#YesAllWomen
This is the twitter hashtag that has been trending since Elliott Roger’s violence spree and since his misogynistic writings and videos came to light. It is worth spending time reading through them (there are some people — men — who refuse to take this seriously and some are angrily trolling the hashtag, but in the main, these tweets documenting the misogyny that women live with Every.Damn.Day are powerful and heartbreaking. Some will make you angry and others will make you sad. It is an amazing ourpouring from women all over the world making sure that everyone knows that misogyny like Rogers’ is something women need to constantly be prepared for — including the violence. There are a few Storifys of these tweets (and if you know of better ones, please post them up):
A few that resonated with me:
Because every single woman I know has a story about a man feeling entitled to access to her body. Every. Single. One. #YesAllWomen
— Emily (@emilyhughes) May 24, 2014
#YesAllWomen are taught safety tips to prevent rape but not all men are taught about consent. pic.twitter.com/NLFZklK3As
— Elizabeth Plank (@feministabulous) May 24, 2014
#YesAllWomen because alcohol excuses his actions but condemn mine. pic.twitter.com/5EGIwt6IgC
— Elizabeth Plank (@feministabulous) May 25, 2014
#YesAllWomen b/c a convo about college rape stats prompted the response "rape is a serious accusation" instead of "rape is a serious crime"
— Yuliya Nemykina (@YuliyaNemykina) May 25, 2014
Because women are forced to monitor the way they dress, act, and exist so the male attention they receive doesn't turn violent. #YesAllWomen
— Elizabeth May (@_ElizabethMay) May 25, 2014
This one is just frightening:
#YessAllWomen because this is the most disturbing thing you will ever read. rape is never right or acceptable pic.twitter.com/8G7pHKCmLK
— natalia (@natal_akop) May 27, 2014
I could post these up all day. I’m not sure where all of this attention on the longstanding problem of violence against women is going, but it is hopeful that women all over the world spoke up to make sure that the narrative that somehow Elliott Rogers’ attitudes towards women isn’t an outlier.
Tags: #YesAllWomen, Featured
Rodger is an outlier even if the experiences above are not outliers.
I would talk to my daughter about predators because it is easier to protect one known person than to stop an unknown perpetrator.
Alcohol neither excuses his actions nor condemns her actions. But drinking does make her an easier target.
“Rape is a serious allegation” because “rape is a serious crime.”
I wish that we lived in a world where everyone could do whatever he or she wanted. But we do not. Not everyone is noble, and we must worry about criminals. No amount of education or re-education will stop violence against women (just as no amount will stop violence, period).
You can live in utopia, but the rest of us live in the real world.
Because every women I’ve ever known has a prepared explanation/excuse for when “no, thank you.” isn’t good enough for the man asking them to dance or for a date. And every one of them holds their breath waiting to be called a bitch (or worse) after they say “no.” Every. Single. One.
I’m not saying all men behave this way, but every woman has dealt with men that do… many times.
I don’t understand the consternation with the statement “rape is a serious allegation.”
Anyway, the Rogers case is about murder, not rape.
Rogers is an extreme case of an all too prevalent attitude gone too far. If a positive comes out of this, the attention that this hashtag and these stories are getting might be it. It is past time to bring these incidences to light and to reflect on the attitudes that we have as a society of what is acceptable and what is not.
“I’m not saying all men behave this way, but every woman has dealt with men that do… many times.”
And probably everyone of those men have or had a mother. Every. single. one. Armed with that knowledge, I would think that the collective motherhood would have banded together to teach their sons respect for women. Yeah, I know that some children may end up the way they are through no fault of the parents, but some aspects of this culture can and should be influenced by parents.
How about MARC (Mothers Against Rape Culture) to support mothers in educating their children? If you looked at the high school survey, one has to ask “where did they get such ideas?”
If you read his manifesto, rape figures prominently. And if he had been able to execute his plan then rape, torture and killing was his end game. His plan included turning his apartment into a torture chamber. This was his intent. He was thwarted by a locked sorority house door.
And actually, Davy, as a man you live in a very different world than women. That’s your privilege.
Um, Dave… why is the father missing from your comment?
Thanks for sharing cassandra, I’ve been following for a few days (put it in open thread then) This is indeed powerful, and frankly most all of it breaks my heart.
Also, you need to fix your link to the hashtag, it includes 2 “s” as in #YESSALLWOMEN which is picking up tweets from those that misspelled the hashtag.
the correct search is this: https://twitter.com/search?f=realtime&q=%23YesAllWomen&src=typd
Thank you, John — I fixed the hashtag link.
Rogers is an extreme case of an all too prevalent attitude gone too far.
MikeM2784 definitely gets it. And you can’t address the “too far” part without addressing the all too prevalent attitude part.
*That’s* what the real world looks like.
Mothers should teach their boys about respect for women? what should their fathers teach them?
These stories and the women sharing them are evidence of that attitude existing far beyond the extreme of Rogers. This needs to be exposed and combated at every turn by mothers, fathers, teachers, friends, anyone who has influence over young (and even older) men. Yes, I get it, and it scares the hell out of me….makes me furiously angry as I look over at my beautiful young daughter and consider the shit she’ll have to deal with. I’m sure every parent on here feels the same way….perhaps a good accompanying tag should be #notmydaughter.
And she will deal with this crap, MikeM. It started in middle school for my daughter and it broke my heart and the anger I felt is indescribable. Boys commenting on her appearance – compliments at first then turning into vile name calling if she didn’t respond in a fashion they considered appropriate. When she got bangs, a middle school boy told her she needed to be careful because she was looking slutty. Bangs!
In high school she was inundated with “nice guys” who felt entitled to her attention, time, etc. simply because they were “nice.” She thought they were her friends. Little did she know that they expected a “return” on their niceness and friendship. That hurt her. Luckily, she has an amazing group of guy and girl friends now, but the process of getting there was extremely painful for her.
I have another story, but I don’t want to make you reach for the whiskey.
Pandora
Your writings suggest that you’ve morphed a legitimate problem into a lifestyle perspective. I read your rendition of your daughter’s pain and can’t help but feel that you’ve cultivated a victim.
Sex and age notwithstanding, there are shits in every corner of life that do inexcusably bad things for bad reason to others. Everyone has to deal with them. Giving those shits the power to make you feel hurt or bad, however, is the ultimate form of victim surrender. Take a page out of Maya Angelou’s life – learn to live life as it is not regret how it is.
Ain’t Taking it any more:
Your comment suggests that you’ve no daughters. It’s not so much “giving those shits the power to make you feel hurt or bad” (although such is incredibly difficult for a 12-15 year-old just discovering her body, her own desires, and the world all at once), but it is the fact that shitty behavior by men/boys is something that women are expected to put up with rather than that they can expect to ever change.
It changes one dad to one son at a time, at least in this dad’s opinion. I was never prouder of my son than the night he went to his first homecoming dance with a young lady who had invited him, when he came to me and said, “What do I need to know so that I make this night special for her?” She wasn’t his girlfriend; she was a friend. He was 15 then; this September he goes off to college and despite the fact that he is very tall and very muscular I am confident that (a) no woman will need to worry about his actions and that (b) he won’t stand by and watch things happen in his presence that shouldn’t.
The world can be changed, one child at a time.
By the way, I know Pandora’s daughter, and if you think she’s become anyone’s victim, you’re definitely thinking about the wrong person.
I have always considered Pandora and exemplary parent and still do.
She has not raised a victim – bit a child who was faced with the harsh realities of being a woman
I also have daughters – and as soon as they knew or realized they were a separate entity we taught them self autonomy- their body their choice
When one was bullied in grade school as were the other girls, by the same boy she was taught to defend herself…. And when she reported the issue she was told not to tattle tale
I also went to the school and was met with the ‘boys will be boys’ attitude
So, fast forward a few years…. Same boy punched and grabbed her- she from his finger and bent it backward until it snapped .
We or course had to appear at the school- it was then that I informed the superintendent that ‘ we are not raising a future domestic violence Victim ‘ she was taught to defend herself and she did. We support her decision to do just that
The issue was dropped after the superintendent picked her jaw up off the floor.
We never encouraged physical violence- but she knows that If force must be used she will be supported .
We have her permission to be the owner and guardian of her own body and instilled the right to defend herself
Both are like that – and I pity the man who tries to pull a fast one. The violent men will always be there.
We arm our daughters with the ability to recognize them and the wherewithal to fight and defend themselves
I have a 20 year old daughter. She went through all of the demeaning crap that young girls endure. She dealt with it relying on more courage that anyone could ever teach her. My scrawny son likewise endured the macho-abuse crap that boys have to deal with. None of it is good. None of it should be tolerated.
Like most parents my wife and I taught our kids the golden rule and, to the best of our ability, tried to live it every day. We also taught them to learn from everything in life – the good and especially the bad – in the hope that they would be better people for it.
I don’t know Padora’s daughter. I’ll gladly take your word for it. I did, however, read and re-read Pandora’s account of her teenage daughter’s troubles. My point was and is that we do nothing worthy as parents by allowing our children to see themselves as victims. I never ever said, though or meant that her complaints about abuse were petty or unrealistic. Nor did I say that parents shouldn’t teach and live respect. They should.
No disrespect intended. No malice intended.
“Your writings suggest that you’ve morphed a legitimate problem into a lifestyle perspective. I read your rendition of your daughter’s pain and can’t help but feel that you’ve cultivated a victim.”
Women would tell you that dealing with these problems aren’t a lifestyle perspective (what does that even mean?); that these problems are part of their daily life.
My daughter is 17, just finishing her junior year, and isn’t a victim. What she is is informed, mainly because we discussed all these situations over the years. She can spot red flags and is becoming extremely adept at avoiding toxic personal relationships. That’s a process, and one that begins with having open communication. If she’s not telling you what’s going on, or you’re dismissing/not understanding her uniquely female experiences then how is she supposed to recognize, handle or avoid a bad situation? How does actually addressing these specific situations create a victim? I would say it creates the opposite.
Everyone does understand that what my daughter encounters is what every woman encounters, in varying degrees, right? And yes, these situations are unique to women.
And talking to your children (I have a 20 year old son, as well) in the middle and high school years about this sort of behavior is crucial, mainly because it’s so blatant – most kids haven’t learned to hide their attitudes/behavior behind a phoney veneer. It’s textbook misogyny and quite easy to spot and address. And all of us should be calling it out.
Legitimate Problem – abusive, unwanted advances made against women by men that are tolerated/excused by society
Lifestyle Perspective – anchoring your world view by pigeonholing everything in life through the lens of abusive, unwanted advances made against women by men that are tolerated/excused by society.
The world’s evils are not simply confined to misogyny. Every single day people confront other bad people who act on bad motives and who do bad things for bad reasons. Not excusing the bad people. That bad thing, that bad motive and that bad person neither define the world nor, hopefully, define their victim’s lifestyle or world perspective. To do otherwise is to acquiesce to victim status.
I do not dispute for a single moment the trouble your daughter, or my daughter, endured simply because they are women and simply because men cannot control themselves. Your point is acknowledged.
Point made: go back and read what you wrote. Every bit of it is saturated with the verbiage of a victim from the initial remarks, the responses and the descriptions. You called out one commentator for not including a reference to a father’s responsibility. You talked about battle phrases to be used in difficult situations and told us that every women has them at the ready. You pined on about your daughter’s struggles, her bravery climbing over the injustice, the tragedy she suffered. Reading it all lead me to conclude that the “writing” reflected a singular focus on misogynist behavior and, no less troubling, the emotional damage creating no more than a victim. The emphasis on victimization struck a chord and I felt compelled to comment.
Good day.
But this isn’t a thread on bad things happen to all people, is it? It’s a thread on #yesallwomen. If this was a post about how boys are bullied for not living up to society’s definition of masculinity then that’s what I would be discussing because… ya know… that would be the point.
And your projecting a victim-hood “lifestyle perspective” onto me and my daughter makes you part of the problem we are discussing.
Right on, Pandora.
And to aint’s …., I would only say this, since your reading comprehension, or sensibility, definitely is not quite up to par: Clearly, Pandora’s daughter did not decide to be a victim, she was made one by rude, thoughtless, and aggressive young males. Period!
“Um, Dave… why is the father missing from your comment?”
Good question Pandora. The omission was deliberate. The first female relationship every boy has is with his mother. Mother’s understand what it is to be a girl having had girl experiences. Fathers can educate respect for people in general, but I think that mothers are in a unique position to be able communicate with her son from a female perspective and mothers have more of a nurturing capacity than fathers. Plus, in the world we live in, every boy has a mother but many do not have fathers.
There’s alot of the usual bullshit in your response, Dave. Because once again, it is the women in the equation who are supposed to be solely responsible for the behavior their men. Even when those men don’t have the proper male role models. Mothers do have a special relationship with their mothers — and it is pretty usual to observe men who will extend care and respect to their moms that they won’t to the other women in their lives. When do fathers get to be responsible for the behavior of their sons? Even the ones they won’t engage with.
Sheesh, Dave, I’m not sure I can handle another female-only responsibility! 😉
While I agree that mothers can have a strong impact, mainly by sharing their experiences with their sons and pointing out unacceptable behavior, I do think that fathers and men have just as much impact (maybe more) by leading by example. Defining, understanding, etc. your masculinity comes, in part, by watching, and emulating, behavior. Men have a huge role to play in this.
I would love terms like “man card” and “be a man” or “grow a pair” to be eradicated from our language, but these terms (and many more like them) exist and put pressure on boys to… well… man up. See how pervasive that crap is?
Several years ago, I banned all gender specific slurs/insults/idioms from my home. I told my kids to improve their vocabulary and we have had very interesting discussions on these words and how they’re used to hurt/devalue an individual man and woman. These were great discussions. My son said the male words/phrases were designed to make men do something they weren’t comfortable with – that they were goading words designed to lessen individual choice. My daughter said the female words/phrases were designed to either shut up a women or tell her to act more like a man (grow a pair, have some balls). Both ended up deciding the words were basically manipulative and now they have these discussions with their friends. That’s progress.
And I don’t believe mothers have more of a nurturing capacity than fathers. Maybe 30 years ago, but that is rapidly changing. Which is a good thing.
Note: And even 30 or 40 (or forever) years ago mothers weren’t naturally more nurturing. They were labeled that, while fathers were labeled disciplinarians and tough lovers, due to patriarchy. Which hurts men as well as women.
“There’s alot of the usual bullshit in your response, Dave. Because once again, it is the women in the equation who are supposed to be solely responsible for the behavior their men.”
Nope, there is no such thing as a sole responsibility, sole solution, or sole anything else. While much of the so-called female roles are a result of social conditioning, there are biological aspects that cannot be dismissed. That’s not to say that fathers cannot or do not nurture. Nothing is absolute but gender tendencies remain regardless even in the absence of social condition. We are after all mammals and most mammals do not deal with social conditioning issues that we deal with. It is simply that men do not walk in women’s shoes and cannot comprehend with the same empathy as woman could. People resort to that refrain for many aspects of life, including (and especially) race, gender, LBGT issues, ad nauseam. Even so, without repeating what I said, I did not exclude fathers, I was pointing out the uniqueness of a mother and son relationship that provides an opportunity for mothers (who were girls at one point) to act in a more collective and collaborative manner to effect a cultural change such as MAD has accomplished. I am sorry you read that as excluding fathers and anyone else I may have failed to include.
Honestly, sometimes I think folks read for omission rather than commission. It’s binary thinking that the mention of one group automatically excludes all other groups. I’m surprised that someone didn’t bring up families where there is no female role model (e.g. same sex male parents), after all I must have excluded them as well. But really, I didn’t exclude anyone. I merely pointed out what I considered to be a unique opportunity that is presented in a mother/son relationship.
It’s really not binary, Dave, especially when you assign homework to women, and when #not all men has become such a meme – so much so that I used it in my first comment because if I hadn’t I would have been inundated with comments saying, “Not all Men!” (You do know that #yesallwomen was created to counter this “not all men” outrage? And it’s interesting how no one has ever claimed that all men behave badly, but I’m beginning to think that entering a discussion with “Not all men!” is merely a way to shut the conversation down. Not directed at you, btw.)
It bothers me because, while we lump groups together (too much/not right, but we do) we’re supposed to view white men as individuals – and most of them weren’t crying “not all women” or “not all blacks, hispanics, asians, gays, etc.” They only joined the discussion when their individuality was questioned. Then there was a problem. The VA tech shooter = discussion of Korean parenting. Fort Hood/Boston Marathon Bombers = Muslim religion discussion. Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, James Holmes = lone wolf mentally ill person.
Even when Elliot Rodger writes a manifesto telling us exactly why he did what he did (he hated women and the men who they gave their bodies to, because he was entitled to those women.) we dismiss his own words, discount the misogyny, and pronounce him as mentally ill individual – even though society and the internet are full of men who think (and say things) EXACTLY like him. Elliot Rodger’s actions were extreme, his mindset was not.
And, your “ad nauseam” comment signals to me that you’re tired of discussing race, gender, LBGT issues. I’m not sure you meant to come across that way, but that’s the way it read to me.
Wait a minute…. Pandora… you remind us (rightly) that the only proper authority on woman’s issues can be a woman. Why then, isnt the mother the best person to educate the son about how women ought/want to be treated? It isnt her responsibility alone… but based on what you’ve said here repeatedly, the father IS NOT the one who should be speaking on behalf of women. I think that is what dave was saying… i think
So that is to say….. Is the mother the BEST person… in a heteronormative 2 parent household…. to educate the son(s)… NOT the woman’s job…. or not to absolve fatherly responsibility…… but just the best one for that one specific job that conveys that specific set of education.
I actually dont know if that is what dave was saying… but now it is what I am asking. Im not tryin to GETCHA…. Im not trying to assign gender roles.
I’ve said that a woman is the authority on her body, and only her body. I am not the authority of my daughter’s body. I believe in autonomy.
(And could you show me where I’ve said, “but based on what you’ve said here repeatedly, the father IS NOT the one who should be speaking on behalf of women.” I don’t believe I ever made such a claim.)
I’ve also asked that people listen to women’s experiences (which some days seems a bridge too far). It would be like you or me telling a black/hispanic person that their experiences with racism aren’t correct. We haven’t lived their experience, so our best bet is to be quiet and listen… not go off about biology or derail the conversation by making it about how “not all white people” are racist.
In the two person household you reference, both parents are in charge of raising children. There aren’t (or shouldn’t be) pink parenting jobs and blue parenting jobs.
“The world’s evils are not simply confined to misogyny.”
Yet, as men, I don’t think we’re in any position to say where misogyny ranks on the list of evils.
Pandora… you have told ME… a few times… that because I am a man, I cant speak on behalf of women. you have said that because you are not Black or Jewish, you cannot speak on behalf of Blacks or Jews. It’s a fair principle that I hope you aren’t going to try to deny now.
I also dont recall me or dave saying anything was the mother’s sole responsibility. All I am saying is…. perhaps the BEST (not only…i am not saying only, please don’t respond to my comment as if i said only, it would be lame, incorrect, and counter productive) person to give insight to a young boy on how he should treat girls/women, is his mother. Sure, a father also should A) be the right kind of example (that is the most important part) and also give fatherly advice. that’s all im saying.
And you can’t speak on those experiences, Ben (and neither can I). But I never claimed to speak on behalf of ALL women. But please provide a link to where I said what you claimed I said.
We’ve had many discussions where I have spoken for myself and have asked men to listen to women – I’ve even asked commenters to show the women in their lives some of my posts for feedback.
And you and Dave are placing the responsibility on the mother. You’re kinda going with the Sergeant Schultz defense 😉 while Dave mimics me with his “Every. Single. One.” has a mother and that these mothers need to band together and teach their sons to respect women. I asked him to clarify his statement because I sensed I hit a nerve with my first comment.
“you’re tired of discussing race, gender, LBGT issues.”
No, I’m not tired because I rarely if ever discuss them because people have told me “that because I am a man, I cant speak on behalf of women.” and people “have said that because you are not Black or Jewish, you cannot speak on behalf of Blacks or Jews.” And so like Ben, I can’t explain the experience of women to them.
“I actually dont know if that is what dave was saying”
That’s exactly what I was saying.
You know… sometimes it isn’t all about you. Letting others tell you about their personal experiences and you asking questions and then contributing your thoughts is a discussion.
And it is interesting how posts (not only this one on this site) about women issues turn into threads about mens’ concerns.
If anyone does not think there is a cultural war against women’s in this country…please read this on WBOC and the comments
DISGUSTING……
http://mobile.wboc.com/wboctv/db_341596/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=ad1dPHgi
of course i dont have a link to it, it’s somewhere back in the annals of DL. But it is true, and I hope someone would back me up here, because Pandora seems to have some selective amnesia…. that you have said people from a specific group have more of a “right” to speak on the issues facing that group, than someone from the outside.
Given that logic, a mother (woman) is more qualified than a father (man) to speak to a son (boy) on women’s issues, how women feel about certain things, etc.
You keep telling me what I’ve said, where one doesnt even have to search past threads to see it isnt what I’m saying. You have what you WANT me to be saying. you are arguing (kind of bullishly… as in a bully, not a male bovine) against the point you WANT me to be making. I’m sorry I’m being so uncooperative, but I dont think, nor have i ever said or implied…. (i actually think i disclaimed the point quite obviously)….. that only the mother should be anything, (other than the birther, of course) rather a BETTER resource on some topics.
Out of curiosity, what if the father is a misogynistic ass hole? Isnt it then the mother’s responsibility (to all the women her son will have contact with) to make sure he has a little influence as possible in how that boy grows up? It isnt FAIR…. but the alternative?
The right to speak isn’t an issue here — it is just a deflection from a discussion on holding men accountable for not treating women like property.
Women are not solely responsible for civilizing every man out there — theirs or anyone elses. Men need to step up and make sure that the men they are responsible for (and friendly with) get a better clue too. It still takes a village.
Sheesh, of course I have said that when a person from a specific group speaks about their life experiences (in being part of that group) that we need to shut up and listen to them. But that isn’t remotely what we’re talking about. We aren’t only talking about women when we discuss misogyny – we are talking about men and their behaviors (Not all men!). Removing them from the dialogue doesn’t make sense.
Geez! It was simply a comment that mothers (who are authority figures, role models, AND women) are uniquely positioned to provide some much need guidance to their sons in this particular area. As ben succinctly put it, they are “perhaps the BEST person” I did not, and neither did ben, suggest or imply that they were the only person or that they had the total responsibility. To infer a different meaning, intent, or implication in the comment is incorrect. If you don’t feel mothers are “perhaps the best” or “uniquely positioned” please feel free to disagree with that point. But don’t shift to an argument regarding what authority figure was omitted or because I failed to mention or discuss every authority figure.
WOW just WOW. As much as the misogynist tone was laid out in the manifesto, I have to say, I came away with an entire different reflection of what the overarching primary, glaring pathological, toxic environment this kid was raised, and not well re-oriented.
ENTITLEMENT
Being raised amongst the opulent, excessive, indulgent, hedonistic, lifestyles and community this fellow was raised, as “an outsider looking in”–he obviously was not cared for, and shown in life anything less than shallow benchmarks of success as an individual or human being. His parents should have had him laughing at those ridiculous lifestyles and priorities of those folks–instead of positioning him as the token obvious outsider deigned “entrance” to an occasional A list event. So sad , that given his age, he is all the more acutely aware the women that come with that territory. Only his end-stage writings can be called misogynistic–too bad his ubringing wasn’t more pointed to the identification of just well-dressed, voluptuous, sycophantic whores mixed amongst his crowd. And a reality check of values, and real life–instead of his episodic reality TV series of “Beverly Hills Birthdays”, or “Real Hollywood Housewives” or whatever, that seemed to overshadow and command his life. Six weeks in a 3rd world country, would have proved invaluable to an attitude adjustment–but of course not dismissing psych intervention also. Misogyny? Sorry, went w/ the envy of the entire package.
Sure Joanne. – did it occur to you that he was mentally ill? And maybe didn’t have control of his thoughts?
It certainly does not excuse the killings BUT this isn’t just about
GUNS
MISOGYNY
OR
MENTAL HEALTH
ITs about our society’s lack of response TO ALL THREE
It’s difficult to psychoanalyze a mentally ill person from a 150 page rambling ……..and draw conclusions from that document about his level of entitlement
If we knew that he was not ever deemed mentally I’ll then different story- but I’m not sure you or anyone else on this blog is qualified to draw conclusions on his life or the response of his parents
Just you try to get services for a mentally ill adult in crises in this state and see how far you get – good luck with that
Well Aoine, since you’re gunning for me this pm–let me direct you to the next to the last line of my previous entry –psych intervention.
Adult crisis psych services in this state–been there, it’s deplorable–not so much crisis, as is the ‘after the crisis, and waiting for the next shoe to drop”—because only a band-aid was given.
And lastly, this is only a blog–like adult conversation going back and forth around a campfire, bar-b-que, or dinner party. None of this dialogue is to be construed as testimony, gospel, pronouncement, or verdict. Just thoughts, opinions, reflections, and unverified conversation via the screen.
Have a nice rest of the evening. All 3 are well front and center now.
Joanne:
Don’t feel bad. It’s not you. Opposing points of view are bitch-slapped here.
Ain’t – are you now Joanne’s caped crusader?
Or just coincidence that you follow and defend her posts?
Hmmmmmm – I think she can handle herself pretty well. Unless of course your assistance was requested….
At least all three are front and center- yes Joanne- until the easily distracted public are enticed Away and we are all left slapping bandages on
Misogyny
Mental health and
Guns
Like we have been doing – yeah- good luck with that
Entitlement was a key part, but entitlement is also a key part of misogyny. Misogynists feel entitled to women – to women’s time, conversation, bodies.
I’m actually curious, especially when Rodgers told us exactly what he was going to do and why he was going to do it, why people are discounting misogyny. Rodgers was quite clear in his hatred of women – said all women should be killed, with some kept in concentration camps for breeding purposes. He made it clear that he was going to a sorority house to kill women. He hated the men who were with women he felt entitled to, and hated the women for giving those men what he considered his due. All of this doesn’t lessen any of his other problems. But there was a specific reason he targeted the sorority house and not his old k-12 schools or a coffee house.
When that man shot up the Jewish Community Center no one said that anti-Semitism wasn’t the reason. No one said he wasn’t anti-Semitic because he killed Christians instead of his intended targets. So, I’m not getting the resistance to calling a guy who clearly stated his hatred of women a misogynist and lessening the role his misogyny played in the killings.
I don’t get it, either. This guy had parents (who apparently tried to help him), multiple therapists and even multiple contacts with law enforcement. His entire “Manifesto” is fueled by his perceived rejection by women. His little brother was also a target for his killing spree. Pandora is right that the business of entitlement is a key part of misogyny. Joanne is right that some of this entitlement is cultural. All of which is an explanation and not an excuse. The culture changes when enough of us say that this is no longer acceptable.
The problem, though, is that those most attached to the misogynistic portions of our culture are the ones who are ground zero of the kind of dangers detailed above.
Well said.
@pandora:
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of [gender] is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of [gender].” But you qualify to join the discussion if and only if you are a member of the class of victims. If not, the privilege of being a member of the class of alleged perpetrators is an effective substitute for participation.
Thank you for telling me that I am “privileged” and my views do not (or barely) matter.
And thank you for your opening comment that says that we live in an utopia while you live in the real world. Why is your comment considered not dismissive, while my comment is cause for outrage. I simply responded in kind.
You do know that if you were to comment on your experience as a high school boy dealing with society’s ridiculous standards of masculinity I wouldn’t be questioning or dismissing your experiences. I would, you know, listen – mainly because I have no idea what it’s like to be a boy and would defer to you, and your experiences, for guidance.
And I don’t get why (mostly) white guys get so bent out of shape about their privilege. As a financially secure, white woman I know that I have privilege. I know, for instance, that my son would never be Trayvon Martin. I know, simply by my appearance, that I am given the benefit of the doubt and a lot of preferential treatment. I accept that my privilege exists which makes me aware when others aren’t afforded the same consideration.
So why do some men (not ALL men) take talk of gender or race issues so personally? Especially when it isn’t about them.
“I’m actually curious, especially when Rodgers told us exactly what he was going to do and why he was going to do it, why people are discounting misogyny. ”
Rodgers is a garden-variety sociopath and it is offensive to link his sickness as part of a continuum with ordinary male/female relationships.
How on earth could it be offensive when you can read exactly what he wrote and see all of the misogyny there. He may have been a sociopath too, but that doesn’t erase any of the misogyny.
Garden-variety sociopath? You couldn’t be more wrong. Look up the definition — they are people who find it EASY to charm and manipulate people without conscience. He’s nowhere near that definition. But pick-up artists are.
Your defensiveness is clouding your vision on this. Perhaps it’s invisible to you, but treating women as objects IS a sociopathic way to view them.
This baffles me. No where is anyone calling out, or comparing him to, “ordinary” male/female relationships. I’m not the one making that leap.
Why is so important that this guy not be labeled a misogynist? That’s a serious question. Is it because people don’t believe misogyny is real?
To quote myself: “Rodger is an outlier even if the experiences above are not outliers.”
Rodger was a misogynist. No doubt there. But do you think he killed people because he was a misogynist or because he was ill?
The answer is important because, presumably, it determines how we stop (or at least try to stop) the next Rodger. Do you think educating a Rodger clone about how to treat other people (which includes women) would help him?
The focus on misogyny with respect to Rodger is counterproductive. The focus on misogyny in general is deserved.
“Rodger was a misogynist. No doubt there. But do you think he killed people because he was a misogynist or because he was ill?”
I don’t think this is an either/or question. I think he killed people because he was a misogynist and mentally ill – although, we have no proof (yet) he was diagnosed as mentally ill – just that he had problems and was in some sort of therapy – but we have a boatload of proof he was a misogynist. (And I wouldn’t be the least surprised if he had mental problems. Then again, I think anyone who is racist, sexist, homophobic, hates Jews/Muslims/Christians, etc. has mental problems.)
In some ways it reminds me of the gun debate. Don’t talk about gun control because guns don’t kill people, crazy people do. And this can be applied across the board. Was Timothy McVeigh anti-government or just crazy? And if he was just crazy, then why erect all those barriers outside of government buildings. Why have metal detectors? Why specifically address who he attacked if he was just crazy? Why do we react to the motives of terrorists, and not just say, “Well, some people be crazy” and move on, since there’s nothing to be done.
And the same can be said about homophobes, sexists, racists, anti-Semites, etc.. If crazy people (I refuse to use the word mentally ill, since the vast majority of mentally ill people aren’t violent and are more likely to victims of crime) are just crazy, and there’s no link to other issues, then that allows us to not deal with issues we may find uncomfortable – issues that may force us to reexamine ourselves and change our behavior.
If gun enthusiasts admit there’s a problem with guns, then they’ll have to change their behavior. If racists (especially those who pride themselves on not using the “N” word, but generally feel and act as if whites are superior – because, ya know, biology – and the biology “argument” is a favorite among misogynists/sexists, as well) acknowledge that racism is a problem, then that would make them question their own attitudes. Same damn thing with homophobes and misogynists – even those that are considered benign. You know the ones who carelessly toss around the words f*g (I despise that word), slut, whore, etc.. And I’m starting to feel that the push back on eliminating these words and attitudes, by the people who use them, is due to asking those people to give up something they like to do.
” I think he killed people because he was a misogynist and mentally ill”
If true, Rodgers’s brand of misogyny can’t be corrected by his father teaching him any better, or even by every boy’s father teaching them better. Because he is not part of a continuum with ordinary male-female relationships.
Why do you keep associating “this brand of misogyny” with “ordinary male-female” relationships?
I don’t think the project is “ending misogyny” — it’s making people aware of the suffering it causes.
I don’t think the project is ending mental illness, either — always been with us, always will be.
And I don’t think discussion of these subjects is undertaken only with the goal of “preventing the next” Elliot Rodger. Until the guns are gone, there will always be another one.
You don’t get to determine what path the discussion takes. If people want to use one murderer’s misogyny as a jumping-off point for discussing misogyny, what’s it to you?
It is true that being a woman comes with certain potential vulnerabilities at the hands of men. But it also grants unimaginable power and control over men. The source of the vulnerability is the same thing that gives you the power; I don’t think you can have one without the other, and it is not possible to have neither. Vive la difference!
It is true that women generally have a greater risk of potential physical harm from violent men, and that sucks. But in terms of emotional harm, women give as good as they get, maybe better.
And now we’ve stepped into the “both sides do it” phase — also meant to paper over the persistent misogyny and pave the way to a misandry argument.
You can’t read #YesAllWomen and not get that there is a cultural set of behaviors that every woman has to deal with at some point or another. A set of cultural behaviors that are meant for her to understand that she is less human than the man pointing that behavior at her. There isn’t an equivalent cultural devaluing of men. Full stop.
Women’s unimaginable power and control over men undoubtedly explains the great raft of pro-feminist legislation that has successfully passed in America, and why having a female president is no big deal–First Ladies having all the real power, of course.
Women do greater emotional harm to men? Which is so devastatingly bad that it outweighs the greater physical harm [nice euphemism for rape, assault, and murder there] that men do to women, leaving us with even scales?
That is, of course, why the landscape of America is littered with shelters for (emotionally) battered men.
That is, of course, why the landscape of America is littered with shelters for (emotionally) battered men.
LOL… they’re called liquor stores…
Think of the iconic image of Humphrey Bogart at the bar with a bottle of gin (yes I know it’s fiction but it resonates).
@pandora:
So you are questioning whether Rodger was mentally ill? Rodger was in therapy before he entered puberty. In the Fall of 2013, he was prescribed an anti-psychotic, which he refused to take. His family was worried that he might hurt himself or others. Granted, I am no doctor, and no one with authority has said that he was mentally ill; however, based on known facts (including those from his manifesto), I am pretty sure he was ill.
Rodger does not reflect what is wrong with America with respect to sexual violence. Labeling Rodger’s crimes as acts of misogyny draws attention from real acts of misogyny, especially those that go unreported on college campuses throughout our country.
For Rodger, if not misogyny, then something else: http://time.com/114354/elliot-rodger-ucsb-misogyny/.
@Davy
You asked me this question: “But do you think he killed people because he was a misogynist or because he was ill?”
My answer: “I don’t think this is an either/or question. I think he killed people because he was a misogynist and mentally ill”
As far as questioning whether he was mentally ill, I said (see sentence directly above this one) I thought he was mentally ill. What I didn’t do, and was careful not to do, was guess at a diagnosis since it bothers me greatly when people throw out terms like Asperger’s or Autism in these sorts of situations.
And your “I’m no doctor, and no one with authority has said that he was mentally ill…” statement is pretty much what I was saying. So we’re agreeing, no? Both of us think he had mental problems, but neither one of us can say for sure what exactly they were.
And while I agree that deeply disturbed people will find a reason to kill, I wish we’d stop (as a society) giving them flippin’ directions. I completely understand why Jews, Sikhs, Muslims, Doctors who preform abortions, minorities, women, gays, etc. feel nervous and frightened for various reasons, mainly because there are a lot of people saying horrible things and mentally disturbed people are following their directions… orders?
So, I don’t understand why we need to remove the misogyny from this discussion (especially when we haven’t removed other “reasons” for other killers. I do remember bullying being discussed, at great length, after Columbine. Should bullying not have been part of the conversation?). Misogyny is the reason he targeted who he did; it is the group (PUAs/PUAHate) he found that spoke to his “needs” and the one he felt at home in.
We seem to get this with “pro-lifers.” We know the vast, vast majority of “pro-lifers” would never kill a doctor who performs abortions or bomb a clinic, but we do know why these pro-life groups post the name, phone number and home address of these doctors. They are giving directions, quite literally, in this case.
” Labeling Rodger’s crimes as acts of misogyny draws attention from real acts of misogyny, especially those that go unreported on college campuses throughout our country.”
It was a real act of misogyny, magnified by what appears to have been mental illness.
Why is it so important to you that this not be labeled a misogynistic crime? Do you think that his ugly thinking should NOT be addressed?
“Why is it so important to you that this not be labeled a misogynistic crime? ”
When that wacked-out druggie knifed Officer Sczerba because he thought he was a fanged monster attacking him, do we fret about public attitudes toward policemen? Or do we just shudder in horror and realize it was the drugs/mental illness at work and was not linked to any public culture or perception of police?
Except this wasn’t the product of a bad batch of drugs. This built up over a year.
So try again: Why is it so important to you that misogyny not be his obsession? I don’t care about whether it was or was not the driver of the act — why is it so important TO YOU that it not be perceived that way?
I’m really interested in the answer to this question, Geezer. I’d like Davy to answer, as well.
Also, if the guy who killed Officer Sczerba wrote a manifesto about killing police officers and was on “Cops deserve to die” websites, you know we’d be having that discussion.
@Pandora: I don’t know how to explain it, but #yesallwomen drove home to me in a way my wife and daughter could not what a pain in the ass it must be to be a woman in this society. I’m not even talking about the dangers; I always knew about those. I just never considered what a pain in the ass it must be to be on the receiving end of all those assholes that, as a guy, I can just ignore.
I speak jive.
If I understand Dave and Puck it is that the rabid over-emphasis on misogyny as the driver for Rodgers actions distorts the impact of everyday acts of misogynists. No one benefits from that discussion IF it is framed by the violent acts of an emotionally unstable person.
The point is that everyday acts/decisions, by otherwise well-meaning, rational people, operating within their own understanding of social norms can be lo less misogynistic and harmful to women and girls. Framing the issue with Rodgers as your poster boy, however, puts the whole discussion on a different footing. It is emotionally easy for the otherwise well-meaning, rational people, operating within their own understanding of social norms to intellectually distance themselves from Rodgers’ action and his attitude – i.e., that ain’t me and I would never do that, hence, no misogynist here.
Just translating here.
‘S’mofo butter layin’ me to da’ BONE! Jackin’ me up… tight me!
Now see… I’m having a problem (and perhaps it’s just me) with your words “rabid over-emphasis on misogyny” and “poster boy.”
And what behavior are you addressing when you say, “The point is that everyday acts/decisions, by otherwise well-meaning, rational people, operating within their own understanding of social norms can be lo less misogynistic and harmful to women and girls.” I’m not sure I understand the point of this sentence.
I can give you my personal experiences with (some) men who considered their actions well meaning and rational. If you’re interested…
@Geezer
Mr. Pandora, and other men in my life, felt the same way when he read #yesallwomen. While he knew of my (and our daughter’s) experience, he was amazed that this behavior was so pervasive… so ordinary.
Pandora:
You are loco. Sharing your stories of opportunistic, offensive misogynist experiences would likely read like the chronology of my day. I know not how evil I am.
The reference to “rabid over-emphasis on misogyny” was a shot at those on this thread that can’t, and those reverently refuse, to see the forest for the leaves on the trees.
Let this thread die.
And this conversation (especially if you are readying #yesallwomen) isn’t exactly framed by this killer’s issues. It was inspired by his issues and woman all over making the point that misogyny is an everyday issue for women. Not just when someone kills over it.
Let this thread die.
If you are no longer interested in discussing a topic, the usual thing is for *you* to walk away, not tell its participants to stop talking.
the rabid over-emphasis on misogyny as the driver for Rodgers actions distorts the impact of everyday acts of misogynists
When somebody who is rampantly anti-Semitic commits an atrocity, most people are comfortable that they are not anti-Semites and feel no direct empathy for the perpetrator. Then there will be those on the fringe who say (or at least think), “You know, he was batshit crazy and I’d never do that, but I kinda know how the whole Jew-Israel thing pissed him off.” And then there will be those who completely sympathize with the murderer, and say so within their limited, self-referential circles.
The difference here, I think, is there will be millions and perhaps tens of millions of men who read Rodgers’ manifesto and fit into that second category: “You know, he was crazy, and I’d never do that, but man those women can do a number on a guy’s head, and I sorta know what he meant by all those stuck-up sorority bitches out there shaking it like it’s made out of gold or something.”
The number of men who jump up reflexively to distance themselves (sort of, and in the sense that the guilty flee when no one pursues) from Rodgers want to distinguish between what they consider to be inevitable or perhaps even acceptable levels of misogyny in our society and the misogyny that motivates a killer.
In the end, since they cannot distance themselves from misogyny, they need to distance Rodgers from it. He’s crazy, he’s not like us; it’s unfair to use him as an example.
Seriously, Aint’s Taking it Any More? I specifically, and with respect, asked you for clarification of your words. Your response is that I’m crazy? That sharing my “stories of opportunistic, offensive misogynist experiences would likely read like the chronology of my (your) day. I (you) know not how evil I am.”
I’m so biting my tongue to not respond in kind, because if I did I would be called out on my “tone”. What the hell have I written that would cause you take it personally and call me names?
And why are you only targeting what I say, and not Geezer and MikeM2784 and Steve Newton or John Young? Explain that. Go on. I’ll wait, because I’m sincerely interested.
Pandora:
My dear – my humor was lost on you.
The thought of you sharing stories with me about misogynists had me laughing. I imagined my sweat filled brow, my trembling hands and beat red forehead glowing from my own guilt as you detailed those experiences.
Outside the humor, I wasn’t trying to pick on you. I took a shot at everyone. I did this because for the better part of a week this thread has kicked around small shit. The fact is that virtually everyone who commented agreed that misogyny is a problem, Rodgers’ writing was misogynistic, women are routinely subjected to unwarranted/unwanted and socially tolerated boorish behavior. Instead, the focus here has been on the periphery – the small shit: who could speak about it, a chicken/egg analysis of Rodgers’ conduct and upbringing, was it mom or dad’s job, who was better at it, my children this, your wrong, etc.
No offense intended.
Given the nuances that we are trying (mostly unsuccessfully) to communicate here, how stupid is it to have this conversation on Twitter?
Oh… so I didn’t get the joke? (And… “my dear?” Really?) You were just being funny when you called me loco? Sorry, I’m not buying that.
Anyone else wanna weigh in on Aint’s Taking it Any More’s reasoning? I would call it back peddling, since he avoided all of my questions. But maybe a guy could respond, since they haven’t been called crazy… or have been called out – at all. Not one little bit. Why is that?
You did miss the humor (my fault) . . . even after I confessed to it (your fault).
To answer your questions and – hopefully – end the discord:
1. You asked: I’m having a problem (and perhaps it’s just me) with your words “rabid over-emphasis on misogyny” and “poster boy.” My humorless answer: The discussion here, not on some other site, has hyper-focused on Rodgers’ misogynist writings. Rodgers was a mess on so many levels, and his spectacular downfall filled with so many value failures, that focusing solely on one aspect of his conduct is a mistake. He’s a lousy poster boy because his story is so lousy on so many levels.
2. You asked: And what behavior are you addressing when you say, “The point is that everyday acts/decisions, by otherwise well-meaning, rational people, operating within their own understanding of social norms can be lo less misogynistic and harmful to women and girls.” I’m not sure I understand the point of this sentence. My humorless answer: Misogyany is deeply ingrained. It takes many forms from the obvious brutality to wage disparity/product marketing/hand-shaking custom/etc. Ironically, your handle “Pandora” is very the Greek literary character from which most western misogyny flows.
3. You asked: And why are you only targeting what I say, and not Geezer and MikeM2784 and Steve Newton or John Young? Explain that. Go on. I’ll wait, because I’m sincerely interested. My humorless answer: See below.
Dave, Geezer, Steve, Mike, Puck, Davey, Ben, MikeM, Aint’s – you’re all loco. I think I got all of the guys. If they had offered to tell me stories, I might have more to say to them.
So let’s see, your tongue in cheek “they’re all loco” included yourself?
Ironically, your point–Rodgers was a mess on so many levels, and his spectacular downfall filled with so many value failures, that focusing solely on one aspect of his conduct is a mistake–is the very one I raised earlier, and you’ve provided a perfect example.
To wit:
One woman recounting stories of misogynist conduct that either she or her daughter encountered is disturbing enough that it has to be not just discounted but disrespected. The story teller has to be loco, the (male) listener has to exaggerate the extent to which he is not moved, and is in fact … amused: The thought of you sharing stories with me about misogynists had me laughing.
What Ain’t would have us do is look completely past the fact that Rodgers’ rant was misogynist-based, and that its rhetoric (not even getting to his actions) fits right into other rhetoric of “legitimate rape” and “slut shaming.” His rhetoric–if you ever stopped to read much about it–has resonated with an unusually large number of people, who now find themselves stumbling over the distinctions that they’d like to erect between their own jokes, their own pick-up lines, and their own anger and this mentally ill dweeb who killed people.
You see, if misogyny played no role in this killing then we’re back to (a) society’s responsibility to do something about mental illness; and/or (b) the need to do something about access to guns. Divisive as those conversations seem to be, they are apparently more comfortable than actually discussing precisely where is the line between Rodgers and other men.
The scary part for a lot of men is the unspoken thought that they don’t differ from Rodgers so much in terms of the drift of their anger and their fantasies, only in their ability to keep them out of the multi-homicidal felony category. But statistics on rape, sexual harassment, and domestic partner abuse suggest that millions of men are not quite as far separated from Rodgers as they’d like to believe.
“Dave, Geezer, Steve, Mike, Puck, Davey, Ben, MikeM, Aint’s – you’re all loco. I think I got all of the guys. If they had offered to tell me stories, I might have more to say to them.”
Too little, too late. But you know that – and so does everyone else. And Steve DID offer you a story. And what did you have to say? Crickets. MikeM, worried (told a story) about his young daughter. What did you have to say? Crickets. Geezer called out misogyny several times and offered a story about his wife and daughter… more crickets.
Everyone sees what you’ve done here… even you. All the back peddling in the world won’t save you. For some reason you are invested in the way things are. Allow me to quote Steve Newton (who you ignored):
Perhaps you missed that comment – which, btw, was far more direct than anything I said.
Last attempt to make good.
Pandora – you said: I can give you my personal experiences with (some) men who considered their actions well meaning and rational. If you’re interested…
You made an offer . . . . “if I was interested.” I found humor in the offer. Kind of like watching sinner in church. No one else has ever, in my entire life, offered to share tales of misogyny with me. The thing is that neither Steve, MikeM or Geezer or anyone else for that matter offered to tell me misogyny stories. You did. I responded.
Maybe I could share tales of misandry with you?
I did not respond to Steve. You are correct. Why you ask? Because I though our two pre-lost humor remarks said essentially the same thing: Rodgers can be a bad example.
Too little, too late – story of my life. No offense taken even if meant.
Finally, if back peddling is the worst thing I do today, then thank God cause this sinner is capable of so much more and enjoying it all the while.
Still no response to Steve’s comment. Why is that? He’s called you out in no uncertain terms. Why not tell him that he’s raising a victim or that he has a “rabid” response? Go on… that was funny, wasn’t it? Geezer said he didn’t fully get his wife’s and daughter’s “stories” until #yesallwomen. MikeM worried about what his young daughter would deal with as she matured. Call their asses out. Call out their “stories” specifically. Go on. Call them out. It will be humorous, hilarious… no?
And the fact you think that your comments on this this thread were humorous… heaven help you. You ain’t funny or clever, or maybe you are in a “Make me a sandwich” sort of way – cause that was hilarious, amirite?
You are back peddling because you can’t defend your comments. Really, just own it. You targeted me, not the men who wrote the same damn things, and now you want to pretend I can’t take a joke, or understand your humor. Women can’t take a joke, amirite?
The thing is that neither Steve, MikeM or Geezer or anyone else for that matter offered to tell me misogyny stories. You did. I responded.
And responded in a way to try to dismiss her story. Which might count as irony if one thought you could get that far. Misogyny stories (and living with the burden of misogyny) is the subject of this thread. Steve, MikeM, Geezer did not tell misogyny stories, because they told us of their experiences listening to these stories or experiences witnessing how kids have shed the inhumanity that lets misogyny thrive.
You and others have been trying to get Pandora and other women to just shut up and agree with you that misogyny is the wrong target here. Another bit of irony, really. You may want to stop digging.
Perhaps another irony: When one of these incidents occurs, gun lovers insist that we shouldn’t talk about the guns because most of the mass shootings are committed with legally acquired weapons, and no screening process would have stopped the weapons’ purchase. Isn’t this — trying to shut down an uncomfortable line of inquiry — similar?
Mass shooting, unfortunately, are so common now that they no longer elicit much interesting commentary — what’s left to say? What this shooting did was open up a window onto an ugly trend in our society. This “pick-up artist” online community was unknown to me; I had no idea about any of it. IMHO, it’s by far the most interesting facet of the incident. I’m unclear why some people think we shouldn’t discuss it.
It’s not about “preventing the next mass shooting.” It’s about stamping out something incredibly ugly and toxic.
Well, the steam has stopped coming out of my ears. This is so exhausting.
Who knew that calling a man – who wrote a manifesto about hating women and then went to a sorority house to try and kill women – a misogynist was completely out of line. It seemed pretty obvious to me.
I guess when the next mass shooting happens (and it will) we won’t be discussing the shooter’s mindset or motivation. If that shooter is part of a racist group or writes about how much he admires Glenn Beck or Limbaugh we won’t be mentioning those things, right? (I intend to hold people to this new standard.)
I’d like to offer a new rule for all these lovely shades of bigotry. If many many people decide that “you” or “that person” is a bigot…. you’re (they’re) a bigot. Your free speech doesn’t protect you from being labeled horrible. Also, the motivations of a madman aren’t about “you”. If “you” feel personally attacked then “they” are called a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophone…. you should probably give some serious thoughts to your own views.
The problem here is, people are arguing against the points they WANT to be arguing against. No one is saying roger’s misogyny was the ONLY driver in this tragedy. Stop getting so defensive. It’s as if you (whoever is lighting their hair on fire over it) are sympathetic to his cause and perhaps feel guilty about your own sexism.
No one is saying misogyny wasnt an issue at all. No one is telling women to shut up. No one is putting all the responsibility on anyone. What people ARE doing is making this a Men VS Women argument which gets us. FUCKING NOWHERE.
Well, that was decidedly unhelpful. And certainly did not even address your role in working at derailing this conversation.
“What people ARE doing is making this a Men VS Women argument which gets us. FUCKING NOWHERE.”
I disagree. It might not be getting us where YOU think we should be going, but I think this route is quite interesting.
“What people ARE doing is making this a Men VS Women argument which gets us. FUCKING NOWHERE.”
But we have these same conversations about black/white, gay/straight, Christian/Muslim, etc. and we don’t claim that those discussions get us nowhere. In fact, we say we need more conversations like them. So, why is this topic different?
Yes cass. I try to derail the conversation… presumably by refusing to let other people tell me what I REALLY mean. what a jerk I am. you are such a hero for standing up to me.
What get’s to me the most, I guess I’ll address Pandora, is that I agree with 99% of what you say. The bit I disagree with is all around message delivery and how it comes across in this, very limited, medium. I pressed your earlier assertions about (I’m not quoting you, I’m just using air quotes) “who is more qualified to speak on issues relating to certain people” not to “show you” or “be the man”, but to make a point that, in the shared responsibility of raising children, a mom can… not should…. but can…. offer a unique perspective to her son, that the father can never give. Why the hell….. other than some people’s desire to only argue…is that a controversial/sexist statement? Do you think I’m trying to be misogynistic? Do you care?
Here, everybody chew on an article (I kid you not) from CRACKED that is almost as much on point as anything else I have read (including most of this thread).
http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/
Geezer
How is it interesting? Do tell.
Is it interesting because too many commentators feign disgust and anger on nothing more than their own self-induced frothing?
Is it interesting because too many commentators are self-appointed, self-righteous, thin skinned know it alls that simply cannot tolerate other obviously uninformed points because they are different?
Or is it interesting because too many commentators have twisted words in ways that is nothing short of demon magic?
Is it interesting that instead of an intelligent discussion, too many commentators refuse read for comprehension preferring instead ignore the point made?
Is it interesting because too many commentators are happily hysterical at someone they don’t know, never met and have no ability, outside a few words on this site, to know their true intent or meaning?
Is it interesting because the game of gotcha practiced here by some commentators trumps spirited, genuine and otherwise worthwhile disagreement?
Is it interesting because the level of intolerance here is actually higher than Glenn Beck’s.
I thought this site was supposed to be interesting because, as adults, we get to express a viewpoint, kick it around with others with differing views AND God forbid broaden our intellectual horizon. Instead this discussion – and it really is only this one – is so mired in shit that it’s no better then an f’ing playground in the cattle yard.
Shorter Ain’t=whine nobody bought my line of shit, so I’m going home.
Indeed. Get all puffed up that nobody bought your silly bullshit and then blame everyone else for not being sufficiently accommodating of your inflated sense of self-worth.
I’ve no doubt that this person is accustomed to a good deal of ass kissing and deference IRL, but hey — Welcome to the Internets!
@ATIAM: Yes, in all those ways, and many more as well.
Pandora and Cass are trying to explain water to fish, and it’s interesting to watch how the fish react to the news that — as Madge the manicurist used to say on the commercial — they’re soaking in it.
I went back and reread this thread and admit that by the end of Monday my head was exploding and I was losing it. That said, this thread is worth rereading, and possibly dissecting, because, in its entirety, it’s quite revealing. There’s probably another post here, but I’ll have to work up the strength to write (and endure) it!
Pandora
Admire your candor. Await your next post and the insights it may offer. Good day.
I’m writing it now, but it’s going to take some time.