So...he wasn't influenced enough by misogyny because he didn't kill more people, and the people he did kill were mostly men? Huh. Seems like even more of a dismissal of his obvious and clearly-stated intentions, that were recorded publicly over weeks and weeks.
The way you wrote your thoughts, it makes me think that you're saying that his isolation/loneliness was more important than his hatred against women. So if people were friends with him, it would be ok....and uh...no. Nobody owed him friendship in order to make him not kill people.
I for sure agree with you that we are living in a backlash.
I'm not sure what you mean by fourth/fifth wave needing to focus on men...feminism is inclusive toward men, it just doesn't accept that awful behavior that comes from people entrenched in the patriarchy.
Your relation of him killing men vs women to "I hate dogs so I will knock over bicycles" doesn't work. Pretty sure he killed the men for having the women he wanted, in his perception. I could be wrong. The two are not completely separate.
Again, because he didn't kill enough women, it's not worthy of taking seriously? Are you trolling?
You saying I should feel dirty also makes me think you're trolling. That's ridiculous.
The importance of isolation and loneliness he felt, that you're giving this, over the hatred he had that was fueled by misogyny and racism is of great concern to me.
Feminism as a focus and outlet for women is still necessary. What you're talking about already exists in feminism as it is, and has always been a major factor in feminism. So I still don't get what you're saying.
Again, if his intentions really were to hurt women, then given that he was relatively bright, and said he was going to walk into a sorority and shoot everyone... To draw a parallel, we can agree, I think, that the KKK is a racist organisation, and that they wished (and still wish) to hurt people of colour, yes? And yet they did this one by one; not by bombing places where there were lots of people of colour but by lynching individuals. Not only that, but sometimes they also attacked white people (if they believed those white people to be "n****r-lovers", for example). Does that mean they weren't really racist, or they didn't really want to hurt people of colour? I would say it doesn't.
Similarly, Rodger wanted to terrorise and kill women, and like a lot of men, he chose knives and guns rather than poison or fire to do that. And he killed men too, at least partly because (according to him) he felt it was unfair that they were getting the attention and sex that was owed to him.
But friends are a social contact. They stimulate us,
( ... )
..and even then, though I havn't seen official figures, I'm willing to bet that the vast, vast, vast majority of people who got injured by the KKK were black. Sure, but you can see, can't you, that it's quite possible for someone who hates group A to kill people from group B (even the group to which they themselves belong) _because_ of their hatred of group A, right?
That said, again, he stated his plan was to walk through the sorority and shoot everyone? Yes? He did not, however, and even with his random attacks, still managed to miss out on majority on his professed target. Yeah; he was disorganised. That doesn't mean he wasn't a misogynist, or that misogyny wasn't his primary motivation.
It's clear that even while he had some radical ideas, nobody checked him.On the contrary, we're now hearing that he was seeing at least one therapist and that the police had been called on him on at least one occasion. People _had_ checked him, but he chose to hang out on MRA forums. We choose our friends, and if someone chooses people who will
( ... )
Right, but the majority of people injured by him were random passerby. Yes; he was disorganised. He was also angry at men _because he felt they were getting the female attention he was owed_. So he hated men, for reasons of misogyny.
there is already a group dedicated to the study of power structures based upon gender No. Feminism is not simply about _all_ power structures based on gender, it is _specifically_ about addressing the inequalities and injustices suffered by women. You wouldn't expect the Civil Rights movement to address white people's problems, simply because they are fighting for racial equality, would you? So why would you expect feminism to tackle men's problems?
To which I wondered 'who then?'. Yes, and it's a weird question to ask; why not just _men_? Like, all of 'em. Why not you? Why are you looking for a pre-existing group to swoop ina dn solve men's problems, rather than suggesting that the very men suffering from those problems can and should address them themselves?
Were his sole target women, he should have swerved more toward them, no? Right; women weren't his sole target, but nonetheless, the cause of his rampage was misogyny. He wanted to kill women, because he resented them for not giving him the happiness he thought they owed him, and men, because they were getting the happiness, from women, which was owed to him. He made all of this very clear in his "manifesto".
This is like saying... that Darkism is the _specific_ study of the inequalities of the absence of light, therefore a Darkist scholar would never study light. No, it isn't, because feminism isn't the study of gender. It is _activism_, aimed at addressing the injustices and inequalities suffered by women. You're thinking of gender studies (which is the _study_ of gender). Feminism is not gender studies and gender studies is not feminism. Feminism is not about addressing the problems faced by men. It is about addressing the problems faced by women.
I'm wondering why scholars in the field of gender studies are not. Their job is to
( ... )
Still, how is it in the interests of feminists (the sociopolitical movement) to pick and choose fights, Because, as you've already pointed out, our time and our energy and our resources are limited and because, as I've already pointed out, one of the things we're fighting _against_ is the idea that while our issues are just for us to deal with, men's are universal.
Sexual identity is very obviously a feminist issue, because trans women are women. And feminism hasn't adopted people of colour as an issue; third wave feminism is recognising that _women_ of colour have their own set of issues on top of those faced by women more generally.
Fixing one issue is fixing all the issues. No, it isn't; if we start spending our time fixing men's issues, we'll be taking a big step backwards.
Yes it really is true. This is one of the many, many reasons why they don't test drugs on prison inmates, for example. Well, that and because it's monumentally unethical to do so.
It's really bad study design to use at risk populations, and children are a
( ... )
Focusing on feminist issues is fighting against the ideas that feminist ideas are just ours to deal with? No. Read what I actually wrote, both times.
How so? I've already answered this in previous comments and above. Go back and read it again if you need to, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining it _again_. Or you could google for "What about the menz", that also might help.
If you admit that men benefit from feminist actions, then how isn't it a universal action? Because the benefits to men are incidental; they're a nice bonus, but they're not the goal.
Hormones can throw off or occlude results. Yes, that's right, they can, which is why it's _really_ problematic to insist that women should be using artificial hormones in order to take part in a medical trial.
Oh? Wasn't aware that there were that many anatomical differences between the sexes. Well, perhaps your spouse can explain to you what "gender bias in medicine" means, and why your idea of the universal neuter is so far off.
(The comment has been removed)
The way you wrote your thoughts, it makes me think that you're saying that his isolation/loneliness was more important than his hatred against women. So if people were friends with him, it would be ok....and uh...no. Nobody owed him friendship in order to make him not kill people.
I for sure agree with you that we are living in a backlash.
I'm not sure what you mean by fourth/fifth wave needing to focus on men...feminism is inclusive toward men, it just doesn't accept that awful behavior that comes from people entrenched in the patriarchy.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Again, because he didn't kill enough women, it's not worthy of taking seriously? Are you trolling?
You saying I should feel dirty also makes me think you're trolling. That's ridiculous.
The importance of isolation and loneliness he felt, that you're giving this, over the hatred he had that was fueled by misogyny and racism is of great concern to me.
Feminism as a focus and outlet for women is still necessary. What you're talking about already exists in feminism as it is, and has always been a major factor in feminism. So I still don't get what you're saying.
Reply
To draw a parallel, we can agree, I think, that the KKK is a racist organisation, and that they wished (and still wish) to hurt people of colour, yes? And yet they did this one by one; not by bombing places where there were lots of people of colour but by lynching individuals. Not only that, but sometimes they also attacked white people (if they believed those white people to be "n****r-lovers", for example).
Does that mean they weren't really racist, or they didn't really want to hurt people of colour? I would say it doesn't.
Similarly, Rodger wanted to terrorise and kill women, and like a lot of men, he chose knives and guns rather than poison or fire to do that. And he killed men too, at least partly because (according to him) he felt it was unfair that they were getting the attention and sex that was owed to him.
But friends are a social contact. They stimulate us, ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Sure, but you can see, can't you, that it's quite possible for someone who hates group A to kill people from group B (even the group to which they themselves belong) _because_ of their hatred of group A, right?
That said, again, he stated his plan was to walk through the sorority and shoot everyone? Yes? He did not, however, and even with his random attacks, still managed to miss out on majority on his professed target.
Yeah; he was disorganised. That doesn't mean he wasn't a misogynist, or that misogyny wasn't his primary motivation.
It's clear that even while he had some radical ideas, nobody checked him.On the contrary, we're now hearing that he was seeing at least one therapist and that the police had been called on him on at least one occasion. People _had_ checked him, but he chose to hang out on MRA forums. We choose our friends, and if someone chooses people who will ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Yes; he was disorganised. He was also angry at men _because he felt they were getting the female attention he was owed_. So he hated men, for reasons of misogyny.
there is already a group dedicated to the study of power structures based upon gender
No. Feminism is not simply about _all_ power structures based on gender, it is _specifically_ about addressing the inequalities and injustices suffered by women. You wouldn't expect the Civil Rights movement to address white people's problems, simply because they are fighting for racial equality, would you? So why would you expect feminism to tackle men's problems?
To which I wondered 'who then?'.
Yes, and it's a weird question to ask; why not just _men_? Like, all of 'em. Why not you? Why are you looking for a pre-existing group to swoop ina dn solve men's problems, rather than suggesting that the very men suffering from those problems can and should address them themselves?
, but the vast, vast, vast majority of ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Right; women weren't his sole target, but nonetheless, the cause of his rampage was misogyny. He wanted to kill women, because he resented them for not giving him the happiness he thought they owed him, and men, because they were getting the happiness, from women, which was owed to him. He made all of this very clear in his "manifesto".
This is like saying... that Darkism is the _specific_ study of the inequalities of the absence of light, therefore a Darkist scholar would never study light.
No, it isn't, because feminism isn't the study of gender. It is _activism_, aimed at addressing the injustices and inequalities suffered by women. You're thinking of gender studies (which is the _study_ of gender). Feminism is not gender studies and gender studies is not feminism. Feminism is not about addressing the problems faced by men. It is about addressing the problems faced by women.
I'm wondering why scholars in the field of gender studies are not. Their job is to ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Because, as you've already pointed out, our time and our energy and our resources are limited and because, as I've already pointed out, one of the things we're fighting _against_ is the idea that while our issues are just for us to deal with, men's are universal.
Sexual identity is very obviously a feminist issue, because trans women are women. And feminism hasn't adopted people of colour as an issue; third wave feminism is recognising that _women_ of colour have their own set of issues on top of those faced by women more generally.
Fixing one issue is fixing all the issues.
No, it isn't; if we start spending our time fixing men's issues, we'll be taking a big step backwards.
Yes it really is true. This is one of the many, many reasons why they don't test drugs on prison inmates, for example.
Well, that and because it's monumentally unethical to do so.
It's really bad study design to use at risk populations, and children are a ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
No. Read what I actually wrote, both times.
How so?
I've already answered this in previous comments and above. Go back and read it again if you need to, I don't feel like wasting my time explaining it _again_. Or you could google for "What about the menz", that also might help.
If you admit that men benefit from feminist actions, then how isn't it a universal action?
Because the benefits to men are incidental; they're a nice bonus, but they're not the goal.
Hormones can throw off or occlude results.
Yes, that's right, they can, which is why it's _really_ problematic to insist that women should be using artificial hormones in order to take part in a medical trial.
Oh? Wasn't aware that there were that many anatomical differences between the sexes. Well, perhaps your spouse can explain to you what "gender bias in medicine" means, and why your idea of the universal neuter is so far off.
Nobody in researchBut, as I _keep_ ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Leave a comment