Cathy Young on the Santa Barbara massacre

Elliot Rodger's 'War on Women' and Toxic Gender Warfare
The Santa Barbara killer wasn't just a misogynist; he was a malignant narcissist.
Cathy Young | May 29, 2014

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.

Source

Roosh weighs in on this too.

JTO on toning it down and why it's never going to happen

MRAs: be quiet, be more polite by John Hembling (JTO)

Apparently, the issues addressed by the men’s rights movement are legitimate issues.

The rate of workplace death – somewhere around 93 percent male – is a real issue. The rate of male suicide – where 4 out of 5 who die by their own hand are men – that’s real, too. The overwhelming majority of the homeless who are male – real. The fact that men are sentenced more harshly in the criminal courts, and that fathers are grossly mistreated and abused by the family courts – real. And indirectly, children mistreated by those same family courts, who are denying them healthy relationships with their fathers, is a real issue as well.

These are real issues – and feminists have even deigned to acknowledge that they are real issues. I’m not being sarcastic at all.

There are also a few issues not agreed on by the self-appointed public arbiters of truth or fiction, those gender ideologues calling themselves “feminist” and claiming that all they ever wanted was equality, that most slippery of political goals.

Consider routine male infant genital mutilation – that’s not a real issue, apparently. Never mind that hundreds of children die every year from the shock and trauma of having the most sensitive part of their anatomy severed with no anaesthetic, and that the practice was normalized specifically to desensitize the sexual organs of boys by a medical quack in the 19th century. In spite of the fact that the sexual mutilation of girls is almost universally condemned – doing the exact same things to infant boys is no problem, and as an ongoing outrage and abomination – it’s not a real issue, and those objecting should sit down, shut up, and stop whining. Stop whining already.

Similarly, just as feminists and other fascists agree that mutilating male infants is routine but don’t see any particular problem with the continuation of the practice – men and boys are increasingly disenfranchised by the education system. Female graduation outcomes account for more than 65% of all graduation from institutions of higher education. This is not debated by feminists, but rather than recognizing the growing inequality produced by a systematically biased education system, they celebrate this as a positive outcome. Feminism is all about equality, and if feminist policies in education produce a growing inequality, then obviously, we need more feminism – to – ah, fix the problem.

Human rights activists who might become angry when their brothers, sons, fathers and friends are systematically marginalized by all this, ahem, equality, should pipe down, don’t get so angry, be more polite, wait your turn, and can you just be quiet, because the feminists are busy taking care of your issues, or they would be, if only you’d be silent, go away, and stop inconveniencing them by illuminating the human damage their policies produce.

The sadists informing public policy don’t like it when you point out that they are sadists.

But the fact is that the men and women in the men’s rights movement recognize human harm done directly to men and boys, and harm done indirectly to women and girls by feminist driven policies, are outraged by the decades of fucking indifference from the public when this human damage is pointed out.

Ill say that again. The human damage produced in full knowledge by feminist driven domestic policy is met with almost total indifference. It has been the case for decades, and those of us who actually give a shit about addressing these problems are just a little bit goddamn tired of that indifference.

Out of every 100 suicides, 80 are male. Oh well, yawn, who cares. Oh yeah, and in a world where men die earlier, when men kill themselves more, when men die violent deaths more than anybody else, where men comprise the majority of the homeless, and are increasingly disenfranchised by the education system – we are treated to an apparently never-ending narrative about how the whole world is a male-advantaging patriarchy in which being male means getting a cruise through life with the difficulty setting at easy.

Well, that’s not really all of it, even. There’s also rape culture. That’s a populist narrative in which it is claimed that the rape of women and girls is a central feature of our culture. It is claimed that the rape of women and girls is normalized, that we are socialized to accept rape as if it is acceptable.

However, the reality is that rape has no sex, and that if we are to throw out the politicized definition in most dictionaries and look only at violent sexual victimization – it’s men and boys who are the predominant victims across our culture. This is not to suggest that women don’t get raped, and that they are not also victimized, but we are living in a culture where the rape of men and boys, while it occurs with greater frequency, has been defined in the dictionary to not exist. It happens in the real world, but the dictionary says that’s not rape, and besides – boys raped by their teachers are lucky to get some – because they don’t get to say no, they are sex machines, not human beings, and certainly not children sexually abused by those they should have been able to trust.

Yeah, this rape culture is one where only the rape of women is treated as acceptable.

And for those of us who recognize the humanity of more human beings than just the members of our culture’s leisure caste – when faced with indifference at human harm, and sometimes the sadistic glee flaunted by abusers, sociopaths, criminals, and gender ideologues with political power – we get a little bit angry.

That’s not quite fair. We don’t get a little bit angry at the injustice, abuse, indifference, and the gleeful sadistic mockery and scorn heaped those most wounded, who are silenced by the prevailing zeitgeist – it is deserving of a deep and white hot rage which drives any real human rights movement.

But what we keep hearing is that, oh yes, the issues of this movement are real and legitimate, oh yes. But we’re too angry. In fact, if only we weren’t so angry, if only we weren’t so loud, then they – those people who have deigned to acknowledge that the concerns of the movement are real – they would have been willing to address these issues, if only we were less angry, not so loud and not so insistent. In fact, if men’s human rights advocates would just be polite, just be quiet, and just learn to shut up and sit down, feminists would be solving the problem’s we’ve been so vocal about. So seriously guys, why can’t you just be quiet and go away – because honestly, you’re really holding the whole class back.

That’s the message. It’s a bargain, isn’t it? Just be quiet and go away, and feminists will solve the problems we’ve been talking, or in some cases, shouting about. The issues are real, so say even the feminists, but doggone it, those darned MRAs are so angry and nasty – they’re the ones stopping anyone from addressing issues like 80% of suicides who are male or the fact that 90% of the homeless are men.

If only MRAs weren’t so loud, obnoxious and angry, these problems would be solved. Well, that’s the bargain being offered.

Time for a reality check.

MRAs were polite. Men’s human rights activists were polite, and did not express their anger, and played by the rules for decades. Oh yes, this movement is over a century old, and for most of that time, almost all the principal activists and writers within the movement stuck strictly to the facts, keep their tone civil, and hardly offended or upset anyone.

And you know how much notice anybody took of the issues, such as suicide, homelessness, joblessness, predatory and corrupt courts, violent death and so on?

The public took no notice whatsoever. Oh yes, the issues addressed by the men’s rights movement are real, and we’ll get right on that – hey, look – The Real Housewives of Las Vegas is on, oooooh shiny bullshit on my TV screen.

If the violent deaths of women were treated with the same total contempt and disinterest that the deaths of men and boys earn, there would be not feminists, but actual female rights organizations executing public officials in the town square, and putting whole cities to the torch.

However, the bargain being offered now is that if only we would just politely quiet down, fold our hands in our laps and go obediently away – well, by golly, all the issues we’re so inappropriately angry about would be solved almost right away.

And like just about everything else from the propaganda machine of the cult of hate and human damage calling itself feminism, this is a fraud. What they’re really saying when they tell us we’re too loud, and too angry, is that it would be awfully nice if we would just shut up, and go back to quietly and conveniently killing ourselves, or dying on the job of keeping everything else running for the benefit of the members of the leisure caste.

Get back to work for the benefit of those who disregard the humanity of men in preference for the utility of men. Go back to quietly and conveniently absorbing and dispensing violence for the benefit of your social betters. And when you’re broken beyond your continued utility to the leisure caste of our society, kindly be so good as to quietly and uncomplainingly kill yourself, so nobody who matters is troubled by the unsightly spectacle of a human being in pain.

That is the bargain being offered by those who say, in public, or in print, that the anger demonstrated by this human rights movement is inappropriate and counter productive, and that we should all just be more polite.

Here’s the counter offer.

To those acknowledging the reality of this movement’s complaints, workplace death, infant mutilation, corrupt courts, a systematic and abusive bias in the education system: Keep telling us to be quiet and polite. We’ll come for each of you. And we’ll target you with the spotlight, and put your indifference and contempt for the suffering of human beings on public display. Because we recognize that what you’re trying to do is coerce men to go quietly to their deaths, for your own convenience. We recognize that you know your continued exploitation of the disposability of human beings other than yourself is what you fear losing. We also know that without this movement, without the public discomfort created by a loud, angry and in many cases obnoxious men’s rights movement, what you’d have instead would be the redress of these grievances in the oldest and most basic format used by upright apes through the history of the human species.

Source:click here

I love how JTO fucking nailed this. It is fucking perfect. Fuck you Cathy Young,you showed your true colors. Go shove it up your Soviet shithole cunt. Fuck you bitch and everyone who agrees with you. We don't serve you and if we ever did the only thing we would serve you is a subpeona. Again fuck you. Here is some music to top it off:







Let us not forget who made this article possible:

Cathy Young

Fuck you cunt.