Seven dead in drive by California shootings

[marplots]

(much snipped)
Why do feminists want women to think that there's a "rape culture", a shadowy "Patriarchy" with "misogyny" everywhere? To keep women frightened and spur them to action, giving the feminists more political power. This emotional manipulation is very popular in politics, but it seems to be especially big in feminism, to the point where it's hard to see anything else. There are certainly some important topics which feminism covers, but to get to them you have to wade through a lot of BS. Bring a snow shovel.

Typical women, getting all emotional and exaggerating.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Typical women, getting all emotional and exaggerating.

Ha ha. No, it's typical of political activism, as I said in my post.

 

[RemieV]

Typical women, getting all emotional and exaggerating.

lol... That was a gorgeous post, darling creature.

 

[BenBurch]

lol... That was a gorgeous post, darling creature.

Aren't guys so *cute* when they say things like that?

 

[Checkmite]

Being a "chauvinist" isn't so bad, because that's just a prejudice. But now, you better not disagree with feminists, because if you do, you're a "misogynist"! Break out the torches and pitchforks!

This type of political hyperbole has never sat well with me. At best, it makes you look ridiculous.

Was this intentional?

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

-snipped-
Why do feminists want women to think that there's a "rape culture", a shadowy "Patriarchy" with "misogyny" everywhere? To keep women frightened and spur them to action, giving the feminists more political power. This emotional manipulation is very popular in politics, but it seems to be especially big in feminism, to the point where it's hard to see anything else. There are certainly some important topics which feminism covers, but to get to them you have to wade through a lot of BS. Bring a snow shovel.

There is overwhelming evidence of what can be defined as rape culture fairly easily. But feel free to phrase it as a political measure in order to deny it's important.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Interesting interview with the owner of the PUAhate site from November. It points to my experience with the site, which was that it was only a subset of the forums where people would post the kind of stuff objectifying women that is making the headlines. It was a forum called "****** Advice" which can sort of be compared to the "Abandon All Hope" forum here. Of course, that's the section the interviewer chose to focus on, as it's the most scandalous.

Most of the stuff debunking Dating Gurus and Pick up artists was not mysoginistic, IMO, it was conducted more in the way that we rip apart Bigfoot videos and faith healers here. But of course it's the sub forum that's making the news.

Overall, I think the PUAhate site is getting a bad rap. The owner's intentions were good, and I think the site has played a very important role in really taking PUAs down a couple of notches and chipping away at their profit base, and helping many guys realize that they don't need to go the route of using stupid tricks and techniques to "seduce" women, they just need to start socializing and talking with them like normal people.

Do you think it's misogynistic the way women are talked about in this context? Specifically, the way women are still being treated as objects to obtain?

Yeah, I think it's very unhealthy to think of a woman as anything different than just another person. I have posted about this many times on the site, but to classify women as being "this way" or "that way" is completely retarded to me. I believe that how people act is not based on their gender, but on their personality. For the guys that complain that women are a certain way, you can go find just as many women who aren't like that. So is the thing they are complaining about still a woman thing? Of course not. It's a personality thing.

http://thehairpin.com/2013/11/puahate

ETA: It's also worth noting that despite being called a "PUAhate regular" Elliot Rodger only posted 63 posts on the site, and would criticize other members for NOT wanting to "rise up" and engage in violence against what he called "the enemy." As I've mentioned before, I was a regular reader of the site and remember his posts because they stood out as being in stark contrast to the majority of what was being posted there. Of course, the media publicizes the sensational and picks out the choice tidbits left by the weirdest or most extreme/trollish users. One could make the James Randi forums look pretty depraved using similar techniques.

 

[Puppycow]

His father gave him a copy of The Secret , a self-help book which claims that you can basically do anything and influence the universe by thinking positively and wishing hard enough.
He felt that all of his problems would be solved if he won hundreds of millions of dollars, as he believed that women would've flocked to him as a result.
He also mentioned another one of these dubious woo books, but I forget which one.

Ugh! I hate The Secret (not that I've read it). What a terrible thing to give to a child.

Up to this point, I actually didn't have much blame for the father. It seemed like he was trying his best with a difficult child. Why on earth would you give him that nonsense?

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

Ugh! I hate The Secret (not that I've read it). What a terrible thing to give to a child.

Up to this point, I actually didn't have much blame for the father. It seemed like he was trying his best with a difficult child. Why on earth would you give him that nonsense?

Yeah, that stood out to me, too. I haven't read the book, but a friend "forced" me to watch the movie. It was absolutely terrible and extremely disturbing to think that there are grown adults out there who believe it completely. It actually seems to have influenced him rather profoundly, and I think that it's probably responsible for his belief that he could "will" himself to win the lottery.

If Elliot's manifesto portrays the relationship with his father accurately, I actually do place a substantial amount of blame on the father, for not being a very present guiding force in his life, and for not recognizing the problems his son was having engaging with other people, even as a very young child.

Honestly, my impression is that once he married the new woman, he considered her to be more important than his own son. Again, though, that's how Elliot portrayed things, so it may be quite biased.

However, I simply feel that it may not be fair to make that assessment, because the manifesto is clearly the product of a warped mind, one which did not interpret the world accurately.

 

[colander]

Interesting interview with the owner of the PUAhate site from November. It points to my experience with the site, which was that it was only a subset of the forums where people would post the kind of stuff objectifying women that is making the headlines. It was a forum called "****** Advice" which can sort of be compared to the "Abandon All Hope" forum here. Of course, that's the section the interviewer chose to focus on, as it's the most scandalous.

Most of the stuff debunking Dating Gurus and Pick up artists was not mysoginistic, IMO, it was conducted more in the way that we rip apart Bigfoot videos and faith healers here. But of course it's the sub forum that's making the news.

Overall, I think the PUAhate site is getting a bad rap. The owner's intentions were good, and I think the site has played a very important role in really taking PUAs down a couple of notches and chipping away at their profit base, and helping many guys realize that they don't need to go the route of using stupid tricks and techniques to "seduce" women, they just need to start socializing and talking with them like normal people.



http://thehairpin.com/2013/11/puahate

ETA: It's also worth noting that despite being called a "PUAhate regular" Elliot Rodger only posted 63 posts on the site, and would criticize other members for NOT wanting to "rise up" and engage in violence against what he called "the enemy." As I've mentioned before, I was a regular reader of the site and remember his posts because they stood out as being in stark contrast to the majority of what was being posted there. Of course, the media publicizes the sensational and picks out the choice tidbits left by the weirdest or most extreme/trollish users. One could make the James Randi forums look pretty depraved using similar techniques.

No pity here. The worst of the JREF forums can't hold a candle to the kind of crap that got vomited there every day of the week. The JREF forum is also heavily moderated. That's not a coincidence.

The owner of the PUAHate forum made a deliberate choice to impose virtually no moderation on the worst sub-forums of his site, because "free speech". He and the forum users knew what a self-reinforcing cesspool of hate it had become and did nothing to improve or reform it, though it was fully within their power.

 

[colander]

You could always ask me

I think while these chat logs may be relevant, they should be taken with a grain of salt, as one cannot easily separate the trolls from the legit sympathizers, especially with such a highly notorious event.

Whether or not everything written is sincere, that kind of stuff still has the effect of making horrible stuff seem normal and encouraging people who really do mean it sincerely to step up their horribleness in an ever-degenerating feedback loop of ****.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Because women are the ones most likely to have encountered a man who exhibited both "fondness of women" (i.e., sexual attraction) and misogyny.

Leaving aside the fact that one does not have to encounter the phenomena under question to decide whether X and Y are logically compatible, I'm not sure about your latest claim. I've encountered many heterosexual males, who were misogynists to greater or lesser extent. I wasn't on the receiving end of their attention, though. Does that invalidate my observation/lived experience?

What makes you think women encounter them more? Is that the "men are blind to misogyny" party line?

While I agree that men should not be left out of the discussion, I don't agree that the determination of harassment is a matter of logic and facts subject to adjudication by rational discourse. We are, after all, not innately rational beings. And interaction between humans is freighted with emotions, illogic and personal history. Something which for you might be "meh" could be highly emotionally charged for another person. That is why harassment should be primarily (but not exclusively) up to the recipient.

Maybe we - you, me and NoahFence - we're talking past each other. I objected to leaving the definition of harassment to women. Perhaps I misunderstood NoahFence, and he meant it's up the the victim to decide whether he or she felt offended and received unwanted attention. And I'm in agreement with that. Victims do not however exclusively decide what harassment means, they decide what they felt. And all of us, through rational discourse, decide if that fits under the harassment criteria. At least all of us competent and interested enough.

The way I (mis?)understood NoahFence, this will veer into the SJW land of insanity where every word should be preceded by labels of "trigger warning". No, just because you feel something is offending doesn't make it offensive. It's an ugly can of worms, the whole offence thing.

You "guess"? What would it take to tip you over into knowing?

Situational details - whether the attention was unwanted and the manner, content and context of catcalling. I can perceive situations where persistent (two, three, four? What is persistent?) remarks are not rude, low-brow or stupid and could be considered genuine compliments. That's why I'm hesitant to make an absolute generalizing statement when the key factor is someone's feelings and the context of the situation. I need specific details to make that kind of judgement. Are we talking about "Hey pretty thing, nice jugs!" or "Excuse me, ma'am, you're beautiful"? It seems it also makes a difference whether it's a bunch of ogling guys or just one guy doing the catcalling, and whether the guys is appealing to the victim. At least that's what I've read from blogs. If you have Ryan Gosling complimenting you across the street with something genuinely funny or original, I doubt many would call that harassing.

But I know how we can find agreement. Let's just say persistent unwanted (sexual) attention is (sexual) harassment. And that is bad.

 

[Dissolution]

Yeah, that stood out to me, too. I haven't read the book, but a friend "forced" me to watch the movie. It was absolutely terrible and extremely disturbing to think that there are grown adults out there who believe it completely. It actually seems to have influenced him rather profoundly, and I think that it's probably responsible for his belief that he could "will" himself to win the lottery.

If Elliot's manifesto portrays the relationship with his father accurately, I actually do place a substantial amount of blame on the father, for not being a very present guiding force in his life, and for not recognizing the problems his son was having engaging with other people, even as a very young child.

Honestly, my impression is that once he married the new woman, he considered her to be more important than his own son. Again, though, that's how Elliot portrayed things, so it may be quite biased.

However, I simply feel that it may not be fair to make that assessment, because the manifesto is clearly the product of a warped mind, one which did not interpret the world accurately.

I think that he badly misinterpreted his step-mother's actions in virtually every situation, as she seemed to be the only adult that was trying to help him.

His mother overindulged him and gave him everything that he wanted, but nothing that he needed.
His father was largely absent and seemed to duck out of ever standing up to his son.
The woman that he seemed to hate most was trying to set sensible boundaries, motivate him to do well in school and get off his backside.
Go figure.

 

[Stout]

Situational details - whether the attention was unwanted and the manner, content and context of catcalling. I can perceive situations where persistent (two, three, four? What is persistent?) remarks are not rude, low-brow or stupid and could be considered genuine compliments. That's why I'm hesitant to make an absolute generalizing statement when the key factor is someone's feelings and the context of the situation. I need specific details to make that kind of judgement. Are we talking about "Hey pretty thing, nice jugs!" or "Excuse me, ma'am, you're beautiful"? It seems it also makes a difference whether it's a bunch of ogling guys or just one guy doing the catcalling, and whether the guys is appealing to the victim. At least that's what I've read from blogs. If you have Ryan Gosling complimenting you across the street with something genuinely funny or original, I doubt many would call that harassing.

But I know how we can find agreement. Let's just say persistent unwanted (sexual) attention is (sexual) harassment. And that is bad.

It depends on who is doing it as well. For instance we have a local panhandler, a guy we call Shakespeare because his schtick is to dress up in costume and offer to read a poe-em before asking for a donation. The guy gets abusive towards women if he's turned down and from what I've seen, this guy could easily create 25 #YesAllWomen tweets pet day.

Funny story about this guy. A couple of years ago he catcalled a buddy of mine's wife who didn't identify herself as a police officer as she took him down and told him to never, ever, do that again.

Were his street harassment victims the victims of "cultural misogyny ?

Or were the the victims of a raving street lunatic ? #NotAllMen

 

[RemieV]

Aren't guys so *cute* when they say things like that?

I have no idea if marplots is male or female, so I couldn't say. I'm sure there's something that tells me, but I haven't ever paid attention on the forum.

 

[marplots]

I have no idea if marplots is male or female, so I couldn't say. I'm sure there's something that tells me, but I haven't ever paid attention on the forum.

Just checked. I have penis.

 

[Stout]

Just checked. I have penis.

That doesn't answer the question

 

[marplots]

That doesn't answer the question

Back to the drawing board then. Life is full of confusions.

 

[quadraginta]

It depends on who is doing it as well. For instance we have a local panhandler, a guy we call Shakespeare because his schtick is to dress up in costume and offer to read a poe-em before asking for a donation. The guy gets abusive towards women if he's turned down and from what I've seen, this guy could easily create 25 #YesAllWomen tweets pet day.

Funny story about this guy. A couple of years ago he catcalled a buddy of mine's wife who didn't identify herself as a police officer as she took him down and told him to never, ever, do that again.

Were his street harassment victims the victims of "cultural misogyny ?

Or were the the victims of a raving street lunatic ? #NotAllMen

Why does this sort of thing keep getting presented as a dichotomy?

 

[Checkmite]

Leaving aside the fact that one does not have to encounter the phenomena under question to decide whether X and Y are logically compatible, I'm not sure about your latest claim. I've encountered many heterosexual males, who were misogynists to greater or lesser extent. I wasn't on the receiving end of their attention, though. Does that invalidate my observation/lived experience?

No; but what does it matter to anyone else how validated your observation/lived experience is if you never offer it or relate it? You claim to have encountered "many" heterosexual misogynists, and yet rather than offer that experience as a counter to a poster who has claimed that there can't be many misogynists because men are "genetically" predisposed to like women, you instead use it to take me to task for the wording I used when expressing skepticism of the aforementioned claim - evidently now because my post, which suggested women might be better positioned to make the observations is the one that "invalidates your experience", as opposed to the post that expressly contradicts that experience.

What makes you think women encounter them more? Is that the "men are blind to misogyny" party line?

Perhaps you're right; perhaps it's more to do with my personal philosophy that those who are hurt by a thing constitute the most powerful voice against it.