Archives for posts with tag: Elliot Rodger

There’s a lot of accusations flying around about certain groups, individuals, and local white male terrorists saying that they are misogynist. It’s a fair claim. A lot of their actions possess underlying, or even blatantly overt, violence directed towards female humans. Misogyny is the hatred of women, but do these men actually hate women? From the common progressive standpoint, obviously, and to question that canon is essentially to turn in your progressive credentials. However, claiming the alt-right, the incels, the white supremacists, and the Jordan Petersons hate women is kinda like saying terrorists hate our freedom. It’s painting the antagonist with purposefully broad strokes to make the Manichean dichotomy easier to propagandize.


All this could be solved if our glorious leader and their wicked despot had a cage match on Pay Per View.

Simone de Beauvoir wrote that women struggle to rebel against men because they are dispersed throughout every category; blacks, whites, rich, poor, and so on; all of them have women. Women cannot simply cleave themselves from their biological counterpart, and even though whites and blacks could eliminate one another, Jews could eliminate every last gentile and vice versa (as has been attempted), women cannot get rid of men. This makes rebellion against male dominance much more complicated. While de Beauvoir was writing about the predicament of being woman, the same holds true for men. Man cannot wholly rebel against women. Hatred that longs for catastrophic destruction of the thing hated is a non-starter. Misogyny in its purest sense is just implausible.

Elliot Rodger, the champion of misogyny, killed a whole mess of people because women collectively decided not to have sex with him. Is it fair to say he hated women when Rodger clearly desired them? A love/hate relationship could be argued, but I think that is far too simplistic. Rodger believed that women should have sex with him. They did not, which means that women were not fulfilling their role as sex-havers. It was this dereliction of duty that drove him towards violence.

Let’s look at another example. The Jordan Peterson clip I hyperlinked earlier shows Peterson describing why women cannot participate in rational discourse: men can’t be physically abusive toward women because of social norms, and violence is the only thing that keeps discourse rational between men, therefore women can say the craziest shit in the world, and men can’t rough them up for being so dumb. This creates feminism, I guess. This is stupid for many reasons, the most glaring being that it ignores the fact that men commit violence against women all the God damn time, but what makes it allegedly misogynistic is that it conceives of “woman” in a specific way. “Woman” is not rational, “woman” relies on notions of chivalry for her own benefit, chivalry is a thing, etc. Now I doubt that Jordan Peterson hates women, he makes sure to mention that he married one after all, but it’s clear that his beliefs about women have something wrong with them.


Women! Amirite?? If men could just somehow commit violence against them, then none of this would ever have happened!

What’s the link between Elliot Rodger and Jordan Peterson? They both define “woman” as something that women as people cannot be. Women are autonomous, freely-choosing human beings. “Woman” is not irrational, nor is she a sex-haver, in the way an inkwell is an inkwell. Peterson and Rodger categorize women in such a way that eliminates her humanity. Certainly women can be irrational; they can also have sex. The problem is that defining women in such a way limits their freedom, and when you demand they act in a certain way that they naturally cannot adhere to 100% of the time, you’re bound to be disappointed (especially during an age when a lot of women have been empowered enough to not give a shit about what you think).

What we’re calling the hatred of women is the enforcement, through words or deeds, of an anachronistic (if not outright fictional) idea of “woman.” If some woman decided to have sex with Elliot Rodger, he likely would have been fine with her (up until she stopped). If a woman agreed with Jordan Peterson, he’d think she was a-okay. Conform to these ideas, and the hatred disappears. It’s not hateful attitudes that is driving these men, but the idea of what a woman should and should not be. Were Elliot Rodger to say, “I want to have sex with a woman,” what he means when he says “woman” and what someone else might hear are two totally separate notions.The problem isn’t hatred; the problem is that these ideas of what is “woman” are wrong.

THE STEPFORD WIVES, Toni Reid, Carole Mallory, Tina Louise, Katherine Ross, Paula Prentiss, Barbara

Women are biologically determined to conform to their social role

If you believe that women should be or perform Y, and you don’t have any problems with women who are and do Y, you will never self identify as someone who hates women. You’ll just be wrong, and if you act on your wrong beliefs to shame, abuse, or kill women who do not fit into this fantastical mould that you’ve created in your mind, then you are raging against human beings for being human.

And you need to stop.

The name Elliot Rodger has become synonymous with misogyny and fear. Bringing further to light the hate and aggression that women suffer on a daily basis, Elliot Rodger took violence against women to the extreme. Women live in a world where they refuse to walk home alone after dark. When going on a first date, men are typically afraid of being rejected, and women are typically afraid of being raped. The society we live in perpetuates violence against women, and that is the society wherein we place our daughters and sisters.

However, walking home alone after dark, you are more likely to be attacked if you are a man than if you are a woman. Here is a link to the Indicators of Well-Being in Canada website that shows that the total of all violent offenses against men (including sexual assault, physical assault, and robbery) is higher than against women:

Of course, sexual assault is higher against women, surprise surprise, but overall violence is more likely to occur if you have a penis than if you don’t.

So why are women terrified when they are actually safer than men? Well, that society we live in also perpetuates fear. The term “rape culture” gets thrown around in feminist dialogues every now and then, and what that means is that the predominant culture is one that seemingly allows, or even endorses, rape through its imagery and popular dialogue. For example, that US senator who spoke about “legitimate rape”, or images in the media of sexual abuse against women, all these things combined create a culture where violence against women is seen as the norm. A culture like that is bound to make anyone just a tiny bit afraid of going out alone after dark.

The overwhelming response against the massacre that Elliot Rodger’s committed plays into that fear. Women are coming forward on twitter with the hashtag #YesAllWomen to tell stories of the abuses that they’ve suffered. I’m not saying that these women are lying, nor am I saying that what happens to women on a daily basis is horrible. What I’m saying is that the celebration of victimhood and the perpetuation of fear is the wrong approach to actually solving these problems.

So I bet you thought I was going to get all “Men’s Rights”, and “We need to focus on The Mens!”  when I mentioned that men are attacked more often than women. And I am, kind of. In keeping with the anecdotal tradition of #YesAllWomen, I asked all the guys I work with if they had ever been in a fight. I was met with shock; not that it was an offensive question, but because the answer was so obvious that I shouldn’t even have needed to ask. Yes. They had all been in fights. One guy answered, “Yeah, a couple” and another alluded to having been in many. Violence among men is SO STANDARD that asking about it is meaningless.

So in regard to our boy Elliot, let’s focus on The Mens. Instead of asking, “Why are women being assaulted?” let’s ask, “Why are men assaulting women?” Let’s include men, even just the term, in the dialogue when it comes to violence against women.

Let’s look at Elliot Rodger without mentioning anything feminine. He is a man, he is socially isolated, feels humiliated, and has access to guns. Doesn’t that look just a teeny bit similar to every instance of a school shooting? Of, you know, most mass killings?

There is a common thread between violence against men and the violence against women, and that is that it is violence being committed by men. This is the issue that needs dealing with. Not making women terrified so that first dates are even harder for us guys than necessary, but getting to the root of why men are committing violence.

The first question that I asked about why women are being assaulted. The #YesAllWomen trend. Most media dialogue regarding violence against women. They all ignore men. It seems as though women are the issue here, and the old gun logic of “If everyone had a penis, then none of this would have happened!” becomes the somewhat facetious solution to these problems.

Or you could look at what actually caused this violence in the first place. Maybe let’s curb access to guns, develop a more socially inclusive society, have easier access to mental health therapy, or maybe adjust our culture to one that doesn’t glorify violence in masculinity.