I thought I'd seen it all when the manosphereans started spinning Elliot Rodger as a feminist.
Now Steve Sailer at VDare wants to persuade us that Elliot Rodger's intention to murder sorority girls was really a "race crime" against white folks, specifically against blonde white folks.
"UCSB is less than 40%
white among undergrads, but that still makes it The Blond School by UC
standards. For example, UC Irvine down in the Beach Boys’ Orange County
is only 17.5% white. So, targeting for slaughter this sorority is an
extremely intentional racial hate crime. But how much do you think we’re
going to hear about that? As Sapir and Whorf might have said, if a term doesn't exist in our vocabulary, it’s hard to think about the concept."
Or, as Sapir and Whorf "might have said," Just because you invent "a concept" doesn't mean it has any bearing in objective reality, you moron. (And also, fuck you for using that Beach Boys song, which up until now has only conjured in my head cheerful images of sun, surfing, sand, and bikinis.)
I have to admit, while I don't necessarily believe "Blondes have more fun," neither have I worried about being targeted for violence because of my hair color. And when it comes to Being Blonde in America, I speak with the authority of experience. I am a natural blue eyed blonde, have been all my life, and my partner is a natural blue eyed blonde as well. (Well, at least we were until age stripped the melanin from our crowning glories, along with the last vestiges of our youthful beauty.)
Now we regret that our paths did not converge earlier in our life journeys, when we were still at our reproductive peaks, so that we could have fulfilled our duties to the Aryan race by creating more blondes, that precious subset of human diversity who are so perilously close to extinction! (Although to be candid, it's me who's the race traitor; she has, in fact, produced a small army militia of tow-headed grandbabies.)
Apparently, saving the blonde gene demands organized political action, and we know what that means: $$$. Fortunately, it's not too late to make a tax-deductible contribution. Peter Bigelow (and his infant daughter) are in immediate need of $30,000 or else:
"Our advisers insist that the only way websites get donations is to block access to readers completely."
Now, while you're considering how generous you want to be, here's a fun fact: Did you know that all blue eyed people share a common ancestor? The mutation occurred relatively recently in human history. Maybe that is why my partner and I have always felt such a strong sense of, uhm, sorority.
Matt Forney tries to smear another female journalist, and not only does hilarity fail to ensue*, only his fan boys are apt to notice.
I am heartened to see mainstream media is picking up on the story of how online misogyny not only reflects, but also generates, the toxic undercurrents of misogyny that persist in our culture.
Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post has written an excellent report "inside the manosphere," with particular attention to some of its most odious and notorious players. Their response has been to resurrect their favorite form of retaliation, a Google-able character assassination in which Forney has the gall to accuse Dewey of "libel" because she identifies Forney as a "professional Internet troll" and compares Roosh and Forney to Fred Phelps. (Actually, the WBC arguably had more integrity than the New Misogynists since they were at least willing to challenge their opponents face-to-face. Forney or Roosh, on the other hand, would probably wet their pants if they ran into me in a hotel lobby.)
"This is despite the fact that neither Roosh nor I engage in
illegal activity, encourage others to break the law, or write about
anything other than masculine self-improvement."
Actually, I am pretty sure that soliciting speed on twitter or teaching men how to get away with rape might fall into the category of "illegal activity." Oops, am I being libelous? See you in court, baby!
Anyway, trying to destroy a woman's reputation online only "works" if the woman you are attacking has no online presence or professional reputation to speak of... and even then, it doesn't really work, does it? (After all, I'm still here, and the only thing it succeeded in doing was to triple my readership and (gasp!) increase my self-esteem.)
Meanwhile, I'm feeling in very good company... Thanks, Caitlin!
* Forney just loves this tagline, which he shamelessly stole from Tucker Max -- whom he then rags on about for being a "plagiarist."
I teach remedial English to students in a community college who are not native speakers. They are mostly international students from Asia or Saudi Arabia, with a scattering of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Ethiopia/Eritrea, or Mexico.
Today, when I overheard some of the "residents" chatting about the Elliot Rodger's case before class began, I was inspired to throw out my lesson plan du jour and focus on the sad story that has been so much in the news. I am always looking for those "teaching moments," always cognizant that people remember best that which is emotionally arousing, and... I was honestly interested in their opinions.
Had they watched Elliot Rodger's "retribution" video? A Russian woman confessed she had not, but her mother in Ukraine had e-mailed her about the story. She squirmed uncomfortably at the prospect of watching the video. (She is a young widow with an adolescent son.)
Ad hoc, I hastily scrawled three questions for students to discuss in groups after they'd watched the video:
1. Why was Elliot Rodger angry?
2. Was Elliot Rodger "sane" or "insane" (according to the legal definition of being responsible for his own actions)?
3. What could have prevented this tragedy?
Then, courtesy of Youtube, I played the video. The students watched with apparent interest. Rodger spoke slowly and dramatically, so he wasn't hard to understand, although I quickly realized that "slaughter" and "slay" were probably not within my students' lexicon and had to stop the video to define these verbs.
When Rodger spoke about how his virginity at age 22 was "a crime," many of my Chinese male students began to giggle uncontrollably. The notion that their own (probable) virginities constituted "crimes" that merited punishment of the female sex was thoroughly risible to them. What was Rodger's problem? He was good-looking, he was rich, his dad worked in Hollywood... In short, his complaints were ludicrous. Elliot Roger was living exactly the "student lifestyle" they could only dream of.
The middle eastern students put the blame on Rodger's family. Clearly, his parents had not exerted sufficient control over, or provided adequate nurturing of, this wayward son. They also speculated that Rodger had been exploited by girls who were only after his money. One Saudi student astutely pointed out that it wasn't "sex" Rodger yearned for; it was love.
The North African refugees viewed the issue mostly in terms of gun control. Why had Rodger been permitted to own a gun? Would their own children ever be safe in a country that allowed anyone to obtain firearms?
Some of the students thought Rodger was both "crazy" and "sane." In other words, while only a mentally disturbed person would do what he had done, he should have been held accountable for his actions in a court of law (had he lived). I let this slide because I myself cannot reconcile the inherent contradiction between the "intuitive" and "legal" definitions of "sanity."
The student from Cameroon was very skeptical that Rodger had killed himself; he was certain that the police must have shot him on the spot.
Only one lone Korean girl ventured that Rodger had been motivated by a sense of masculine entitlement. She didn't use that exact language, but her message was clear: "He kill because he think all girl must love him."
I have such a small readership (I like to think of it as very select of course) that when I get even a modest uptick in hits, I'm curious. I noticed a couple of days ago that I was getting referrals from a blog called "Just4Guys," which I had until now never read (although I have to say, How cute is that name, "Just4Guys"?) Of course I popped over for a look-see.
The referral was from a comment regarding the Elliot Rodger story; someone had posted a link to my own initial response two days ago. Nothing scary or dramatic in the comment, just one of several "feminist" links that had brought a couple dozen viewers my way.
Today I note that Obsidian, the webmaster of "Just4Guys," was pretty unhappy about a change.org petition that has been started to protest A Voice For Men's plan to hold its First International Conference at the downtown Detroit Doubletree Inn in June.
How did this event escape my notice? I briefly considered registering on the spot. This would be, after all, a rare chance to get up close and personal with the MRM Grand Pooh-bah (and MC of My Nightmares) Paul Elam himself. Imagine the thrill of accidentally-on-purpose brushing bellies with Dean Esmay in the bar after a stirring workshop on grass-roots activism. Would Karen be there? Cuz I'd love to buy Girl Writes What a drink! What about John the Otter -- what would he look like after a couple of dry martinis, or three? And don't these sorts of affairs always hold a Disco Night? What fun that would be, boogying down into the wee hours with Atilla Vinczer and the young studs of CAFE!
I can't say that a weekend in Detroit is on my bucket list, but the price of admission certainly accommodates my modest budget.
The event is only a month away. Here's a link to the petition, which has of this moment gotten over 1000 signatures. Here's the link to Doubletree / Hilton's contact page.
My partner and I often stay at Doubletree Inn when we're traveling because they're convenient and offer nice weekend packages. I don't think I'd feel the same about Doubletree after it had hosted AVfM though, despite the paper band across the toilet seats reassuring me "has been sanitized for your protection."
There's a certain irony that Taki's Magazine has elected Matt Forney to write a piece castigating liberal media reactions to the Santa Barbara shooting. After all, this is a guy who feeds, literally and figuratively, on the outrage of normal decent people "liberals" and "feminists" by writing the same kind of vile, misogynistic and racist screeds that apparently helped warp Elliot Rodger's worldview.
Forney predictably attempts to distance himself (and his manospherean cronies) from the site Rodger's is reported to have commented on: It isn't us, it's them! He even manages to insinuate that anti-misogynist sites such as David Futrelle's We Hunted the Mammoth and the Southern Poverty Law Center were somehow culpable for failing to warn the public of the real danger of PUAHate.
I mean, just look how spiteful and scurrilous the PUAHate boys were, trying to dox and intimidate Matt's pals (never mind that is precisely what Matt has been doing for the past few months).
Of course, PUAHate may have been at odds with pickup artists, but they were very much part of the "manosphere" at large, that loose confederation of malcontents that are united in their shared hatred of women and minorities. The distinctions between these factions and these individuals are virtually insignificant to anyone outside their 'sphere. Whatever their purported aims, whether a return to patriarchy, or a pussy in every pot, the blame for the disappointing ways of the world is always to be placed squarely at one source: the autonomy of women. And they are willing to employ the most violent language and imagery to achieve dominance over those uppity western females (who really haven't understood their rightful place since either 1920 or 1420, depending on who's fantasizing talking).
How dare the SPLC name Matt Forney and his friend Roosh's blogs as "hate groups." Didn't they see that PUAHate was just as bad? (Waah, waah, it's so unfair!)
"Could it be that feminists ignored PUA Hate out of a fatuous “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” logic? If so, their negligence just cost at least six people their lives."
Not bloody likely. Even for a paranoid manipulator of facts like Forney, this is a bit of a stretch. If PUAHate was overlooked before the shootings, it is because it was a relatively unknown site that did little to grub for attention from the mainstream, unlike Forney himself -- an indefatigable and shameless self-promoter who basically lives and breathes on twitter, re-tweeting his admirers and his critics with equal relish -- or other, more organized or widely read hate sites like A Voice for Men, Vox Day, Heartiste, etc. ad nauseum. PUAHate was just one of literally hundreds of misogynistic blogs, with the sole distinction that it hated the "game gurus" who had failed to deliver them the promised sex-on-demand they'd paid good cash money for, almost as much as it did the women whose favors they furiously insisted they were entitled to.
Show me a comment left by Rodger on PUAHate that suggests he was ready to commit mass murder, and I can show you scores more on Return of Kings or The Spearhead that are even more ominous.
All of these sites are the same, and they're all horrible.
Even a dedicated follower of the manosphere like Futrelle cannot possibly monitor them all. (And it's hardly necessary to do so, since they are all croaking in unison in the same fetid bog.)
Typically, I rely on the manosphere's tweets to keep me abreast of what feminists are saying. Seriously, they do a phenomenal job of keeping track of the feminists, not only the big up-and-coming voices, but also the most obscure. Back before they doxed me, I don't think I'd ever had more than twenty readers at a time -- but one of them was Mattie, who apparently read everything.
Suffice to say, they take their enemies opponents verrry seriously, which is a measure of both their thirst for recognition and their paradoxical fear of being exposed. They're always "collecting names" and compiling dossiers in the form of accusatory tweets. But the upside of their paranoia is that they are always a good place to start whenever you want to know who's-new-in-the-zoo of young female media presences.
I'd never even heard of Elizabeth Plank, for example, until Roosh twittered, "I would not have shed a single tear had misandrist & anti-white racist been one of Rodger's victims."
It's hard for me to imagine even lachrymose Roosh shedding a genuine tear for anyone except Roosh (in which case, I expect he can shed a bucket). But my imagination was piqued -- who was this radical feminist that had Roosh's blood up? -- so I moseyed over and took a look.
Nothing very inflammatory about her post, unless you think it is "misandry" or "racism" to point out -- and support statistically -- that mass murderers are overwhelmingly white males with huge reservoirs of entitlement. (In other words, the very same demographic group that composes the "manosphere.") And that we, as a society, need to start addressing misogyny as a systemic disorder.
This evening, in response to the Santa Barbara shootings, the sages of the manosphere are offering up their little turds of "wisdom" and "insight":
@whiskeyandashes
No one, regardless of gender, is "entitled" to sex however much we may desire it; yet all people have the right to safety. Now go back to nursing your whisky and mourning your childless, uncoupled state, sir...
If one positive thing comes of the unfolding tragedy in Santa Barbara, it may be that the manosphere is subjected to more public scrutiny and widespread social condemnation. In the wake of the news that UCSB student Elliot Roger participated in the forum puahate, other New Misogynists have scurried to deflect negative attention onto that site. One blogger has even pondered if puahate and manboobz are somehow in cahoots with one another to bring the manosphere down. Or with the Southern Poverty Law Center. As if.
He talks of keeping the "haters" out, as if their network of angry blogs were some sort of gated community. In fact, while the accessibility and anonymity of the internet has allowed the "manosphere" to blossom, it also works against it, by effectively rendering the "movement" it claims to represent transparent and its "leaders" accountable for the ideas they promulgate.
From my point of view, there is little difference between puahate and any number of other misogynistic watering holes. All of these sites are social cesspools that are brewing the same poison, whether it is Roosh ("Women are lubricated holes for my pleasure") and Return of Kings, Paul Elam ("I want to fuck their shit up" or "Bash A Bitch Week"), Bill Price or Vox Day ("Rape is our marital right"), or Matt Forney, who famously wrote that women needed to be beaten because "it's the only way to make them behave better than chimps," and who posted a piece about how men could get away with rape by murdering their victims and dismembering their bodies (oops, that was "satire," wasn't it?).
The manosphere is an aggregator of isolated, angry, socially maladjusted and mentally disturbed men -- and the (handful of) women who love them. It creates an echo chamber that allows these men to delude themselves into blaming women and minorities for their own inability to adapt to a changing world of greater diversity, social inclusion and economic competition. It breeds real, physical violence by promoting violent language and violent fantasies of retribution. Their impotent dreams of achieving dominance will inevitably end in the deaths of others; the blood will be on their hands. And the world will keep turning.
