So, in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past week, it finally happened. After an entire generation of emasculation and social suppression of men, some socially alienated, sexually frustrated douchebag finally snapped, and went postal, Columbine-style. This was predicted by many, but, like all social problems in America, no one really cared until disaster struck. And even then, most people didn’t really care, they just used it as a springboard to talk about whatever personal issue they have a stick up their ass to create public awareness of, from gun control, to women’s rights, to the horrors of involuntary male celibacy.
But of course, the underlying social and psychological causes of this tragedy are poorly understood by most, and as such, have not really been addressed. Instead, there has been a whole lot of posturing, punditing, and proselytizing (especially on AlterNet, which I normally enjoy) from people who have no clue what they are talking about, and instead are merely passing off a photo-copied opinion as original thought. I must say, this terrible crime has had a big effect on me personally, for many reasons. 1: I have been known to frequent some of the same sites and forums as the attacker (though not regularly or with the same fervor). 2: I sometimes feel subject to some of the same internal AND external pressures as the attacker (though obviously I have healthier ways of dealing with them). 3: I have published masculist writing of my own, if only as an emotional outlet for a middle-aged divorcee and social outcast (although my statements online have stopped short of advocating rape or violence against women, both of which I find totally unappealing). And finally, 4: I am now aware, via news media, of a well-connected gang of feminists who probably want to commit me to a mental institution, simply because I am a socially alienated computer nerd.
I will spare you the details of Elliot Rodger’s heinous crime. You can read about them elsewhere. What fascinates me is the reaction to it, culturally and in the media. This story has become a lightning rod for feminist radicals, gun control radicals, and even masculist radicals. And the media chatter has damn near driven me insane, to hear so many flavors of intolerable ignorance and stupidity pollute the airwaves and internet at once. But hopefully, as a single man who happens to be well-versed in human psychology, sociology, political science, AND, most importantly, internet discussion forums, I feel as though I can shed some light on the background of all this.
For one thing, it would be helpful to know that there has been an ideological war brewing in the dark underbelly of the internet for quite some time. It is between feminists, men’s rights advocates, and pick-up artists. Take an online discussion site like Reddit, for instance. You have these three subforums, and a lot of cross-chatter between them:
Your basic Feminist discussion group where common topics are “Smashing the Patriarchy“, fabricating evidence that patriarchy exists as opposed to simply a generically oppressive system that tyrannizes people regardless of gender, whining that not all women are President of a small country or CEO of a large company, ignoring female privilege, playing up male privilege, and generally pretending that women are in the same position, socially, politically, and economically that they were in 100 years ago. This forum was recently made a ‘default’ on Reddit, which means it is more accessible via the top banner headline, because Feminism is really in chic right now, and it would be totally unfashionable not to promote it.
The Red Pill is a discussion forum for man-whoring douchebags, plain and simple. It’s a place for men to discuss their ‘sexual strategy’, or in other words, “how to score with as many chicks as possible without getting caught up in a bunch of female drama, aka a ‘healthy relationship'”. The members of this forum tend to be sexist macho pigs who see women as objects, have a high sense of sexual entitlement, and generally advocate patriarchal control/domination of women, because they have rationalized to themselves that ‘this is what women truly want deep down’, or ‘this is the only way you will get anywhere with women’. Evolutionary psychology and neuroscience are used, by the men who frequent this forum, to manipulate and sexually exploit women, often creating emotional scars that leave them incapable of trusting any subsequent men they meet in life, no matter how good their intentions may be. I personally find this forum extremely distasteful, and the only reason I ever visit there is to antagonize the hard-core devotees, whom I consider total scumbags.
The Men’s Rights Advocacy forum is more of a place to discuss… well, men’s rights. And there’s actually a lot to discuss, such as: unfair court decisions regarding restraining orders, custody battles, and alimony/child support payments, the inequality of men under the law, men’s dwindling social capital and agency relative to women’s, and combatting the popular misconception that all men are violent, sexist villains. Of the two men’s forums, r/mensrights tends to get along the best with r/feminism, mostly because r/mensrights is populated primarily by men who want things very similar to what traditional feminists want: gender equality, and the abolishment of obsolete traditional gender roles. So there is actually a lot of overlap between the goals of r/mensrights and the goals of r/feminism, as r/mensrights seems to be populated mostly with ‘White Knights’ (egalitarian, chivalric, hopeless romantic types) as opposed to the PUA’s (Pick up Artists) of r/TheRedPill.
There are conflicts among these subreddits, and they are as follows:
Red Pillers believe that there is a female conspiracy to emasculate men, exploit men materially, and deprive men of a healthy sex life. And in some cases, they are correct, as there are some women who seem to have these goals individually, or even as a radical faction, though probably not as a mass demographic. But it’s really more complicated than that, and I’ll get into that later. Feminists, naturally think that TheRedPill is full of douchebags who are borderline if not full-fledged psychopaths, and I really don’t blame them for having that perspective, with which I pretty much empathize, even if I don’t agree with much of radical feminism. I do take issue with the common misuse of the term ‘psychopath’ by people with no education in psychology, which doesn’t necessarily describe a killer like Rodger, who I believe collapsed under the weight of his own emotion, rather than being an inherently emotionless psychopath.
Feminists tend to see MRA’s as encroaching upon their ideological territory, ie: “How dare you complain that your gender is under-privileged, that’s our schtick!” And so on and so forth. MRA’s often accuse Feminists of “Goal Post Moving” and “Creeping Matriarchy”. Of course, the more seasoned veterans of both forums realize that gains made by a minority can often entail losses by a long-standing majority in a zero-sum game, both genders could easily be oppressed at the same time by an indifferent system or social trend, and often-times two people’s (or groups of peoples’) rights may conflict: in other words, my right to free speech might conflict with the person who is the subject of my writing’s right to privacy. So those are sticky areas that are often fought about in court battles or legislative sessions, the results of which usually have more to do with who hired the right lawyer or bribed the right congressman than who was actually right. Furthermore, men have privileges women don’t and women have privileges men don’t, and it is totally possible to be both the victim and the victimizer at once. Sometimes it seems that everyone victimizing eachother is just another consequence of shit rolling downhill.
I’ve even heard men like Elliot Rodger be called ‘gay’ by both men and women, for various motivations, just because a guy like that can’t get laid. This prostitute’s rhetoric is merely yet another attempt at ego manipulation: “If you aren’t willing to pay to fuck a woman, you must be gay. If you are being deliberately ostracized by women, you must be gay.” And this is just victim blaming the poor guy who is the subject of both ‘keep away’ and ‘why are you hitting yourself’? So, as all this discussion and name-calling and drama is going on on the internet 24/7, Elliot Rodger finally snapped, and the rest is history. Now, the part I find fascinating: the media and the internet reacts.
And let me tell you, the feminists REALLY came out swinging on this one, I personally believe, to the detriment of their own cause’s credibility. In the mainstream media, feminists used this tragic event as further evidence to depict men in general as progenitors and sustainers of an idea women have contrived called ‘Rape Culture’ What is rape culture, you ask? Basically the idea that women have the right to assume that all men are potentially a threat, or that all heterosexual intercourse is necessarily rape. Saying that if you have a penis, you must necessarily either be neutered or else you are a rapist is akin to saying that if you have a vagina you must be a baby murderer, because you could potentially be killing unborn babies. Which is bad when you get into persecuting people not for what they HAVE done, but for what they MIGHT POTENTIALLY DO, because, by that logic, a PhD of chemistry, computer science, or physics should be incarcerated for making drugs, hacking into NORAD, or blowing up buildings, merely because he possesses the capability to do so. Personally, I find this idea extremely offensive and hypocritical, especially coming from a movement that says, on one hand: “Women should never be questioned or judged”, but on the other hand says that “it’s totally OK to assume right off the bat that all men have a rapist mentality”, when in reality I can speak from a male perspective of saying that non-consensual sex under duress of violence or implied threat of violence is totally unappealing to me. Not to mention the hypocrisy of demanding women never be shamed for their sexuality or forced to be celibate, but men should be shamed for their sexuality. Or shamed for not getting any. Depends on what day of the week it is.
I don’t even go to strip clubs, because I believe the dancers AND the patrons are being sexually AND materially exploited by way of a borderline fascist capitalism, which is inherently coercive, and the commodification of sex, female companionship, and affection. I stopped watching porn because I wanted to stop supporting the seedy types who run the porn industry, plus I feel time wasted with porn really prevents you from relating with actual, real-life women. However, I live in the kind of retarded backwoods town where it is considered an act of feminism, by some poor misguided people, to go to the strip club. In fact, if you DON’T support a woman’s “right” (think ‘right to work state’) to get naked for the chickenfeed they throw at her, you MUST be some sort of misogynist. Not like that fine young women’s rights activist who regularly trolls the strip club for booty even though he already has a girlfriend or two. Clearly, that guy loves women. And the Keep Austin Topless activists, right… like there isn’t even a tiny bit of transparent douchery in all that. Seems to me like people from LA are determined to turn all the local women into trashy models, and even using “progressive feminism” as a rationalization to do so… “I’ll make you a star, baby.” You know in the porn industry, someone always fucks the camera man? It’s considered cruel not to. So even Randroid sexploitation can be painted in a feminist light. “I thought the female body was a beautiful work of art”, said the sleazy pornographer.
I don’t even like dating because it too closely resembles prostitution to me. Most of my relationships have come out of the so-called “friend zone” believe it or not, and I don’t believe that friendship prevents romance with the right type of person, although lack of friends possibly could. Relationships, to a certain extent, require communal support, and no one wants to see the “bad guy”, or the guy popularly perceived as “bad” to get the girl.
Going back to Freedom of Speech Vs Feminism, did you know that in many states, writing about violence is legally considered committing violence. Seriously, check this out: GUN. Aren’t you scared? I just pulled a gun on you! This is kind of like one of those deals where liberals say “it’s never OK to hate”, but then they hate the haters, so it’s like they’re total hippie-crits, you know? A threat, or anything misconstrued by anyone as a threat of violence, basically IS violence. This gets into some really hinky shit re: Freedom of Speech, because if you aren’t allowed to write about the state, and you aren’t allowed to write about violence, pretty soon, you won’t be allowed to write about the violence that the state has inflicted upon you. Personally, I’m a big proponent of the idea that my own right to Freedom of Speech will inevitably entail being offended, or even personally insulted by someone else’s exercise of Free Speech. And that’s OK. But in some ways, it certainly seems as though we have created a society where a woman is allowed to ruin a man’s reputation through baseless slander, but the man is not legally allowed to express anger or frustration over that.
Anyway, I hope the guys from Slayer don’t ever get taken to court by their exes, because they wrote a whole album about rape, necrophilia, and cannibalism of women a while back, which hasn’t prevented them from swimming in women, which, I believe, might have something to do with the fact that Slayer are millionaire rock stars in a world where fame and money are more important to women than any kind of fair-weather feminist ideology they may profess to have, for the sake of argument. This same point could be made about almost every “gangster rapper” in the country, people who write songs about selling drugs, killing people, and mistreating women, but, because they are protected by high-powered record label attorneys, are allowed to speak freely in the name of “art”.
As I was debating a hippie over her radical feminist viewpoint of ‘Rape Culture’, she admonished me for using ‘aggressive language’, and I had to assure her that catching a rape case over a wookie wasn’t even remotely on my agenda. It’s like, remember that shrivelled old lady in your neighborhood who was all like, “Everyone’s trying to look at my breasts!” But in reality, no one was actually trying to look at her breasts at all? That’s what the idea of ‘Rape Culture’ is trying to turn all women into. Alarmist, to say the least, and being used as rationalization to further curtail personal freedoms which are already horribly eroded.
What many women don’t realize, is that they are not the only gender who lives under the constant threat of violence. The majority of violence committed is committed against men. Oppressive power structures hurt men too, because it is not simply rule by males, but rule by alpha males over women AND beta males. And when alpha females team up with alpha males to oppress, exploit, or exclude those of lower social status, it ceases to be a gender issue and becomes a class warfare issue. Most people don’t realize that ‘hierarchical class structure’ isn’t just about money, but there is an exclusionary social component to it as well. The problem is that most people still exhibit the social behavior of chimps and bonobos, creating in-group out-group politics that create a class system. And then you get into women turning men against eachother, using the state to inflict violence upon men, kind of like when Hillary Clinton oversaw a resource war waged by the US Military so that some spoiled feminist Trustifarians could take a year off and have cheap enough gas to drive a bus cross-country. Or like when women put men in jail. To be raped. Wow. Maybe our whole standard of living is hopelessly dependent upon violence. That could be part of the problem.
In addition to reactionary feminism in the media, there was all kinds of sycophantic male feminist sympathy, which I personally find to be transparently manipulative:
Notice that every single man holding one of these male feminist signs has kind of a mischievous gleam in his eye. That’s because it’s a pretense! It’s a ruse.
This in turn, generated satirical reaction responses from the “Who Needs Feminism”? crowd:
BTW, never trust celebrity hand-made signs. You can use PhotoShop to put anything in there. Look, here’s one I made:
What’s really sad is that people who have a flawed understanding of the conflicts I described above actually started blaming the Men’s Rights Advocates for this horrible crime, simply because Rodger was vaguely associated with the whole MRA/PUA/FEMDOM conflict. This is akin to calling a group of genuine hopeless romantics rapists! I was even told, in an online discussion regarding the matter, disparagingly, “You sound like a Male Rights Advocate!” Why yes, I do. I’m actually a HUMAN rights advocate, with the broad group of ‘humans’ including males as well as females. ‘Masculism’ and ‘Feminism’ are both special interests. Equality, I believe, is a general interest. To everyone besides a small minority of over-privileged American Psycho-types, anyway.
What I don’t understand, actually, what I really would appreciate some enlightenment regarding:
What are the feminist media pundits suggesting should have been done to/for this guy? Via what unconstitutional restriction of human rights could this have been prevented, specifically? Other than trying to infer a general climate of patriarchal evil, what social or systemic changes do they suggest should be enacted in order to prevent shit like this from happening in the future?
Should we take female sexual selection, no matter how superficially driven, to its logical conclusion, and just put all the sexually unpopular men in a death camp? Should we perceive all the isolated computer nerds as “threats” simply because they aren’t getting laid or don’t have any real friends? Should we assume, from an early age, that a child will be a problem for the community, later on in life, if he is the victim of bullying and social exclusion in Junior High? Should social alienation become an entry in the DSM-VI, something that we can rationalize hospitalizing someone for, because we have managed to convince ourselves somehow that social alienation is something someone does to themselves, rather than something the community does to an individual, often in a deliberate and organized boycott/black-list? Should anyone who says anything the female community disagrees with be jailed for terrorism? Should male low self-esteem or underconfidence be punished?
Such extreme measures suggested by some are reminiscent of the idiocy of the Bush Doctrine: which is to say, if you perceive me as a threat, that gives you the right to strike me preemptively. It’s kind of like “The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf”, except it’s now called, “The Little Girl Who Cried Rape“.
It seems to me, rather than all these draconian, preventative counter-measures, it would simply be easier to teach little boys and little girls to get along instead of turning them into ideological adversaries at a young age. The change we need here is social, not systemic. But mutual respect is a two-way street. Women need to learn how to respect and understand men just as much as men need to learn how to respect and understand women. The burden of respect has to be shared between genders, as does the effort needed to fulfil the functions traditional gender roles used to fulfil. And that I think, is primarily what the more level-headed patrons of both the Feminist and MRA camps really teach.
I don’t really believe this demonization of MRA’s is fair, and I actually have a lot of people/groups I would blame for this tragedy WAY BEFORE I would put any blame on the MRA’s. Namely, chauvinists, classists, and the socially negligent and exclusionary. Of both the male AND female variety.
My problem with overt male feminism is that it’s usually more about social politics than genuine concern for the cause. Men repeat this feminist dogma because they hope it will eventually, by reputation, create the kind of social trust with women that will get the man laid. 90% of these socio-political group interactions go almost exactly like this:
Beautiful, Popular Woman: “Hey guys, I think men are over-privileged.”
Male sycophants: “We agree” (with crossed fingers behind their backs)
Loner who thinks for himself: “I disagree, and here is a concise, logical argument why you are wrong.”
At this point, the male sycophants will begin bashing the independent thinker in the name of getting female approval. Rather than attempting to contend with his argument, the woman will then use her social influence to alienate the independent thinker, until he is no longer part of her in-group. If this happens enough (and I’m sure in a super-liberal community such as Santa Barbara, it happens all the time), then eventually the dissenter is no longer a part of his own community, and that kind of social powerlessness will drive anyone to a state of insane detachment, eventually. Here we see the matriarch keeps her male troops in line by creating a situation where dissent against femdom rhetoric is essentially sociopolitical suicide.
Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” is actually extremely relatable to this case, as the killer’s main social problem was the inability to obtain consent. The whole point of Chomsky’s work is that control isn’t always obtained via force, and there are ways of obtaining consent which are not necessarily ethical. Sometimes, control over a person or group of people can be socially engineered through information management, or even contrived situations that drive one to irrational decisions. The point of his book was that social influence and manipulation of public opinion is sometimes a more effective means of control than a gun in someone’s back, and this is a social power through exclusionary hierarchical structure that can be abused by both men AND women, the victims of which are primarily passive, benevolent people who do not believe or practice such nonsense.
The concept of ‘Femagoguery‘ was actually introduced to me by a female friend, who wrote about the subject. Creating an ingroup/outgroup plays into alpha male patriarchy by fostering a competitive atmosphere among the male community for female approval. Women think that by eliminating from their ingroup all those who disagree, they are helping their cause, when in reality, they have merely changed the strategies of men who would manipulate and exploit them, socially and sexually. Femagogues make men feel as if they are not part of their own community without female approval. They control men’s social lives by manipulating public opinion of us with their popularity. And that’s what creates monsters like Rodgers. When we examine the Rodgers case, it drives us to the chicken-and-egg debate of “did this guy have a shitty social life because of psychological problems, or did he have psychological problems because of a shitty social life?” Violence against women is a problem that needs to be addressed, as does all violence. But I don’t think women really understand the root cause, and so have ended up contributing to it by fueling adversarial gender relations with divisive rhetoric.
I know this first hand from being abandoned by a long-term, live-in lover in a strange liberal town where I had very few friends. So, I was new in town, and the last thing I wanted was to be labelled a ‘misogynist’, because that would really make it hard to make friends and move on in a liberal community. And yet, that’s exactly what the local men did to me: picking up on the natural pain I was feeling from just getting out of a shitty relationship, they labelled me a woman-hater simply as a means of eliminating me as competition for all the local women they wanted. And it worked! Most of the local woman, gullibly, predictably, bought this line of bullshit, mostly because they forgot the first rule of feminism: Most men are liars. And ultimately, I think socially alienating someone like that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy that is more the community’s fault than the individual victim’s.
In addition to this, I was fired from a pretty cool day job for, among other things, lightly, unseriously flirting with my female supervisor (I have a thing for women in authority), not because it bothered HER, but because it pissed off all the MEN in the office, who I believe were, quite frankly, jealous of my confidence and natural wittiness. So, not only was this ridiculous socio-sexual ‘competition’ ruining my social life (what little of it there was), but it was also driving me to unemployment, financial ruin, and a whole lot of other bullshit I’m only now recovering from. See, here’s where we get into some trickiness of patriarchy in disguise as female advocacy. I’m personally very wary of any kind of hyperchivalric or male pseudofeministic attempt to “protect” women… because such efforts, while possibly well-intentioned, still carry the subtext of ownership or alpha male control of women. In other words, the attempt of alpha males to make social choices for women or eliminate unwanted male competition for available women.
So what starts out as “We’re going to protect women from all those creepy psychos,” eventually becomes, “A girl like you shouldn’t be dating a guy like that,” or (to the guy): “Stay away from our uptown girls, scumbag.” And I’ve even personally found out the hard way that big, butch bulldykes can play that ‘protectionist’ role as well. Even in trying to teach men to be non-competitive, then it just ends up being a competition to see who can be the most non-competitive. Also, what I’ve figured out, is that when men compete over a woman, the only party who ever wins is the woman. And if you piss a woman off in this town, God help you, because her male relatives aren’t going to understand Social Capital Theory or any fancy mumbo-jumbo like that. They’re just gonna whup your ass.
Meanwhile, you have a society of women who, increasingly, are insensitive, conceited, materialistic, and have ridiculously high standards. As for me, I’m looking for an equal, no more, no less. I’m not interested in a woman who is “out of my league” anymore than I am interested in someone less educated, intelligent, attractive, or lower-fidelity than I myself am. And yet I find most of the women whom I consider my equal want someone who is better than them, and they demand to be pandered to, like a crooked dictator who only surrounds himself with yes-men. I shouldn’t have to go into the insanity of relating to women: they play games, they play innocent, they play dumb. But I refuse to disrespect their intellects by believing that they are anything but the most cunning of social manipulators. The problem with that is, you can’t force everyone to play a game just to get close to you, and then complain you ‘got manipulated’ or ‘never meet anyone who is for real’. Some people simply filter out reality by being intolerant of it.
The first year I was single, I was in withdrawal; I hated sleeping alone. But it wasn’t just about the sex, I missed the companionship, intimacy, and emotional support. I quickly learned that such obvious desperation would only be used by gold-digging working girls to exploit me. I’m quite secure and happy on my own these days, and simply holding out for someone on my level, whom I believe are rare, as the glut of shitty people I have met so far have proven.
What’s even more annoying is that the attitude of women who have their own entitlement issues gets projected onto me, as if I’m the one whose standards are too high. I don’t think my standards are too high, even though I have been alone for awhile, through no real fault of my own, but I do think there are many men who wish I would settle for less so that they could have more than they deserve. Men who deliberately isolate me from my class. And while most liberals try to propagate the idea that “everyone is equal”, and I do sincerely believe that we should all have equal rights and equal opportunity, we most certainly are not interchangeable. I mean, we are all unique and we all have unique tastes and preferences. But when the fight against rapist mentality includes propaganda that “women should never be held accountable” or “under no circumstance does a woman owe a man anything”, this actually creates a sense of female entitlement.
But I don’t think I have a sense of entitlement. I was raised according to a very strict Zen Buddhist/Christian upbringing. If anything, Eastern religion and progressive liberal brainwashing has completely destroyed my sense of entitlement, to a point where I have become completely socially immobilized. And no one cares, because it’s exactly what they want. In the old days, the Masters of the Buddhist Temples were the richest of the peasantry. They told their followers to want nothing, so that they could have everything. But as for me, I’ve seen beautiful women AND small fortunes come and go, and if I truly had any attachment to either, THEN I would go crazy.
If I have to hear one more thing about “male attitudes of sexual entitlement” from women who have fucked more people in the past year than I have in my entire life, I’m going to scream. And they simply have no idea what social alienation is like, because they are inherently attractive. They won’t find out what it is like to be a man until later in life, when their looks have faded and they are no longer able to command male loyalty in numbers with their looks alone. The truth is, statistically, women have more sex with more people than men. And the only way that could possibly happen is that 20% of men have 80% of sex. So it seems to me as if women in general have a sense of sexual AND material entitlement, and it drives them to give it up to the kind of guys who have a sense of sexual entitlement. Then, they generalize that anecdotal experience, to infer that ALL MEN are like that, which simply isn’t true. Most women just have bad taste and are terrible judges of character, and they would rather believe that men are the problem than acknowledge their own faults in the matter.
So I end up arguing about these types of things on the internet with feminist activists, many of whom appear to me to be shrill extremists from California. You have to understand, in my home state of Texas, we are still fighting very elementary liberal battles, such as a woman’s right to choose, legalization of marijuana, and economic de-stratification. But in California, those battles have been pretty well won, and so now their activists seem to be fighting for some pretty out there shit. And I’m trying to talk some sense into those moonbats, whose bad examples discredit legitimate activists, but they keep coming at me with straight up DOGMA, that has no basis in rationality, and here they are feeding me lines like:
“It’s not my job to educate you.” (mind you, this is something they say AFTER you’ve put up any resistance to their dogmatic ideology. Before you display the wherewithal to defend yourself argumentatively, they want nothing more than to give you a long boring lecture about how much it sucks to be a woman, which is merely a tactic of playing the victim card in order to extract preferential treatment)
Jesus! At this point, they are starting to sound like religious people! The Church of Feminism. “Do not question our doctrines which we have shoved down your throat, or there will be no communion, and the gates of Heaven will remain closed to you.” LoL
What I really hate, is the assumption that men, in general, are over-privileged relative to women, in general. And yet I have to deal with this BS assumption all the time! Which totally supplants the discussion we should be having about Americans in general being over-privileged and -entitled, materially AND experientially, relative to the rest of the world in general!
Do you really think that this man:
If you enjoy a certain amount of social privilege from your community, and you use all that love and support towards the end of getting ‘turnt’ and having a good time, instead of getting an education and starting a professional career, that doesn’t mean you are ‘under-privileged’. It just means you are a slacker, a squanderer of opportunity, and possibly even a exploiter of other people. But just because that happens to describe a lot of the young ladies in my community, that doesn’t mean I would ever generalize by positing the wild conspiracy theory that they have developed a “Mooch Culture”.
Even as “disproportionately well” as men are doing relative to women (or so feminists lobbyists would have you believe), we are still killing ourselves four times more than women. So we can’t be that happy. I believe this is due to the breakdown in the Golden Rule created by the fact that everyone wants something different, men and women have different priorities for self-fulfilment. One person’s privilege is another person’s unwanted obligation. Just because men and women might appear over-privileged to eachother, doesn’t mean they are. That might be coming from simple dissatisfaction with traditional gender roles. Maybe a male considers staying home, taking care of the kids, cooking, and cleaning to be privileges he has been denied by the expectations of his gender role that he be chained to an unfulfilling desk job, in the same way women view climbing the corporate ladder, fixing their own car, attaining public office, or anything else traditionally considered the male’s domain, as something they’ve been barred from, and their expected roles as socialites to be an unwanted burden.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Trying to explain the plight of a single man to a single woman is like trying to explain the plight of someone who is lost in the desert to someone who is drowning. With our gender roles so different, how could we ever relate to eachother? Privilege is relative. What is privilege to one is burden to another. The woman who is constantly harassed by unwanted advances will never be able to empathize with the guy who wishes that just once, someone would notice him and include him, socially.
The point is that gender relations are a source of dissatisfaction and disharmony for BOTH genders that needs to be addressed, and that should ultimately entail concessions and incentives on both sides. This isn’t just a female issue and they shouldn’t be able to monopolize it, after all, in the Rodger case, three of the victims (if you count the shooter himself) were MALE. The killer wasn’t just mad at women, but men as well, and this was explicitly expressed in his writing. However, his hatred and violence towards men is being downplayed in the media by dogmatically leftist pundits who would rather portray this issue specifically as a feminist or gun control issue instead of addressing the much more broad root social causes, ie, the general break down of society, the ‘dog eat dog’ nature of modern human existence, and the very real beta male victims of the patriarchally-enforced social class hierarchy. I think the killer was denied social capital, agency, and communal LOVE, and thus driven to this terrible crime by a community that deliberately alienated him.
So why isn’t this being viewed as a crime against the socially accommodated, committed by the socially excluded, out of jealousy and disenfranchisement, rather than a crime against women committed out of misogyny? If you ask me, this is more about class warfare than the battle of the sexes. At some point, someone called this guy a creep, and it stuck, and became repeated without thought, and then social alienation made whatever attitude problems the dude had about a million times worse. Alienating someone, even someone who legitimately has serious problems, is never going to make those problems better, and most people don’t even pretend to themselves that it will. It’s just a matter of out of sight, out of mind. It seems to me as if this is a typical example of the consequences of liberal social negligence. People act as if ignoring a problem will make it go away, with some NIMBY rationalization thrown in there. But social exclusion is always to the ultimate detriment to the community.
I’m not trying to defend a killer or his actions, but come on. Why are modern people so socially and sexually dysfunctional in general? Look at this guy. He’s a 23-year old virgin, for crying out loud. And he’s not even that ugly. Even I’m “doing better” than this guy, and I tend to play the game of romance more like golf than basketball, mostly because statistically, the more casual sex one has, the lower chance one has of having a happy marriage, which is my personal social goal. Of course, I grew up in a different era. So why are we breeding these adversarial relationships between the genders, Hell, even between people of the SAME gender, to a point where it disrupts functionally healthy sex lives and tears apart the fabric of society by making us all competitors in some kind of cut-throat romance competition? And why aren’t people compassionate towards eachother? Why are they so negligent of eachother’s needs? I’m tempted to say social alienation was predicted by Karl Marx as one of many consequences of late stage capitalism. Suffice to say, I think what Elliot Rodger needed most wasn’t sex, it was love. Family, real friends who actually gave a damn, you know, social support. And people are going to try and blame the victim (for he was a victim of a suicidal mentality and probably some form of bullying, mental health malpractice, and character assassination, just as much as he was a sadistic murderer), and say he “alienated himself”. Alienation is something done by the group to the individual, not vice versa. And to think that alienating someone will help change their point of view as a form of “punishment” is just retarded.
The fact of the matter is, we can’t count on “the system” (psychiatric OR penal) to “fix” people like Elliot Rodger. Those establishments only make matters worse, and I don’t know of anyone who has ever really benefitted from incarceration or commitment. I sincerely believe that people like Elliot are society’s problem. They cannot be ignored or left to slip through the cracks, otherwise, they only fester, get worse, and it comes back on the whole community. And I thoroughly believe that when a crime like this is committed, the entire community is at fault. What do you tell a person like that? “Go see a shrink”? But that’s a facetious dismissal. And a shrink can’t restore your social agency, or fix a broken society. All a shrink can do is help you accept your fate, or possibly give you the confidence to attempt to change your social status. People tend to have this negligent way of thinking “it’s someone else’s problem to deal with”, or worst of all “it’s the system’s problem”. But no system is a substitute for society.
To say a guy like this deserved to be alone is a transgression of the conerstone of basic liberal ideology: the all-inclusive society. It seems to me as though women these days have taken the right to say ‘fuck off’ to men so far, that they have denied basic social agency to guys like this, to a point where their snapping and lashing out is inevitable. I’m not saying the guy was entitled to a female sex partner, but someone should have at least talked to the guy and tried to include him in society. You know, the basic common courtesy most women have forgotten by being so caught up in petty sexual politics. People will stop being chauvinistic like that when their communities stop laughing at their social problems and actually do something to help. People like this should be addressed instead of shoved under the rug. Ignoring someone with an inflammatory viewpoint is not the way to change their opinion.
As for the long-term solution to keep free radicals from forming malignant cells like that in the future, I sincerely believe the solution is to teach people they are not in competition with the opposite sex or other members of their own gender, and that we are all in the same boat. Everyone deserves a place in society and for their needs to be met and their opinions to be heard, and that we should all be accountable to eachother. Teach people that from a young age, and get them to live it, and all of these social problems will be solved in a generation.