Eliot Rodger and TFL or True Force Loneliness.

Thoie

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

The harpies on #yesallwomen seem to be focusing on the misfists and freaks and losers and ignoring the majority of men who adore and love women and want to give them their hearts.
They are the kind of women who sigh when they read about some fake romantic lover in a stupid chick lit book and then kick men to the kerb who are simply decent guys. The average guys just laughs off self-absorbed bitches like that and keeps looking until he finds the sweet hearted women who are actually worth bothering with - the overwhelming majority of women to be exact who haven't bought into the man-hating radical feminist nonsense.
Men who put women on a pedestal and women who think all men are rapists are two sides of the same coin.
Poisonous people the world could do without.

Jesus, you're seriously missing the point of #yesallwomen.
The #notallmen hashtag was initially being used for men to point out that the overwhelmingly vast majority of men are not creepy, weird people who woke up feeling a bit rapey today.
The #yesallwomen hashtag is pointing out that while only a minority of men are sexual harassers/rapists/abusive, pretty much every single woman has had to deal with those who are on a far too regular basis.

While a woman goes about her daily life, there is a constant sub-dialogue of "Is this particular action safe, is this the day I get attacked because I was in a hurry parking in the multi-storey car park, and left my car in that spot instead of this spot? Is this the day I get raped because I needed to go for a pee while waiting for my friends to arrive at the bar, and I left my drink unattended? Is this the day I get followed down the street and shouted at because it's really warm, and I'm too hot in this jacket, and all I'm wearing underneath is a fitted t-shirt?"

You're saying that the women are concentrating on the minority of men. The hashtag isn't about men - it's about what women do/think/feel every day. Your antagonism towards half the population documenting their daily life, and your reference to harpies and bitches are, quite frankly, disgusting.

Azwaldo55

Thoie wrote: »

Jesus, you're seriously missing the point of #yesallwomen.
The #notallmen hashtag was initially being used for men to point out that the overwhelmingly vast majority of men are not creepy, weird people who woke up feeling a bit rapey today.
The #yesallwomen hashtag is pointing out that while only a minority of men are sexual harassers/rapists/abusive, pretty much every single woman has had to deal with those who are on a far too regular basis.

I looked on the twitter thread and it has been taken over by sad pathetic women who hate men ranting on. As if psychopathic men who hate women are going to care less about the comments anyway?

While a woman goes about her daily life, there is a constant sub-dialogue of "Is this particular action safe, is this the day I get attacked because I was in a hurry parking in the multi-storey car park, and left my car in that spot instead of this spot? Is this the day I get raped because I needed to go for a pee while waiting for my friends to arrive at the bar, and I left my drink unattended? Is this the day I get followed down the street and shouted at because it's really warm, and I'm too hot in this jacket, and all I'm wearing underneath is a fitted t-shirt?"

If that is what some women think they need to go to a psychiatrist as badly as Elliot Rodger did. That is pathological thinking.
The majority of women don't think bullsh*t like that.

You're saying that the women are concentrating on the minority of men. The hashtag isn't about men - it's about what women do/think/feel every day. Your antagonism towards half the population documenting their daily life, and your reference to harpies and bitches are, quite frankly, disgusting.

That twitter thread as I have said has been taken over by flakes and losers and crazies who want to vent about how much they hate men.
The female equivalent of Rodger.

The majority of men and women who have no hang ups get on with their lives and leave the insanity to the insane.

diveout

Thoie wrote: »

Jesus, you're seriously missing the point of #yesallwomen.
The #notallmen hashtag was initially being used for men to point out that the overwhelmingly vast majority of men are not creepy, weird people who woke up feeling a bit rapey today.
The #yesallwomen hashtag is pointing out that while only a minority of men are sexual harassers/rapists/abusive, pretty much every single woman has had to deal with those who are on a far too regular basis.

While a woman goes about her daily life, there is a constant sub-dialogue of "Is this particular action safe, is this the day I get attacked because I was in a hurry parking in the multi-storey car park, and left my car in that spot instead of this spot? Is this the day I get raped because I needed to go for a pee while waiting for my friends to arrive at the bar, and I left my drink unattended? Is this the day I get followed down the street and shouted at because it's really warm, and I'm too hot in this jacket, and all I'm wearing underneath is a fitted t-shirt?"

You're saying that the women are concentrating on the minority of men. The hashtag isn't about men - it's about what women do/think/feel every day. Your antagonism towards half the population documenting their daily life, and your reference to harpies and bitches are, quite frankly, disgusting.

I think women need to wise up and look at all the cash to made out of keeping us living in fear and the control to garner by keeping us insecure.

Seriously the left needs to call a halt to the push for keeping everyone on the victim identification track. Chances are the person who abused you at the time was wallowing in self pity and felt like a victim.

Fear makes people act dangerously.

Pawwed Rig

diveout wrote: »

I think women need to wise up and look at all the cash to made out of keeping us living in fear and the control to garner by keeping us insecure.

mod note - quit the generalisations

iptba

Thoie wrote: »

Is this the day I get raped because I needed to go for a pee while waiting for my friends to arrive at the bar, and I left my drink unattended?

Although I'm not an expert, from what I've read in various places, the spiked drink thing isn't something that is a major risk (sample source: Date-rape drink spiking 'an urban legend' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/6440589/Date-rape-drink-spiking-an-urban-legend.html).

---
General points:

It is true that women have things to worry about. However, men also have concerns e.g. men are more likely to be victims of violence on the street so also have to be concerned about their safety.

And I think in many situations, whether it's a car breaking down, or an attack on the street, strangers/passersby will be more likely to help a woman than a man.

Men can worry that they might be falsely accused of a sexual offence, either with an adult or child, that could ruin their lives.

I've seen too many campaigns over the year which only concentrate on women victims, and heard too many times that men have it easy and that the world is a much harder place for women than men. Both genders have things they can be concerned about.

Seriously?

Thoie wrote: »

Do you see #yesallwomen as confrontational

I don't see how it can be seen as anything other than confrontational.
It exists simply to put men back in their box for daring to suggesting that not all men are abusive misogynists.

Wibbs

Thoie wrote: »

While a woman goes about her daily life,

Ahoy matey, generalisation alert.

there is a constant sub-dialogue of "Is this particular action safe, is this the day I get attacked because I was in a hurry parking in the multi-storey car park, and left my car in that spot instead of this spot? Is this the day I get raped because I needed to go for a pee while waiting for my friends to arrive at the bar, and I left my drink unattended? Is this the day I get followed down the street and shouted at because it's really warm, and I'm too hot in this jacket, and all I'm wearing underneath is a fitted t-shirt?"

That's called paranoia. A paranoia not borne out by reality as far as actual risk goes.

Your antagonism towards half the population documenting their daily life, and your reference to harpies and bitches are, quite frankly, disgusting.

Riiight, so these twitter types are representative of half the population? Eh no. Your post is chock full of generalisations.

tsiehta

Yeah, silly paranoid women...

Seriously though, this sort of apparent "paranoia" is extremely prevalent among women I know in person as well as from what I've read online. And I've heard countless stories from women I know (as well as witnessing this on a couple of occasions), not about being raped or violently attacked, but pestered and harassed in mild but uncomfortable ways on a semi-frequent basis.

Are the statistics for the actual risk of being attacked and/or sexual assaulted low? Maybe, but that's not actually important. What's relevant here is the frequency of women being put into situations where they feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

The closest thing I can relate it to myself is the feeling I have in the odd situation where I am harassed by a stranger. I've experienced this a few times - I'm alone walking home at night and a homeless person is being persistent asking me for change and getting in my face, or a weird person starts to talk to me on a bus when I'm trying to mind my own business, or a group of teenagers shouts abuse at me when I walk past them, or one situation where a gay guy groped me in a club. The actual risk of me actually getting attacked or mugged or raped in these situations? Very low, but I felt insecure and unsafe every time.

From listening to what women actually say, they claim to experience these sorts of situations rather often, usually as a result of some form of unwanted male sexual attention. Of course it's not all men. However, there's enough of a minority of men out there who are putting women in these situations and making them feel uncomfortable and unsafe. We should be listening to them and acknowledging that it occurs, not taking it as a slight against all men and questioning the legitimacy of their experiences and feelings.

Wibbs

tsiehta wrote: »

Yeah, silly paranoid women...

In the case of some, yes. There are some silly paranoid men too.

Are the statistics for the actual risk of being attacked and/or sexual assaulted low? Maybe, but that's not actually important.

Eh yea it kinda is. EG men(particularly young men) are far more likely to be robbed, assaulted and killed. Their actual risk while going about their daily business is higher. Are they taking it to twitter? Are they claiming this is the experience of all men, or as was suggested earlier "half the population". Nope.

The kicker is that women are substantially more likely to be sexually and physically assaulted by someone they know than by a random stranger. That's where there is a clear gender bias. Applying some concern on that score makes far more logical sense. That should be more the focus.

What's relevant here is the frequency of women being put into situations where they feel uncomfortable and unsafe.

Again, outside of sexual harassment, men have a higher frequency of this. Individuals deal with it in different ways. Some choose(or learn) to ignore it, some dwell on it and some are very affected by it. However you don't hear claims that "half the population" respond with A, B or C. Men and women are not an homogenous group. I find this particularly ironic when it's stated by some women that women are.

The closest thing I can relate it to myself is the feeling I have in the odd situation where I am harassed by a stranger. I've experienced this a few times - I'm alone walking home at night and a homeless person is being persistent asking me for change and getting in my face, or a weird person starts to talk to me on a bus when I'm trying to mind my own business, or a group of teenagers shouts abuse at me when I walk past them, or one situation where a gay guy groped me in a club.

With the possible exception(though I've heard similar) of the club groping that's a pretty much common enough gender neutral experience of going through life. Like the poor, gobshítes will always be with us and again the risk for me as a bloke of say a group of skangers shouting abuse and it escalating to worse is higher. The risk of being mugged is higher. As for buses, I personally seem to be a bloody magnet for every freak, ghoul and dribbler that gets on. And again, though we may individually freak/get pissed off at the time, I don't see nearly as much projection, generalisation or active interweb groups around the issues.

From listening to what women actually say, they claim to experience these sorts of situations rather often, usually as a result of some form of unwanted male sexual attention. Of course it's not all men.

Indeed and it's not all women either. The majority of women I know and have known while reacting to individual incidences in different ways don't build up some worldview of low level fear with it. The minority are indeed... well paranoid is too strong a word, projecting a fear based worldview maybe? And with the rise of social media etc egging each other on. A number of them actually had good reasons to think like this, however I've often found the ones more like this had actually the fewest bad experiences of all.

tsiehta

I've seen a lot of women I know who I wouldn't have expected to have this "worldview of low level fear", as you put it, liking and sharing articles to do with this sort of thing on facebook. It either resonates with them, or they're buying into an internet driven victimization culture. I generally think higher of them than to assume the latter.

And I think the reason men don't go on twitter or facebook and complain about these sorts of things more is because it just happens less frequently to them. And you can't just leave out sexually motivated incidents here given that they're the main issue.

And every time a topic like this becomes a trending internet discussion, some men will take it as an attack on all men, deny that it's a problem, and write off the women speaking out about it as being "harpies and bitches", or "misandrists", or "paranoid", or come up with any explanation besides the simplest one - that the stated experiences and feelings of these women are, in fact, valid.

Wibbs

tsiehta wrote: »

I've seen a lot of women I know who I wouldn't have expected to have this "worldview of low level fear", as you put it, liking and sharing articles to do with this sort of thing on facebook. It either resonates with them, or they're buying into an internet driven victimization culture. I generally think higher of them than to assume the latter.

Or a little from column A and a little from column B. Misery does love company after all and company, given half the chance is wont to egg on the misery. It's part of the human condition. One buys a new blue car and suddenly one notices all the new blue cars around you. Doesn't mean blue cars are the majority. Examples of same are legion on the interwebs. After all "pro ana" and "thinspiration" are now terms of reference. And about as based in a healthy reality as a lysergic opium cocktail.

And I think the reason men don't go on twitter or facebook and complain about these sorts of things more is because it just happens less frequently to them. And you can't just leave out sexually motivated incidents here given that they're the main issue.

Numero Uno, "it", real threat and action, happens to men more often than women and the stats bear his out. God forbid we might stand back for a moment and contemplate the whole. Numero Dos, yes, sexually motivated incidents do indeed happen to women more often but they're significantly more likely to happen with men they already know and it's statistically speaking far less a risk in the public/stranger danger sphere, yet the latter is the TwitBook focus. How's that work then? Hardly a reflection of reality.

And every time a topic like this becomes a trending internet discussion, some men will take it as an attack on all men, deny that it's a problem, and write off the women speaking out about it as being "harpies and bitches", or "misandrists", or "paranoid", or come up with any explanation besides the simplest one - that the stated experiences and feelings of these women are, in fact, valid.

It depends entirely on what one's definition of "valid" happens to be. These days it seems valid is a broad church. Personally I make the distinction between the objective and the subjective as far as validity goes. I say knock yourself out when sharing subjective experience and subjective experience is entirely valid to the individual and sharing same may be helpful to said individual(unless it goes too far), but I would respectfully suggest not making the naive mistake of thinking this applies to the objective experience, or any actual reality.


BTW I don't see this as an "attack on all men", I'm not so generalist. I see it more as a submission to lazy and subjective and jingoistic thinking masquerading as some sort of diamond hard "fact". Just because it's oft repeated on the back of subjective thought doesn't make it true. This can come as a shock to some and not just on the subject at hand.

beks101

Thoie wrote: »

Jesus, you're seriously missing the point of #yesallwomen.

While a woman goes about her daily life, there is a constant sub-dialogue of "Is this particular action safe, is this the day I get attacked because I was in a hurry parking in the multi-storey car park, and left my car in that spot instead of this spot? Is this the day I get raped because I needed to go for a pee while waiting for my friends to arrive at the bar, and I left my drink unattended? Is this the day I get followed down the street and shouted at because it's really warm, and I'm too hot in this jacket, and all I'm wearing underneath is a fitted t-shirt?"

This is what I hate about this hashtag bullsh1t. I'm a woman and it doesn't represent me. I don't live my life in fear of rape or attack by men. I don't route my trips and journeys according to where I think I'm least likely to get attacked or raped.

There's certainly an argument for the social acceptance of rape/sexist jokes and the casual objectification of women's bodies in mainstream media and society, I'll wage that war for the rest of my life, but to imply that ALL women struggle with these issues to the extent that it defines them and are 'victims' to it I find a bit insulting and unnecessary.

There's no denying the sub-text of Rodger's 'manifesto' is one which most women will be familiar with. The self-entitlement, vitriol and sexist bile directed at women borne out of his own social/romantic failings -ya, we've all met those men. But personally I'm pretty good at screening out the creeps, the passive-aggressive misogynists masquerading as 'nice guys' just as I am at detecting blanket social ills or oddities and volatile attitudes among the general population. There's always something 'off' about them and you disengage accordingly.

Personally I would never seek to psycho-analyze why such a person came to be that way or take it as a personal affront as a woman - I'd more likely find it sad, pathetic and a grand social handicap to be so disgruntled by a narrow-minded world view determined by a staggering lack of self awareness and some pretty sad life experiences, and that's all really. These guys are generally outcasted to the fringes of social groups and find themselves victims of their own fcuked up thinking at the end of the day anyway.

Galwayguy35

Statistically a man is in a lot more danger of being harmed when he goes out at night, every weekend we hear about a man who has been seriously assaulted ofton resulting in brain damage or dying as a result of an attack.

Galwayguy35

Well the point I was making was in relation to the person who closed their account hinting at the idea that there is less chance of a man getting assaulted or having reason to fear for his safety because she doesn't see it on social media sites so it mus not happen to them much.

The facts tell a different story.

Wibbs

Beks bloody nailed it IMH.

beks101 wrote: »

This is what I hate about this hashtag bullsh1t. I'm a woman and it doesn't represent me. I don't live my life in fear of rape or attack by men. I don't route my trips and journeys according to where I think I'm least likely to get attacked or raped.

There's certainly an argument for the social acceptance of rape/sexist jokes and the casual objectification of women's bodies in mainstream media and society, I'll wage that war for the rest of my life, but to imply that ALL women struggle with these issues to the extent that it defines them and are 'victims' to it I find a bit insulting and unnecessary.

If you were to believe this minority of TwitBook sharers you'd think women are paranoid victims and like Beks I'd see this as insulting, unnecessary and just plain wrong. It's almost Victorian in mindset. Irony ain't in it. I don't believe it's an internet driven victimization culture either. I just see the internet giving a voice to this and other attention seeking demographics, making them appear louder and more relevant than they actually are. The biggest trenders online don't always translate into any sort of reality. This also holds for the nuttier misogynist end of the men's rights tribe. Both sides feed each other. All too often it's like two people fighting and whinging at each other in a room, while outside the rest of us carry on as always.

GalwayGuy2

Wibbs wrote: »

Beks bloody nailed it IMH.


If you were to believe this minority of TwitBook sharers you'd think women are paranoid victims and like Beks I'd see this as insulting, unnecessary and just plain wrong. It's almost Victorian in mindset. Irony ain't in it. I don't believe it's an internet driven victimization culture either. I just see the internet giving a voice to this and other attention seeking demographics, making them appear louder and more relevant than they actually are. The biggest trenders online don't always translate into any sort of reality. This also holds for the nuttier misogynist end of the men's rights tribe. Both sides feed each other. All too often it's like two people fighting and whinging at each other in a room, while outside the rest of us carry on as always.

I have only really two disagreements to make about this post.

First Bold: Yes, it absolutely is. I think I've mentioned it a few times, but we do seem to be regressing further and further towards the victiorian (Eg: Women are victims and men are victimisers) outlook.

Second Bold: Yes. Except we can all hear them and, to a certain extent, it does affect how we go about our business. There's no harm in it if there's people vocally disagreeing with them.

Wibbs

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Second Bold: Yes. Except we can all hear them and, to a certain extent, it does affect how we go about our business.

I dunno if it does GG. In the real world it's the legal and cultural stuff that affects us all. Now some of that does get legs online and in ivory towers like US colleges womens studies and the like, but it would be my humble that the majority let it wash over them.

There's no harm in it if there's people vocally disagreeing with them.

That I'm not so sure of. You may recall that mind blowingly daft "article" that was doing the rounds entitled "reasons you should date a woman with an eating disorder"(or something like that). The article was daft, the reaction to it was dafter. There were people trying to outdo each other in an online TwitBook outrage competition and falling over themselves linking the offending article wherever they could. Genius. Not.

An opinion piece written by one bloke, designed to rile up a tiny audience went global on the backs of the Outraged(tm). A piece that would have otherwise faded away like it ought to. Report the site to the site hosters? Good idea. Ignoring madness where you find it? Good idea. Whipping yourself into a collective frenzy of outrage, offence and feels while promoting the daft message? Stupid.

Bafucin

This is my take on the whole Roger Elliot thing and many of the same type of people.


There is a line that this kid has Asbergers. Actually he did not he was seeing host of professionals in mental health care not one of them diagnosed this in him. And he saw a lot of them. HIS FAMILY said after the killings they had a thought at one point that he might have it. Beverly Hills doctor, Stephen M. Scappa, who challenged that diagnosis, during the kids life disagreed. The professionals did NOT think he had asbergers.

For as long as anyone close to them can remember, the parents had faced concerns about the boy’s mental health — a shadow that hung over this Los Angeles family nearly every day of Elliot’s life. Confronted with a lonely and introverted child, they tried to set him up on play dates, ferried him from counselor to therapist, urged him to take antipsychotic medication and moved him from school to school. His mother gave her son the car he thought would help improve his stature — a black BMW — when he went off to college in Santa Barbara; he used it for his lonely explorations of the California coast, as a setting for his chilling farewell video and finally as a weapon as he sprayed bullets from the window and plowed down bicyclists that Friday night.

I think that he was a spoilt brat. I think he was passive aggressive and manipulated his family into giving him whatever he wanted. They gave in and molly coddled him to the point where he was so soft rejection by people even when he was being rude to them was an insult.

We talk self entitlement culture all the time. The Paris Hilton the roger elliots who break the law and their families clean up after them.

Rich kids through history have become sociopaths purely through being spoilt too much. They are little tyrants with no guts or character. They think the world owes them a favour. This can be aimed at the workforce or society. They have no talents no work ethic for anything and no survival skills. They can't do anything. Everything has been given to them. They are first world trash.

I don't think he was mentally ill or had asbergers...I don't blame the groups he joined for him being spoilt...I blame the spoiled brats for forming those groups.

Think about it ....think of the Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie and the type. They break the law and think the world is theirs for the taking. He was the male equivalent in a way he had the spoilt brat part. But women don't fall over themselves for looks he had the personality of a mean brat. Being a brat in the real world as an adult is very alienating. He had absolutely no perspective on life. He was from a rich background had enough to eat and live. And could not see there were people in the world with nothing. He could not appreciate how lucky he was.

His parents should have given him a couple of ass whoopings. Not literally but they should have taken him in hand more.


It's not about gun laws. He STABBED three people. He killed men and women. I don't think it was about mental health he was not crazy. He was just a spoilt brat to the extreme point where being kind to people actually hurt him.

I believe the only issue he really had was extreme withdrawness and self delusion. I feel for those who suffer from being withdrawn. But I don't think they would be selfish enough to blame the world. He refused to work on coming out of his shell.

He fled two high schools after begging his parents, in tears, to rescue him from what he described as a bullying environment. When he was a sophomore, a school administrator said, he suffered a panic attack — standing immobilized in the hallway — until a teacher went outside to ask his mother, waiting in a car, to come get him. He apparently never returned to the school.

Yes you need to understand withdrawn people. But you also need to help them toughen up a bit. He need to be forced to go to school and overcome it.

He had this push and pull between his desire to engage socially and his fear of rejection,

Part of being a normal person is learning not only not to fear rejection but not to resent it either.

While his parents saw a loner who would not leave his room, the manifesto and videos show a far more agitated young man. Mr. Rodger wrote of feeling tortured as he pined for “young blondes” and of heading out to a mall to buy designer clothes that he thought would make him more appealing. At one point, he set about to become a millionaire, planning a scheme to win the lottery and making several trips to Arizona, where he spent hundreds of dollars trying to win the Powerball jackpot.He described seeing “two hot blonde girls” waiting at a bus stop. He flashed a smile at them and was ignored. “In a rage,” he wrote, “I made a U-turn, pulled up to their bus stop and splashed my Starbucks latte all over them. I felt a feeling of spiteful satisfaction as I saw it stain their jeans.”

It was not gun laws ...he stabbed almost as many people as he shot....it was him and the fact that he was duped into a cult of hatred.

On PUAhate, a site that was taken down after the murders, Mr. Rodger expressed his disgust at women, questioning how they could resist his charms. He would urge other “incels” — or involuntary celibates — to fight back. “One day incels will realize their true strength and numbers, and will overthrow this oppressive feminist system,” he wrote. “Start envisioning a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.”

He wrote.

If ever there was a sign that Dating coaches do not help people get healthier PUA hate was it. The site has been taken down in light of the murders and because Elliots rantings were all over it.

Bafucin

Bafucin wrote: »

If ever there was a sign that Dating coaches do not help people get healthier PUA hate was it. The site has been taken down in light of the murders and because Elliots rantings were all over it.

Yup, one swallow makes a summer.

beks101

He had no social skills and no meaningful interaction with women. This was a persistent theme throughout his life for any number of reasons, not least the introversion and poor self-esteem and riddle of personal issues and 'odd' personality etc.

It's pretty easy to objectify and make blanket statements about a group of people when you have no real experience of them. Your perspective of them is one-dimensional - your only interaction happens at a bus stop where you are ignored, in a school corridor where you are 'usurped' by 'jocks' by the 'hot blondes', at a party where women are hooking up and not with you. Because you are socially inept, consumed by bitterness and jealousy, riddled with insecurity and simply incapable of basic conversation or interaction - and worst of all, totally lacking in self-awareness of all these things.

That's why I never take these kind of attitudes in men personally, or as some kind of "#yesallwomen" form of oppression or something. Because it's got nothing to do with women and everything to do with that individual's personal issues and inadequacies.

That's why I immediately tune out when I hear/read any guy stereotyping women in any capacity, regardless of how big or small the statement may be - "all women are X, Y and Z" - it just immediately smacks of a complete deficiency in that person's ability to interact socially with the opposite sex and understand that people come on a case-by-case basis, and not as a blanket group with an inherent set of set traits and characteristics.

Lou.m

Wibbs wrote: »

Beks bloody nailed it IMH.


If you were to believe this minority of TwitBook sharers you'd think women are paranoid victims and like Beks I'd see this as insulting, unnecessary and just plain wrong. It's almost Victorian in mindset. Irony ain't in it. I don't believe it's an internet driven victimization culture either. I just see the internet giving a voice to this and other attention seeking demographics, making them appear louder and more relevant than they actually are. The biggest trenders online don't always translate into any sort of reality. This also holds for the nuttier misogynist end of the men's rights tribe. Both sides feed each other. All too often it's like two people fighting and whinging at each other in a room, while outside the rest of us carry on as always.

I have been through abuse. And I do live with it somewhat.

If you have been through it, it does affect you.

But that is what I as an individual have been through.

I have heard male victims of sex abuse as kids explain that they carry feelings they cannot explain around sex for sometime until they are resolved through healthy relationships and counseling.

That's why I never take these kind of attitudes in men personally, or as some kind of "#yesallwomen" form of oppression or something. Because it's got nothing to do with women and everything to do with that individual's personal issues and inadequacies.

I agree with this.

My Phobia after a very abusive relationships left me with irrational feelings of fear towards men.

But I have worked on them because I realized that it was to do with a past experience.

I am not saying certain individuals in the male gender don't seek out vulnerable women ...some do. And women need to be aware of it.

I think men and women need to acknowledge the fears of each other if they can when they interact as individuals and as groups.

I don't think PUA is healthy or ethical...the whole negging thing or schemes and referring to women as targets

Insulting her, challenging her, or busting her balls:

Intentionally hurting her to get what you want. It is not ethical. It's manipulative and the terms and language is so awful.

They are not caring 'nice guys' they hurt people to get them to behave as they want them to. And the whole thing is about getting as many women as possible. The rating of women ...HB7 or whatever (hot bitch ..lovely I know) it's horrible. I would find it terribly hurtful.

False time constraints ...deliberately excluding someone you like...NLP .....Peacocking..The NEG ... prepared responses...Qualification

It's a whole 'operation'. It's hurtful and degrading and puts women beneath them as if a woman's feelings are totally unimportant. It does not matter if what you do hurts her. And the guy feels he must be in control.

It's bastard school.

A review of The Game in the San Francisco Chronicle characterized the community as "a puerile cult of sexual conquest," and calls its tactics "sinister" and "pathetic." According to the review, "if women in the book are sometimes treated as a commodity, they come out looking better than the men, who can be downright loathsome—and show themselves eventually to be pretty sad, dysfunctional characters."

I think the whole issue regarding men not getting women is lack of confidence and self esteem and believe it or not ... NOT being nice enough.

The 'nice guys' are not being nice enough. They don't have the confidence to be nice enough.

That's why I immediately tune out when I hear/read any guy stereotyping women in any capacity, regardless of how big or small the statement may be - "all women are X, Y and Z" - it just immediately smacks of a complete deficiency in that person's ability to interact socially with the opposite sex and understand that people come on a case-by-case basis, and not as a blanket group with an inherent set of set traits and characteristics.

I agree.

I deffo have my shortcomings in social interaction sometimes. I would rather work on myself in a healthy non selfish way though. And the answer is not in a book it is in the eyes of the person in front of you.

diveout

tsiehta wrote: »

And every time a topic like this becomes a trending internet discussion, some men will take it as an attack on all men, deny that it's a problem, and write off the women speaking out about it as being "harpies and bitches", or "misandrists", or "paranoid", or come up with any explanation besides the simplest one - that the stated experiences and feelings of these women are, in fact, valid.

It's known as DARVO..Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/DARVO
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/darvo.htm

Internet is like an echo chamber, everything gets amplified and distorted in a world wide game of chinese whispers.

The Black Oil

I've watched the first video in the OP, and it's just...odd. Tonally, the way it's done to the camera, it's almost like some sort of bizarre found footage film or parody trailer that the maker wants to go viral. Sadly, it has under rather unpleasant circumstances. The whole presentation is disturbing on many levels as it's him rambling in what he thinks is a natural way, but it's noe. Everyone indulges in some self-pity on this subject at one point or another. I read some of the manifesto on the LA Times, certainly up there on the misogyny-o-meter. The problem now with these shootings (or similar violent outbursts), post-Columbine, is the amplification thanks to the web. Being buried inside your computer doesn't help matters, either. There is a lot of ground work that needs to be done here including upskilling of support services in college and schools, earlier detection and intervention in the event of red flags. Across the US as a whole.

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

If I was ugly and was a virgin at the age of 35 or 45 or 55 I don't think I would be very stable. I can't imagine how these guys avoid killing themselves or going crazy. In the past I suppose the priesthood was an option which could kind of soften the blow.

Well, no. I'm 30+, never been on a date or slept with anyone, for a variety of reasons. The responsibility for this rests with me, no one else. That has always been the case.

The last person I was attracted to (before Christmas) I told her that she had a bright and really positive way about her. That's what I found in talking to her on a group holiday over a few weeks. I left it last minute and I didn't expect anything in return. I didn't know what else to say, anyway. I've no time for this PUA rubbish, nor the 'nice' guy angle, either. Why not compliment someone on who they are as a person since they may not be aware of how others see them? Or em, just talk to them like a normal human being. Sure, suicidal ideation has been a part of my adult life, but I know what door to knock on. I'm not going to murder anybody or become a priest.

Lou.m

diveout wrote: »

It's known as DARVO..Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/DARVO
http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/darvo.htm

Internet is like an echo chamber, everything gets amplified and distorted in a world wide game of chinese whispers.

I think though when women say too many men are doing this or some men are it gets heard as all men.

It does not have to be many men for it to be too many.

ONE guy killed seven people. If two people go on a spree it seems like the world is falling apart. Really it is just one or two people.

Withdrawn people internalize a lot of what they see and read. And it becomes directed at them. We all do it to a certain extent. But a lot of men and women read things online and think it is directed at them.

I'm sure I do it too. But you have to check yourself.

I am not saying all guys who have dabbled in PUA are bad or are terribly unethical. But as a whole the idea of it is not ethical. As an ideology it is not a great or ethical one.

t's interesting though how this PUA and MRA stuff has become so public now with this case.

A few of my friends knew a bit about it. I had heard the terms but never really knew some took it so seriously.

I just think it's strange men completely unqualified in psychology have created such an industry that claims to deal with such emotional issues with other men and this goes unchecked.

It's another arm of the self help industry.

iptba

Lou.m wrote: »

t's interesting though how this PUA and MRA stuff has become so public now with this case.

I think it's been unfair that the MRA has been badmouthed because of this as, from reading a bit about Elliot Rodger, it doesn't look like he liked men either.

I went back to watch a few of this killers YouTube vids. He hated PEOPLE: men for "taking" the "girls" & girls for not "giving him a chance"

He blames women for throwing themselves at “obnoxious brutes” but rejecting him, “the supreme gentlemen.”

"He posted in 2013, 'If you could release a virus that would kill every single man on Earth, except for yourself because you would have the antidote, would you do it? You will be the only man left, with all the females. 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."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638049/7-dead-drive-shooting-near-UC-Santa-Barbara.html

Add that to the fact he killed men and women (more men than women) and I don't see why he should be classed as some sort of supporter of men's rights. He disliked men and women.

Lou.m

iptba wrote: »

I think it's been unfair that the MRA has been badmouthed because of this as, from reading a bit about Elliot Rodger, it doesn't look like he liked men either.







Add that to the fact he killed men and women (more men than women) and I don't see why he should be classed as some sort of supporter of men's rights. He disliked men and women.

Whenever I read the stuff he wrote I shudder.

kiffer

I'm not sure that I get where the "he wasn't mentally ill" people are coming from... Surely spending two years planning a murder spree, whilst refusing your anti-pyschotic meds aren't the actions of a mentally healthy person?

Sure an otherwise mentally healthy human may become so frustrated by something that it could build up into a violent out burst, some "temporary insanity" but two years of planning?

Yeah, he was an assh*le, he was actively refusing therapy, refusing medication, unable or unwilling to see that he had the wrong end of the stick in every possible way...

and you think that's NOT a mental health issue?

ragnarl

Unfortunately he was living in a place which was very materialistic and shallow. From an early age he realized that he was seen as inferior to decent looking white guys. There is an underlying premise of white supremacy in western society. This shooting was a long time coming and he systematically became more and more bitter about his lot. The fact is, you have a place in the pecking order due to your level of looks, money or status. Wes Quirke can pull Rosanna Davidson, Elliot Rodger would have no chance, although society would probably tell him he could. You have to know and accept your place. Being starved of sex progressively makes guys go crazy. This is why prostitution should be legalized. A man has a right to pay for sex whenever he wants without the fear of being banged up in prison. The real issue though is his inability to accept that he was not in the same league as the model type girls. Generally they don't date the Elliot Rodgers of the world. He couldn't accept this. The running theme in these shooting crimes is that the perpetrator is generally always a sex starved lunatic

kiffer

ragnarl wrote: »

Unfortunately he was living in a place which was very materialistic and shallow. From an early age he realized that he was seen as inferior to decent looking white guys. There is an underlying premise of white supremacy in western society. This shooting was a long time coming and he systematically became more and more bitter about his lot. The fact is, you have a place in the pecking order due to your level of looks, money or status. Wes Quirke can pull Rosanna Davidson, Elliot Rodger would have no chance, although society would probably tell him he could. You have to know and accept your place. Being starved of sex progressively makes guys go crazy. This is why prostitution should be legalized. A man has a right to pay for sex whenever he wants without the fear of being banged up in prison. The real issue though is his inability to accept that he was not in the same league as the model type girls. Generally they don't date the Elliot Rodgers of the world. He couldn't accept this. The running theme in these shooting crimes is that the perpetrator is generally always a sex starved lunatic

He wasn't ugly, I've seen far less attractive men then him do quiet well.
He wasn't poor.
He was too young yet for status to be a big issue... or rather was young enough that "potential" status was more important.
A lack of intimacy, affection and, yes, sex does slowly wear on you.
He was frustrated because his life didn't reach his expectations... his expectations were unreasonable.
But lots of people get frustrated, lots of guys do badly with women, and other interpersonal things, without going on killing sprees or becoming serial killers.
The difference is that he was a psychopath.
Ahhh but psychopaths are manipulative no?
They often have a weird charm... if he was a psychopath he shouldn't have had as much trouble chatting women up...
The guy believed that when he smilled at two women waiting at a bus stop and they didn't react by showing him attention that it was the correct thing to do to go back and throw coffee on them... his belief was that they should fall into his lap (because he had a super grandiose mega ego) ... he probably had a load of built up rules as well... a twisted view of what gentleman meant, so there he is sticking to his rules of behaviour and getting more and more frustrated, he's putting iut those crazy videos, talking about killing people, people call the cops, and he convinced the cops that it was all a miss understanding...
Yeah... I'd say he could be manipulative when he wanted to be.


China is going to have a big problem with its young men, after they got rid of all those poor girls and now they have a big surplus of men and not enough women... total time bomb there.
millions of lonely, frustrated men, with no chance of finding partners... That's going to be one hell of a mess.

ragnarl

"his expectations were unreasonable" - yes, they were unreasonable because of the way he looked. If he looked like the pic below, his expectations wouldn't have been unreasonable and he wouldn't have turned out the way he did.



25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3j17atj7u1r7x7zzo1_500.jpg

GalwayGuy2

^^^

Doubt it. You can be as good looking as you want, but if you don't have social skills, then you're kind of ****ed.

ragnarl

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

^^^

Doubt it. You can be as good looking as you want, but if you don't have social skills, then you're kind of ****ed.

Why didn't he have the social skills? Because of negative experiences growing up that kept getting reinforced, he was too short, he wasn't attractive enough for the really hot girls/popular crowd. We are talking about a middle/upper class area that he grew up in. Think D4.

Can you imagine a guy like the guy i linked above that "not having the social skills"?

Think about the positive reinforcement he would have recieved in life growing up, on a daily basis, that Elliot didn't receive.

The fact is he turned out this way mainly because of his looks. His ethnicity being a hindrance, along with a skinny frame and being short.

He was competing with guys on Wes Quirkes level ffs. Girls in those middle/upper class areas throw themselves at good looking posh guys generally (think rugby lads over here), not the Elliot Rodgers of the world.

Just LOL if you think someone as rich and good looking as that could turn out "not having the social skills".

Elliot was a mental product of his situation. The FACT is that he would not have turned out that way if he looked like the guy above. Women would have came much more easily.

Wibbs

Set against that are the many men less well off and less attractive than him who were hooking up with the ladies and/or in relationships. He whinged about that too. Sure a really good looking bloke will have a serious advantage, but if he's got no other social cache he can just as easily end up losing out to guys less physically attractive than him. An outgoing "6" who is high on the social totem pole will outclass a socially awkward "9" any day of the week. After all it's still pretty much a given that men do the approaching especially at that age(and in his culture). The introvert is on the back foot out of the gate(mixed metaphors ahoy). Because women are nearly always the approached the opposite is far less common. Socially inept women are more likely to be seen as "shy" or even "cute" and may even have more cache for some men over the very extrovert.

Plus this theory suggests entitlement on his part to women "out of his league" and that didn't end well.

ragnarl

I agree with you that social skills are very important Wibbs. However, my bone of contention is that you simply rarely find guys who are 9s on the looks spectrum that have poor social skills. Unless they have some form of autism (aspergers or something).

Confidence is generally a function of his looks.

I hate linking videos to prove a point but this one really is apt here and explains everything. I hope you would lissten with an open mind

youtube.com/watch?v=eeFdSPaHtt0 (I haven't linked this one before)

ragnarl

As far as approaching goes, women will give signals to guys that they find attractive, trying to prompt them to approach. Ask a girl has she ever done this and they will say they do it a lot. Whether it's eye contact or smiling or trying to get closer or something. Thinking back to the girls I've pulled that wasn't from my social circle, the girl usually caught my attention somehow by looking at me a second too long or smiling at me or something. So the concept of approaching is wrong really. Girls choose guys, guys don't choose women. Women choose from the men that approach them and will also give signals out to men they find attractive. Women are vastly more socially intelligent than men also and we have to keep that in mind.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Set against that are the many men less well off and less attractive than him who were hooking up with the ladies and/or in relationships. He whinged about that too. Sure a really good looking bloke will have a serious advantage, but if he's got no other social cache he can just as easily end up losing out to guys less physically attractive than him. An outgoing "6" who is high on the social totem pole will outclass a socially awkward "9" any day of the week. After all it's still pretty much a given that men do the approaching especially at that age(and in his culture). The introvert is on the back foot out of the gate(mixed metaphors ahoy). Because women are nearly always the approached the opposite is far less common. Socially inept women are more likely to be seen as "shy" or even "cute" and may even have more cache for some men over the very extrovert.

Plus this theory suggests entitlement on his part to women "out of his league" and that didn't end well.

In the context he was living in, he was neither that good looking or that rich. And probably punching above his weight there.

And he was competing within a highly extroverted culture to boot.

Lou.m

ragnarl wrote: »

I agree with you that social skills are very important Wibbs. However, my bone of contention is that you simply rarely find guys who are 9s on the looks spectrum that have poor social skills. Unless they have some form of autism (aspergers or something).

Yes you do.

You find good looking people who are jerks in both genders.

Having a lousy selfish personality is lack of social skills. It is very unattractive in both genders.

ongarboy

ragnarl wrote: »

Why didn't he have the social skills? Because of negative experiences growing up that kept getting reinforced, he was too short, he wasn't attractive enough for the really hot girls/popular crowd. We are talking about a middle/upper class area that he grew up in. Think D4.

Can you imagine a guy like the guy i linked above that "not having the social skills"?

Think about the positive reinforcement he would have recieved in life growing up, on a daily basis, that Elliot didn't receive.

The fact is he turned out this way mainly because of his looks. His ethnicity being a hindrance, along with a skinny frame and being short.

He was competing with guys on Wes Quirkes level ffs. Girls in those middle/upper class areas throw themselves at good looking posh guys generally (think rugby lads over here), not the Elliot Rodgers of the world.

Just LOL if you think someone as rich and good looking as that could turn out "not having the social skills".

Elliot was a mental product of his situation. The FACT is that he would not have turned out that way if he looked like the guy above. Women would have came much more easily.

Using that simplistic logic, we should be nervous or on guard around every short, skinny, unattractive looking guy who lives in middle-upper class areas as they could all potentially go on the rampage due to not being highly regarded by their better looking peers or hot girls. Millions of guys endure what this guy went through (being rejected by girls out of their league, surrounded by better looking, confident, socially superior alpha males, being mocked or bullied because of it maybe) but while they may not enjoy it, resent it or even be damaged by it), they don't turn into maniacs. This guy obviously had other more severe psychological or dysfunctional issues going on that turned him into this. Whether we'll ever find out what that was, I'm not sure.

Wibbs

ragnarl wrote: »

I agree with you that social skills are very important Wibbs. However, my bone of contention is that you simply rarely find guys who are 9s on the looks spectrum that have poor social skills. Unless they have some form of autism (aspergers or something).

I'd have known quite the number of good looking men who were decidedly lacking in social skills. Indeed their looks contributed to it as they had to work less hard, learn less growing up as their looks gave them an automatic "in" socially. Have seen the same thing with good looking women, if not worse in fact. Their looks were everything socially and beyond that there wasn't much going on, because there didn't have to be.

Hey I'm all about the reductionist, let's be real here folks, yep "leagues" exist and with a sideorder of evolutionary biology goin on, but it's a helluva lot more complex than that. It is not some mathematical constant. Not in the "real world". Not at the average everyday level. Outside of the filmstar/model internet fantasy milieu.

OK my humble? Men, or more, a demographic of men are looking for logical steps, a system to beat the "system". A way to reduce things to a formula that they can handle. Hey, that's a good thing in many ways. It's part of what gave us science and philosophy. However with too many men the means becomes an end in itself. A real hardcore tendency to not see the forest for the trees. You can see this at both ends of the spectrum, from the hardcore "PUA" thinking all the way to the "Whiteknight" thinking. Two sides, same coin as far as the approach goes. They're both hunting for a system, a theory, an A to B = Wayhay! Hell even that oft quoted crap of "oh Men(tm) will never understand Women(tm)" often perpetrated by both genders is an example of it.

I see how this is appeailing to guys, especially younger guys who are feeling their way through the world with all sorts of media mixed messages and not coming out with the results they expect. The "be yourself" be "nice" and women will like you stuff. For me be yourself is one of the daftest bits of advice given to men who are struggling. If that worked then there wouldn't be a problem. The fact is with some people, men and women, their "selves" as they stand aren't exactly gonna light up the world. None of us comes along fully realised, we need experience and example and hard work. This idea that we're all precious snowflakes regardless of how we actually are is daft and another example of entitlement.

Annnyway, avoid getting bogged down in the notion of a system and explanation for human interactions. Leave that to anthropologists and suchlike. Get out there and interact. Yep you may look like a gobshíte at times, but who doesn't and that's how you learn to be a fully functioning human. All the rest follows.

walshb

The guy is just a bad apple. Nothing to do with looks or women or rejection. Some people have a consistent and intense nasty streak.

ragnarl

Lou.m wrote: »

Yes you do.

You find good looking people who are jerks in both genders.

Having a lousy selfish personality is lack of social skills. It is very unattractive in both genders.

There is a difference between lacking social skills and being a "jerk".

The proportion of good looking guys who lack social skills vs the proportion of below average looking guys who lack social skills is minute.

This is because the good looking guy has had positive reinforcement while the Elliot Rodger guy has been told all his life, consciously or subconsciously, that he isn't good enough, which leads to him being socially inhibited. These instances are heavily alluded to in his manifesto. A good looking guy simply wouldn't have had these experiences and would have had much more positive ones instead i.e girls saying he was cute, him being popular etc. We have to talk in general terms, (but i know someone who is good looking who is bad socially etc - just doesn't fly, exceptions prove the rule, think of the bigger picture).

Elliot Rodger was a victim of his looks. He endured persistent mental damage because of them and grew more and more resentful. He was completely wrong in what he did, but if you look at these shooters (sodini, cho, lanza, rodger), they are all victims of their looks. If they were good looking guys, they simply wouldn't have done what they did.

ragnarl

ongarboy wrote: »

Using that simplistic logic, we should be nervous or on guard around every short, skinny, unattractive looking guy who lives in middle-upper class areas as they could all potentially go on the rampage due to not being highly regarded by their better looking peers or hot girls. Millions of guys endure what this guy went through (being rejected by girls out of their league, surrounded by better looking, confident, socially superior alpha males, being mocked or bullied because of it maybe) but while they may not enjoy it, resent it or even be damaged by it), they don't turn into maniacs. This guy obviously had other more severe psychological or dysfunctional issues going on that turned him into this. Whether we'll ever find out what that was, I'm not sure.

Yes americans should and will be on guard around these types of guys. The profile of a shooter is now out there and just as you described. Look up Cho, Lanza, and Sodini. These shooters are lower inhibitions, probably a lack of serotonin or something, which leads to them carrying out these shootings.

ragnarl

walshb wrote: »

The guy is just a bad apple. Nothing to do with looks or women or rejection. Some people have a consistent and intense nasty streak.

His looks were a huge factor but not the only one, I agree.

The fact remains though, if he looked like Sean O'Pry, he wouldn't have done this.

iptba

ragnarl wrote: »

There is a difference between lacking social skills and being a "jerk".

The proportion of good looking guys who lack social skills vs the proportion of below average looking guys who lack social skills is minute.

This is because the good looking guy has had positive reinforcement while the Elliot Rodger guy has been told all his life, consciously or subconsciously, that he isn't good enough, which leads to him being socially inhibited. These instances are heavily alluded to in his manifesto. A good looking guy simply wouldn't have had these experiences and would have had much more positive ones instead i.e girls saying he was cute, him being popular etc. We have to talk in general terms, (but i know someone who is good looking who is bad socially etc - just doesn't fly, exceptions prove the rule, think of the bigger picture).

I'm not convinced by that. I've read something before that the way you see yourself is influenced a lot by how you saw yourself at 16. At lot of how a male will see themselves growing up is nothing to do with their looks. For example, you can be good at sport no matter what your looks and that can influence your self-esteem. If you're bright in school/academically, you can get confidence from that. If you have other areas you are good or get positive feedback from e.g. musically, dancing, etc you can get confidence from that. If you go on to do a job you're good at, you can get confidence from that. If you're seen as a good laugh, you can get confidence from that.

walshb

ragnarl wrote: »

His looks were a huge factor but not the only one, I agree.

The fact remains though, if he looked like Sean O'Pry, he wouldn't have done this.

To me that is nonsense. He may not have done what he did, but he may still have done something evil. The guy was a disturbed and bad person. Sometimes we can look and look and look for reasons. Sometimes the reason is simple: Evil/real badness exists in the world.

Pawwed Rig

ragnarl wrote: »

The fact remains though, if he looked like Sean O'Pry, he wouldn't have done this.

No idea who Sean O'Pry is but I assume he is some model type. Model types can have mental illness too which can be seen by alot of the self harm that is prevalent in media, arts, etc.
There is no way to know whether he would or would not have done this if he looked different.

nokia69

ragnarl wrote: »

His looks were a huge factor but not the only one, I agree.

The fact remains though, if he looked like Sean O'Pry, he wouldn't have done this.

his looks have nothing to do with this, nothing

he had aspergers/autism and from reading his manifesto he was suffering from a few other personality disorders

thats why her never really had friends and never had any girlfriend

you could give a man like Elliot Rodger a bag of money and send him into a brothel and he still wouldn't score

the man was mental

and I don't think he was ever even rejected by woman, because it looks to me that he never even talked to many women

ragnarl

His evilness/badness is a red herring when youre trying to decipher what exactly went wrong.

Get back to me when a very good looking guy commits a mass shooting, blaming his mentality on years of lonliness and not being able to get a girlfriend.

The next shooter will be anther rodger/cho/lanza/sodini type. Fact.

Pawwed Rig

ragnarl wrote: »

The next shooter will be anther rodger/cho/lanza/sodini type. Fact.

ragnarl wrote: »

The fact remains though, if he looked like Sean O'Pry, he wouldn't have done this.

Saying fact over and over again does not make it so.

ragnarl

Lets see what happens.

I look forward to the first male model that committs a mass shooting because he cant get girls!