Isla Vista Shooting

Elliot Rodger’s ‘War on Women’ and Toxic Gender Warfare

The Santa Barbara killer wasn't just a misogynist; he was a malignant narcissist.

|

Last weekend's horror in Santa Barbara, California, where 22-year-old Elliot Rodger killed six people and wounded more than a dozen before shooting himself, unexpectedly sparked a feminist moment. With revelations that Rodger's killing spree was fueled by anger over rejection by women and that he had posted on what some described as a "men's rights" forum (actually, a forum for bitter "involuntarily celibate" men), many rushed to frame the shooting as a stark example of the violent misogyny said to be pervasive in our culture. The Twitter hashtag #YesAllWomen sprung up as an expression of solidarity and a reminder of the ubiquity of male terrorism and abuse in women's lives. Most of the posters in the hashtag were certainly motivated by the best of intentions. But in the end, this response not only appropriated a human tragedy for an ideological agenda but turned it into toxic gender warfare.

For one thing, "misogyny" is a very incomplete explanation of Rodger's mindset, perhaps best described as malignant narcissism with a psychopathic dimension. His "manifesto" makes it clear that his hatred of women (the obverse side of his craving for validation by female attention, which he describes as so intense that a hug from a girl was infinitely more thrilling than an expression of friendship from a boy) was only a subset of a general hatred of humanity, and was matched by hatred of men who had better romantic and sexual success. At the end of the document, he chillingly envisions an ideal society in which women will be exterminated except for a small number of artificial-insemination breeders and sexuality will be abolished. But in an Internet posting a year ago, he also fantasized about inventing a virus that would wipe out all males except for himself: "You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be." His original plans for his grand exit included not only a sorority massacre he explicitly called his "War on Women," but luring victims whom he repeatedly mentions in gender-neutral terms to his apartment for extended torture and murder (and killing his own younger brother, whom he hated for managing to lose his virginity).

Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don't is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness—or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma.

Of course, four of the six people Rodger actually killed were men: his three housemates, whom he stabbed to death in their beds before embarking on his fatal journey, and a randomly chosen young man in a deli. Assertions that all men share responsibility for the misogyny and male violence toward women that Rodger's actions are said to represent essentially place his male victims on the same moral level as the murderer—which, if you think about it, is rather obscene. And the deaths of all the victims, female and male, are trivialized when they are commemorated with a catalogue of often petty sexist or sexual slights, from the assertion that every single woman in the world has been sexually harassed to the complaint that a woman's "no" is often met with an attempt to negotiate a "yes."

A common theme of #YesAllWomen is that our culture promotes the notion that women owe men sex and encourages male violence in response to female rejection. (It does? One could much more plausibly argue that our culture promotes the notion that men must "earn" sex from women and treats the rejected male as a pathetic figure of fun.) Comic-book writer Gail Simone tweeted that she doesn't know "a single woman who has never encountered with that rejection rage the killer shows in the video," though of course to a lesser degree.

Actually, I do know women who have never encountered it. I also know men who have, and a couple of women who have encountered it from other women. I myself have experienced it twice: once from an ex-boyfriend, and once from a gay woman on an Internet forum who misinterpreted friendliness on my part as romantic interest. There was a common thread in both these cases: mental illness aggravated by substance abuse.

Yes, virtually all spree killers are male, though there are notable exceptions, such as Illinois mass shooter Laurie Dann and Alabama biology professor Amy Bishop; but the number of such killers is so vanishingly small that a man's chance of being one is only slightly higher than a woman's. As for the more frequent kind of homicide feminists often describe as expressions of murderous misogyny—such as killings of women by intimate partners or ex-partners—the gender dynamics of such violence are far more complex. If patriarchal rage and misogynist hatred are the underlying cause, how does one explain intimate homicide in same-sex relationships without resorting to tortuous, ideology-driven pseudo-logic? How does one explain the fact that some 30 percent of victims in such slayings are men (excluding cases in which a woman kills in clear self-defense)? What feminist paradigm explains the actions of Clara Harris, the Houston dentist who repeatedly ran over her unfaithful husband with a car (and got a good deal of public sympathy)? Or the actions of Susan Eubanks, the California woman who shot and killed her four sons to punish their fathers, apparently because she was angry about being "screwed by men" after her latest boyfriend walked out?

Defenders of #YesAllWomen say that the posts in the hashtag do not target all men. Maybe not; but they push the idea that all women—including women in advanced liberal democracies in the 21st century—are victims of pervasive and relentless male terrorism, and that any man who does not denounce it on feminist terms is complicit. They wrongly frame virtually all interpersonal violence (and lesser injuries) as male-on-female, ignoring both male victims and female perpetrators, and express sympathy for boys only insofar as boys are supposedly "raised around the drumbeat mantra that women are not human beings." And sometimes, they almost literally dehumanize men. A tweet observing that "the odds of being attacked by a shark are 1 in 3,748,067, while a woman's odds of being raped are 1 in 6…yet fear of sharks is seen as rational while being cautious of men is seen as misandry" was retweeted almost 1,000 times.

One can argue endlessly about the real lessons of the Elliot Rodger shooting, including the complex dilemma of responding to danger signs from mentally ill people without trampling on civil liberties. Perhaps, as Canadian columnist Matt Gurney writes, the most painful lesson is that no matter what we do, we cannot always prevent "a deranged individual … determined to do harm to others" from wreaking such harm—if not with guns, then with knives or with a car. But the worst possible answer is a toxic version of feminism that encourages women to see themselves as victims while imposing collective guilt on men. 

A version of this article originally appeared at Real Clear Politics.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

190 responses to “Elliot Rodger’s ‘War on Women’ and Toxic Gender Warfare

  1. OT: Seattle Police Officer’s sue feds over reforms.

    Shooting unarmed people in back necessary for officer safety.

    The 43-page suit alleges policies stemming from an agreement between the city and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) stoked a “bold, new disregard for police authority in the streets of Seattle,” putting officers and the public in unreasonable danger.

    1. What a bunch of pussies. If you can’t handle it, quit.

      1. “You can’t strike! This city will tear itself apart without the police!”

        That’s my favorite line in Robocop because it is so ridiculous.

        1. My fave is, “Bithces! LEAVE!” followed by “Guns, guns, guns! C’mon, Sal. The Tigers are playing…[slaps the table] tonight. I never miss a game.”

    2. It’s officers’-rights claim so terrible even the police union is disavowing it. Should be great for a laugh.

  2. sexuality will be abolished

    In other words, society’s gender constructs will be abolished. That sounds… familiar.

    1. You took it out of context. If he were really “anti-gender” then I don’t think he would have been so obsessed with having a female partner.

      I’m a bisexual who wishes that everyone was a hermaphrodite with a body like Kim Kardashian, I also thought I was gay before realizing that I was attracted to females, so the way this hyper-heterocentric guy’s views on sexuality are pretty alien to me, and i’m probably what most people would call “anti-gender”.

      1. *guy views sexuality

      2. and i’m probably what most people would call “anti-gender”.

        Well, it certainly doubles your chances of getting a date on Saturday night.

        1. Not really. When I opened up about being bisexual my boyfriend (who identified as gay) at the time dumped me. It’s not as easy as stereotypes would suggest. I’m only interested in dating other bisexuals now anyways, and most are either in the closet, or in the case of some bi girls, resent other bisexuals.

          1. By the way, that was an old Woody Allen joke.

            Not really. When I opened up about being bisexual my boyfriend (who identified as gay) at the time dumped me.

            You know… I have heard that gay people… some gay people consider bi-sexuality to be fake or inauthentic.

            1. Alot of those gays who hate bisexuals “occasionally sleep with the opposite sex”.

              1. But they probably hate it.

            2. Just about everything negative self-described gays throw at bisexuals have been said about gays in the past, in fact real homophobes still say the same things.

              1. Why the hell would an openly gay person want to sleep with the opposite sex? Bunch of idiots who think they’re gay the second they have sexual thoughts about the same sex.

                1. For the lulz?

                  1. I’ve heard of girls messing with gay guys for the “lulz” but any “gay” guy who messes with a girl most likely invested too much into their identity when they realized that society demands you to “pick a hole and stick with it” (I tell them to pick a hair color or exact height and stick with it).

            3. ” some gay people consider bi-sexuality to be fake”

              You may be accidentally on the right track here.

              1. Go to Queerty and you’ll see gays talk about a “gender-bending agenda aimed at destroying their way of life”.

          2. Not really. When I opened up about being bisexual my boyfriend (who identified as gay) at the time dumped me. It’s not as easy as stereotypes would suggest. I’m only interested in dating other bisexuals now anyways, and most are either in the closet, or in the case of some bi girls, resent other bisexuals.

            There is something that is just so off about this somehow.

            I mean, bisexuality only matters in the choosing. You’re open to either sex, sure. The field is wide. But then you make a choice. At that point you will engage in something hetero, or something homo. Unless there are more than two people, of more than one sex, bisexuality no longer matters.

            Functionally, any relationship with less than three people is hetero or homo.

            I think that might explain gay hostility to bisexuality.

            And your Kardashianesque hermaphrodites are another thing entirely(though you might want to look up the work of an artist named Michael Manning).

            1. Just because you end up spending the rest of your life with a blonde doesn’t mean you’re still not going to find brunettes attractive.

              Aside from the fact that the vast majority of openly bisexual people are female I have no qualms in admitting that I prefer females. Their bodies have more to offer. Most female bisexuals will say the same thing but because males have penises they’re more likely to be 50/50 and thus less likely to be in the closet, though just like lesbian relationships have their advantages for females (ie they know how the other physically feels) gay male relationships have the same advantage. Of course there are male bisexuals who prefer males, but they tend to be more into butch guys and i’m not. I mean I like guys with toned athletic bodies but that’s about it. Korean pop stars are good examples of the guys I like (i’m an old school rivethead and I hate Kpop. I don’t like Beyonce’s music either but I still find her hot).

              One of the main causes of gay hostility towards bisexuals are irrational fears and stereotypes (of course there are people fit stereotypes, but that applies to all stereotypes) most of which are, ironically, also applied to gays by homophobes.

              1. *people who fit stereotypes

      3. I’m a bisexual

        No, you aren’t, you’re bo’s sockpuppet and it’s fucking sad.

        1. Hmmm Alexis Texas and Sammy Case

          Are you cytotoxic? Because he’s the only one here who speaks in ebonics.

        2. I think the sockpuppetry accusations are getting out of hand here.

          I don’t see much parallel between this guy (liberaltarian), and Bo (pedant). I’m sure they both get on your nerves, but that’s about the end of the similarities.

          We’ve got enough real sockpuppets to deal with without chasing phantom ones.

  3. Rodger’s actions are said to represent essentially place his male victims on the same moral level as the murderer?which, if you think about it, is rather obscene.

    Fortunately that seems not to be a problem for those postulating that sort of thing.

  4. The virulent “feminists” are just obsessive single-issue pushers like gun control advocates. They are craven opportunists who see a chance to climb up on some dead bodies right now, and they’re taking it. We see this with every tragedy, mass shooting, whatever at this point. Because this jerk was angry at women, they’ve taken their cue from the gun control advocates and rushed to try and make hay.

    Personally I think it’s going to work out about as well for them as it did for the gun banners.

    1. This is one of the more active spree-killer stories that I can remember. Advocates for gun-control, women’s rights, mental health access, video game restrictions, and anti-bullying are all stirring the pot with equal vigor.

      A lot of my politically uninterested friends are even noticing the cravenness. Hopefully this is happening elsewhere and the normally dissassociated people won’t be as easily mobilized by legislation with sweet names and feelingz in the future.

      I’m most likely wrong, but it seems possible.

      1. This particular act did hit a lot of special-interest notes. But since they’re all going to jump on board and try and get something out of it, it’s going to just up the cacophony of tragedy exploiters and drown each other out.

        Overall, I imagine the reason they can never get much out of these events is that the majority of people look at the perpetrator, realize that they were nuts, and go “what can you do?”

        1. To Chris Rock’s credit:

          “What ever happened to just plain crazy?”

      2. Well, admittedly this one hits a lot of bullet points.

        Let’s see if I can list a few in no particular order:

        o Privilege and the 1%
        o Sexism
        o Racism
        o Narcissism and entitlement
        o Easy access to guns/gun control/magazine limits
        o Easy access to knives/Knife control/blade length
        o Mental health issues
        o Campus life!

        1. Hollywood, don’t forget Hollywood!

          1. Yes, thank you,

            o Videogames and Movies.

            Although, in my defense, I didn’t claim to be listing them all.

    2. They are craven opportunists who see a chance to climb up on some dead bodies right now, and they’re taking it.

      Craven, yes, though unclear on “opportunists”. This is how they are: permanently angry about men and frankly terrified of them.

      Some while ago, a dog trainer friend told me a story about an idiot Lab that got loose in a horse pasture. The horse didn’t hesitate to crush the dog into a little greasy spot; what was left wasn’t a shovelful. The point being, a horse is a prey animal, and made up its mind about that dog the second it got too close. It was gonna kill that dog before the predator had a chance to do anything.

      And that, I think, is what a great deal of modern feminism is like.

      1. I don’t know if these “feminists” are terrified of men. Do they seem terrified to you? They seem much more hateful. People who GENDER WAR, both male and female, have a weird love/hate relationship with the other gender. They can’t help being sexually attracted to the other gender, but they’ve also, for whatever reasons, decided to collectively despise the same gender they’re sexually attracted to.

        It’s a very odd way to live, but I guess when you are a collectivist, you do really stupid shit.

        1. And I’m still angry, still furious. I’m furious that growing up, I wasn’t allowed to do the same things that my brother did because it wasn’t safe for me. I’m furious that my parents ingrained in me from a very young age that I should never wear heels because I should always be ready to run at a moment’s notice. I’m furious that walking alone at night feels more like an act of rebellion than a simple act of transit. I’m furious at myself for worrying that participating in #YesAllWomen would lose me Twitter followers or turn off the boy I’m trying to impress. I’m furious for the women who are afraid to tell a dude at a bar to “fuck off” because they might get bottled in the face.

          Link

          1. Another adult proudly admitting that they have zero control over their emotions.

          2. Jesus Christ almighty – that person’s a ton of fun at parties, I bet!

            1. The boy she’s trying to impress should run, run hard, run fast, run far far away.

          3. I’m furious for the women who are afraid to tell a dude at a bar to “fuck off” because they might get bottled in the face.

            How often does that happen, srsly?

            1. The only incident similar to this that I’m aware of involved my cousin. Fresh off his divorce, he decides to go barhopping in post-Katrina New Orleans (not real bright). He hit on the wrong girl and got a beer bottle to the back of the head from her testy boyfriend as he was walking out the door. Damn near killed him.

              Doesn’t really fit the author’s narrative though.

            2. I’d be willing to bet that a dude telling another dude at a bar to fuck off is probably more likely to get a bottle to the face, and that’s also going to be a rare event.

            3. How often does that happen, srsly?

              Exactly as often as cops are killed or seriously injured by dogs.

              1. So basically never.

            4. Only in her imagination.

              Though if women are being “bottled in the face” out there, part of the problem might be saying, “Fuck off,” rather than something decent like, “Sorry, not interested.”

          4. Was her brother allowed to wear heals?

          5. turn off the boy I’m trying to impress

            So she is a pedo?

            I am not an expert on how grown women seduce boys they want to child molest….

            But when i was a boy i don’t think being impressed or unimpressed on a twitter really would have had any effect.

            Just let him touch your boobs.

          6. ” I should always be ready to run at a moment’s notice. I’m furious that walking alone at night feels more like an act of rebellion than a simple act of transit.” #opencarry

        2. They can’t help being sexually attracted to the other gender, but they’ve also, for whatever reasons, decided to collectively despise the same gender they’re sexually attracted to.

          That is the weirdest thing to me.

          1. Yeah, this aspect has to be the worst for them. Not that I have any pity; don’t be a collectivist hater.

            1. don’t be a collectivist hater.

              Can’t always help it, I don’t trust the cops.

          2. As Al Bundy said: “Women, can’t live with them.”

            1. Sez the man married to Peg Bundy.

            2. “Women – can’t live with ’em, they don’t talk to me.” –Vork

        3. They can’t help being sexually attracted to the other gender, but they’ve also, for whatever reasons, decided to collectively despise the same gender they’re sexually attracted to.

          Have you ever heard of “hate sex?”

        4. Episiarch|5.29.14 @ 11:25AM|#

          I don’t know if these “feminists” are terrified of men. Do they seem terrified to you? They seem much more hateful. People who GENDER WAR, both male and female, have a weird love/hate relationship with the other gender. They can’t help being sexually attracted to the other gender, but they’ve also, for whatever reasons, decided to collectively despise the same gender they’re sexually attracted to.

          They seem very much like Rodgers, to me.

          1. They hate the objects(!) of their desire the same way an addict hates his/her drug.

        5. ” but they’ve also, for whatever reasons, decided to collectively despise the same gender they’re sexually attracted to.”
          Yeah I wonder what those reasons could be.
          http://www.amazon.com/Daddy-We…..0449905616

      2. Horses and donkeys are more than capable of killing. I even know of a donkey that kills sheep for the fun of it.

        1. As long as the Donkey is not a misogynist…it’s cool.

        2. The donkey told you it was fun? Are you the Donkey-Whisperer?

    3. The virulent “feminists” are just obsessive single-issue pushers like gun control advocates. They are craven opportunists who see a chance to climb up on some dead bodies right now, and they’re taking it.

      Their biggest problem is that their logic is basically “HE HATES THESE CANS! STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!”

      He hates women but kills men, which proves that he hates women, which all men do too, by the way. Kaithxbai.

      1. But the phonebook is here!

    4. How true, it seems like most of the media are simplistic Vampires…

  5. Boo

    Fucking

    Hoo.

    Apply topically, as needed.

    If weeping and hysteria persist, jump off a bridge.

  6. “they push the idea that all women?including women in advanced liberal democracies in the 21st century?are victims of pervasive and relentless male terrorism”

    More and more, all men are victims of shrill and delusional Feminista badgering. The Feminista definition of “rape” would cause hysterical laughter in third world women who live under the constant threat of the real thing. The Feminista definition of “oppression” might well inspire their female ancestors to kick them in their lazy bums. Everything I need to know about modern Western Feminism is summed up by their disregard for Islamic misogyny and Chinese forced abortion.

    May they get the males they deserve.

    1. No fan of feminists but Islamic misogyny and Chinese forced abortions aren’t American issues, and we’re talking about mostly American feminists.

      1. and the comment rightly mocks American feminists for their delusions of victimhood.

      2. Well, maybe the Islamic bit since there are muslims here, but nowhere near as much of a practical problem here as in those islamic hell-hole countries. There you have the entire weight of society and government enforcing misogyny. Here you can choose to walk away from the Islamic if you want (yes, you may lose contact with your family, but there are no guaranteed completely happy outcomes).

        1. I don’t wear tin foil so private Islamic courts that only pertain to Muslims don’t bother me, and Arabic coffee is teh shiz

          1. I don’t think I’ve ever expressed much of an opinion here about Islamic (etc) private courts, here. Perhaps you’re thinking about someone else?

        2. Don’t get me wrong Islam is retarded, i’m just not paranoid.

      3. I think his point is that all of the feminist bitching is just so much #firstworldproblems.

      4. Is there really any doubt, with the chiding, faux-contrarian tones that this is bo?

        There shouldn’t be.

        1. Okay I thought it was just cytotoxic. Who the hell is “bo”?

            1. You’re the one who has a grief with this “bo”. You explain.

              1. *beef

                1. First I was shreek or shriek or whatever, then I was tulpa and now i’m bo. I had to actually ask who shreik was. I figured I was being accused of being Will Wilkinson.

                    1. Okay I guess i’ll play along. Not only am I “bo” but I also post as Calidissident and Acosmist (from the last post we met)

                      https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_4532908

                    2. You’re so stupid you thought I was x4rqcks3f. Buwahahaha.

                      I’m also SusanM, Tonio and Matt Welch

                    3. Everyone but you is me! HAHAHA

                    4. I am your father.

                    5. You can’t handle the truth!

                    6. You sound like you’re low on protein. You need some eggs!

                      http://youtu.be/gQozjL_Xi88?t=6m5s

                    7. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KiW6dCI-j0

    2. I was in university when the whole re-definition of rape thing started. University taught me that if a female has second thoughts the next morning that it was rape. Common sense taught me not to date anyone on campus.

  7. a “bold, new disregard for police authority in the streets of Seattle,” putting officers and the public in unreasonable danger.

    OFFICER SAFETY

  8. Hot blond girls rejected him, aren’t feminists fighting these girls as well?

    1. Nobody hates femininity more than feminists.

      1. No kidding have you ever listened or read comments by the left about the women on FOX. Talk about hating women.

  9. Feminists and MRAs. Two groups who have nothing better to do than to obsess over gender. I respond the same to male and female body odors so could someone who’s only attracted to scents put off by one gender explain, in a secular way, why people are so obsessed with it? And what’s the deal with brainless blonde bimbos who have bodies like eleven year olds? Latino chicks are so much hotter.

    1. I have no idea what all this is about, but you sure wrote a lotta words there.

      /I am not worthy

      1. You must be a blonde.

        *watches Andressa Soares try to sing*

        1. I’M A SOULLESS GINGER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

          1. I don’t hate gingers, in fact before she David Bowied her way back into the closet I was quite fond of Lindsay Lohan (on a purely physical level of course, otherwise she’s a female Andy Dick).

    2. You sure like to talk a lot about what makes your genitals quiver…are you sure this is the place for that? I’m pretty sure it’s not. Nobody cares.

      1. Lol it’s not like I went into graphic detail, and the subject of body odor in regards to sexual attraction isn’t (or at least shouldn’t be) controversial, plus it helps ward off the “you chose it” crowd.

      2. and people sometimes post links to soft YouTube porn here. I’ve never done that.

  10. In no samll part, this loser seems the exact opposite of the beer-swilling, shotgun-toting, Romney-voting frat boy stereotype that the feminists have been throwing at us the last few years. Hell, significant portions of his little screed were whining about being bullied by such guys or whining about their better luck in the bedroom. Hell, I don’t think I’d be all that far off in observing that Mr. Rodger, at least prior to his rampage and the release of his “manifesto” epitomized exactly the sort of guy the feminists tell us that we should be – afraid of women, perpetually seeking their validation, going through life in perpetual rejection, and fully in touch with his feminine side (he even cried in the bathroom for an hour when a girl refused to say hello to him). The lesson that ought to be thrown in the faces of the claimants of “toxic male privilege” or the #yesallwomen crowd is that if they’re looking for hatred of women, maybe they don’t need to look much farther than their own little toy manlets.

    1. LEAVE ELLIOT ALONE!!!!!

      *cries in the bathroom for an hour – mascara runs*

      Yeah – I thought weird chicks dugs those guys? I guess if you hate all males, you hate all males.

      I dunno. I like most people…so I don’t get any of this.

      1. They like having them around to stroke their egos and not much else.

      2. “I dunno. I like most people…so I don’t get any of this.”

        Yeah, but you’re probably one of those beer-swilling, shotgun-toting, Romney-voting frat boys who doesn’t realize the utter degradation your wife or girlfriend is going through when she’s screaming “Oh, God, yes!”.

        1. …well…yeah….

          *kicks at pebble with well-worn work boots with wool socks sticking out the top*

          1. EXCEPT FOR VOTING FOR ROMNEY!

            I voted for me in 2012. And will do so again in 2016.

            ALMANIAN 2016:
            You’ve Had The Worst – Gimme A Chance – How Bad Can I Be?

          2. See, you really are just as bad as Eliot Rodger. /derp

    2. You want beta males!? Oh, you’ll get beta males alright!!

    3. In no samll part, this loser seems the exact opposite of the beer-swilling, shotgun-toting, Romney-voting frat boy stereotype that the feminists have been throwing at us the last few years.

      He is (was) the exact opposite. In fact, his attitudes were much more like those of the feminists. Hated overtly or traditionally masculine men. Hated “hot” women. Hated sex, but would have liked to have reserved all sex for himself. Thought he was superior to everyone else. Extremely frustrated by his lack of control over others – particularly those others he desired.

      Granted feminists might have reasons more respective to their gender for such feelings, but the feelings and the targets of them are pretty much the same.

  11. One tweet from the CNN article had a woman broadcasting that she shouldn’t have to feel guilty for putting male acquaintances in the friend zone. Yes, this person felt the need to compare her feelings, which she admits she cannot control, over rejecting a male with the IV shootings.

    We have way too many children masquerading as adults.

  12. I’m with Epi. It strikes me as perfect and symbiotic that this weirdo griefer hated women, and the men haters hate him, and now use his actions to further their…interests? Beliefs?

    Whatevs. Fuck ’em all. As Animal Mother said – “Thank God for the sickle cell….”

    /non sequitur

    1. “Thank God for the sickle cell….”

      I don’t know about that, but one good thing is these people have incredibly low reproductive rates. Evolution will take care of the problem eventually.

      1. I just always liked that quote from “Full Metal Jacket”. Along with “all fucking niggers must fucking hang”… and the fact that Eight Ball liked Animal Mother.

        What a great fucking movie.

        “You know there’s not one horse in Viet Nam? Not one! There’s just something fundamentally wrong with that!” – Cowboy

  13. While I certainly meet my share of low information opinion givers and TEAM whatever blowhards, outside the internet I rarely run into folks who live inside these kind of race/gender idiological derp boxes. I’m glad that I don’t.

    1. I wonder if that is because they know that outside of their little group think virtual derp playrooms in the real world people will call them on their bullshit.

      1. I do wonder about this. Cause in the Greater Detroit area, you don’t see these people at the Tigers games, or the Michigan State games, or in the Labor Day parade, or at the Balloon Festival…

        Maybe they’re all at the Rennaisance Fetival in Holly?? Or in Royal Oak and Ferndale…NTTAWWT…

      2. I’ve run into them in the real world. The college I went to apparently had a real psycho women’s study department. The thing about these feminists is that except for the occasional one who has drank so much kool aid they resemble the blob, they know better than to bring up their beliefs in public. You don’t realize who they are until you friend them on facebook and suddenly get faced with constant I’m A Victim memes.

  14. Cathy, can I just say thank you for your continued contributions at Reason. After spending my day bouncing around Slate XX blogs, your sanity is a breath of fresh air.

    1. After spending my day bouncing around Slate XX blogs,

      Well, there’s your problem.

  15. …a toxic version of feminism that encourages women to see themselves as victims while imposing collective guilt on men.

    That’s not a “toxic version” of feminism, it’s just feminism.

    1. I have the impression, and it may not be right, that there was a time when feminism was about individual expression and pursuing your own values and creative passion despite pressures to conform to a rigid set behavioral norms. The genuine liberal feminism of Amelia Earhart, for example. Unfortunately, it morphed into quite the opposite of that (replacing one set of rigid norms with another) after the radicals and socialists infiltrated it.

      1. I’m not a scholar on the subject, but I think by the time the term had been created, the movement to which it was applied had long since moved past the concepts of equality, individualism, and voting rights. In any case, it’s borne no resemblance to anything but the “toxic version” since at least the 60’s. If the term “feminism” ever meant anything else, it certainly doesn’t anymore.

        1. There’s always been a weirdo fanatic strain in the movement, going back to Fanny Wright, but until lately, there was always a somewhat saner faction.* Now the sane ones are pretty much excommunicated from the mainstream feminist movement, and the sane ones’ avowals of feminism tend to be of “I’m a feminist but-” variety.

          *Doesn’t mean they were right about everything, just saner

      2. It’s true. Classic feminism was about making sure women had the same choices and opportunities as men. Contemporary feminism is about making sure women don’t ever have to make any choices, they can “have it all,” no opportunity costs whatsoever, regardless of who has to pay for it.

    2. Yep, just like modern liberalism, the noble label is just whitewashing.

  16. unexpectedly sparked a feminist moment

    Meh. Only in the sense that the shooting itself was unexpected. If you’d have posed that scenario here any time in the recent past, and asked us to predict the responses to that I’m sure you’d have gotten a lot of “feminists will go apeshit” predictions.

  17. A woman’s odds of being raped are 1 in 6? That’s like the ‘1 in 3 women are victims of abuse’ statistic thrown out in an ad I saw, or the ubiquitous “rape culture” that pervades college campuses even as female enrollment exceeds male enrollment.

    When you’re saying every third woman is an abuse victim and that young women continue to file, lemming-like, into these college rape factories despite everything, isn’t that more than anything an indictment of the feminist movement?

    I don’t understand why they take the time to invent and then throw out these numbers as a way of bolstering their support when all they really do is prove how utterly ineffective they are.

    1. Because women like my mother believe those statistics. No matter how many times I point out to her that she knows more than six women who have never been raped, she’s convinced that her personal experiences are a fluke. Unfortunately she is not alone in her blind faith, and with no other statistics in town the feminist get to scoop up the support of these women with no competition.

    2. Very simple. Everyone involved studiously avoids the fact that the statistics in question are bullshit. The colleges don’t challenge the statistics becuase they know that will be evidence of “rape culture”. The feminists don’t challenge the numbers because they’re the one’s palming this bullshit off. The female students don’t challenge the statistics becuase it makes them oh-so-special. And the male students don’t challenge the statistics because they don’t want to be rendered undatable. So, if everyone goes along and pretends the sky is purple, everything just goes along swimmingly.

      1. Oh I don’t doubt they’re bullshit, but it is funny to wave their own literature in their faces and say “The reason I don’t support you is because you clearly aren’t helping. Come back when you have a new action plan that will fix these problems, since the current plan obviously isn’t working.”

        1. But, again, no one involved has any incentive to do what you’re suggesting. Everyone involved knows, I suspect, that the statistics are bullshit. The “logical” response for everyone involved is to pay homage to the bullshit statistics and go on their merry way knowing the statistics are bullshit. If you had a daughter, would you send her somewhere where she had a 15+% chance of getting raped? Few people probably would. But, they know the stats are bullshit. So they can ignore the 15+% chance.

    3. A quick google finds the rape is 25-30 for every 100,000 people. Pretty sure you can’t get 1 in 6 out of that no matter how hard you twist the data.

      1. Easy, redefine rape.

        1. http://lil-purrfect-femme.tumb…..witch-rape

          This says it all

          1. Hahaha, that’s great. That’s a parody account right? I think I’ve seen it before.

            Liking Dr. Who, Fall Out Boy and naming her dog Athena is just too perfect.

          2. So I think I was raped last night?.
            Or sexually assaulted. I was hooking up with this guy I regularly hook up with since the break up, but I’m not really into him and just kinda want him to satisfy me u know?

            So we were having sex like usual?. But then he turned me around and began penetrating me from behind “doggy style.” He kept going.

            Not ONCE did he ask if it was ok to change positions. What should I do??! I don’t want him to hate me because I have a crush on his hot friend, but rape is not ok. I let him continue and we both came, but it’s natural to have sensations even when raped. I can’t even think straight anymore idk what to do. Thinking about posting his Facebook here.

            You owe me a new fucking keyboard!!!!!

          3. “I know what you’re going through. I was once raped too. We started fucking to Pink Floyd’s Darkside of the Moon, but then the laptop started playing Simon and Garfunkel. I had no say in the change of music. I only consented to sex while Pink Floyd was playing. I was not ONCE asked if I still consented to sex with Simon and Garfunkel in the background. Now every time I hear The Sound of Silence I weep uncontrollably and compulsively hum carnival music

            Hahahaha.

      2. They claim that 80-90% of rapes go unreported.

        1. It’s well known and undisputed that 1 in 6 women will become a victim of rape, and 12 out of 7 men will become a perpetrator.

        2. You know what other proggie initiative relies on secret data that the public can’t see?

          1. Epi’s mom?

            1. I’m sorry, the correct answer is catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. One of the big beefs with the IPCC modeling is that they couldn’t share the raw data with the public because it was secret.

              1. Also, h/t to Old Mexican who beat me to this by a half-hour, below.

                1. Wow, what a stupid, pathetic thing to care about.

                  1. Who said I “care” about Epi’s mom?

        3. Okay, God help me, I’m a geek. I couldn’t help doing the math. If we take the upper bound, 30 and assume the upper bound for reporting, 90% we get 300 rapes per 100,000 people, or 600 rapes per 100,000 women. This translates as a 0.6% rape rate. I’m assuming this is per year. That means there’s a 99.4% chance of not getting raped in any given year. Assuming independence and, let’s be generous, a 6-year college career, that translates to a 96.45% chance of not getting raped over their college career, or a 3.55% chace of getting raped. That still doesn’t translate to a 1-in-6 chance, but rather 1-in-28 chance.

    4. If you dig down into the statistics, it’s about “sexual assault”. Which includes unwanted pats on the butt, unwanted fondles, etc. Stuff that is boorish and rude, and not violent in the way most people think of violent. Actionable offenses but not crimes. Yet that gets conflated into rape via the phrase “sexual assault”.

  18. But in an Internet posting a year ago, he also fantasized about inventing a virus that would wipe out all males except for himself: “You would be able to have your pick of any beautiful woman you want, as well as having dealt vengeance on the men who took them from you. Imagine how satisfying that would be.”

    I hate to break it to his corpse, but his life would look less like that and more like this.

    1. This all could have been avoided if someone had given him a copy of Y: The Last Man.

  19. Some have argued that hating other men because they get to have sex with women and you don’t is still a form of misogyny; but that seems like a good example of stretching the concept into meaninglessness?or turning it into unfalsifiable quasi-religious dogma.

    Not unlike “racism”, and “climate change”, I would wager. You can’t get less meaningful or more misleading than with those two examples.

  20. A tweet observing that “the odds of being attacked by a shark are 1 in 3,748,067, while a woman’s odds of being raped are 1 in 6… yet fear of sharks is seen as rational while being cautious of men is seen as misandry” was retweeted almost 1,000 times.

    Let’s leave aside the phony statistic that the tweet author repeated (I am sure the statistic was not born from any meaningful research performed by the author); the bigger problem is with the unsubstantiated assertion that the act by a woman of following precautions in the presence of men is “seen” as “misandry”. Seen by whom? Who said anything? Who raised his or her hand in protest? While the 1-in-6 chance of being raped statistic may have been something the author found on the internet or on a magazine (giving the person the benefit of the doubt) the other assertion is clearly and totally made-up, as in a lie.

    1. The tweet makes no sense; it’s backwards. “being cautious of men” isn’t seen as misandry; if anything, it’s seen as misogyny. It’s the cure that feminists ignore or get angry if you mention.

      “Being cautious of men” involves not becoming so drunk or high that you still have full agency over your own body, you can still escape if necessary, and you can still tell if a situation is a bad or potentially harmful one. It involves behaving modestly, instead of making advances you have no intention of following through on. It involves not getting up on a table and twerking in your lingerie after your eighth jello shot, and then stamping your little foot the next day in anger because you wound up under some guy.

      “Being cautious of men” basically involves taking some damned personal responsibility for caring for your own self, and being aware of your surroundings and company. And daring to suggest that women exercise basic caution and common sense will get you flamed to a crisp by women, not men.

  21. Great article. That said, I have to take issue with

    was retweeted almost 1,000 times

    What is this supposed to prove? You can find thousands of narcissists on twitter who will retweet anything. So what? This kind of thinking is behind so much of the recent internet outrage machine. I can come up with all kinds of projections if I allow myself to inflate the importance of the beliefs and behaviors of a statistically insignificant portion of internet users.

    You can find anything and everything on the internet if you look hard enough, which provides all kinds of cranks with all the evidence they need to support their twisted worldviews.

    1. That was my thought as well. I could probably find 1,000 people on Twitter who think Elvis was abducted by space aliens, who the fuck cares?

    2. what’s a tweet?

      1. Winning answer.

  22. You know, I generally come for the snark and stay for the waffles. It’s really nice to read something on the internet this week where I’m not labeled as a predator. The only thing worse than the straight up hate for men is the bending over backwards by some men to tell the haters that they are right and way better than we weak awful males.

    1. Hater!

      1. Damn, I meant to type Predator!

        My kingdom for an edit button. Although I guess I should just be happy my posts are going through.

  23. OK, I haven’t been following the popular (sensationalist) media reports on this. Looks like one of the male victims was chosen at random, right? So no way of Eliot to know whether that victim was a hetero male (ie, competition) or a random gay guy (presumably not a threat to Eliot).

  24. “”Misog-yo-knee? I’ll massage a lot more than that, woman. I will progressively massage your feet and calves before making my way forth to your sweet love flower. And there I will speak respectfully to it in a manner befitting a woman of your class and caliber.

    It is then that I will hit you doggy-style.”

    * Men Need To Learn How To Speak To Women

  25. The thing with feminists is that I don’t ever run across them in real life. I think they are such a small percentage of the actual population as to be almost meaningless.

    When I ask my wife and her friends about these topics, they all respond with what you’d expect. No, they aren’t scared of being raped, they would rather a manly man, and feminists are idiots.

    Another question, do feminists ever state what it is exactly they want? What laws or other concrete ideas do they ever state?

    1. Pretty easy to see that what they want is control … even if they aren’t honest enough to say so explicitly. It is also easy to see that many of them are not entirely different than Elliot Rodgers in their basic attitude.

  26. What’s going to happen 50-100 years from now when autonomous fembots roam the land? Men will get a nice home cooked meal and a blow job without having to put any effort into a “relationship”. Feminism will completely be marginalized

    1. HaHa, imagine the fembot dealerships,
      Sure, take her for a test drive,

  27. Santa Barbara killer wasn’t just a misogynist, he was a malignant narcissist

    Narcissism: Lack of regard for the narcissism of others.

  28. I wish we would stop exploiting these tragedies to support a political agenda.

  29. I’m getting sick of this myth of the “war on women”
    I’m getting sick of feminists and progs trying to connect these tragedies to their agendas of a perceived notion of men blocking women’s progress,
    Women have more rights in the courtroom, and in the workplace you males better tread a fine line lest a female coworker decides to throw down the sexual harassment card,
    Hey Feminazis, news flash-This is Fucking America, women do not have it that bad here,especially with the 100+ years of progressive indoctrination of multiple generations,
    Instead of whining here these feminists need to Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan where there is a severe shortage of female rights and try to promote it where it is most needed.

    And I have a radical concept not too many people seem to have grasped thus far-How about blaming the Fucking SHOOTER!

  30. ” and express sympathy for boys only insofar as boys are supposedly “raised around the drumbeat mantra that women are not human beings.” ”
    Raised BY WHO?

  31. Fighting misogyny with misandry:

    Look up “misogyny is poison” on google and read the article from medium.com.

    Pay attention to the header.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.