May 25, 2014

"Elliot Rodger, Gunman in California Mass Shooting, was influenced by the 'Men's Rights Movement.'"

Writes OllieGarkey in a post at Daily Kos (that is getting a lot of attention). The post actually begins with "Trigger Warning: Violence against Women." That's after the headline, quoted in my post title, so anyone already knows the subject. The "Trigger Warning" isn't so much a way of warning readers that there's something triggering in the post content as it is a way of asserting that the writer is part of a movement that purports to care about the sensitivities of women.

Myself, I'm the kind of writer who would like to assert that I'm against giving publicity to murderers. I'm afraid we're showing other angry losers the murder path to celebrity. But I'm going to write about this anyway, because I'm interested in the way other writers appropriate the latest violent incident to explain the ideology they already have. Why blog anything? It fits your template.

Rodger's pre-murder rant criticizes women for having sex with "obnoxious men, instead of me, the supreme gentleman" and conceptualizes the murders as a demonstrating to women "that I am in truth the superior one. The true Alpha Male." OllieGarkey says:
The true Alpha Male. What those who call themselves the Mens [sic] Rights Movement aspire to be.

The Men's Rights Movement as they call themselves is a nebulous group of pickup artists and misogynists who've found each other on line, and are attempting to create a movement based around their hatred, disdain, and fear of women.
OllieGarkey bolsters his argument by listing (and linking) various YouTube channels that Rodger subscribed to, for example "'The Player Supreme Show' which rails against the feminization of men and talks about how to pick up women."
Rather than seeking mental help for some obvious issues, he sought out the Men's Rights Movement. He watched their propaganda. He internalized their hatred of women. (There's no shortage of anti-woman rhetoric and nonsense...)

He listened to these guys talk about being hard, and tough, and true alpha men. 
This is interesting evidence to analyze, but OllieGarkey handles it hackishly. Subscribing to channels makes it somewhat likely that Rodger "watched" and "listened," but we don't know that he did. To what extent did the language used on those channels correspond to the language in Rodger's rant? And is "Men's Rights Movement" the right umbrella term for the "pickup artist" genre? The goal of lots of sex is different from the goal of getting rights. These men want sex from women — I take it — not rights, which are something you get from the government.

A movement for "men's rights" has to do with men wanting the government to protect their interests that arise from their various interactions with women. That's quite a different enterprise from luring women into wanting to have sex with you, which I understand those websites attempt to help men do. That was the enterprise at which Rodger seems to have failed. Or are you going to tell me there are men who — as a group — want sex from women and have conceptualized this goal as a rights movement. How would it even work to form a movement seeking sex from women? The men are in competition with each other. What's the value of grouping together?
So this kid who needed some serious mental help sought out the destructive, BS views coming from the men's rights movement. He felt entitled to sex with women. 
OllieGarkey seems to be spouting off the top of his head. Could he provide me with specific material from the channels Rodger subscribed to that posit a right to have sex with women? I thought these "pickup artist" sites taunted males who have bad technique and offered to show them how to up their game so they can win. Games that require skill and have winners and losers are not about entitlement. They are exactly the opposite. Rodger seems to have come up on his own with the idea that he could move from his loser status to alpha status not by ever figuring out how to make a woman sexually desire him, but through the delusion that murder — which he did figure out — somehow equated with sex and that he could become "the true Alpha Male" through murder.

How does that delusion fit with what's on those "pickup artist" sites? Those "alpha males" — if that's what they call themselves — are claiming there is an elaborate manipulation of the female mind that can be accomplished by skillful, savvy males. They purport to be artists, and the art involves acquiring the willing participation of the woman. Using a gun is not using your mind, and killing a woman isn't drawing her into your game. What's the correspondence?

OllieGarkey tries to glue his theory together with the vague abstraction "misogyny." He ends by saying that Rodger "exposed himself to hateful rhetoric about women... [a]nd... he acted on that hatred": "when hateful rhetoric is trained on any group,  lone wolves like this guy get triggered."

So in OllieGarkey's fuzzy head, the pickup artists who want to bed scores of women using some fine "game" they've worked out are supposed to "hate" women, and a murderer who's been rejected by women hates women. And I guess men who've been stung by women and want some legal rights "hate" women.

It all fits together with a sloppy, gloppy mess of glue like that.

150 comments:

MikeDC said...

It's also a way to get yourself a weapon to brand your political opponents as racists or misogynists without even having to argue it.

Mark O said...

I am resisting reading any of his rantings, because I think it honors him so to do. Nevertheless, it is clear that being shorter than the girls in his class had much more "influence" on him than any political movement.

Is it possible that he is simply evil? He was influenced by his parents, his friends, his school, television, and everything else with which he came in contact. So what?

Michael K said...

The LA Times is hysterical about gun rights. This story, just like Loughner and the Lanza kid should be about psychotic teenagers and why they cannot be treated and their psychosis controlled.

ironrailsironweights said...

From what I have gathered, in few if any points during the 150-page manifesto does Rodger describe instances in which he approached girls and was rejected. He might have been too introverted to approach girls, or too fearful of mocking rejection ("Can you believe that psycho asked me out??"), but whatever the case, he never tried.

Peter

traditionalguy said...

Men's rights to be honest husbands and fathers are respected by good women. Rodger the dodger had two serious misunderstandings of how men gain respect.

First, he believes deception is the way into women's hearts. That is what Hollywood aristocrats that he was raised by teach.

Second he wants to treat the women as his brain dead sex slaves.

Women are too sophisticated to fall for this guy's lines. So he exterminates them.

He brings to mind Hitler's Mein Kampf problems with Jews and Obama's Marxist Dreams of his father to destroy the American middle class along with its military power and financial privileges.

Illuninati said...

Kashmir Hill at Forbes Magazine has that accusation covered:
"He had expressed similar sentiments on forums for bodybuilders and anti-pick-up-artists. The latter led a Daily Kos writer to blame the “men’s rights movement” for influencing Rodgers into psychopathy and murder...Rather than the bodybuilding and anti-PUA communities simply supporting his world views, many challenged them in the conversations I reviewed, all of which have removed from those forums but are available in cached form"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/05/24/the-disturbing-internet-footprint-of-santa-barbara-shooter-elliot-rodger/

Oso Negro said...

I suspect his life outcomes were more influenced by being 5'4" tall and half Malaysian. Neither of which contribute to being a chick magnet.

tmitsss said...

A there any men who would die to protect a woman from an Elliot Rodger?

campy said...

Ha ha, cute nom de plume.

PB Reader said...

An incredible amount of BS from DailyKos. They need to face up to the fact that this young man is the product of the wealthy, liberal, moviemaking industry that is so distracted they don't know how to raise children, but we can't criticize those who are so busy telling the rest of the world how to live.

This guy with lots of money and a shiny black BMW likely got everything he wanted from his parents except their attention, and certainly not an honest talk with his father about the facts of life and the world. He's probably never faced the consequences of his actions before and the shame of attending a community college in stead of the more prestigious local University of California branch probably weighed heavily on him, particularly as he sought female students on that campus only to face their insularity.

tmitsss said...

The current death toll is 4 men 2 women and 1'killer

holdfast said...

That's a pretty weak nexus. On that basis, the Southern Poverty Law Center is complicit in murder too:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/family-research-council-guard-shot-by-gunman-in-dc/2012/08/15/e420527e-e719-11e1-a3d2-2a05679928ef_story.html

Jason said...

If Elliot Rodger didn't exist, Brett Easton Ellis would have to invent him!

betamax3000 said...

Belligerent Drunk Stand-up Comic says:

Kids today, kids today...(sips drink). It seems to me that we've forgotten to teach kids that over half of them are fated to be below average, maybe two-thirds; learn to live with it, youngsters, learn to live with it: it's Math. Instead, they all think they are little celebrities, waiting to be discovered, waiting for their due adoration. Face it, children: sometimes you were meant to screw the fat chick. Stop groaning, people, stop groaning, it's God's plan, not mine...

(sips drink)

Parents, I have some advice: take a good long look at each other. Loooong look: we need Honesty here. Are any of you seeing Brad Pitt? Kate Upton? Face it: sometimes ugly people have beautiful kids, but you're not gonna bet the mortgage on it. If you're teaching your little precious to be a Prince or Princess you better damn well know that there'll be a Ball waiting for them to attend... (sips drink)

Sexual frustration: it always seems to come down to sexual frustration. (sips drink) When I was a teenager me and my friends would deal with it the time-honored way: get drunk on cheap beer and throw the empty bottles against the back wall of the grocery store until the police came...

(sips drink)

Now, I have to admit: it's gotta be harder now. Everything around us is about sex -- TV, ads, internet: you can't tune it out. Parents: I understand this makes your job more difficult. Still, it IS your job. Manage their expectations. A blow job from an ugly girl ain't that different than a blowjob from a pretty one, I think Ben Franklin said that (sips drink)...

Finally: take lots of embarrassing pictures of your kids, you'll eventually need them to bring them down a peg. And -- this is important -- let the boys know that if they happen to shoot up a school or some-such you will publish ALL of these pictures on the internet. All of them. (sips drink) This especially includes the one of him in his pajamas after he pissed himself in his sleep. If he shit himself, well, that's even better. THAT, son, is how you'll be remembered. Now go fuck the ugly chick, son, go fuck the ugly chick...

Thank you, you've been a peach...

Gahrie said...

I've read that this guy had Asperger's. That means he literally doesn't know how to pick up girls. His family was so conserned about his mental state that on more than one occasion they asked the police to check up on him in his assissted living home.

Also given that some of the murders occurred with a knife...they shouldn't be a gun control case.

Jason said...

These men want sex from women — I take it — not rights, which are something you get from the government.

Well, no. Rights are something we get from God.

SGT Ted said...

The "rape culture" feminist radicals are just trying to use the shooting to smear the Men's Rights movement and the PUA subculture, which are 2 separate things.

SGT Ted said...

Undiscussed will be mental illness and SSRI drugs.

Ebbers Palomino I said...

I suspect this guy had "trigger alerts" that anyone, especially women, could pick up on.

If he had been successful in having a relationship, losing his virginity, it wouldn't have made a difference, the guy was just plain crazy. His life wasn't meant to end well, and it's very unfortunate he had to take innocents with him.

The coming week will be the usual flurry of blame. Too big a crisis to waste, for some.

Paco Wové said...

A bad thing happened. People I dislike must be responsible.

Donald Douglas said...

Here's my response to this idiot meme on the so-called "men's rights movement" lie: 'The So-Called 'Men's Rights Movement' is a Far-Left Progressive Project'.

gadfly said...

Notoriously, men do not have equal rights under divorce law, especially with regard to children and to alimony.

But the Women's Rights organizations have had a great deal to do with this - and one organization's name, Battered Women, tells the way it is in front of the judge - all men beat their wives, don'tchaknow?

And no woman ever killed her husband for his money or plotted a killing in advance. All such incidents were heat-of-the-moment when the woman's life was in danger. Don't you love these rules that come from grouping men together?

Danno said...

OllieGarkey = oligarchy?

mtrobertsattorney said...

It should be clear to anyone who has suffered through his videos that if he was unduly influenced by anything, it was the self-esteem movement.

Bruce Hayden said...

Of course, this will be used to fuel the War on Women meme, which is really the War on Men.

But, this illustrates a very real problem, that with the rise of feminism, there is a growing segment of the male population that is becoming ever more negative towards females. And, it isn't because they are jealous of women's accomplishment, but rather because women do not pay them attention, and they have no mating opportunities.

Moving sex out of marriage, and out of courtship, means that some guys get more, and some guys get less sex. The alpha males, and the fake alphas (aka the PUAs) are getting sex from a lot more females, while a lot of guys are not getting any. And, with they young adult women not working at getting married, sex is not being used as a precursor for marriage.

In an earlier time, say up through the 1950s into the mid 1960s, there was a pretty even spread of sex throughout the male populace, because sex was tied to either marriage or as a precursor to marriage. And, so the women had to sleep with the betas, because that was who they were going to marry.

I have watched guys turn misogynistic as they age, without women intimately in their lives. The ones I know were fine in high school, dating more than I did, and maybe through college. But, as they got into their twenties, and then thirties, without intimate relationship with women, they seemed to sour on women. And as the decades pass, they become ever more misogynistic, and ever less tolerant.

What feminists need to understand is that misogyny is a natural and consequent result of feminism. The urge to procreate is one of the most basic of drives, and to be deprived of opportunities for such, in order for females to have more power over their own sexuality and choice of sex partners, means that this drive in a lot of males is going to be thwarted. Men are considered expendable, and when some guy is one of those expended, in terms of evolutionary success, it is not surprising that he becomes bitter towards those who have deprived him of mating opportunities.

holdfast said...

I want to hear more from the knife control folks, since half the victims were stabbed to death.


From what I've read, the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) are pretty much the anti-PUAs. Is all about the unfair treatment of men in divorce proceedings (often with some real justification), and the perils of tying one's life (esp financial life) to someone who might be pretty on the outside but not so much on the inside, while the PUAs just want to get inside those pretty girls.

RecChief said...

looks to me like one of the Kos Kids is trying desperately to tie this somehow to a person with conservative political views. They might want to check with brian ross. Once the evidence is in, their knee jerk reactions never pan out.

Ann Althouse said...

"Well, no. Rights are something we get from God."

So God makes the rules about divorce, alimony, child support, and child visitation? Not in my book.

Hagar said...

I see the guy's father blames the NRA.
The NRA also made the knife he stabbed 3 victims with and the BMW he used to run over 4 others?

Of course, there is also George W. and climate interruption.

Ann Althouse said...

The "rights" the "men's rights' movement" is referring to are very unlikely to be the sort of thing natural rights folks see as what the Creator has endowed us with.

There are some "inalienable" human rights, but this isn't that. We're talking about statutory law and its interpretation. Relatively low level stuff.

Fernandinande said...

Illuninati said...
Kashmir Hill at Forbes Magazine has that accusation covered:


All you need to know is "DailyKos". Why bother refuting the fantasies of children?

Paco Wové said...

I'm sure Freder would tell us that the poor kid just read Instapundit too much.

ironrailsironweights said...

Although Rodger said that he'd murder the hottest sorority girls, his two female victims were pretty much average-looking.

Peter

Skeptical Voter said...

I choked on the phrase "rights" are what we get from government.

Then you dig yourself out of a hole by saying that there are certain inalienable rights.

But you climb back in by saying that statutory law gives us rights--low level stuff.

I fear that you are looking through the large end of the funnel and seeing a very narrow world. Try looking through the other end and look at a world of possibilities.

Statutory law is mostly constraints on people's interaction with each other. To the extent that statutes involve "rights" they are mostly "negative rights".

Under the torrent of regulation that is heaped on our heads and lives from Washington, we're rapidly becoming like the old concept of German law. If it's not expressly permitted, then it's forbidden.

As for me, I'm more comfortable with the Italian version--if it's not expressly prohibited, then it's permitted.

If Obama and the EPA were to send me a package with a card saying, "Here's a present for you--a new 'right' ", I'd throw it in the trash where it belongs.

Paul said...

It's called the "Androsphere" and our boy here was against it.

Part of it has to do with men's rights, which have been trampled in our present fem-centric system, particularly in the courts.

Another part is the PUA community where men share the techniques for seduction of women.

Over all it is known as the Red Pill...reality pill, vs. the Blue Pill, which is the feminist-leftist-anti male-anti white default cultural milieu that the Androsphere seeks to undermine and correct.

It is clear neither Althouse nor any of her commenters know fuck all about it.

rhhardin said...

Two rights do not make a wrong.

Paul said...

I would suggest if anyone is interested in the Androsphere and would like to know about it, as opposed to regurgitating ignorant propaganda or speculation, a good place to start is Rollo Tomassi's "Rational Male" blog. He also has an excellent book by the same name.

tom said...

This is from Daily Kos. Full of feeling. Not a thought in their heads.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"exposed himself to hateful rhetoric about women... [a]nd... he acted on that hatred": "when hateful rhetoric is trained on any group, lone wolves like this guy get triggered."

Floyd Lee Corkins was targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center and that institution needs to be sued into oblivion for causing the shooting at the Family Research Council.

This is a link to something from the bottom of Fox News' head. It contains the words, in order, "Corkins was carrying 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches during the shooting. He said he planned to smear them in his victims' faces as a political statement."

tom said...

This is from Daily Kos. Full of feeling. Not a thought in their heads.

James Pawlak said...

What, if any, was his or his parents' political affiliation? From information available, most (If not all) such mass-shooters are somehow connected with the Democratic Party (With the assistance of a few Socialists).

Ann Althouse said...

"But you climb back in by saying that statutory law gives us rights--low level stuff."

No, I said that the law of divorce and child custody were mostly statutory law and not the stuff of natural rights.

Some rights inhere in our status as human beings (not that everyone must believe that or must believe in God in order to believe that), but there is much more law than that and the rights that are sought on behalf of men in relation to women (and the children they produce with women) tend to be at the statutory level.

If you really believe marriage is governed by God's law, you ought to think that statutes permitting divorce are nullified.

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

If you're talking about laws (visitation, blah blah), then talk about laws, Althouse.

Other commenters were correct to call you on your 'rights come from government' phrase. I had to read it twice, myself.

Governments make laws, generally with respect to rights, which come from nature or nature's God, to borrow a phrase.

And you, a law professor!

madAsHell said...

Men's Rights Movement??

Like I need someone to hold onto my pecker while I pee.

Ann Althouse said...

"I fear that you are looking through the large end of the funnel and seeing a very narrow world. Try looking through the other end and look at a world of possibilities."

You must not have much experience with the device that is a funnel. The view from either end is equally narrow.

Just a metaphor correction.

If you're going to reason with a cornball image like that, you'd better get it right.

Here's a funnel.

See my point?

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"holdfast said...

That's a pretty weak nexus. On that basis, the Southern Poverty Law Center is complicit in murder too:"

You make hella sense Sir.

Michael K said...

" I said that the law of divorce and child custody were mostly statutory law and not the stuff of natural rights. "

I have not made a study of the "mens rights movement," but my impression is that it is about divorce and child custody, in particular issues about child support for children not fathered by the men being obliged to support them.

I have been divorced twice and understand some of the issues, including those in Helen Smith's book, "Men on Strike."

I know nothing about any tolerance for violence. There is some discussion about the fact that spousal violence committed by women is ignored by the law.

Wayworn Wanderer said...

Doesn't look to me like he hated women. If he hated them, he wouldn't want to get in their pants.

Fen said...

If this perp killed because of the Men's Rights Movement, then McVeigh killed because of the ATF. Ergo we should disband the ATF.

I think you are going to see more violent crime against women, especially rape. Younger men are feeling marginalized by the hatred feminists display towards men in general. Its just a short step to being radicalized and seeking revenge. Not sure what the solution is, but its NOT depriving women of the option to defend themselves with lethal force.

FullMoon said...

Mentally ill with a bad personality.I suspect his rich liberal parents did all they could to help him out. He probably got more attention and love from his family than most commenters claiming otherwise.
People who automatically blame the parents make me a little bit sick to my stomach.Most parents do the best they can, and hope for the best.

EDH said...

A few thoughts:

1.) Althouse: The "Trigger Warning" isn't so much a way of warning readers...as it is a way of asserting that the writer is part of a movement that purports to care about the sensitivities of women.

Yes, plus that's how leftist like OllieGarkey think they can get laid, by ingratiating themselves to women, particularly feminists.

2.) OllieGarkey is a budding yet naive example of the "bloodrooting" phenomenon I described last night. While he's not a leftist crypto-JournoList member at a mainstream media organization, i.e., a foraging worker carry diaspores (preferred memes) back to the ant colony (mainstream media outlets) where elaiosome is removed (separated from inconvenient facts, context, whole truth inconvenient facts, context, whole truth) and fed directly to ant larvae (media consumers).

No, instead OlliGarkey is filling the bloodroot role within:

the endless network of liberal activist groups -- many of them already government funded -- that initially 'uncover' and 'frame' evermore pressing issues and needs of the day.

The bloodroot activists produce these critical issue diaspores in a way that demands even more state action, in symbiosis with their self-interested, statist enablers both inside and outside government.

It's not that there isn't a scintilla of truth within a particular core issue, but the bloodroot activists and JournoListers made sure to separate the wheat from the chaff in a way that advances the supreme leftist goals, even if the media consumer has to be fed the chaff in order to advance the meme.


We'll see who in the mainstream media picks up on OllieGarkey's tenuous and "sloppy, gloppy mess of [bloodroot elaiosome] glue".

4.) Finally, I'd argue there is a difference between "rules" and "rights". Rules are promulgated through the political process, and indeed they may grant differentiated privileges between and among different groups based on public policy or political clout. Yet that rule-making authority is circumscribed by the God-given rights of all persons. Men's rights are the same as women's rights: equality before the law.

Michael said...

"...rights, which are something you get from the government."

No, no, no. Natural rights - the Bill of Rights stuff - are inherent in personhood under the common law. It is the role of government to recognize and protect them, not to grant them (which suggests that it could decline to grant them.) Civil rights come from the constitutional order and are also not the gift of a current government. Legal rights are granted or withdrawn by statute, which comes from government but is not quite the same thing. Reasonable people can differ about what falls in what category, but ultimately government exists to protect your rights, not to give them to you.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"...and they have no mating opportunities."

Sorry to have to disagree, I usually don't disagree with much of anything you write, but this isn't accurate.

His mating could have been done with fuglies, but his ego would rather rot in Hell with his soul, for eternity, that admit he needed to work toward change and hope for the best with no guarantee of acceptable results.

He didn't "believe" in Hell (his ego/subconscious did) or he would have A) not done what he did or B) had different, un-ego based reasoning for his cowardly evil which thankfully isn't banal to me.

And it is leftists fault. Don't bitch-slap those of us pointing it out even though we know it hurts us in the eyes of our peers.

Christians don't care about our peers' animosity so much as God's judgement. And I've come to understand, despite what I picked up on growing up, conservatives being to eager to show the other cheek (in order for the slapping) are as ego-driven as anyone else.

The worst is George Bush though.

No Neil Hamburgler here, Bush allowed his sense of humbleness to advance to the point the media murdered his character, resulting in Obama, a potential ending of the country in real terms.

LarryK said...

"I'll be a god exacting my retribution on all those who deserve it and you do deserve it just for the crime of living a better life than me"

Maybe he was inspired by Occupy Wall Street...the quote above provides more evidence for that theory than the entire Kos screed.

Yes, he views others 'living a better life than me' through the prism of lust rather than greed, but both OWS and this troubled loser see life as fundamentally unfair simply because they don't have what they desire. Rather than work and transform themselves to get what they want, both also use force (at some level) and punitive actions against those who do have what they want.

Envy is pure poison, regardless of whether the factors motivating envy are carnal or monetary. And one thing everyone should be able to agree on - but the left will resist because it hits too close to home - is this crime was a crime of envy.

Scott M said...

These men want sex from women — I take it — not rights, which are something you get from the government.

???

Since when does the government have a monopoly on granting rights?

n.n said...

The "men's rights movement" is about equal rights and protection. It is not about securing libertine rights for mentally or physically defective men.

Robert Cook said...

"I see the guy's father blames the NRA.
The NRA also made the knife he stabbed 3 victims with and the BMW he used to run over 4 others?"


Hagar, the father blaming the NRA is the father of one of the murder victims.

somefeller said...

What feminists need to understand is that misogyny is a natural and consequent result of feminism.

No, it isn't. But thanks for telling us about yourself and the guys you hang out with, Bruce.

Xmas said...

First, I discussed this case with an Aspy friend of mine. This guy did not have Asperger's. It sounds like he was bipolar. An Aspy would have been frustrated with themselves for not understanding human interaction. Lashing out at others in a calculated way wouldn't be a solution for someone with Asperger's. Neither would killing themselves.


Second, the PUA community is pointing out that this guy isn't one if theirs. They point out that no PUA would describe themselves as a 'perfect gentleman' because they know that that sort of play doesn't work with 20 year old, blonde sorority girls. I hate to say Vox Day is on the money with what happened to this guy, but I think he's right. This mentally disturbed individual couldn't handled the cognitive dissonance between what he'd be believed about women and what he'd actually experienced with college aged women.

n.n said...

The "trigger warning" in the headline is a literary mechanism to alert people of like-mind to a politically exploitable opportunity. It is OllieGarkey's irony-laden call to arms.

Ann Althouse said...

"I would suggest if anyone is interested in the Androsphere and would like to know about it, as opposed to regurgitating ignorant propaganda or speculation, a good place to start is Rollo Tomassi's "Rational Male" blog. He also has an excellent book by the same name."

Would like to know about what?

Why does what this one guy has to say represent something relevant to the topic under discussion?

What here sounds as "regurgitating ignorant propaganda" and what is your guy doing that is somehow something else?

You are name-calling and purporting to have something that trumps other things, but you don't say why, so what makes you someone who is not regurgitating ignorant propaganda?

Jane the Actuary said...

"Trigger warning" on a piece like this, where the content is obvious? This is getting preposterous, but thank you for the observation that it isn't a content warning but a means of demonstrating your political alignment.

What I'd like to know is, when students protest being assigned reading materials with graphic sex or violence, and are ridiculed as prudes, where are the "trigger warning" people?

And do those people with "issues" actually see the "trigger warning" and click away?

http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/05/trigger-warnings.html

somefeller said...

And the fact Rodger was evil and possibly psychotic doesn't remove the ideological component of his crime. He engaged in misogynistic terrorism, no different from an anti-Semitic loser who attacks a synagogue or an Islamist who wants to set off explosives in market. Whether that relates to PUA, MRA or some other set of letters is secondary to the main ideological point. If you don't understand the concept, you might need to engage in some self-reflection.

William said...

This kid was a sick cookie. He was bound to get obsessive and deranged about some issue or another. Men's rights, genetically modified food, Wall St bankers. For crazy people there are a wealth of things to become crazy about. The issue is his craziness, not the. Issue that it attaches itself to.

Ann Althouse said...

"Governments make laws, generally with respect to rights, which come from nature or nature's God, to borrow a phrase."

If you would spend any time thinking that statement through, plugging in actual examples of statutes that give legal rights, you would have to see how clearly wrong you are.

Let's say a statute entitles workers to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year to attend to sick family members or to recuperate when they themselves are ill. What's God's role in that? Any damned law that passes somehow gets resourced to God in your vision of how the world works?

You're such an ideologue that you won't consider how ridiculous your proposition is.

traditionalguy said...

The pattern Rodger showed is that of a Toxic Narcissist that believes he is so smart that he is entitled to have everyone play the role that his imagination wants them to play. He finds narcissistic supply from being the Director of a cast of actors.


The actors that do come under take his direction/control are fired. Better yet removed from the face of the earth. His male roommates faced that guy daily, and he eliminated them too because they refused his direction.

This type of mental illness is basically untreatable because the charm and skill level of the actor/mind controller tricks everyone else into defending the toxic narcissist instead of his victims. The best you can do is to avoid them.

Did you see the Father Rodger immediately put on a display that acted out a deceptive scene for the live TV cameras worthy of a Shakespearean actor.

Rodger came by his illness honestly.

William said...

I recognize that he stabbed several people, but the fact remains that the ability of a paranoid schizophrenic to cause catastrophic damage increases exponentially when such a person comes into possession of a firearm. I think it's possible that gun ownership works to suppress crime, but there's a downside to 2nd amendment rights. You can fairly argue that the upside outweighs the downside, but you cannot argue that there is a downside.

Jane the Actuary said...

Human rights <> entitlements.

Ann Althouse said...

"No, no, no. Natural rights - the Bill of Rights stuff - are inherent in personhood under the common law. It is the role of government to recognize and protect them, not to grant them (which suggests that it could decline to grant them.) Civil rights come from the constitutional order and are also not the gift of a current government. Legal rights are granted or withdrawn by statute, which comes from government but is not quite the same thing. Reasonable people can differ about what falls in what category, but ultimately government exists to protect your rights, not to give them to you."

Some, not all, legal rights inhere in one's status as a human being. Not everything in the Bill of Rights, a legally operable text, fits that category. Very few statutory rights, like the rights around divorce and child custody fits that category.

In any case, the point is that within our legal system, unless and until some right of revolution is exercised, the rights are sourced to these documents, these written texts, which are part of our government, and the government protects these rights.

When people in our country have a civil rights movement, they are pressing the government to enshrine something in the law that they believe should be recognized as a right.

Whether or not this movement uses the argument that the right already somehow exists (because of God or because of reason or whatever), they are directing their demands at the government. They want something from government.

Pickup artists aren't seeking anything from the government. They are seeking something from women.

That last paragraph is my main point here. The rest is a detour. I don't mind going off on that detour, and I get the mindset of those who feel compelled to go down that detour, but your insistence on telling me I'm wrong leaves me unmoved. I am right.

Ann Althouse said...

To the extent that the quoted comment (in my last comment) refers to the "common law," claims about the common law are also demands made of the government, addressed to the judiciary. The hope is that the courts will recognize your claims as an entitlement that is provided by law.

This is something asserted to agents of the government.

Ann Althouse said...

"Since when does the government have a monopoly on granting rights?"

I didn't say "granting."

It may be that the government is or should acknowledge that there IS a right.

The point is that a "rights movement" is demanding that government give something.

I don't think the pickup artist genre of writing is a rights movement.

Ann Althouse said...

There are things private citizens do that grant others rights, but this is done by reference to law.

So X could contract with Y or X could marry Y and various rights would come into existence at that point, because of the law. To enforce those rights, you would go to court, and the threat of going to court would work to influence the other person to give you what you have a right to.

EDH said...

Respect the Cock!

And tame the cunt!

Listen up: That is not to say that we don't all need women as friends, 'cause we're gonna learn later on in Chapter 23 that having a couple of chick-friends laying around can come in real handy in setting Jealousy Traps. But we'll get to that later. Number One (this is page 18 in your booklets, blue cover - go to it and follow along with me.)

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked. I often picture them naked, typing at their keyboard with taut thighs and a latte, sometimes high heels, red high heels especially for me. Some women, the way they write, you know they have great round breasts with perfect nipples and they would love me if we ever met, they would be helpless in my presence and intelligence and we would be together, always.

I know when they are directly communicating with me, sometimes their absence only cements my belief in the unspoken bond we share. I can sense unhappiness in their souls, in their hearts, in their men, and I know I am the one to fix this for them, if they would just let me. Sometimes I get tired of their resistance, tired, and they must understand that this is more than a game, I have a real soul and am super smart and they should know that by now, they should know that by now, they should feel my Respect.

We would lay in bed naked with our laptops and comment together, I know they would love this, we would comment and listen to Classical Music because I am refined and we would eat tiny expensive chocolates that I picked out, I just have to do some research and find her. She would look for another female commenter to join us, My Dream is her dream, she wants to do this for me: she wants to be found. I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

Freeman Hunt said...

He was receiving mental health care.

He never attempted to pick up a girl. He would sit at night spots and wait for them to come talk to him.

His interest in pickup artists extended only to their pathologizing of women.

Ann Althouse said...

"Over all it is known as the Red Pill...reality pill, vs. the Blue Pill, which is the feminist-leftist-anti male-anti white default cultural milieu that the Androsphere seeks to undermine and correct. It is clear neither Althouse nor any of her commenters know fuck all about it."

Well, gee, you make it sound so interesting. I'm sure going to want to go study up on this fascinating philosophy. You've got your whole lingo and secret handshakes. We'd better bone up on it so we can get a good grasp on what you fellows call "reality."

Unknown said...

Our culture somehow brainwashed that young man to believe that by the age of 22, he should have been able to have lots of sexual liaisons. I'm guessing there are lots and lots of men who are still virgins at 22, simply because it is not as easy as the movies make it look for a man to meet a woman who is just dying to jump into bed with him. We've twisted the minds of an entire generation of young men and women.

Paul said...

He was a sad small snob in snobsville California. The others snobs were bigger and wealthier and thus he ended up being on the short end of the deal. There were all of the 'Clueless' type.

He would have been much happier if he had MOVED OUT OF CALIFORNIA to some nice community and regular collage.

There he would have found plenty of girls to meet that were not snobs (but would notice his BMW.)

Good folk abound of you know where to look, but in the rich suburbs of snobsville California there ain't any.

Paul said...

"Would like to know about what?"

The Androsphere and the underlying belief system exposed therein.

I suggest him because he is knowledgeable and articulates the Red Pill principals well.

Jesus you are obtuse.

Paul said...

"Well, gee, you make it sound so interesting. I'm sure going to want to go study up on this fascinating philosophy. You've got your whole lingo and secret handshakes. We'd better bone up on it so we can get a good grasp on what you fellows call "reality."

Spoken just like a prejudiced, ignorant bigot.

Your leftist roots are showing, and it ain't a pretty sight.

EDH said...

Well, he's just an...

Excitable Boy

He took little Susie to the Junior Prom
Excitable boy, they all said
And he raped her and killed her, then he took her home
Excitable boy, they all said
Oo-ooh, excitable boy
Well, he's just an excitable boy

After ten long years they let him out of the home
Excitable boy, they all said
And he dug up her grave and built a cage with her bones
Excitable boy, they all said
Oo-ooh, excitable boy
Well, he's just an excitable boy

traditionalguy said...

What pray tell is an Androsphere? Is it a video game that brain dead women are forbidden to win?

A Licensed driver in a licensed BMW was a killer as much as a licensed hand gun was a killer in Santa Barbara Friday.

And this man's killing spree ended the moment someone else with a hand gun shot back. This time it had to be a sheriff because the citizens of this liberal enclave were afraid of being seen with bad ole guns.

n.n said...

Rodger's sense of entitlement was a product of high self-esteem and his murderous rampage was an outcome of low self-confidence. Unfortunately, for him, and his numerous victims, he did not know how to reconcile the discrepancy. He also perceived other human lives, especially female, as commodities, to be possessed and exploited for his egoistic and physical pleasure.

Paul said...

Dr. Helen's book "Men On Strike" is certainly part of the Androsphere's body of literature. "The Rational Male" is a more engulfing work however.

Even if the concepts are a threat to the fem-centric world, and they most certainly are, it would be prudent to become familiar with their arguments if one wanted to rationally refute them, rather than just lash out like a child and make a fool of yourself.

somefeller said...

Good folk abound of you know where to look, but in the rich suburbs of snobsville California there ain't any.

As pointed out above, envy is pure poison. And as this comment illustrates, not unique to lefty OWSers.

Bruce Hayden said...

Doesn't look to me like he hated women. If he hated them, he wouldn't want to get in their pants.

I will respectfully disagree. Sex, at least for men, is a way to have their egos stroked and boosted. And, that is because they have been successful in their prime directive - to mate. Almost everything else in life is secondary. The anger for some guys is that they can't find an acceptable willing mate, not that they don't want to mate.

As to the misogyny, I think that part of it is precisely because they still desire sex with females. They see young women strutting their stuff, knowing that guys are watching, and dreaming, and then they take the pick of those guys to bed. And, there are a group of these guys who get sexually titillated, but never are the guys picked.

When a lot of women whine about male privilege, I think that they do not realize the power that they have over many, if not most, younger males. They have their own female privilege, that they refuse to acknowledge, that finds guys opening doors with just a smile of theirs, and really giving them much of the guys' wealth, in the long run, in trade for sexual access, or at least the potential thereof.

Maybe the reason that I am so cynical about female power and privilege, is that I have been with a woman for the last decade and a half who still has this going for her into her latter 50s. She has never changed a tire, her oil, or, last week, the battery in her ATV. She has been asked out by men whose names you would recognize. Most women seem to lose this in their late 30s into their late 40s, or at least by menopause. She hasn't, and I don't think ever will. I just watch and marvel at how she just naturally gets what she wants with most guys, without really trying.

B said...

Bruce Hayden said...

Actually, misandry is the impetus and/or the natural fallout product of extreme feminism. They simply hate guys. Like Elliot Rodger, much of the nonsense of extreme feminism is put forward publicly by very unsavory and unattractive women and one has to wonder about the motives.

Misogyny stands alone in my experience just like misandry does rather than any sort of action/reaction. Again, one has to wonder about the motives and Elliot Rodger gives us a harsh look at what his particular motives were. But I don't think they could be characterized as a reaction to misandry.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"ending of the country in real terms"

Now in full disclosure, I bought "All You Can Eat" off of the Althouse Amazon portal.

Steel Panther.

I love this place.

This is more of a home than I've had since roughly 1997.

Ann Althouse said...

"Dr. Helen's book "Men On Strike" is certainly part of the Androsphere's body of literature. "The Rational Male" is a more engulfing work however. Even if the concepts are a threat to the fem-centric world, and they most certainly are, it would be prudent to become familiar with their arguments if one wanted to rationally refute them, rather than just lash out like a child and make a fool of yourself."

Engulfing, eh? Sounds dangerous!

You're not doing a very good job of promoting this guy. I asked you to say something on point and substantive, and you just continued with the assertion that he's important and great, which -- speaking of childish -- sounds like the book report of a third-grader who didn't prepare.

Ann Althouse said...

Why on earth does anyone want to use this pathetic, insane dead boy to make general points about sane living people?

Big Mike said...

Why on earth does anyone want to use this pathetic, insane dead boy to make general points about sane living people?

Because the way to make points in the 21st century is to leverage some big, headline-grabbing, event and twist things around until you can make your points fit.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sorry to have to disagree, I usually don't disagree with much of anything you write, but this isn't accurate.

His mating could have been done with fuglies, but his ego would rather rot in Hell with his soul, for eternity, that admit he needed to work toward change and hope for the best with no guarantee of acceptable results.


Your mating with fuglies has some validity. I will admit that a majority of the women I have been with over the last 45 years have been 5 or less on a 10 point scale - I always have gone for brains over looks. (Current one though was probably a 12 when she was 21 - her pictures from back then are scary). And, some of the guys I know who seem to have moved from desire to serious dislike of women over the last 4 decades often seem to have had over-inflated senses of the level of looks that they could get with women. But, I also think that part of their problem is that they let the opinions of other males control their choices in women. Most of the guys I know in this situation were the bird dogs in high school - who would try to take girls away from their friends, instead of finding their own.

Interesting study awhile back with young adults pairing up. They naturally do, with alphas ending up with alphas, high betas with high betas, etc. But, many males are not satisfied at where they find themselves, and their natural choice of mates. In many other species this is settled by combat. We really can't use this method in our current society.

But, how do you learn to deal with, get along with, and attract women? If you didn't have sisters, you are often left with your mother, which may be a good role model for a wife, but has little relevance in getting over the initial hurdles. You talk about self-improvement, but someone needs to know where he wants to go, before that is going to be effective.

The other thing though is that in their teens and earlier twenties, a lot of guys want to be accepted for whom they are. Not who they portray themselves to be. Sure, they should adopt to female norms for males, but for some young males, and maybe many of them, that is quite hard, until their hormone levels start to drop and their judgment fully matures.

rhhardin said...

One way to treat Aspergers and Autism, Vicki Hearne relates, is teach the kids to train a dog. I think in Adam's Task.

Not to get a dog, to train a dog.

It's the first time, perhaps, that a living being responds to them seriously.

Or train a horse. Whatever you have around.

It's necessary to know how to train a dog though.

Bruce Hayden said...

Misogyny stands alone in my experience just like misandry does rather than any sort of action/reaction.

I would tend to agree. My point was that feminism has resulted in fewer guys getting more breeding opportunities, as sex,and even procreation, have been divorced from marriage. My experience is that some of the guys who are on the losing end of this dynamic get bitter towards women, when the women seem to have all the power, and that bitterness is the root cause of their misogyny.

acm said...

First, I discussed this case with an Aspy friend of mine. This guy did not have Asperger's. It sounds like he was bipolar. An Aspy would have been frustrated with themselves for not understanding human interaction. Lashing out at others in a calculated way wouldn't be a solution for someone with Asperger's. Neither would killing themselves.


-----

Bipolar doesn't seem likely. There's nothing particularly impulsive there, no documented swings from one extreme to another.

I think he did have Asperger's, and something else, probably narcissism, as well. He clearly didn't understand social interaction (that's the Aspy part) but he blamed others for his own faults and had a distorted sense of his own intelligence, attractiveness and "magnificence" (that's the narcissism part) and a bizarre unwillingness or inability to recognize women/girls (including his sister, mom and stepmom) as real people with rights and feelings as real as his own (that's narcissism again, mixed in with garden-variety misogyny).

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"conservatives being to eager to show the other cheek"

if I made this error I apologize.

If Althouse workers are gaslighting me ... slyly (nobody but nobody woulda known in this day and age, dayage, but myself) I meant "too" not "to."

Who the Hell writes "to" anymore?

Cedarford said...

Bruce Hayden, at 9:53, made some very good points about sex distribution and how males who are not obvious alphas or fake alphas - get a good less sex or are shut out completely. Women have not helped in this by being so overly selective on their "sex partner wish lists" and so scornful of "losers" and so open in their sometimes gleeful rejection of men that fail to look like George Clooney or Denzel Washington..

Feminism means less and less men meet the "high standards" to be admitted into women's intimate graces. And for the rejected men, it results in misogyny, more porn, focus on work, sports, hobbies or video games. And woe to the "bitches" when they hit their mid-30s and are willing to "settle on a beta male" - because they have a hard time getting a commitment from a "loser" after a feckless life partying and squabbling over a few alpha males they have to contend with other women for. And lots of betas have withdrawn from the "game", and aren't interested anymore regardless.
Also the welfare state, which means that a smooth talking thug who is a multiple convicted felon incapable of supporting a family, but who looks like Denzel Washington, has sired 22 children by 17 Welfare Mommas and the guy is just 31.

And I will add that another major "withdrawal" from the pool of available men is the divorced man that thinks the whole family law legal system is dominated by man-haters out to punish any man stupid enough to marry. And once burned, never again for such men.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"Why on earth does anyone want to use this pathetic, insane dead boy to make general points about sane living people?"

By God I've said it once; shall I say it again: indeed.

Bud dry.


*

I have a tort and need representation with council.

The "Try Bud Dry"

commercials and their whatnot**

**not my whatnot their whatnot for the record

I ain't be getting me sued again cause I ain't got no money.

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

I am an expert at sex, expert, I have read 'Fifty Shades of Grey' twice and have studied the romantic kind of porn that women like and I know what they want, I keep clean sheets and I have strong legs. Internet women want a man who knows these things and I am super smart, I know these things and women can sense that in my writing, they can sense the kind of caring, responsive lover that I can be, I would never ejaculate on their face unless they asked me to.

If I tied her to the bed I would use silk scarves, not rope, and I wouldn't tie the knots too tight, it is Love and I don't want to scare her or hurt her, I would never hurt her, it was Her Idea to be tied up, Her Idea. The problem is that women are afraid of Powerful Love and I am Powerful, I am brilliant and have been told that I look like Matt Damon sometimes. I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

Mark O said...

Why would any sane person post a thread about this evil man, seeking comment?

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

I understand why women can be afraid of meeting men on the internet: there are evil people out there, creeps and jerks who would not care tenderly for their feelings like I would. If they only heard my voice they would know how super smart and gentle I am, I would only harm someone who was harming a child, I think women can respect that. I have Bad Fantasies sometimes but I know they aren't Real, I know the Bad Fantasies would all go away if I was with the Right Woman. I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

traditionalguy said...

Unlike LA, Santa Barbara is an isolated tight squeeze of a town between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the coast. The wine country is over the large range of mountains, and made popular in the movie Sideways.

Beginning in the late 1800s, the small seaside town attracted super rich (pre-income Tax) Industrialist families from the Midwestern and Eastern US, also from Europe. It became popular as an exclusive retirement place for these older rich folks health needs because of a warm winter sun and a cool Pacific climate in the summer.

Right at Santa Barbara, the California coastline briefly runs due west so that a coastal town which is up against mountains and faces due south towards winter sun remains quite warm.

The entire beach front area is a landscaped public park. The town is both a resort and a Rodeo drive of rich folks shops for the locals. The agricultural area over the Mountains keeps the food and wine both natural and plentiful.

All of this and still only an hours drive from Ronald Reagan's Ranch and Library/grave site.

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

Real Men know that Smart Women want Real Men, not lovesick boys, and I am a Real Man, I think Big Thoughts about the World, I do this constantly. I think sometimes women don't understand me because I am so super smart, but they don't have to be as smart as I am, I understand that. I want a woman who is comfortable with herself, that doesn't mind me looking at her naked or maybe taking pictures. I have the eye of an artist and I understand Beauty, I understand Beautiful Women better than they know themselves. I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

And with the tears on my knees I said out loud "I'm so humbled I can't comprend."

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

As a refined gentleman I understand that it is important to listen to what women say. Just because they aren't as super smart as I am doesn't mean that their thoughts don't have value, I know this. I am sure they will learn from me and be appreciative of my generosity and patience with them. Sometimes women just want to be heard before having sex, and I will listen. I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

Skeptical Voter said...

Well I note that the Daily Mail has a story about one dead male's father blaming the NRA and gun laws. Counterfactual since the first three victims were the killer's room mates--and he did them in with a knife.

As far as I know the NRA has damned little to do with knives.

Cedarford said...

Ann Althouse said...
"Why on earth does anyone want to use this pathetic, insane dead boy to make general points about sane living people?"

===============
Sometimes people who act out like Rogers are seen as bellweathers for larger problems society ignores or refuses to address. And using him to make points about bullying and rejection and the risk society incurs by allowing many to be forced into lives of outcasts without any help for them. When the pools of blood are there and the body bags are filled is probably not the best time to have a discussion about how 20% of the population has feelings they are powerless outcasts and failures. And in turn as payback - they develop behabiorally to in turn hate other people, other gender people, or other races and types due to this.

I think because many people see the likes of Rogers and the HS shooters and suicide types as "the weaker sort" that are subject to even more intense bullying and rejection for having physical or mental vulnerabilities - and are driven to act out of bullying and rejection.
A large segment of the population that was "stronger" but still persecuted - WISHES they could have wiped out their tormenters forever in a day - perhaps had suicidal thoughts from it. Others wished they could kick the teeth out of some mocking popular "mean gurl" rejecting and riduculing them openly.
They may not empathize with the mass killers or suicides - but they understand why...
Rogers was supposedly only 5'4' and had mental issues, and in a society with few barriers or discipline and shaming to stop harassing the vulnerable - an easy target all his life. We may find his background made his social isolation worse, and he was picked on all his life as an "inferior" and easy target.

Another problem being discussed is racism and gang membership. A study in Philadelphia found widespread racism in Asian students against blacks that was almost nonexistent in grade school and became formidable by HS graduation. It turned out that nearly every Asian had been bullied by blacks, shaken down, and physically assaulted in school or going to or leaving school by blacks.....And they found the racism they in turn felt towards the "chimps" - was natural and rational. Some Asians who joined criminal gangs (even high performing college bound ones) said gang membership was the only defense against black bullying.




Fen said...

Myth: Rodger’s killing spree was motivated exclusively by his desire to harm women. All six of the people killed by Rodger were female.

Fact: Four of the six people he killed were male

Myth: Rodger used a gun to kill all of his victims.

Fact: Rodger stabbed to death half of his six murder victims.

Myth: He was politically conservative.

Fact: He subscribed to The Young Turks, a liberal YouTube channel. Imagine the outcry from the Left if he had been a fan of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

Myth: He was white (white priv canard)

Fact: He was half white, half Chinese descent.

Myth: He simply needed psychiatric care

Fact: He was being seen by one of the best-known psychiatrists in Southern California as well as several therapists/counselors.


http://twitchy.com/2014/05/25/three-myths-about-right-wing-lunatic-virgin-elliot-rodger-that-the-left-wants-you-to-believe/

And as a sidebet, I'll wager that he was either on or coming off psychotropic drugs, just like all the other shooters who committed mass murder.

http://www.cchrint.org/school-shooters/

"At least 32 school shootings and/or school-related acts of violence have been committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 164 wounded and 76 killed"

eric said...

I'm glad I read through the comments before responding to Althouse's rights comment.

What we have here is, a failure to communicate. (Move quote alert!)

In debate and logic there is a fallacy known as equivocation. An example of equivocation is, My son and I went fishing on the bank, where we then deposited a check.

Using the word bank in two different ways.

The reason the word rights is confusing today is because rights, something that is granted from God and not of men or governments, is powerful stuff. When people want to argue for a preference, they use the word right instead.

No one really cares about your preference. But if it's a right? Well damn, the government ought to acknowledge your right!

Isn't it your right to make $15.00 an hour? Or better yet, why specify? It's your right to make a living wage, yes?

Sounds better than, I prefer making $15.00 an hour to $8.00 an hour, please government, make them pay me more!

And so when Althouse says right, she means rules government make, not natural rights.

But some of us hear natural rights.

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

I realize that women need Freedom, and I can't wait to share your Freedom with you, by your side, always -- it will be Our Freedom, together. I know it will be hard to leave your friends behind to come be with me but I will be your friend and More, I will make sure that you don't need anything else. We will wake up each morning making love to the new day, and I will keep clean sheets on the bed. You have to understand that your old friends will be jealous of your New Life: I am super smart, I understand these things. The feelings for the people you leave behind will fade, and I will let you use the phone. I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

I've noticed you haven't commented on the blog for awhile -- I am sensitive, I am acutely aware of these things.Sometimes being super smart seems like a curse, I think you could understand that. Because you haven't let me know where you live I can't contact you to make sure you are okay. I hope you are okay, you are in my thoughts, always.

I could really use a hug right now.

I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

Paul said...

"You're not doing a very good job of promoting this guy. I asked you to say something on point and substantive, and you just continued with the assertion that he's important and great, which -- speaking of childish -- sounds like the book report of a third-grader who didn't prepare.'

All I said was he was a good source for understanding the concepts espoused in the Androsphere. I never said "important" or "great" or any thing about secret handshakes. That's just your adolescent response, in keeping with your conceit that you know everything without even bothering to investigate the issue...just like a college sophomore, which emotionally you still are apparently.

My suggestion to read the book was really more for the odd open minded commenter who is not an Althouse beta orbiter, and not really for you as you're a lost cause. You bet the farm on the feminist lie, so I don't expect anything from you but the childish lashing out that you demonstrated, right on cue.

Also I could give a flying fuck if you are or are not open to these ideas, as you are simply a foot soldier in the old guard of a failed ideology just like the Marxist professor bitterly clinging to his socialist dream while capitalism rolls over it.

Paul said...

"Engulfing, eh? Sounds dangerous!"

lol what a tool.

betamax3000 said...

Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:

I finally tracked down your Facebook page and saw my first photograph of you: funny, but when I imagined you I never pictured you as fat. That's okay, though: I am super sensitive to a woman's needs and I will be patient as you lose that weight from diet and exercise. Remember: that food could never love you as much as I do. You will feel so much happier when you are in shape, you'll WANT nude pictures of yourself taken, trust me. I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.

Jason said...

sounds like the book report of a third-grader who didn't prepare.

Kinda like "rights are something you get from the government."

I Have Misplaced My Pants said...

You're such an ideologue that you won't consider how ridiculous your proposition is.

No I'm not. (How would you know that, anyway? You don't know me or anything about how my mind works.)

You completely misunderstood and overreacted to my comment. I simply pointed out something that you said that sounded odd, that "the government" somehow gives us our rights. That's a weird thing for you to have said.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

I blame violent video games, violent movies (like Hunger Games), the NKA (National Knife Association) and knife rights activists, and the sex-and-violence obsessed entertainment industry.

traditionalguy said...

Point of order on Rights. They are all government enforced, or must be vigilante enforced.

Locke and our Puritan thinking founders sincerely preached the existence of Unalienable Rights to replace the government, especially Stuart Kings ordering English men to. become good Roman Catholics or be murdered.

So use your unalienable rights ( they cannot be sold or stolen) whenever you are ready to replace the government. Or STFU and pay lawyers to use the courts like we have done since April 1865 when the last attempt to replace the government was defeated by Sherman, Grant and their young friends.

Freeman Hunt said...

I wonder if this case is especially significant to psychological research on malignant narcissism and these types of incidents. It seems like having the guy's detailed autobiography, written coherently and without guile (perhaps an effect of the Asperger's) would be a big deal for this kind of research. But maybe not. Maybe they already have reams of this sort of material.

Ann Althouse said...

The point about rights is that a "men's rights movement" would be directed at the government, seeking something FROM the government. The pickup artist "movement" (if there is a movement) is directed at women (or at men as customers of a program that's supposed to help them with women). I am questioning the use of the word "rights" in OllieGarkey's post title. I think some people are confusing something that might be called the "men's movement" (Iron John and his descendants) with something else that could be called the "Men's Rights Movement."

I didn't mean to start a discussion of jurisprudence, but as a constitutional law professor, I'm forced to fend off some of this pushback I am getting. My pushback is standard constitutional law material. There are philosophical ideas under the rubric "rights" that are worth taking seriously, but that is not really relevant to the concept of a "men's rights movement" unless you want to contend that stuff about divorce and child support are fundamental rights. Even if you do that, it wouldn't correspond to what OllieGarkey is talking about, which is that lameass "pickup artist" junk on the web.

Stephen A. Meigs said...

I'd say this guy had natural rapacious tendencies, and somehow he misunderstood those tendencies to mean that his nature was to kill females. Rapists naturally are into using violence, terror, torture, etc., into forcing females into getting what they want from females, but naturally, they aren't into killing them (though naturally being willing to beat up women to rape them or to make their rapist threats plausible tends to lead to occasional killings--to be dangerous, violence needs to be sufficiently extreme that at least occasionally it might end up causing death). But this guy apparently went beyond even that abomination, believing there was some justification morally for what he eventually did, and stupidly believing that his flat out rapist desire to inflict violence on females not wanting sex with him (and on males having sex with such females) was as if from some moral trait on his part.

I'd say that he did get from somewhere else the notion that somehow his nature had some sense of justice that demanded killing females who especially did not want sex with him. Rapists love to terrorize, and they are more scary if they exaggerate their killing tendencies. He's just another evil rapacious guy deluded by dishonesty from rapacious jerks trying to make themselves look like natural killers justified by some internal higher moral notion that doesn't exist, in order to make themselves look scarier when they rape and less morally bankrupt.

Oso Negro said...

I think we should elevate Bruce Hayden's status as a poster as he is dating a high status female.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

"Your mating with fuglies has some validity>"

And your dying breed braying says nothing new.

If it be new: not true.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Bruce seems to me any lawyer near CO is liable.

For anything and everything.

You had best not be vengeaceful as that's God's vantage from what I've heard.

acm said...

Meh. Pick Up Artistry (that's a bizarre phrase to type) and Men's Rights Activism overlap so much, it seems silly to try and separate them. Both spring from the same poison well. They both start out with the notion that Guys Like Me Are Oppressed Because Women Want Guys Who Aren't Me, Or Don't Want To Be The Sort Of Women I Want Them To Be. The PUAs try to work on that from one end, by teaching dudes to manipulate women into thinking that they are the sort of guys they want, at least for awhile. The MRAs "work" (as far as I can tell, there's a lot more whining than actual activism) at the next stage of the game, when married women are oppressing their husbands by getting fat/old or filing for divorce. MRAs also fight the good fight pre-marriage of course, by pounding away on their keyboards about the injustice of child support for children concieved outside of marriage, and ppushing for "financial abortions".

TL;DR: PUAs are misogynists trying to get laid (and whining), MRAs are misogynists trying to avoid the oppressive consequences of getting laid (and whining). Different stages of the same disease.

acm said...

To be clear, I have more disdain for feminists pushing for actual, murderous abortion than I do for MRAs pushing for financial abortion. Some aspects of feminism do indeed come from the same place as PUA/MRA bullshit---the idea that being expected to behave responsibly, face consequences for your actions/choices, and treat your opposite-sex counterparts respectfully is oppression.

Molly said...

We don't get our rights from the government, at least not according to our founding documents. ("Endowed by their Creator, etc.")

Because if the government can "give" rights, it can take them away.

Molly said...

We do not get rights from the government, at least not according to that government's founding documents ("Endowed by their Creator," etc.)

Which is just as well, because where a government "gives" rights, it can also take them away.

Paul said...

"They both start out with the notion that Guys Like Me Are Oppressed Because Women Want Guys Who Aren't Me, Or Don't Want To Be The Sort Of Women I Want Them To Be"

Umm...no. They don't. You have no idea what you're talking about. But I'm sure it's flattering to your ego to spout such nonsense so knock yourself out.

H said...

Althouse is taking the commentators to school on the "rights come from government" response. Read the declaration of independence sentence AND THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. ... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men."

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Althouse said "Well, no. Rights are something we get from God."

So God makes the rules about divorce, alimony, child support, and child visitation? Not in my book.


A good working test for a 'right' is: does it cost anybody any money?

Right to speak or publish your opinion? Right to religous belief? Right to have a weapon of defense on one's person? Right to be informed of charges and confront accuser when hauled into Court? These are Rights.

Alimony and child support payments are Court Orders. Food stamps, Social Security, free birth control under the Afrauable Care Act - these are Benefits established by legislation.

acm said...

Well, no, Paul, that was a bit of hyperbolic humor. Are you familiar with the concept?

Read the last line of my second comment. Extreme feminists and MRAs both hold that standards of ordinary decency---support your children, don't harass people about sex, don't expect special treatment where it's not deserved, don't screw over your spouse and children if your marriage doesn't work out, don't expect your employer or neighbor to pay for your life choices, etc---are oppressive to their gender. PUAs really only hold one ordinary standard---treat your opposite-sex counterparts (especially those you would like to have relationships with) as fellow human beings, not a videogame with cheat codes available online or an adversary to be outwitted---as unfair, so there is that. No, wait, they also hold that manipulating strangers through insults (negging) is okay.

I will say I have some sympathy for the PUA thing---I get that some guys stumble into it looking for confidence. Dating is intimidating, and relating to the opposite sex is hard, I truly do get why young guys would look for support, here. But the PUA "techniques" offer false confidence, worse than any everyone-gets-a-trophy self-esteem builder. PUA techniques don't teach guys to be confident in the fact that they are good guys, lovable guys, with a lot to offer. They teach guys to be confident by bringing others down. That's what negging is. They teach guys to be comfortable in social situations by telling them what makes women less comfortable---I forget the name of the technique, but it's the one that involves "casual" uninvited touching. It's poisonous.

But, yeah. Feel free to actually set me straight. Just saying "you're wrong" doesn't actually convince anyone. If you don't think that MRA, extreme feminist, and PUA ideology springs from the idea I've suggested, where do you think it comes from?

kcom said...

Every nursery rhyme is going to need a trigger warning in the future.

Humpty Dumpty, Jack and Jill, etc. So much violence...

Robert Cook said...

"...where a government 'gives' rights, it can also take them away."

Do you think that when the police state that presently abides largely invisible to most Americans makes itself emphatically apparent by formally dispensing with what few tattered rights remain to us, God will impose Himself on the world to restore those rights to us?

Austin said...

Not at all certain why Jefferon is being cited as the dispositive authority on rights. Hobbes and Locke are better authorities, especially since Jefferson himself openly admitted his promulgations are derivative of Locke.

acm said...

Interestingly enough, my friend actually had heard of at least one man who does openly call for the government to provide him, and other "incels" or involuntarily-celibates, with government-funded matchmaking services. So pretty much the embodiment of the overlap I was talking about.

He blogs at thatincelguy.blogspot.com. Warning: That is one crazy-ass rabbit hole.

I've heard the term incel before, and I know there are other incel blogs and forums, but I don't think most actually seriously think the government should pay women to date them. I hope not. But it's interesting.

RecChief said...

"Let's say a statute entitles workers to 12 weeks of unpaid leave per year to attend to sick family members or to recuperate when they themselves are ill."


That's a right? do you subscribe to the idea that people have to right to be free from hunger? Because that could be legislated, yet still be untrue. There is a passage from Heinlein's book Starship Troopers about natural rights. Good reading.

I don't get your thinking here, although judging by responses to other posters you seem to think that we/they are the ones who aren't thinking clearly. Rights don't come from the government, but rules do. Different entirely.

Nichevo said...

Hey incels, I'd like you to meet Sandra Fluke.

RecChief said...

“Beyond that, some might argue that Rodger was a prototypical liberal male, only carried to a pathological extreme. Consider the profile: socially awkward, convinced of his own brilliance but not notably successful in life, hungry for revenge against those who have done better despite their obvious inferiority, eager to gain power over others, but through political influence rather than firearms–is this not a typical liberal on Twitter, or elsewhere on the internet? Or, for that matter, in the Obama administration? Isn’t state power the legal path to the long-awaited revenge of the liberal nerds? This strikes me as a plausible suggestion.”

John Hinderaker

Jason said...

The Family Medical Leave Act did not create or bestow a "right." It abridged the freedom of association rights of certain employers.

This is why we should be careful writing laws. The bias against such abridgments of rights should be substantial.

This notion that "rights are something you get from the government" is not only wrong, but a dangerous inversion.

It leads to the gas chamber a hell of a lot more quickly than compassion does.


Fen said...

that is not really relevant to the concept of a "men's rights movement" unless you want to contend that stuff about divorce and child support are fundamental rights.

Are reproductive rights fundamental? Men don't have any.

But I agree with your larger point about "unalienable" rights. The BOR doesn't grant them to us, it merely lists them.

B said...

An observation:

Professor Althouse is reacting to Paul in the same valid way that the comment community reacts to crack. In both cases, the poster makes blanket and personally unfounded and insulting accusations against a class of gender/commenter/politics etc individually or in some combination. Racism, bigotry, misandry, misogyny - some flaw that makes the accuser impervious to grasping the source of their victim's anger but instead morphs that anger into what reaction basis they wish it were as further proof that they are right.

Tiresome and in the professors particular reaction, hypocritical. Paul presents something the professor personally doesn't like - misogyny. Crack's racism is given free rein. Logically then, she approves of racism.

Paco Wové said...

"Althouse is reacting to Paul in the same valid way that the comment community reacts to crack."

And in return, Paul (and Crack) behave in similar ways – they both use the same 4-step formula:

1. Show up with chip on shoulder, make blanket accusations, end with group insult

2. Get insulted by group in return

3. Use group's response as more evidence for chip on shoulder

4. Repeat

jr565 said...

As per usual the left is politicizing this with the usual talking points. War on women - even though half the victims were men.
War on guns - even though he used a kife in a few of his kills and even though all his guns were purchased legally.
White man as perpetrator - even though he's half white and half malaysian.
Conservatives as perpetrator - even though he was a big fan of The Young Turks and there is no actual evidence of conservatism/libertarianism/republicanism.

The left just can't help themselves. So when they bring forward an example of their talking point that supposedly shows their mindset is correct you have to do a triple take. Because 99.9% of the time it's going to be COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.

jr565 said...

Fen wrote:
Are reproductive rights fundamental? Men don't have any.

That's Althouse female privilege at work.

jr565 said...

acm wrote:
They both start out with the notion that Guys Like Me Are Oppressed Because Women Want Guys Who Aren't Me, Or Don't Want To Be The Sort Of Women I Want Them To Be.

They don't argue that men are oppressed, they argue that men have no game and so need to learn how to play the game to get laid. If it means lying to women so be it.
But that's not oppression. They are saying you have to work for your sex. It's just that there are better ways to get what you want than be the nice milquetoast guy.
Nice guys usually finish last.
If there wasn't some truth to their argument nice guys wouldn't be taking the classes on how to be a playa.

jr565 said...

RecChief wrote:
Consider the profile: socially awkward, convinced of his own brilliance but not notably successful in life, hungry for revenge against those who have done better despite their obvious inferiority, eager to gain power over others, but through political influence rather than firearms–is this not a typical liberal on Twitter, or elsewhere on the internet?

Of course. He was envious of those who achieved what he wanted and felt that the world should give it to him. Classic liberalism. He was part of the 1%, but the secret is, so are many liberals.

Bruce Hayden said...

Definitely disowned by the PUA community: The Psychosis Of The Effeminate Male via Instapundit: THE PICKUP ARTIST COMMUNITY IS NOT IMPRESSED WITH ELLIOT RODGER.

One point they make is that PUA techniques would only have helped him in meeting women. And, knowing what I know about the PUA community and their methodology, I tend to agree. Breaking the ice and engaging in conversation is one of the techniques that they work on. And, in reality, for most of us, that is all that it really takes - being able to talk to women, and ultimately you end up in relationships with them, where they do all the talking.

Some other things. The narcissism that the killer showed in his writings was thought to be more found in women, AND gay men. Was he gay, and had not realized it yet? Was fighting his sexual orientation? Possible apparently given what he said about both sexes in his manifesto (and that he killed males with a knife, and females with a gun - the former possibly showing a more emotional relationship).

Another point made, that he apparently had some level of ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder), more likely Asperger's. That could very likely have been his root problem with dealing with young women.

dick said...

In Isla Vista it is tough to not get laid. Hang out by the cliffs at sunset with some jug wine. 22 y/o kid with horrible mental condition slipped through the cracks.

His mom notified his therapist and 911 about the youtube and manifesto and drove towards him.. too late.

Therapist made a big miss

Police interviewed him but did not search the apartment ... would have busted him

What did the dad do?? Hanging out with his 21 Y/o girlfriend and posting pics of her very fine ass on the net.

A professor said conservatives would be carried out of his class in body bags.. why is he still there. Did that news contribute?

UCSB restore the balance... give returning vets full ride... need new DNA there before my school slides off the cliffs. Way too much antiUsa diversity and anarchy. Vets could help.

HABABABABA said...

I didn't know he was into MRM - now I know the whole thing was a hoax.