The Tinder Experiment

Talk about regret. "I'm sorry I even did this in the first place" sure applies here. For some this may a major WTF moment. For others, he may confirm what they already know. Looks are what drew these women in but looks alone didn't keep their interest. Looks? Money? Elliot Rodger had both and look what happened to him. I would say it is more confidence and style.

Feminist goes on anti-male murder spree

EIGHTEEN YEAR OLD WOMAN GOES ON KILLING SPREE, DECLARES WAR ON THE PATRIARCHY, DIVIDES FEMINISTS

July 3, 2014 · by Diversity Chronicle · in Gun Control, Homophobia, Intolerance, Patriarchy, The Right To Choose, The War On Women · 2 Comments
Fighting Patriarchy

By Werombi Towradji

“Every male is a legitimate target. Every male is a rapist and an abuser of women! There are no exceptions! Even little boys will grow up to one day abuse women in some way or another. They too are legitimate targets.” So said young Anna Feldman in a politically charged “woman-ifesto” released over the internet hours before she grabbed an M-16 military style assault rifle and began her one woman war on patriarchal sexism at her college.

Many Feminists and Human Rights activists agree with Feldman; all males are potential rapists and they justly deserve to die for their collective crimes against women. Unfortunately, Feldman did not limit her killing to males. Several women were seriously injured and several died during her attack at Washington Progressive Community College.

Because Anna chose not to limit her attacks to men only, her actions remain controversial among feminists and progressives. In her attack last Thursday, Anna killed 24 men and injured 41. Regrettably, Anna also killed 26 young female college students and injured 67. Tragically, after the shootings, Anna turned her gun on herself, shooting herself in the head, ending her own life after ending so many others.

Friends of Anna report that she was distraught over her inability to find a girlfriend. Weighing nearly 400 pounds, Anna sometimes felt that her weight might possibly have been a barrier to finding a meaningful relationship with an attractive young woman. Anna complained on her blog that “All the pretty lesbians go for slender thin girls. OK, I am a little bit large. Maybe I am a little awkward with girls. But why can’t someone just give me a chance? I am a kind and fun person. I deserve to be loved. Girls can be so superficial. Besides, no one has the right to judge me for how I look. Lookism ultimately stems from patriarchy, it is a male behaviour that sadly women have adopted.”

In the weeks preceding her attacks, roommates reported that Anna often spent her evenings crying. She would often watch Lifetime television or read erotic lesbian vampire fiction and consume an entire carton of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream. Some critics on the extreme fringe of the radical right, believe Anna was pushed over the edge by her own personal life problems, rather than by an overriding concern with social justice. A friend, Lynette Rodriguez, suggested to Anna that she should consider trying to lose weight, exercising and perhaps talking to someone about her problems. Anna responded by telling her to “shut up you judgemental fucking cunt” and to “stop fat shaming” as “beautiful women come in all sizes and shapes.”

While Women’s Studies professors and Feminists across the country have praised Anna for her courage, and her brilliant manifesto, some are hating on her, even in death. “Anna reported in her diary entry the day that she died, that she wanted to get revenge on all the ‘pretty’ slim girls who turned her down and didn’t give her a chance. She wasn’t just mad about men abusing women. She felt women too had somehow wronged her. That makes Anna a traitor to her gender! Feminists do not hate other women! The psycho bitch thought that she was somehow entitled to pussy!” Prof. Claudia Jackson at Mississippi State Women’s College noted.

“Some say she’s a little bit like that creep Elliot Rodgers. Maybe that’s too harsh. She was upset because she couldn’t find someone to love her and have a relationship with her. Of course he was a man, so he only wanted sex. On the other hand, Anna did write a brilliant manifesto calling for the absolutely necessary eradication of all men from the planet. She was a complicated individual. She deserves much praise but also much criticism. If only she had directed all of her energy toward fighting patriarchy. Deep down, I believe she was a truly noble person.” Feminist veteran Gloria Steinem noted.

Close friend and fellow student Susan Aaronson had only praise for Anna. “She showed so much courage. She shot so many men. It was great! I was cheering for her after I found out! The girls she shot were traitors to their womanhood anyway. They were just make-up and dress wearing trash. Real women are strong and empowered and they don’t have to shave their legs or wear make-up or to try to look good for men. We don’t need women like them anyway. We are a stronger gender because they are dead! Anna is my hero!”

Some feminists believe the criticism of Anna is being unjustly levelled. They point out that Anna did not kill a single person herself. Anna used a gun to commit the horrific crimes which transpired. They claim that we should stop judging Anna and ask, instead, how did a young college girl gain access to a deadly weapon. It seems likely Anna would not have harmed anyone had she been unable to obtain a gun. In fact, if it were not for guns, this entire incident very likely would have never occurred! They also point out that our society continues to glamorize guns and violent weapons in films and television. These important factors cannot be divorced from the tragedy.

Anna’s feminist defenders also point out that according to her gynecologist, Anna was in the middle of her cycle and her judgement was impaired and strained by deep emotion at the time of the attacks. In short, she was not in any way responsible for her actions at the time. It also seems highly likely that a man sold Anna the gun which she used to tragically kill so many. Very few women work at gun stores or own or sell assault rifles.

One thing is for certain, the gun is at least partially responsible and Anna should not have to bear the responsibility for her actions alone. When someone is killed with a gun, two elements are involved, the killer and the gun, which does the actual killing. Without the second element present, killing someone would be much more difficult, if not impossible. It is unbelievable that we are in 2014 and all private firearms have not been outlawed yet in the US. Let us hope that politicians will fully exploit this tragedy and attempt to finally repeal the second amendment once and for all!

Some extreme women haters in the so-called “Men’s Rights Movement” are complaining about imaginary double standards in the treatment of the Elliot Rodger case compared to the Anna Feldman case. They claim that Rodgers was ridiculed for having a “sense of entitlement” for feeling he had a right to female companionship. Yet, they claim Anna Feldman has been given a pass by most for her ultimately murderous anger over not being able to get a girlfriend. The simple answer to this is that any heterosexual relationship between a man and a woman inherently involves the exploitation of women. A woman is only truly free and empowered when she has chosen to embrace lesbianism. Therefore, a man has no right to female companionship while a woman does.

The so-called “Men’s Rights” women haters claim that we were forbidden from asking what motivated Elliot Rodger and what led him to commit his crimes. They allege that we were not allowed to see him as a human being with feelings of his own. They claim that great effort has been made to portray Anna Feldman, by contrast as a complex human being, and to exonerate her from responsibility for her actions. They also allege that the mainstream media has worked to cover up the Anna Feldman case and that most people have never heard of it!

Let’s get this straight. Any attempt to understand Elliot Rodger and his motivations constitutes a crime against women and an act of violence! He was a racist white supremacist woman hating murderer who felt entitled to women’s bodies! As Anna Kasperian of The Young Turks noted, we shouldn’t be trying to understand Rodger, but instead we should be asking legitimate questions. Questions like how did he get a gun! By contrast Anna Feldman was a complex individual, who while not perfect, exerted great effort to advance women’s rights. The two are polar opposites and have almost nothing in common.

Since Anna’s death, several women have come forward alleging that they were sexually abused by her. Progressives believe that these critics are paid shills hired by the extreme and radical right. Their purpose is to propagate false and unverifiable claims in an attempt to discredit Anna Feldman’s struggle against patriarchy. These women are traitors to their gender and their allegations are as absurd as they are offensive to the cause of women’s rights. These creatures have shown by their behaviour that they don’t deserve to be called women. They are nothing but whores and bitches who seek to malign the name of a woman whose greatness they can never hope to approximate. They are motivated by greed and jealousy, and are hoping to sell their BS stories to Fox News.

Perhaps Anna’s greatest contribution to the feminist cause was her manifesto. In it Anna expressed profound and brilliant thoughts that are inspiring a new generation of feminists and human rights activists. Titled “My Woman-ifesto” Anna bravely and unabashedly sought to warn young girls about the dangers of men, and urged them to begin experimenting with lesbianism. Thousands of copies of her Woman-ifesto are turning up at schools and colleges across the country and around the world.

Anna noted “The earlier you start trying lesbianism the more normal it will seem to you and the easier it will be. I spent several years working to overcome my unnatural and disgusting attraction to men. Heterosexuality constitutes a betrayal of your gender. It is a myth that people are born heterosexual, it is entirely a social construct.”

Anna pointed out that “All unborn fetuses are parasites that depend on women’s bodies in order to survive. To become pregnant is to allow an organism to live and grow in your body. Remember the movie Alien? These hideous aliens would grow inside people’s bodies and then kill them. Fetuses are no different from that, why can’t people see that? Every baby is a hostile parasite that must be destroyed. If you ever become pregnant it is your moral duty to have an abortion. If you don’t do it, you are a traitor to your gender and part of the patriarchy. Abortion must be made compulsory!

Anna advises girls to “recognize that every male is a potential rapist who only sees women as a means to satisfy his own disgusting lusts. Men are incapable of love or compassion. They are pigs unworthy of life. It is our great destiny as women to abolish the male gender and rid our planet of all men. Women will require a strong leader to do this. I believe that I am the one ordained by Gaia for this great undertaking. I know that I am destined to rule the world. Women who resist or stand in my way, will just have to die.”

Anna’s actions make her a very controversial figure, but she deserves to be remembered as a complex human being and not a monster. She was a strong and brilliant young woman, yet also a woman who was suffering deep emotional pain. She was a woman who desperately craved love and acceptance but tragically was unable to find it. As we mourn the deaths of the young women she tragically killed, let us also hope that in death Anna found the peace that she could not find in life.

In this writer’s opinion, Anna deserves to be remembered as a victim of the radical gun lobby, which enabled her to ultimately obtain an assault rifle. She was an intelligent, strong, and independent young woman who, despite her faults, made a greatly meaningful contribution to feminism and women’s studies. Like Malcolm X was to African-American studies, Anna Feldman will be to Women’s Studies.

I write this article just after the Supreme Court’s offensive, blatantly chauvinist and woman-hating ruling that privately held corporations do not have to pay for women’s birth control and abortions. The Supreme Court of male chauvinists claims that the government can pay for the birth control and abortions and that businesses should not be forced to violate their religious principles. However, that is a mere smokescreen.

The real agenda of the Supreme Court is to try to make it as hard as possible for women to exercise their own rights over their own bodies! Their goal is ultimately to outlaw all birth control and all abortions, under all circumstances. They want to force women to have children they do not want against their will! These patriarchal extremists will not be satisfied until every woman in this country is bare-foot, pregnant, and chained to a kitchen stove! They want nothing less than the total enslavement of women.

Tragically, we live in an age where the war on women becomes ever more violent and radical, and where far-right and religious extremists conspire and threaten to stop women from having access to birth control and abortion. Brave women like Anna Feldman are needed now more than ever! Yes, she made mistakes, but we need more women like Anna Feldman, strong and courageous women who are not afraid to fight patriarchy. Patriarchy must be castrated and smashed, before it succeeds in outlawing birth control and reducing women to their former status as kitchen slaves and breeders for men.

Source

I was floored by the hypocrisy in this article. This is how feminists think. This is who they are. They accuse others of rape and violence yet engage in it themselves. When others do it they blame the perps yet when they do it they blame the victim. Wait,isn't that "victim blaming"? Yes,it is. Don't feminists pay lip service to protest "victim blaming"? Yes,they do. When is "victim blaming" okay? Well,apparently when a feminist does it is excused by other feminists and society at large. This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to address. For our own safety we need to address it as a society and we need to do so now.

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.

The manosphere on the factor

We got mentioned on the Factor. On the 5-28-14 O'Reilly Factor Bill mentioned the manosphere and actually said that we are not at fault in the Elliot Rodger case. He showed a clip of one of the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) pit yorkies attacking the manosphere. O'Reilly shot this theory down. It seems that feminists are getting very nervous. Perhaps the misandry they spreaded throughout society is starting to backfire on them. What you sown you shall reap.

Elliot Rodger and the misandric society

This is a young man who snapped. After being told feminist lies while growing up. I've touched upon this before and here. A young man who was put through a misandric school system by a misandric society that prized women no matter how evil they were while putting down men no matter how noble they were. Today we act surprised and horrified that young men are snapping. We act surprised that when boys are bullied by misandry they snap. Our society hasn't caught on to this "cause and effect" thing yet. Or so it seems. This is the same society that makes excuses for female killers such as Casey Anthony,Clara Harris,Jodi Arias,Susan Smith and Andrea Yates. This is the same society that put down what happened to John Bobbitt. America,you exalt feminists and feminism,in it's full misandric form. You exalt women above men then you act surprised when a young man who has been spit upon by society lashes out. You can only kick someone for awhile before they fight back. This young man was never given a choice. You,America,were given a choice and you chose to discount men. Well,America,I hope you can live with your choice. This is a country that says men should not have emotions,that men are unfeeling brutes. Well we can see that is not the case. One young man did care,in fact he described himself as the "supreme gentleman". We have a society that has women give lip service to chivalry yet when it is practiced they have disdain for it. Women say they want someone "sensitive" but in practice they despise such a man. So after being lied to and betrayed he snapped. This society demands that men be stoic and uncaring but that appears not to be the case.