I've heard some criticism that this is all just a distraction from the shooter and his "real movies" or something-- never mind his manifesto specifically rages against women-- and I think that actually proves the point; when women have a valid, founded concern our treatment in society, even fears about our own physical safety, there's always an immediate backlash to try to derail and silence us. Of course what led to the UC Santa Barbara shooting is more complex than misogyny in society (there's also much to discuss regarding gun laws, identifying and treating mental illness-- even the glorified violence, machismo, and treating lone "misunderstood" figures as celebrities in US culture) and of course "not all men" become murderers when rejected, by the #YesAllWomen campaign brings to light how Rodger's actions are just the extreme version of a toxic attitude of entitlement amongst men pervasive enough to affect all women to some extent, something we need to talk about that is difficult to get
( ... )
Yep, this; I've seen lots and lots of men brush aside Rodger's misogyny because they say we should look at "the real issue" or "the big picture", as though misogyny isn't part of the big picture, or a real issue. I've seen men spend several pages of discussion talking about what the problem is and how it should be fixed without a single mention of the victims, either of Rodger's attacks or more generally of misogyny; instead, they focus on men's insecurity (which basically boils down to saying that if women were nicer to men, it wouldn't have happened). And when I've pointed out that actually, if we're going to talk about this (as we should) we need to talk about the people who are victimised, and we need to focus on their needs and not just those of the attackers, I've been accused of misandry, of thinking all men are murderers (huh?), and the like
( ... )
(which basically boils down to saying that if women were nicer to men, it wouldn't have happened) I've seen this point made as well and it really raises my hackles. My entire insecure identity in high school hinged on "being nice to everyone" and if anything, it made them show their asses more. Because of course if I was nice to a young man that most people weren't friendly with, the only possible reason was that I was interested in them romantically or sexually. I was asked out and propositioned many times and of course whenever I turned them down I was accused of being a tease and ruining their life. I didn't realize that being a decent human being was actually volunteering to provide pity sex to anyone who wanted it!
And it's also made me realise that I have those stories too, of harassment and groping and "boys will be boys", and I don't think I've ever even bothered to tell them to anyone. It's actually been quite emotional for me reading some of these Tweets, realizing how much I recognize from my own experience. So much of it
( ... )
So...he wasn't influenced enough by misogyny because he didn't kill more people, and the people he did kill were mostly men? Huh. Seems like even more of a dismissal of his obvious and clearly-stated intentions, that were recorded publicly over weeks and weeks.
The way you wrote your thoughts, it makes me think that you're saying that his isolation/loneliness was more important than his hatred against women. So if people were friends with him, it would be ok....and uh...no. Nobody owed him friendship in order to make him not kill people.
I for sure agree with you that we are living in a backlash.
I'm not sure what you mean by fourth/fifth wave needing to focus on men...feminism is inclusive toward men, it just doesn't accept that awful behavior that comes from people entrenched in the patriarchy.
Your relation of him killing men vs women to "I hate dogs so I will knock over bicycles" doesn't work. Pretty sure he killed the men for having the women he wanted, in his perception. I could be wrong. The two are not completely separate.
Again, because he didn't kill enough women, it's not worthy of taking seriously? Are you trolling?
You saying I should feel dirty also makes me think you're trolling. That's ridiculous.
The importance of isolation and loneliness he felt, that you're giving this, over the hatred he had that was fueled by misogyny and racism is of great concern to me.
Feminism as a focus and outlet for women is still necessary. What you're talking about already exists in feminism as it is, and has always been a major factor in feminism. So I still don't get what you're saying.
Again, if his intentions really were to hurt women, then given that he was relatively bright, and said he was going to walk into a sorority and shoot everyone... To draw a parallel, we can agree, I think, that the KKK is a racist organisation, and that they wished (and still wish) to hurt people of colour, yes? And yet they did this one by one; not by bombing places where there were lots of people of colour but by lynching individuals. Not only that, but sometimes they also attacked white people (if they believed those white people to be "n****r-lovers", for example). Does that mean they weren't really racist, or they didn't really want to hurt people of colour? I would say it doesn't.
Similarly, Rodger wanted to terrorise and kill women, and like a lot of men, he chose knives and guns rather than poison or fire to do that. And he killed men too, at least partly because (according to him) he felt it was unfair that they were getting the attention and sex that was owed to him.
But friends are a social contact. They stimulate us,
( ... )
..and even then, though I havn't seen official figures, I'm willing to bet that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who got injured by the KKK were black. Sure, but you can see, can't you, that it's quite possible for someone who hates group A to kill people from group B (even the group to which they themselves belong) _because_ of their hatred of group A, right?
That said, again, he stated his plan was to walk through the sorority and shoot everyone? Yes? He did not, however, and even with his random attacks, still managed to miss out on majority on his professed target. Yeah; he was disorganised. That doesn't mean he wasn't a misogynist, or that misogyny wasn't his primary motivation.
It's clear that even while he had some radical ideas, nobody checked him.On the contrary, we're now hearing that he was seeing at least one therapist and that the police had been called on him on at least one occasion. People _had_ checked him, but he chose to hang out on MRA forums. We choose our friends, and if someone chooses people who will
( ... )
Right, but the majority of people injured by him were random passerby. Yes; he was disorganised. He was also angry at men _because he felt they were getting the female attention he was owed_. So he hated men, for reasons of misogyny.
there is already a group dedicated to the study of power structures based upon gender No. Feminism is not simply about _all_ power structures based on gender, it is _specifically_ about addressing the inequalities and injustices suffered by women. You wouldn't expect the Civil Rights movement to address white people's problems, simply because they are fighting for racial equality, would you? So why would you expect feminism to tackle men's problems?
To which I wondered 'who then?'. Yes, and it's a weird question to ask; why not just _men_? Like, all of 'em. Why not you? Why are you looking for a pre-existing group to swoop ina dn solve men's problems, rather than suggesting that the very men suffering from those problems can and should address them themselves?
Were his sole target women, he should have swerved more toward them, no? Right; women weren't his sole target, but nonetheless, the cause of his rampage was misogyny. He wanted to kill women, because he resented them for not giving him the happiness he thought they owed him, and men, because they were getting the happiness, from women, which was owed to him. He made all of this very clear in his "manifesto".
This is like saying... that Darkism is the _specific_ study of the inequalities of the absence of light, therefore a Darkist scholar would never study light. No, it isn't, because feminism isn't the study of gender. It is _activism_, aimed at addressing the injustices and inequalities suffered by women. You're thinking of gender studies (which is the _study_ of gender). Feminism is not gender studies and gender studies is not feminism. Feminism is not about addressing the problems faced by men. It is about addressing the problems faced by women.
I'm wondering why scholars in the field of gender studies are not. Their job is to
( ... )
I've heard some criticism that this is all just a distraction from the shooter and his "real movies" or something-- never mind his manifesto specifically rages against women-- and I think that actually proves the point; when women have a valid, founded concern our treatment in society, even fears about our own physical safety, there's always an immediate backlash to try to derail and silence us. Of course what led to the UC Santa Barbara shooting is more complex than misogyny in society (there's also much to discuss regarding gun laws, identifying and treating mental illness-- even the glorified violence, machismo, and treating lone "misunderstood" figures as celebrities in US culture) and of course "not all men" become murderers when rejected, by the #YesAllWomen campaign brings to light how Rodger's actions are just the extreme version of a toxic attitude of entitlement amongst men pervasive enough to affect all women to some extent, something we need to talk about that is difficult to get ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
I've seen this point made as well and it really raises my hackles. My entire insecure identity in high school hinged on "being nice to everyone" and if anything, it made them show their asses more. Because of course if I was nice to a young man that most people weren't friendly with, the only possible reason was that I was interested in them romantically or sexually. I was asked out and propositioned many times and of course whenever I turned them down I was accused of being a tease and ruining their life. I didn't realize that being a decent human being was actually volunteering to provide pity sex to anyone who wanted it!
And it's also made me realise that I have those stories too, of harassment and groping and "boys will be boys", and I don't think I've ever even bothered to tell them to anyone. It's actually been quite emotional for me reading some of these Tweets, realizing how much I recognize from my own experience. So much of it ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The way you wrote your thoughts, it makes me think that you're saying that his isolation/loneliness was more important than his hatred against women. So if people were friends with him, it would be ok....and uh...no. Nobody owed him friendship in order to make him not kill people.
I for sure agree with you that we are living in a backlash.
I'm not sure what you mean by fourth/fifth wave needing to focus on men...feminism is inclusive toward men, it just doesn't accept that awful behavior that comes from people entrenched in the patriarchy.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Again, because he didn't kill enough women, it's not worthy of taking seriously? Are you trolling?
You saying I should feel dirty also makes me think you're trolling. That's ridiculous.
The importance of isolation and loneliness he felt, that you're giving this, over the hatred he had that was fueled by misogyny and racism is of great concern to me.
Feminism as a focus and outlet for women is still necessary. What you're talking about already exists in feminism as it is, and has always been a major factor in feminism. So I still don't get what you're saying.
Reply
To draw a parallel, we can agree, I think, that the KKK is a racist organisation, and that they wished (and still wish) to hurt people of colour, yes? And yet they did this one by one; not by bombing places where there were lots of people of colour but by lynching individuals. Not only that, but sometimes they also attacked white people (if they believed those white people to be "n****r-lovers", for example).
Does that mean they weren't really racist, or they didn't really want to hurt people of colour? I would say it doesn't.
Similarly, Rodger wanted to terrorise and kill women, and like a lot of men, he chose knives and guns rather than poison or fire to do that. And he killed men too, at least partly because (according to him) he felt it was unfair that they were getting the attention and sex that was owed to him.
But friends are a social contact. They stimulate us, ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Sure, but you can see, can't you, that it's quite possible for someone who hates group A to kill people from group B (even the group to which they themselves belong) _because_ of their hatred of group A, right?
That said, again, he stated his plan was to walk through the sorority and shoot everyone? Yes? He did not, however, and even with his random attacks, still managed to miss out on majority on his professed target.
Yeah; he was disorganised. That doesn't mean he wasn't a misogynist, or that misogyny wasn't his primary motivation.
It's clear that even while he had some radical ideas, nobody checked him.On the contrary, we're now hearing that he was seeing at least one therapist and that the police had been called on him on at least one occasion. People _had_ checked him, but he chose to hang out on MRA forums. We choose our friends, and if someone chooses people who will ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Yes; he was disorganised. He was also angry at men _because he felt they were getting the female attention he was owed_. So he hated men, for reasons of misogyny.
there is already a group dedicated to the study of power structures based upon gender
No. Feminism is not simply about _all_ power structures based on gender, it is _specifically_ about addressing the inequalities and injustices suffered by women. You wouldn't expect the Civil Rights movement to address white people's problems, simply because they are fighting for racial equality, would you? So why would you expect feminism to tackle men's problems?
To which I wondered 'who then?'.
Yes, and it's a weird question to ask; why not just _men_? Like, all of 'em. Why not you? Why are you looking for a pre-existing group to swoop ina dn solve men's problems, rather than suggesting that the very men suffering from those problems can and should address them themselves?
, but the vast, vast, vast majority of ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Right; women weren't his sole target, but nonetheless, the cause of his rampage was misogyny. He wanted to kill women, because he resented them for not giving him the happiness he thought they owed him, and men, because they were getting the happiness, from women, which was owed to him. He made all of this very clear in his "manifesto".
This is like saying... that Darkism is the _specific_ study of the inequalities of the absence of light, therefore a Darkist scholar would never study light.
No, it isn't, because feminism isn't the study of gender. It is _activism_, aimed at addressing the injustices and inequalities suffered by women. You're thinking of gender studies (which is the _study_ of gender). Feminism is not gender studies and gender studies is not feminism. Feminism is not about addressing the problems faced by men. It is about addressing the problems faced by women.
I'm wondering why scholars in the field of gender studies are not. Their job is to ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment