This looks long, but shouldn't be too long to read. Some stray thoughts on how feminists see the issue.
Q: Why Did Elliot Rodger kill?
A: Because he hated women.
Q: That does not explain why he killed men.
A: Yes, it does. He killed the men who owned the women he wanted to own.
Q: Okay, let's play by your rules. Why did Rodger kill women?
A: He was a misogynist, he hated women.
Q: Why did he hate women?
A: He feared them, he wanted to own them. He blamed them for his own personal problems.
Q: Why did fear women?
A: He was terrified of not measuring up to what women really want, he feared treating them like humans.
Q: Okay, why was he afraid of not measuring up to what women want? Why does he not see women as humans?
A: The fear of women's desires as separate and distinct from men's is a deeply rooted buttress of misogyny. Seeing a woman as a human directly contradicts his misogyny.
Q: Where does all this come from? You have yet to establish any psychological basis for your arguments.
A: <sigh> A key building block of feminism is that women are sovereign in their own experiences. When women talk about male-based misogyny men need to spend more time listening instead of talking.
Q: You mean stop asking questions.
A: I mean listening! When women say that men are filled with hate, listen!
Q: You mean accept your conclusions based on your, necessarily, subjective perceptions. You have hijacked a discussion about the human condition and what causes certain men to behave in grossly violent fashion and inverted it into a discussion of feminism.
A: But feminism IS the most relevant issue here! They are fighting misogyny! They believe in men, that men can become more than misogynists!
Q: Okay, if you are going to cure an ill you must know its roots. Once more, what internal processes cause misogyny?
A: It's taught, taught by patriarchy, taught by sexist ads. It surrounds us, permeates us. It is an ancient, world-wide phenomenon that has relegated women to second class citizenship, rendered their bodies as property and subjected them to centuries of violence, degradation and brutal oppression.
Q: That sounds like a great plot for a fictional book by Margaret Atwood. Let's assume that all that is true, but the question remains that you have not answered and is necessarily is the key to solve the issue you have presented: What causes misogyny?
A: Why do men demand so much evidence when it is plainly clear to women that men hate them?
Q: Every women, the world over thinks this?
A: No, because patriarchy prevents women from realizing this.
Q: Are men aware of this phenomenon of misogyny?
A: Yes. Men know what they are doing. Privilege blinds men from considering the oppressed as humans and understanding their suffering at their hands. But men plainly know it is happening at their collective hands.
Q: So men are consciously walking around society, openly hating you, desiring to violate your body and kill you. What stops the vast majority of men from ever hurting women?
A: That is so chock-full of ignorance. Violence against women is a sliding scale - every man is guilty of sexual assault, but it is a scale - some only watch pornography or masturbate to sexualized images of girls, some escalate to assaulting women at frat parties and some murder women for just existing. So there.
Q: It seems I have indulged you a bit too much. Not only are you describing a vast, world-wide conspiracy to oppress and kill you, but you also assert that the entire male population are repressed rapists.
A: That is a deliberate misinterpretation. Rape culture doesn't mean that you will rape, only that you have the capacity to do so. Like I said, misogyny is the base for all this behavior. The desire to own, consume and violate women's bodies is based PURELY out of misogyny. Behaviors and thought patterns like entitlement, harassment and dismissal of women's voices are all tributaries from the deep reservoir of misogyny.
Q: So we agree, all men could be rapists.
A: Yes.
Q: To a member of discrete class X, calling the entire class capable of a violent, gross felony is prejudiced, no?
A: I don't follow.
Q: All blacks are capable of murder, no?
A: Racism aside, yes in the most purely technical sense.
Q: Like you just said, it is racist to assume all blacks are capable of murder.
A: Noting capability is a far cry from assuming violence on the part of black people. Racism towards blacks causes people to view blacks as potentially violent in everyday life.
Q: Why does that train of thought not apply to men?
A: Feminists don't assume men are all violent, just that they are trained, as a class, to weaponize their existence towards women. Black people suffer under the crushing weight of racism, so violence is an adaption to white oppression. Men weaponizing their own existence is not the same as whites oppressing blacks so badly they act out violently.
Q: This is clearly a dead end. Moving the conversation forward, an assumption you have yet to voice is that violence is a learned behavior?
A: Yes, violence is learned.
Q: So, there must have existed a world in which violence didn't exist.
A: I don't know that.
Q: Precisely. You don't know anything that you have been talking about. You can't identify what fuels your perceptions of misogyny. You then take an -- at best -- grossly imprecise psychological diagnosis and assume that it fuels any and all bad acts from men towards women, the world over.
A: Like I said, women are sovereign in their experiences. Why do men keep silencing us, denying our experiences and questioning and muting our opinions?
Q: We do this to other men, we are not singling women out specifically.
A: Doing X behavior to men doesn't mean that it is justified to do to women, much less that men are not doing simply because a person is a woman.
Q: So, you want men to not treat you differently than they would men but you reserve the right to challenge said gender-neutrality when you -- in the sovereignty of experience as a woman -- claim that men are doing X because you are a woman?
A: That's not what I said and that makes women look bad.
Q: What did you say?
A: What I said was that women exist separately from men. As such, we experience a whole world you do not. Our experiences, feelings and approaches to life will be different than yours and you need to respect that. As such, when we know we are being targeted as a woman and not a person, we should be able to reserve the right to challenge you on that.
Q: What a waste of brainpower. We said substantively the same thing: You want equality, but also the power (you can it a right) to cut off debate/discussion/X when you subjectively perceive a man or a group of men is treating you a woman and not a man.
A: This debate is tiresome. The standard of the world IS a man, but it should not be gendered, it should be a human, a person. A mind-blowing concept to a man, but we are humans, too. You need to treat us as such.
Q: You see what you are doing, right? It is incredibly intellectually dishonest, as is this whole discussion. You claim to discuss the mental state of men, while never referencing any clinical research or discussion on how the human brain works, much less philosophical pondering of the state of man. You take what is necessarily your OWN experience and your OWN conclusions flowing those experiences and pretend it is a pattern of social behavior the world over. You clearly disregard any opinion of any man or woman who does not fit your prefabricated worldview. This is further evidenced by your insistence that women are sovereign in their own experience, as if the world has been waiting for your all-encompassing, God-like ability to shift through the psychological sands of the world and discern its ultimate truth.
You have done nothing but spin around in the shallows of quasi-intellectualism, when I have given you far more latitude and space to advance your arguments than any other discipline. You call feminism an answer to the world's problems, but I call it what is: an ideology. A poorly thought-out ideology, one completely unconcerned with reality and the deeper truths of the world. One completely structured around subjective experiences that appeals to the most craven and stereotypically womanly behaviors: hysteria, self-absorption, extreme amounts of fear and immature hand-wringing.
When we were talking about misogyny, you never referenced his relationship with his mother, the all important Mother, and how most likely an insatiable mother has caused his existential torment with women. I can't remember the last time somebody with serious skeletons in their psychological closet and got over them by having people wave the bones in their face. You don't cure an alcoholic by openly mocking them with a of Jack Daniels and take their personal disquiet that led them to the bottle and ragefully throw that disquiet in their face. Further, you make no appeal to established diagnosis' of any mental disorder or illness --
A: Stop stigmatizing mental health! Any advocate for mental health understands that mental illness does not lead to violence! Being mentally ill leads to being a victim, not a perpetrator!
Q: So mentally healthy people go on murdering sprees?
A: <Al Gore sigh> Misogynists go on woman killing sprees.
Q: But he killed more men than women and he clearly evinced rage against men!
A: Aha - you admit hatred is what spurred his violence!
Q: Nice try, I used the word rage. Very, very different concept.
A: No, it's not. Misogyny is an expansive word, entertaining all manner of anger, hatred and rage towards women. And, as for the men he hated, it was a product of misogyny, as he hated they got to be with the women he wanted to own.
Q: So, was he mentally healthy?
A: I know nuance is tough, but it is a sliding scale.
Q: How mentally healthy was he, in your estimation?
A: I am not a mental health professional, but a strong advocate. Your question is prejudicial and based out of ableism.
Q: How so?
A: Is it really 2014 and people still are not all social justice advocates? Issues around mental health have long been steeped in ignorance and prejudice. Your line of questioning is a typical male behavior, seeking first and final principles so you can subject people you deem "unfit" to the demeaning and bigoted mental health industry.
Q: Bizarre response. I asked you to opine on the mental health of a man who killed almost ten people in one night.
A: You can't medicalize or pathologize what is a social ill, not a personal one.
Q: Reading the tea leaves for where the state of mental health in this country is going is not pleasant.
A: You got one big rant, give me one. The problem inherent in this whole discussion isn't even that it is fueled by male privilege and sexist silencing of women's voices, but that is necessarily invested in the maintenance of the status quo.
Change is difficult and can be scary for those so used to having the world revolve around them. White males should not be the measuring stick for personhood around the world. Women and minorities have longed to have a seat at the table, a chance to wield power alongside white men. We want nothing but cooperation, that's why we agitate for diversity! We just want equality, so every voice is relevant and respected.
But that challenges the status quo of only white male voices being heard and considered. We -- the majority of the world -- are tired of your ham-fisted control of the world. It must be nice to be able to proffer your own opinions without being challenged and then turn around and badger and pester those non-white males with needless questioning and commentary. Do you see why now we claim we have to be that much better than you at basically everything for you just to even acknowledge us?
Q: You are very adept at emotional appeals that people in the West have been well-trained to respond to. You claim that white men control all the power in society, as if white men are invested in white men -- as a class -- retaining power. First, wanting to retain your power is because the powerful want to retain their power for power's sake. Second, what makes you think the most powerful have a face? Most powerful people have public stooges of some sort. Those in power you don't know, they are blinded to you.
That notwithstanding, you sweep up race into your movement like a stereotypical feminist. Are male racial minorities aware of misogyny? Or are they simultaneously blinded to it but fully aware of it, like you previously argued? You then make the bizarre argument that we state opinions with no evidence. How has anything been accomplished in society? These white men have been going back and forth, arguing over every subject know to mankind. Why would you want a seat at the table of power, when you think all we do is twiddle our thumbs and hand down arbitrary decisions and commentary from on high?
Considering you have provided no evidence for any of your claims, I strongly suspect you want to be in the seat of power, so you can finally be rid of the annoying habit of other people to demand you explain your views. You want to make political decisions and pontificate about psychology without having to reference anything other than your experiences or emotions.
A: Mansplaining. Unsubscribed.
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
/
Elliot Rodger shoots up California campus because he can't get laid
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 1 user Likes Kingsley Davis's post:
![[Image: photo-on-2013-09-25-at-4-18-pm.jpg]](http://bellejarblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/photo-on-2013-09-25-at-4-18-pm.jpg)
![[Image: Fecuvfp.png]](http://i.imgur.com/Fecuvfp.png)
![[Image: moio.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1]](http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/moio.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1)
