempted to do so.
    The two girls killed, were killed in front a sorority house he had been banging on the door to get in to. Luckily for the sorority girls in the house they did not open the door. Or we would probably have twenty or more dead women and if you think the male victims are ignored NOW, imagine what would have happened then? He’d be the next Marc Lepine, never mind that Lepine very specifically went after women, while this deluded narcissist hated everybody. I must also say I’m not sure he hated everybody equally. At times I vary between thinking he hated sexually successful males and ‘hot babe sluts’ the most, thinking he hated everyone equally, and /or thinking he might have actually hated women more. That’s because scattered among his posts and videos one can find misandric, misogynistic, and misanthropic statements. It would probably be a fair argument to say that the only attack that was ‘gendered’ rather than personal in this case was the attack on the sorority house(which, once again, he did try) but one can’t be sure. An asshole who thinks he has the right to be one of the ‘cool kids’ who holds sexually successful men and ‘nerds’ in equal contempt , and who was prescribed an anti-pschotic (though he didn’t take it) is hardly playing with a full deck.

  8. Clarence: “While I co-sign pretty much what Toysoldier said verbatim, it must be pointed out in the service of accuracy that the guy not only video-logged and wrote in his manifesto about a plan to attack a sorority but actually attempted to do so.”

    Even if he were successful, I would stand by my opinion that the men killed wouldn’t be counted.

    It would be Boko Harem all over again, where 300 girls mattered more compared to the boys that were slaughtered without remorse.

  9. Well, here’s her response to me:

    Joanna: Eagle, I’m not going to argue with you.

    This rant is so off-topic, I’m posting it, but please don’t post any more like this in the future here.

    I don’t see why it’s worth it to you to risk being banned, I really do not.

    Beyond that, I’m not the one who said that about raising boys to be killers, bell hooks did, and Ariel Chesler quoted it. I don’t disagree with it, but as I already elaborated, I don’t think hooks meant for it to be interpreted as EACH boy is being raised to be killers, but that our society raises boys and men to kill and be killed.

    This isn’t apart from what the MRM says. We teach boys and men that they are important in our society, but that their greatest gift is to kill and be killed for society, do we not?

    Nevermind, I don’t know why I try with you.

    Not surprising she doesn’t get it. Or she does but can’t be bothered to expand the proper mental energies to fully see where I’m coming from.

  10. What annoys me, Eagle, is that she is toying with you. That bullying, passive aggressive threat is meant to trigger you. That truly pisses me off.

  11. Well I spoke too soon on one of my comments – I’m on premod there now, again – and a comment that was actually approved and published last night is now gone this morning. I wish they’d make their minds up ^_^

    I expect I know why though – I criticised some generalisations about MRAs; someone asked what they thought about prison rape and I said I thought I wouldn’t get away with posting MRA links there, but to google the topic along with somewhere like AVfM and see what they say.

    It really is astonishing to me the number of people who think MRAs sit around whinging about how women won’t sleep with them who won’t even bother to look up what a site like AVfM typically discussed (whatever else one might think of them).

    How stupid do these people think we are?

  12. Toysoldier:
    If what you are saying about Ms. Schroeder and her interaction with Eagle 35 is accurate (I think you are probably right but we can’t read hearts) then she is a horrible person. She’s never KILLED anyone, but her utter depraved indifference is of the type that not only leads to real-world suicides but also enables people like the Nazis. People who take pride in physically or emotionally bullying others are horrible people or have been horribly damaged themselves.

  13. Pingback: USA Santa Barbara mass murder: a reaction to male disposability? - Page 3

  14. Clarence, I have seen her do this before. The reason it pisses me off is because Schroeder knows how Eagles internalizes these exchanges. Why use a passive-aggressive threat to bully him into not challenging her views while acting as if it is beneath her to even talk to him? That is meant solely to toy with him and put him in his place.

    I do not tolerate that. At all. If you know someone is still coping with the aftermath of their abuse, you do not use the same tactics used against them. That goes beyond politics. I do not care if the person is male or female, liberal or conservative, feminists or men’s rights activist. You do not toy with them to win an argument. Should Schroeder ever cause Eagle, or anyone, to harm himself in any way, I will make sure she faces consequences for that.

  15. Woah boy!

    JacobT et al, I have finally revealed the true person behind Joanna.

    Here my response to that comment I posted:

    JOANNA: This rant is so off-topic, I’m posting it, but please don’t post any more like this in the future here.

    ME: Why is it off-topic? Tell me.
    I supplied a link with facts and somehow it’s off topic? Countering the hysteria towards an entire gender is off-topic?

    JOANNA: I don’t see why it’s worth it to you to risk being banned, I really do not.

    ME: I’m not the one who wrote the disclaimer in the first place. You did. I’m simply voicing my disapproval and you already know the reasons why provided you actually read them.

    And I stand by them.

    JOANNA: Beyond that, I’m not the one who said that about raising boys to be killers, bell hooks did, and Ariel Chesler quoted it.

    ME: I already know that. Did you happen to read where I said “You supported”? “Endorsing”?

    JOANNA: I don’t disagree with it, but as I already elaborated, I don’t think hooks meant for it to be interpreted as EACH boy is being raised to be killers, but that our society raises boys and men to kill and be killed.

    ME: No, sorry OP. I’m no longer accepting that excuse anymore. I’ve heard it dozens of times in dozens of variations. And the answer is plainly obvious: Nowhere in that paragraph does it specify that NOT ALL boys are raised to be killers. I’m tired of debating constantly on clear communication when an author backs up a serious claim like that.

    JOANNA: This isn’t apart from what the MRM says. We teach boys and men that they are important in our society, but that their greatest gift is to kill and be killed for society, do we not?

    ME: Not solely because they hate women. This is what the media and feminist groups are zeroing in on. It’s not the entire picture.

    You’re right. You and I are never going to see eye to eye on issues like this.

    Very well. To each their own.

    And this is her response to the above:

    Joanna: Eagle, stop commenting on this thread.

    There you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

    Notice the pattern: Didn’t listen, wouldn’t even acknowledge the facts I provided, refuses to even consider them.

    Instead, as Toysoldier said, she goes into passive aggressive bullying mode. Well,actually, she’s pretty much passed that into threat and desperation mode.

    This means I can pretty much say this about her at last: She’s spoiled, sheltered, closed-off, and pampered. When confronted with facts that run against her worldview, rather than taking the time to consider them, she’d rather throw a hissy fit and make the debater out to be a horrible person.

    And to think I wasted by time out of the preciousness of my heart treating her like she was one of the Good, Egalitarian Feminists.

    I’ve learned a valuable lesson from this exchange. There ARE good, egalitarian feminists but not people like Joanna. No, they don’t have the time or patience for the bigoted and prejudiced entity that is present feminism and left the movement to rot a long time ago.

  16. My final response:

    ME: All right. If it’ll make you feel better, this will be my final comment in the thread.

    I’ll do you one even better: Anytime you write an article with a commentary thread to go with it, I won’t comment in it period. How does that sound?

    But know this: I never insulted you, called you derogatory names, or engaged in the rhetoric you despise from extremist MRAs. I provided a link to facts about this story, voiced my disapproval of not only the one-sided hysteria that’s fomenting and prospering out there in mainstream media but how you address contrary opinions with threats of deletion and banning should they tie to groups you find support this killer like MRAs (and believe me, the press and feminist groups are having a field day with this), brought a similar case up that essentially reflects everything about the response to this story, and even exposed my venerability with a personal reason behind why I, in my opinion, find the hysteria and hype reprehensible.

    Still, if you want your own space, take it.

    Lo and behold, it’s under moderation. Probably won’t show up. In fact, we shall see if she has the cajoles to ban me after that comment.

    If she does, JacobT, I request you do an article on this full exchange. For the sake of everyone out there who falls under the misguided belief that people like Joanna were ever Egalitarian to begin with.

  17. Eagle, if she bans you I would suggest moving on. She wants you to make a big deal out of it. Do not do it. However, if she attacks you again, I will discuss the matter with her.

  18. You know, JacobT, you’re right. This is essentially another trap. Even now, I’m starting to feel myself falling apart.

    I’d…better stop and pick the pieces back up again.

  19. I think you should take a break from this Eagle, but I’m very glad you posted what you did – at least one person got their message across. I suspect that is because you are a prior writer for them, and even then it’s shocking to see how poorly they are treating you. But if you are being negatively affected by this, then they’re not worth it – unplug for a spell perhaps and give yourself some taking care of.

    I wanted to thank you and also to say I really admire your candour – you could have gone down the generalisation route like they did, but you limited your critique to the feminists you directly engaged with. You’ve managed to stay above them.

    What I’m personally finding very hard to deal with right now is this week has demonstrated to me that while Not All Feminists Are Like That, there really aren’t that many feminists I know of that aren’t Like That. I had dinner this evening with a close friend of mine who’s a feminist and I straight up told her that her and another mutual friend who’s also a feminist are basically my last vestiges of confidence in that movement. We discussed a lot and mercifully we’re basically in agreement.

    In her opinion, it’s the difference between online vs offline – she doesn’t engage online and claims none of the feminists she’s friends with are anything like this at all. I’m wondering whether I’d do more offline than online, tbh. This debate is fucking toxic.

    Anyway, enough about myself – thanks for speaking up – I’m sorry I couldn’t do more there but they took my comments out of play pretty early on. Probably because I said I’d repost them as necessary.

    It’s obvious that JS has no consistency here – never mind the inconsistency in argument, but in her rationalisation of her censorship too. She claimed that Lori and herself weren’t naming names of groups – immediately under a comment by Lori that linked to DailyKos which blamed MRAs in the headline.

    The only thing worse than the censorship is the sheer incompetence of it – it just adds insult to injury.

  20. In her opinion, it’s the difference between online vs offline – she doesn’t engage online and claims none of the feminists she’s friends with are anything like this at all. I’m wondering whether I’d do more offline than online, tbh. This debate is fucking toxic.
    Here’s something that bugs me a bit about the online/offline thing.

    Do the people who are engaging in these conversations online suddenly changing into different people when they go offline?

    Are supposed to somehow believe that the way these “blame MRAs” posts have been flying around the net somehow do not translate into “blame MRAs” conversations in the real world?

  21. Danny:

    Do the people who are engaging in these conversations online suddenly changing into different people when they go offline?

    Possibly. I recall Amanada Marcotte going on Glenn Sacks old radio show and behaving like a meek, soft-spoken mouse. Hours later, she ripped Sacks to pieces in a vitriol-laced tirade. It is entirely possible that people do behave one way online and another way offline.

    Are supposed to somehow believe that the way these “blame MRAs” posts have been flying around the net somehow do not translate into “blame MRAs” conversations in the real world?

    Again, I think that is possible, although I am sure the “blame MRAs” conversations manage to sneak into plenty of real-world discussions.

  22. I wasn’t entirely clear – I don’t mean to say that extreme feminists online suddenly become much more reasonable offline (though I will say some of the GMP contributors’ change their tone considerably on an avowedly feminist women’s site, which I find rather suspicious). What my friend meant is that the online debate simply won’t attract a lot of moderates because of how already polarised (and polarising) it is.

  23. @oirishm:

    How stupid do these people think we are?

    It’s not about us*, it’s about convincing themselves, and people unfamiliar with us. And the most efficient way to do that is to silence our voices.

    That, and/or folks like Jo are made uncomfortable by thinking about these things, and rationalize it as sexist somehow.

    @Eagle35:

    ME: No, sorry OP. I’m no longer accepting that excuse anymore. I’ve heard it dozens of times in dozens of variations. And the answer is plainly obvious: Nowhere in that paragraph does it specify that NOT ALL boys are raised to be killers. I’m tired of debating constantly on clear communication when an author backs up a serious claim like that.

    Funny. I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a feminist backpedal to “I didn’t mean ALL men!” It sure is interesting how not only are we not supposed to judge the movement by its general properties, but even verbatim quoted remarks from feminists are sacrosanct.

    Which is why she immediately tried to change the subject when you made it clear you weren’t budging, to gain the moral high ground by looking conciliatory and reasonable.

    * I mean “people who talk about men’s issues”, not just MRAs.

    @Danny: I suspect a lot of anti-MRA folks are a lot less brave in meatspace, where they can’t control the dialogue. Which is why most of ’em prefer to talk to each other about MRAs instead of to actual MRAs.

  24. @SYABM

    It almost seems to me as if women are just so *obviously* sugar and spice that when they make a generalisation of the sort that many feminists would shriek over if it was directed at women, it should automatically be taken in good faith.

    Personally, I take a common approach to all. Why should I assume that someone who makes an prejudiced generalisation isn’t being prejudiced?

    And if someone were to query that, it would appear that the “women can’t be sexist” meme might be in play.

  25. Funny. I’m pretty sure this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a feminist backpedal to “I didn’t mean ALL men!” It sure is interesting how not only are we not supposed to judge the movement by its general properties, but even verbatim quoted remarks from feminists are sacrosanct.

    That happens quite often, actually. What is always funny to watch is people continue to support a blatantly biased statement. In this case, Schroeder knows the hooks’ statement is indefensibly sexist. Yet she supports it. So in order to make that look less misandrous, Schroeder concocts the idea that hooks meant a “system” rather than all boys. It is double-think at its most nuanced.

    I suspect a lot of anti-MRA folks are a lot less brave in meatspace, where they can’t control the dialogue.

    No, they are just as brave, however, because they cannot control the dialogue it tends not to go their way. They are more likely to prompt rebuttals if they speak outside of a feminist space, so they are less like to talk about these things with the general public.

  26. “That happens quite often, actually. What is always funny to watch is people continue to support a blatantly biased statement. In this case, Schroeder knows the hooks’ statement is indefensibly sexist. Yet she supports it. So in order to make that look less misandrous, Schroeder concocts the idea that hooks meant a “system” rather than all boys.”

    You’re absolutely right TS, this is quite common and very remaniscent of the “men can stop rape” meme that began as “All Men Are Rapists” before becomeing progressively more vague. It was first reduced to “All men use rape…” then to “all men are potential rapists” until its current incarnation “men can stop rape” which bears little resemblance to the original but means the same thing and is just as sexist. Any social “system” that works to turn boys into killers, if it is to exist, must affect all boys, therefore the meaning is no different, but the statement is less personal which allows her to feel better about making it because she is no longer accusing a person, but blaming a “system.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s