Is it really this bad??????

Elliot Rodger's California shooting spree: further proof that misogyny kills

On Friday night, a man – identified by police as Elliot Rodgers – allegedly seeking "retribution" against women whom he said sexually rejected him went on a killing spree in Isla Vista, California, killing six people and sending seven more to the hospital with serious gunshot injuries. Three of the bodies were reportedly removed from Rodger's apartment.

"You forced me to suffer all my life, now I will make you all suffer. I waited a long time for this. I'll give you exactly what you deserve, all of you. All you girls who rejected me, looked down upon me, you know, treated me like scum while you gave yourselves to other men."

Rodger was reportedly involved with the online men's rights movement: allegedly active on one forum and said to have been following several men's rights channels on YouTube. The language Rodger used in his videos against women – like referring to himself as an "alpha male" – is common rhetoric in such circles.

These communities are so virulently misogynist that the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that tracks hate groups, has been watching their movements for years.

Yet, as the artist Molly Crabapple pointed out on Twitter: "White terrorism is always blamed on guns, mental health – never poisonous ideology."


Young man doesn't get laid and goes out can kills people. My question: was he crazy? Or did this problem originate in culture and gun laws? Is it really that bad???

Quite obviously he was a mentally disturbed individual. Sane people do not commit mass murder. Personally I'm neither a gun control or gun rights activist. But it is my considered opinion that the easy access to firearms in this country, including access by mentally disturbed people is a part of the problem. However, blaming access to firearms alone is far too simplistic. After all in this case, the individual also is suspected of stabbing four people to death before embarking on the shooting spree. So is more knife control the answer? Those bent on killing other human beings will always find a weapon, a means and the opportunity even if somehow the logical first choices, firearms and knives were magically removed from society. I think the demonstrated unwillingness on the part of government at both the federal and state levels to provide adequate funding for the effective diagnosis and treatment of mental illness is one of the primary causes behind these tragedies. In addition our current federal government, principally the administration has intentionally created a culture of victimization simply to obtain political gain and to further an ideology. If you are a ne'er do well of any description, according to the government, it isn't your fault. You are a victim of some class of people who are unfairly discriminating against you, holding you back, denying you happiness and prosperity. In this sad instance the individual blamed women for his problems. This intentional government policy promotes class warfare, cultural and racial tensions. It makes people want to lash out at those they blame for victimizing them. As long as we have an irresponsible government that promotes these things, there will be those mentally unstable people who will carry out these atrocities. Unfortunately I fear this is a problem that will get far worse before it gets better because you can be sure that the current government policies will not be changing anytime soon.

Until we as a society learn how to identify those individuals with mental illness - and how to help them, as well as come up with some sort of legislation that will tighten controls of who is allowed to have guns, this type of incident will continue to happen.

We need to come up with a better application process for those individuals who want to purchase a gun - including some sort of section regarding the mental state of the applicant.

We need to remove the stigma that accompanies mental illness.

And yes, SagaciousDom Sir, these sorts of incidents will continue to occur until we as a society stop it. How, I don't know...

SagaciousDom, if I read you right, you see this as a crazy guy who was lead to take out his frustrations on women. In other words, a person whose unhappiness got shown a target by way of the sites he frequented?

In your opinion, if there had been no misogynistic to tell him how this is all the fault of other people, would he not have done this? Or would he have found another set of hate sites and found another target?

I wonder because his loneliness and frustrations seemed to focused on women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rebekka

Until we as a society learn how to identify those individuals with mental illness - and how to help them, as well as come up with some sort of legislation that will tighten controls of who is allowed to have guns, this type of incident will continue to happen.

We need to come up with a better application process for those individuals who want to purchase a gun - including some sort of section regarding the mental state of the applicant.

We need to remove the stigma that accompanies mental illness.

And yes, SagaciousDom Sir, these sorts of incidents will continue to occur until we as a society stop it. How, I don't know...

---

I believe you are right about mental illness and lack of help as well as stigma. At least, in the European countries I am familiar with this being the case, and tragedies have occurred. Here in England they have campaigns from time to time, trying to make mental illness seen as any other illness, but I think it is tough going. It is not just about habitual thinking, I think mental illness scare people because we know too little.

As for gun laws I do take your word and that of others for the fact that it is too easy to get one. You cannot stop all these incidents, but you can stop some, I think.

But isn't it also necessary to work with the misogynist attitudes, which is the hate in this case, as if it had been racial or any other hate?

In the 70's women started their work for equality, and many changes have come from that. But there are two genders, and, as I see it, men did not change their lot nearly as much. There is an imbalance, one part changes, the other does not (nearly as much.)

Do men need to define themselves differently? Do they need to protest against divorce laws economically and who gets the children? Do they need to protest against having to be the providers, in countries where this is the case? Do they need to see themselves differently?

Many men dislike feminists, why? Isn't it time we met, men and women, and got ourselves sorted out??

This articles have another angle and a few of the videos he made:
http://www.ibtimes.com/elliot-rodger...e-mass-1589849

At least from what I have read about this particular situation, I simply feel that it is inaccurate to attribute this person's actions to misogyny. He targeted a specific class of women as indicated by the fact that the first place he went was to a sorority house when he was ready to start shooting. He went elsewhere only when he was unable to gain entrance there. There has been no evidence he hated all women but the specific class of women he viewed as his preferred sexual partners and coveted. He saw himself as being victimized by them because due to no fault of his own (in his own twisted perspective of course) such women were unfairly discriminating against him by their unwillingness to enter a relationship or sexual liaison with him. He also shot and killed men in addition to women and one story I read also indicated that he blamed other men who he believed were having sex with women because he felt that they were less worthy than he and were also responsible for preventing him from experiencing what he believed he was entitled to and that which would bring him happiness and fulfillment. I think mental illness is clearly the primary causative factor and I think what would have prevented this tragedy would have been an effective mental health system which does not exist in this country. In addition, mentally ill people are prohibited from purchasing firearms in this country but lacking an effective system of identifying the mentally ill and flagging them as disqualified for purchasing weapons, individuals who are a danger to themselves or others and capable of violence, it is quite impossible to enforce the prohibition and a mentally ill person who has no business accessing a firearm finds it just as easy to do so as a sane person. That said a person who is a misogynist is I believe mentally ill to begin with. Hatred, dislike, mistrust or mistreatment of women in general is not something normal, mentally healthy men do. There is simply no excuse for having those kinds of feelings toward other human beings. It is simply abnormal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SagaciousDom

I think mental illness is clearly the primary causative factor

---

I've seen no evidence that this man suffered from any diagnosed mental illness, despite the fact that he had apparently been seen by therapists or doctors. Yes, we like to claim that this is not "normal" behavior, that only someone who is "crazy" would do something like this, but the truth is there are a lot of otherwise normal people who have done far worse! Don't be so quick to attribute this to mental illness.

Quote:

---

I simply feel that it is inaccurate to attribute this person's actions to misogyny.

---

I would suggest you look up something called, I believe, the Slymepit. It is reputedly a rather disgusting collection of misogynistic men (and women!) who are actually praising Rogers as a martyr! Hatred of women, such as he related in his video, is par for the course among these people. And how many times have we read about someone who kills his wife or girlfriend just because she left him? Are you claiming they're all crazy? No, they are just men, mostly, who have been raised to believe that their needs are all that's important, and that all women, especially the hot ones, must submit to those needs at all times. Any woman, or even another man, who denies those tenets, who speaks up for the rights of women, who do not believe women are property, are automatically considered the enemy.

From everything I've read, Elliot Rogers was a privileged, over-indulged punk who finally snapped. I would speculate that, for much of his life, he was rarely denied anything he wanted, so when women didn't flock to his door, throw themselves at his feet, or worse, went out with someone he deemed "lower" than himself, he viewed them as attacks upon himself.

So, was he insane? I doubt it, though I would like to hear from the psyches about that. He apparently suffered from Asperger's Syndrome, but from what I've learned just about everyone in the world suffers from that to one degree or another. And I don't think it's classified as a mental illness.

Quote:

---

He targeted a specific class of women as indicated by the fact that the first place he went was to a sorority house when he was ready to start shooting. He went elsewhere only when he was unable to gain entrance there.

---

His plan was to START at the sorority house, since he considered those women to be the worst of the worst, and then proceed to killing randomly in the streets, based on the transcripts of his video which I've read. While he may have had a specific type (he did mention blondes) it sounded to me like he was going to target everyone, eventually.

Quote:

---

There is simply no excuse for having those kinds of feelings toward other human beings. It is simply abnormal.

---

Sadly, it is far TOO normal. Look at fundamentalist Muslims, who will kill a woman for speaking out of turn, or fundamentalist Jews, who want separate buses for women, or fundamentalist Christians who blatantly pronounce women to be a subservient class. Look at the hardcore politicians who would rather see women die than give them control of their own bodies. It may be evil. It may be horrifying. It's sadly not abnormal.

thir asked "Is it really that bad???" Read about the MRA's. Read about Rebecca Watson. Read about Ashley Miller. Not only is it really that bad, it's worse!

"thir asked "Is it really that bad???" Read about the MRA's. Read about Rebecca Watson. Read about Ashley Miller. Not only is it really that bad, it's worse!"

I think maybe a lot of these idiots are just blowing off steam, but unfortunately now and then they run into someone who starts taking it seriously. Not that 'blowing off steam' online is innocent fun, it is disgusting, and one wonders what on earth is the matter with these people.

http://whenwomenrefuse.tumblr.com/

above is a site with stories about what has happened in connection with breaking up, or refusal. The question is whether this is a few horror stories or the tip of an iceberg.

Before leaping to blaming the guns or associated laws, bear in mind that half his victims (3 of the 6 he murdered) were actually stabbed, not shot - the media seem to have latched on to one of his two chosen weapons, calling him "the gunman" etc. (Also, 4 of the 6 murder victims were male - another bit that seems overlooked.)

If "gun laws" are the source of the problem, how are "knife laws" any less culpable since half the murders were stabbings? Of course, the lousy spoilt upbringing and sense of entitlement must have been a large part; his writings make it obvious he had a big chip on his shoulder about race ("Full Asian men are disgustingly ugly and white girls would never go for you", "How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves") - he'd previously assaulted at least two groups of people, as well as getting in some sort of fight at a party.

So, there were warning signs there, and indeed the police had considered getting him detained on mental health grounds, but decided there wasn't enough evidence to do so (and have now suspended the officers who made that decision, pending the investigation). No, he was never formally diagnosed - but then, he wasn't formally assessed either, because the police never took him in for assessment. (I don't know about CA, but here, the police would be expected to take him to a secure psychiatric facility, where he'd be properly assessed and diagnosed by psychiatrists; I get the impression CA is similar there.) If they had, I suspect he'd have been diagnosed and detained, from what has been reported so far.

Precarious Manhood and Its Links to Action and Aggression

Jennifer K. Bosson and
Joseph A. Vandello

Abstract

Unlike womanhood, manhood is widely viewed as a status that is elusive (it must be earned) and tenuous (it must be demonstrated repeatedly through actions). This focus on the structure—rather than the content—of gender roles can shed new light on men’s use of action and physical aggression. Here, we review theory and research connecting manhood, action, and aggression. We interpret men’s aggression and aggressive displays as behaviors that effectively demonstrate manhood and thus quell men’s concerns about their gender status. Moreover, we suggest that situational and cultural factors that heighten the precariousness of manhood also increase the likelihood of male aggression.
More to this: I read various articles about how men's gender role is actually every bit as stringent as that of women - except (most) men do not revolt against their roles the way (many) women do.


The underlining is mine.

Various articles and books research gender roles and masculinity. The consensus seems to be that why they all describe it differently, the male gender role is extremely stringent and must be confirmed all the time lest you fall out of the box or is chased from it.

This article is worth reading (thought it is quite long):
http://www.charlieglickman.com/2011/...of-masculinty/

It's main point is that masculinity (in many if not most men's eyes) is something you DO, not something you ARE, and something which you must keep on and on doing.

One of the primary reasons that boys and men gay bash and bully queers is that they need to perform masculinity in order to show the world that they’re in the Box. And since very few guys can always be in the Box for their entire lives, the trick is to act like you are in order to cover for any lapses. In effect, the performance of masculinity requires constant vigilance to make sure that nobody sees any missteps. Since the logic of the box is an either/or, you’re either all the way in or you’re all the way out.

The Box is one of main reasons why men harass women on the street and why catcalling and violence tends to escalate when men are in groups. Since the Box is hierarchical as well as performative, the guy at the bottom of the heap is at risk of being cast out. So each guy has to compete with the others in order to not be the one who’s outside the Box. And as each one’s performance becomes more vigorous, it forces the others to do the same.

If this is true, we should see a difference in violence in various countries, in variation with their gender roles. But this would be hard to research, as there are so many other variables to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by js207

Before leaping to blaming the guns or associated laws, bear in mind that half his victims (3 of the 6 he murdered) were actually stabbed, not shot - the media seem to have latched on to one of his two chosen weapons, calling him "the gunman" etc. (Also, 4 of the 6 murder victims were male - another bit that seems overlooked.)

If "gun laws" are the source of the problem, how are "knife laws" any less culpable since half the murders were stabbings? Of course, the lousy spoilt upbringing and sense of entitlement must have been a large part; his writings make it obvious he had a big chip on his shoulder about race ("Full Asian men are disgustingly ugly and white girls would never go for you", "How could an inferior, ugly black boy be able to get a white girl and not me? I am beautiful, and I am half white myself. I am descended from British aristocracy. He is descended from slaves") - he'd previously assaulted at least two groups of people, as well as getting in some sort of fight at a party.

So, there were warning signs there, and indeed the police had considered getting him detained on mental health grounds, but decided there wasn't enough evidence to do so (and have now suspended the officers who made that decision, pending the investigation). No, he was never formally diagnosed - but then, he wasn't formally assessed either, because the police never took him in for assessment. (I don't know about CA, but here, the police would be expected to take him to a secure psychiatric facility, where he'd be properly assessed and diagnosed by psychiatrists; I get the impression CA is similar there.) If they had, I suspect he'd have been diagnosed and detained, from what has been reported so far.

---

So, I read you as saying that there are too many inconsistencies to see this as misogyny, and the guy is crazy and should have been caught by the system?

Thorne: "Yes, we like to claim that this is not "normal" behavior, that only someone who is "crazy" would do something like this, but the truth is there are a lot of otherwise normal people who have done far worse! Don't be so quick to attribute this to mental illness."

I think you have a valid point here, which is why I keep looking at gender roles.

Hear this amazing video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=ayzwzGB2kXw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Thorne: "Yes, we like to claim that this is not "normal" behavior, that only someone who is "crazy" would do something like this, but the truth is there are a lot of otherwise normal people who have done far worse! Don't be so quick to attribute this to mental illness."

I think you have a valid point here, which is why I keep looking at gender roles.

---

It's important to remember, though, that gender roles are primarily defined by society, not by biology. Sure, there are physical differences between males and females, obviously, and differences in mental processes, which are also biological in nature. But these differences tend to be a spectrum, blending from one to another, with little or no lines of demarcation. The "rules" that put women in the kitchen and men at work, though, are laid down by society, and can change from time to time.

And this change is what drives the motives of the misogynists. They cling to the defined roles of women as property, whose only purpose is to provide pleasure for men. They fear feminism because it disavows their self image, denies their self-perceived "rights" and tries to force them to change themselves. It's the same fear that drives all haters. Whether homophobic, racist, sexist or theistic, they cling to a belief that makes them better than others, and they fear those others achieving equality because that equality would deny their own self image. We change this attitude, slowly and painfully, by changing the way we as a society view such hatreds. Instead of accepting it, or passively condoning it, we have to step up and ridicule it, show such beliefs to be the ridiculous posturing we see them to be. Deny the haters the anonymity of social indifference. Kick them out of the shadows and force them to operate in the light and they will eventually fade away into relative obscurity.

Can we change their minds? In many cases, sadly, I believe not. Some will, of course. We've seen previously homophobic politicians change their views when confronted with the homosexuality of loved ones. I have personally seen a deeply racist family member change dramatically when presented with beautiful mixed-race grandchildren. But many haters will keep their hate and, if forced into the shadows, will let it fester within themselves, poisoning their minds, until they rot away into obscurity. And take their hatreds with them.

Can we change their minds? In many cases, sadly, I believe not. Some will, of course. We've seen previously homophobic politicians change their views when confronted with the homosexuality of loved ones. I have personally seen a deeply racist family member change dramatically when presented with beautiful mixed-race grandchildren. But many haters will keep their hate and, if forced into the shadows, will let it fester within themselves, poisoning their minds, until they rot away into obscurity. And take their hatreds with them.[Q


I agree with this to a point, but unfortunately I don't think the people who promote hatred against any ideal will ever go away. They can't fade into obscurity because their Grand parents, parents, themselves are the one's who teach their children. We will never have a society totally free of hate and racism, misogyny, bigotry or any of these because I believe most of it is taught to future generations. Look how long the Nazi movement has been around after Hitler's death, how like you said some men still believe woman should be seen and not heard, how homosexuals are still feared as if it's a disease that is contagious by touch....*smh*. All children are innocent of such things, you can see it when the play together without any preconceived notions. I am not saying all of these issues are taught, some are learned as we grow into a society that still show's no tolerance and refuses to give up on their hatreds and prejudices. I wish it was true as you say that if we refuse to acknowledge them they will fade into obscurity, but I believe most are pretty proud of their views and being able to spout them, draw people in who might otherwise be weak is what they hope for...*shrug*. I have a beautiful young daughter, I try to teach her what my mom always taught me when I was growing up. That we are all EQUAL and that everyone is beautiful, inside and out...to stand up for her beliefs, be strong and not take shit from anyone. Everyone takes their own path, even it you try to teach them right from wrong. We are not perfect and neither is our society, we bury out heads in the sand so we don't have to face what we have become and that Yes, things are really this bad.
As for gun control, there really is no such thing. Sure we can apply, be approved and buy our weapon of choice. It is all registered and legal like...*smh* do you know how easy it is to get a gun on the street?????? Easier then buying alcohol at the store or cigarettes....*smh*. I am not saying it doesn't work but the ease of acquiring a weapon now a days is ridiculous, believe you me these people could care less if someone is mentally ill, what their beliefs are or even what they want it for..it's all about the money. I am not knocking it, I own several guns and I am very proficient with them. I believe you have the right to bear arms like the Constitution says, it's what we were founded on. I have always grown up around them and was taught the proper handling, respect and care of such weapons. I have trained and taught my daughter to be the same, I believe everyone has the right to protect themselves if they so choose too....like the saying goes "Are you going to bring a knife to a gun fight."...(sorry couldn't resist the pun...*grin*).
I do look at the world today and wonder what is going on...how we have arrived at such a state. I can remember when bullying meant you just got your ass kicked at school, over,done with. Now in our society with social media we push young people to kill themselves, who can be right with that???? I realize hatred will never go away, especially when just recently our Mayor approved the rally of "The National Socialist Movement", one of the biggest Neo Nazi groups in the country. By law it is allowed if they file the proper paperwork...such is our government. So how can we teach the future generations to be accepting of all....we can't because WE who believe that such things are wrong cannot teach everyone........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

So, I read you as saying that there are too many inconsistencies to see this as misogyny, and the guy is crazy and should have been caught by the system?

---

Not quite. I pointed out it's a bit of a stretch to say that killing a bunch of men and women is all about the women (maybe something to do with putting more value on his female victims and ignoring the males?). With hindsight, yes he was clearly nuts - but having family working in that field, I know it's often very difficult to predict and prevent crazy people doing dangerous things. Even after someone has been diagnosed and treated, it can be very hard to tell if or when it's safe to let someone back into the community: expecting "the system" to catch everyone in advance is beyond even the realms of science fiction, let alone reality.

I live in this town and there have been multiple mass murder sprees in Isla Vista. Rodgers was mentally ill and his parents/psychologist/dr were all aware of this fact. They have spoken out on this. However, the community here has been speaking out for gun control laws and is using this very horrible thing as a strong platform to stand on. The thing that strikes me as interesting is how conservative this area actually is in comparison to surrounding areas. The republican count is high, but they are not talking. I don't like how (and btw I'm not a republican) the activists use heart breaking and terrifying events to further their cause. I understand why they do it, but it feels wrong. Especially in a community that should be given space to grieve and be angry and go through the steps required to look forward again. Sorry, I had to post as it's very close to my heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Angelina34

I don't like how ... the activists use heart breaking and terrifying events to further their cause. I understand why they do it, but it feels wrong.

---

One of the problems which was highlighted after the school shooting in Massachusetts was that the gun rights activists screamed about using these incidents to further the gun control agenda, saying that emotions were too raw for rational discussion. But when things have calmed down, they refuse to have rational discussions because there's no real good reason for them.

The best time for these discussions is in the aftermath of such incidents. It forces both sides to look at the real world consequences of bad gun control laws. Yes, emotions are high, and yes, people are upset. That seems to be the only time that things can get done in this country anymore, though. So I'm fine with using every horrific incident like this to advance serious legislation to CONTROL (not ban) gun ownership.

I do understand that. It's just easier to understand when it's not on your doorstep. I can't open yahoo or turn on the news without seeing demands for gun control. There have been numerous protests..and.. I don't know, parents have lost their children.
There was an article that screen shot the chat room that Rodgers was in and it's all pretty horrible the way these guys are talking about women. Many stated that they have written "manifestos" and such. The focus should turn to these (barely) men and their emotional and mental health.
It's a little bit of a scary feeling.

Have been cut off for a while by messages that the library was affected by virus - anyone else get that??

Further to this topic:

India has been in the news from time to time due to further rapes and killings: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27807539 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-27709886 There seems to be a national uproar over rapes (an killings) in some areas of Indian up to and including in a police station..can any parallels be drawn to the California incident?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

There seems to be a national uproar over rapes (an killings) in some areas of Indian up to and including in a police station..can any parallels be drawn to the California incident?

---

It's interesting: one absence of parallel seems significant, of course, that there is no weapon you can scapegoat in a rape. Nobody can use it as a pretext for demanding "penis control", trying to ban penises they think are extra-dangerous by branding them "assault penises", or demanding a week's delay before you can use a penis.

I think having one of the rapes actually happen right in the police station itself goes a long way to explaining the uproar: when rapes can take place almost literally under the noses of the police, they clearly aren't doing a good job of fighting it. (There's a small parallel there - someone recently pointed out that one of the two murders carried out in the US with legally-held automatic weapons since they were almost entirely banned was actually committed by a cop.)

Two thoughts on this. The true weapon in a rape is the power to emotionally damage another person. To make them feel small for a very long time.
Now this will sound very anti-feminist, but how much of this anger and hatred of women has to do with the very drastic role reversals that have taken place since the 1950's? This whole ban the "phalogocentric thought process" movement is very much under way. How does that truly affect men on a sub conscious level? Many men say women who hold high power positions are sexy, but in their heads they are screwing them over their desk... Placing them on the bottom. Maybe I'm very off, but food for thought?

LO1121,

The first thing to remember is that, in the US at least, the vast majority of rapes are committed by family members or acquaintances, not by strangers. That does not really point to the idea that the men feel they have lost power, but that they consider the women they know to be property. This includes date rapes, and incidences like the Steubenville case, where a young woman was drugged to unconsciousness then dragged from party to party and raped by her abusers.

In cases of stranger rape, there is also little evidence that the men performing the rape feel that women have too much power. It's possible, I suppose, that these men will attack women who they see as surrogates for a powerful woman in their lives, but I believe the incidence of such rapes are rare.

Regardless, the problem is that far too many people in this country, both men and women, are all too eager to blame the victim for being raped, rather than to blame the rapist. This is especially true when the rapist is considered a celebrity of some kind. And one of the ways to reduce the incidences of rape is to change the culture that views women as being subservient to men. Educating our children will eventually tip the scales in these kinds of cases.

Thank you Thorne. I agree that these are valid arguments, yet it almost goes in a circle. Ie men think that women are subservient. Yet that "almost" agrees with my point in a way. The idea of hating women for turning you down... Which drives them to kill/rape/harm them in a non consensual way is abhorant in every way.
I fully embrace the idea that society views need to change, but how does that change happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LO1121

I fully embrace the idea that society views need to change, but how does that change happen?

---

Like any other change, it happens through education. Teaching our kids that ALL people are equal, that women have the same rights and privileges as men, that no one, male or female, should be forced into submission by another.

And in my opinion, a large step in that direction would be achieved by eliminating religion from the public sphere. All of the major religions, and most of the minor ones, are patriarchal in nature. They preach the domination of men over women. That has to change. And in some degree, it is changing. Almost every religious organization in the US is losing members, mostly the young. It's one of the reasons for some of the more inane (and insane) bloviating going on by religious and political leaders regarding the rights of women: their belief systems are crumbling in the face of the modern world, and they are striking out blindly to defend their Iron Age mythologies. Sadly, women and minorities are the primary targets of these strikes.

Quote:

---

I think having one of the rapes actually happen right in the police station itself goes a long way to explaining the uproar: when rapes can take place almost literally under the noses of the police, they clearly aren't doing a good job of fighting it. (There's a small parallel there - someone recently pointed out that one of the two murders carried out in the US with legally-held automatic weapons since they were almost entirely banned was actually committed by a cop.)

---

In the article it was said that the police were the perpetrators, the women had refused to bribe them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LO1121

Two thoughts on this. The true weapon in a rape is the power to emotionally damage another person. To make them feel small for a very long time.

---

I have tried to find out why people rape other people, and there seems to be many reasons. But in gang rape I think it must be hate and frustration taken out on the only ones they can get to. I am thinking especially of the Indian cases here, but I think it goes in a lot of cases.

Quote:

---

Now this will sound very anti-feminist, but how much of this anger and hatred of women has to do with the very drastic role reversals that have taken place since the 1950's? This whole ban the "phalogocentric thought process" movement is very much under way. How does that truly affect men on a sub conscious level? Many men say women who hold high power positions are sexy, but in their heads they are screwing them over their desk... Placing them on the bottom. Maybe I'm very off, but food for thought?

---

Very interesting point, and one I have tried for some time to get a grip on. As I see it, the women started to change their circumstances and the ideas about themselves, and most men did not. Does that not mean an imbalance? It is my pet theory at the moment that men are oppressing each other, keeping each other in roles that are as strict for them as the roles used to be for women (and still are in most of the world). I do not think there is a lot women can do about that, but hope that the men will get around to it, and some do, there have been some conventions and some psychologist are talking, but it is not enough. In my head this is about more freedom for men as well, more freedom of choice and identity and being who you are.

But I still wonder about women as well. There was a new case of rape of a young women where the pictures were put on the net, and as before, many young women participated in ridiculing the victim.

What is going on in their heads?? And what is going on in the heads on the young men, who thinks rape is, of all things, fun? In all the articles I read about rape fun was not one of the reasons.

http://www.khou.com/news/crime/16-ye...266360261.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/16-year-...rved-this.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

LO1121,

The first thing to remember is that, in the US at least, the vast majority of rapes are committed by family members or acquaintances, not by strangers. That does not really point to the idea that the men feel they have lost power, but that they consider the women they know to be property. This includes date rapes, and incidences like the Steubenville case, where a young woman was drugged to unconsciousness then dragged from party to party and raped by her abusers.

---

You mean, the opposite problem, they feel they have all the power?

Quote:

---

In cases of stranger rape, there is also little evidence that the men performing the rape feel that women have too much power. It's possible, I suppose, that these men will attack women who they see as surrogates for a powerful woman in their lives, but I believe the incidence of such rapes are rare.

---

In the case of the Indian rapes and hangings, some speculate that they took off when the boys of the age of enormous unemployment got old enough.

Quote:

---

Regardless, the problem is that far too many people in this country, both men and women, are all too eager to blame the victim for being raped, rather than to blame the rapist. This is especially true when the rapist is considered a celebrity of some kind. And one of the ways to reduce the incidences of rape is to change the culture that views women as being subservient to men. Educating our children will eventually tip the scales in these kinds of cases.

---

I have to say that it sounds to me as if that is in your culture, but in the ones I have lived rape is still there, just for other reasons, some of which are chilling like the Steubenville case but without the star - gang rape as 'fun'. Pictures on the net. Perpetrators non-guilty in court because, according to the judge: "they said she wanted to", and it could not be proven that she was too drunk to resist.

Which takes me to two legal problems:
1) I think that in rape cases it must be proven that the accused had a unambiguous 'yes', not that it could not be proven that she was too drunk! But the law says innocent until proven guilty, so how to handle that??

2) In cases where a person is acquitted of rape, the accuser is sometimes accused herself, for false accusations. Off hand this sounds fair enough, false accusations of rape can ruin a person's life, but what if the police did a shitty job, or the defender a too good one? There is a Danish example where is sounds like the police did not believe the accuser, and started to accuse her.

It is hard as it is to bring a case to court. Will such a practice stop it altogether, because if the rape isn't proven, the accuser is herself accused but these cases can be real hard to prove? Or is it a good thing, to prevent false accusations?


Sef

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

And in my opinion, a large step in that direction would be achieved by eliminating religion from the public sphere. All of the major religions, and most of the minor ones, are patriarchal in nature. They preach the domination of men over women. That has to change. And in some degree, it is changing. Almost every religious organization in the US is losing members, mostly the young. It's one of the reasons for some of the more inane (and insane) bloviating going on by religious and political leaders regarding the rights of women: their belief systems are crumbling in the face of the modern world, and they are striking out blindly to defend their Iron Age mythologies. Sadly, women and minorities are the primary targets of these strikes.

---

[/quote]

No doubt about that, although many women in these religions are trying to reform them, they are a minority.

EPs are taking over, trying to promote the same ideas in the name of biology.

When I read Rodgers' rants about how unfair it was that women wouldn't fuck him, my thought was that on a smaller scale, a great many adolescents feel this sense of oppression and grievance. All those women are cruelly tantalizing him by looking hot, and the books and magazines say all those other guys are getting it, so why isn't he? It's not FAIR! Most young men grow out of that mindset in a year or three even if they don't get laid; being stuck in, effectively, a 16-year-old headspace seems to have been part of Rodgers' problem.

The other thing that struck me is that it seems to have been mostly an accident that his instability focussed on anger at women, because he happened to have struck across male supremacist sites when he was looking for a target for his infantile rage at the world for not giving him everything he wanted. Given his demonstrated gross racism, he could just as easily have been drawn to racist sites and ended up targeting blacks and Asians.

So I think it's misleading to treat him as some kind of indicator of a bigger trend of misogyny. There is a victim-posing movement of men who feel oppressed and bullied because they've lost the right to push women around, just as there are similar factions of whites and Christians feeling like victims because they're no longer top dog, but Rodgers wasn't in some way the cutting edge of it; he was a random incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

When I read Rodgers' rants about how unfair it was that women wouldn't fuck him, my thought was that on a smaller scale, a great many adolescents feel this sense of oppression and grievance. All those women are cruelly tantalizing him by looking hot, and the books and magazines say all those other guys are getting it, so why isn't he? It's not FAIR! Most young men grow out of that mindset in a year or three even if they don't get laid; being stuck in, effectively, a 16-year-old headspace seems to have been part of Rodgers' problem.

---

He is not the only one. Much of the campus rapes and instances where young men seem to think rape is fun and tape it and put it on the net seems to imply a similar line of thinking. In one instance they felt the woman who went to the police was a whore of a spoil sport and that she broke the rules, somehow.

Quote:

---

The other thing that struck me is that it seems to have been mostly an accident that his instability focussed on anger at women, because he happened to have struck across male supremacist sites when he was looking for a target for his infantile rage at the world for not giving him everything he wanted. Given his demonstrated gross racism, he could just as easily have been drawn to racist sites and ended up targeting blacks and Asians.

---

So, if he had targeted blacks or Asians, would he not have been called a crazy racist??

So I think it's misleading to treat him as some kind of indicator of a bigger trend of misogyny. There is a victim-posing movement of men who feel oppressed and bullied because they've lost the right to push women around, just as there are similar factions of whites and Christians feeling like victims because they're no longer top dog, but Rodgers wasn't in some way the cutting edge of it; he was a random incident.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

but Rodgers wasn't in some way the cutting edge of it; he was a random incident.

---

It's true that he was not the cutting edge. There have been many more instances of misogyny both before and after his rant. He simply went further than most others are willing to go. But he is indicative of a deeper problem festering beneath the surface of society. If you dig into those MRA sites he frequented you will find many other young men who think what he did was right and just, and wish they had the guts to do it themselves.

And, as thir points out, all of this is fostering a deeper culture of "rape isn't so bad as long as nobody gets killed" thinking. Especially when it involves sports heroes. I find it absolutely disgusting that entire swaths of so-called good people will willingly degrade the victim of a crime, even when reams of evidence exists to prove the crime, in order to preserve the "good name" of a local football star, or basketball wizard, or some other group of young men who were "just being boys." I was a boy once, long ago and far away, and that kind of behavior would not, and still should not, be tolerated.

In my opinion, those who are held to higher esteem should also be held to higher standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

In my opinion, those who are held to higher esteem should also be held to higher standards.

---

I cannot agree with that, I never understood in my Danish head why sports stars for instance have to publicly apologize if they have been found out to have an affair, and they apologize for 'disappointing' their fans. Their private lives are no concern of any fans! Same goes for politicians and other people in the public eye.

But, I certainly do not think they should get away with being rapists either!!! Same rules for all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thir

Their private lives are no concern of any fans! Same goes for politicians and other people in the public eye.

---

I agree, to a point. But such people have placed themselves into the public sphere, and the way they conduct their private lives is indicative of their character. For politicians, especially, who are elected to represent the voters, their private lives are almost certainly more important to understand than the public persona they affect. Sports stars, music stars, movie stars, etc. are all voluntarily putting themselves into the public eye, and a certain degree of private scrutiny is inevitable.

Quote:

---

But, I certainly do not think they should get away with being rapists either!!! Same rules for all.

---

Same rules for all is certainly a lofty ideal. Unfortunately we seldom see the famous, rich and powerful being held accountable to the same level as others. And when they use their fame, wealth and power to escape accountability they should be held in even more disrepute. But too many of their fans are all too willing to allow them to do horrific things simply because they are famous. I contend that, if they want to be seen to be so much better than the average person, they should hold themselves, and be held by the average person, to a higher standard.