Elliot Rodger and misogeny

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Elliot Rodger and misogeny

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

EasternBronze posted:

I wonder if this board would be so eager to lay bare the thought processes behind this attack if the killer had been Muslim and his manifesto had included some long winded exhortations about honour? Whats the correlation between being an MRA and violence vs. being Muslim and violence?

I would argue that neither are relevant because the violence is just a symptom of mental illness and whatever rhetoric this guy uses is just white noise to justify his actions in his own broken mind.

He wouldn't be killing people if he was mentally healthy, its as simple as that. Browsing Reddit or reading the Koran doesn't change that fact.

Actually, there is substantial evidence that while mental illness and ideology aren't directly related, the latter can influence the form that the former takes. Self-enucleation of the eye is much more common in Christian areas, in a direct reference to that line in the Bible about how "if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." This line is not present in the Quran, Torah, etc. and as such, while they have their share of crazy folks, they don't typically pluck out their own eyeballs.

# ¿ May 27, 2014 22:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 09:42

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

copper rose petal posted:

I missed this before. It's good you brought this up, I wanted to tell you that...

...access to the pill and other forms of contraception and reproductive services are actually a major part of modern feminist advocacy!

Yeah, it's like the retrograde elements sort of sense the connection and are moving to suppress and control it.

# ¿ May 28, 2014 01:46

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

snorch posted:

Something tells me you're being sarcastic, but it rings true either way. The amount of otherization on both sides of the whole thing is staggering and someone's got to be the first to get the gently caress over it and be civil for a moment.

To share the contrary view: Why should we, the pro-woman, or at least non-anti-woman side, have to be - again - the ones who are gentle and sweet and forbearing and accepting and nurturing? Why is it necessary that we be the "bigger men" (so to speak); why is it vital that we be the ones who are civil, while the frothing MRAs receive both the privilege of getting to fulminate about HB9s and also the privilege of being coddled to?

Is it because they will die otherwise? Is it because now they have the credible threat of hurting others if they are not treated with such compassion?

If you are simply calling for politeness and perhaps the occasional firm but civil refutation of views, possibly even sprinkled with "I reject your views but not your person," that is fair enough. But BOY!

# ¿ May 31, 2014 17:58

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

SealHammer posted:

If I hate women and believe that everyone supporting women is out to destroy me, then telling me that I'm a crazy rear end in a top hat who is a danger to those around him is probably not going to dislodge me from my views. Quite the contrary, I'm probably going to see that as evidence supporting my delusions and further entrench myself in them.

There is a reason that therapists build relationships through trust and mutual respect instead of browbeating the patient about how dumb and illogical their beliefs and behaviors are.

Right, that's fair, but I am questioning why it is apparently necessary for me, a non-woman-hater, or God forbid women themselves, to engage in a therapeutic relationship with people who loathe them. Like, that is my objection, the implicit requirement for a therapeutic attitude. It is certainly laudatory to do that, but it seems, implicitly, that the choice here is "engage in unpaid amateur therapy for assholes" or "indirectly contribute to whatever bullshit those assholes do, now and in the future." It places responsibility, possibly without bounds, on me (and everyone in general) for the possible harms caused by that individual - which in turn neatly squares the circle and makes it, once again, the victim's fault they were victimized, because if ONLY they, or others, had reached out more...!

Like, this just seems to cast the assholes back in the center of things, you know? I suppose it is better in some sense, since the therapeutic project seems theoretically limited, and has an actual goal rather than just "obey or get punished."

To be completely clear, this is not meant to condemn reasoned or civil conversation with avowed misogynists in order to get them off their woman-hating horse and reform them into civilized individuals; I am also not going to condemn someone who was a dumb teenager or even early-twenties-er and got into this stuff but later grew out of it.

Pope Fabulous XXIV posted:

You just identified stance of the "respectable" reactionary on literally every issue of import.

I was unclear, are you saying I'm mirroring their attitudes or that I've touched on the implicit threat underlying much of their desires? :v:

# ¿ May 31, 2014 20:09

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Ungoal posted:

lmao D&D is literally the laughing stock on SA now.

"now"?

# ¿ May 31, 2014 21:42

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Judakel posted:

A huge part of the reason accusers aren't allowed to confront the victim in the process he highlighted is simply because that was one of the major reasons people did not come foward.

Yes this seems very strange to me. I can understand the reasoning and like, anonymous trials are bullshit, but why should you necessarily have the right to stare down the person you've already abused?

I suppose putting it like that implies a presumption of guilt. Rather: Why should you necessarily have the potential opportunity to silence your accuser in such a way?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 00:55

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Kiwi Ghost Chips posted:

The fundamental right of due process has a cost, yeah.

Why is it necessary for due process for you to be physically present at the same time as your accuser? I actually don't mean this sarcastically and am addressing this to others. Obviously you should know who is accusing you, but what specific aspect of justice is served by the requirement of simultaneous physical presence? Is it so that you can bellow "LIES" or possibly glare threateningly at them?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 01:46

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

I anticipate ten iterations of "OH SO BUYING SOMEONE A DRINK IS RAPE NOW" in the near future. Excitement!

As for the cross-examination thing, I have no issues with that, but I do think this might be an edge case where, perhaps, you get a public defender or your own lawyer and you can't be your own lawyer. I don't know what the statistics are and I suspect they haven't been well tracked, but if significant numbers of rapes are going unreported in fear of having to get screamed at by your rapist in front of an audience, that is a problem.

And I'll go ahead and anticipate "so you hate the Constitution and civil trials, good to know, heh" kinds of replies: I don't, not at all. But the justice system is not some received entity that we were handed down from Mt. Vernon through the agency of Lord Washington when Zwarte Piet carried it down and was immediately clapped in irons. Surely there is some modification that can be made, some alternate regulation, which would not leave this problem (if there is one - yes, yes, alarmism, whatever) unaddressed.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 16:38

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Omi-Polari posted:

Well, that all sounds good. But someone explain to me how any this will stop people like Elliot Rodger?

First we must establish whether or not we can say MRA/PUA or if that makes us sound like dumb poopy goons!

I think it's at least a neighboring branch though.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 16:46

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

copper rose petal posted:

It's not getting screamed at that is the reason rapes go unreported. It's the fact that police don't believe rape victims and are not trained to interview them differently than they interview suspects. It's that rape victims fear no one will believe them if they admit that they kissed the guy after their date and then he pushed his way inside the house and raped her, because kissing is seen as an invitation to further sexual contact no matter how many times you say no after. It's that a judge can tell a woman who's been drugged and raped repeatedly by her own husband that she needed to "forgive her attacker" and then gave him zero jail time. It's that prosecutors know that a victim's sexual history will be brought up during trial and unless they have the Perfect Victim, they won't get a conviction because juries also exist in a culture where victim blaming is the norm, so they don't even bother bringing the case to trial. It's that rape victims commit suicide after being forced to hold up the underwear they were wearing at the time of the rape during a trial after he dragged her into a park and raped her.

When will you guys realize that getting screamed at is possibly the least degrading thing that can happen to a rape victim, it's the more subtle death by a thousand cuts that is the real reason victims don't report?

Because we're not as enlightened and wise as you.

All that stuff is horrible though... even so, it seems as if we might could possibly address multiple things at once. I suppose this is to some extent the goal of all the "awareness raising," isn't it?

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 16:50

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Arakan posted:

well i learned one thing, if me and my girl go out and get hosed up then have sex we are raping each other, so thanks for that

In principle, yes, you could press charges against each other from what I understand. In practice you have not because presumably you were consenting, both of you, before and after getting shitfaced.

If this sounds ridiculous, you know what else sounds ridiculous? "I bought her two drinks so she obviously wanted it, so please dismiss this rape case."

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 16:57

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

Hodgepodge posted:

I'm actually a little wary of the "if drunk, then rape" standard, mostly because both parties are often drunk at the time. And assuming that only men want sex while drunk sends the message that only men want sex, with all the problems which come with that. Also because my experiences with that situation are complicated and confusing. I don't like to feed the narrative of women having sex and then regretting it, but it has happened when the woman in question initiated the encounter with me while we were both drunk (literally pulling me off the couch into bed with her). Sex is kind of confusing for young people. I'm not sure that needs harsh legal penalties making it worse. Or maybe I'm just hypocritical and a rapist. I don't expect D&D to be kind.

I've known many women to act in teams to prevent each other from having a one-night stand that they'll regret later (explicitly in those terms). Which makes me wonder if the problem is that they're afraid some guy will be too aggressive, or if it's the shame society imposes on a woman who *gasp* enjoys sex that is the problem. It's both.

On the other hand, if that standard is widely publicized, it could really cut down on the rape culture that is closely associated with binge drinking on campuses, which is if anything a much larger problem than MRAs and whathaveyou. The practical takeaway for me is more that drinking isn't an excuse to rape someone- which is how it is often used.

Well if she pulled you off the couch to have sex with you it's arguable she's the rapist here. Rape is not exclusively male after all :v:

I do think there is a sort of toxic cultural detail where it becomes "okay" to experience sexual desire and act on it after you've drunk about twenty dollars worth of liquor, because "you're drunk" and that means you're not "bad," but the line between the effects of alcohol and its social and cultural assumptions is a hazy and blurry one.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 17:16

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

ToastyPotato posted:

You haven't adequately explained what happens in the situation where both people are drunk. No rational person would argue that when one person is drunk and the other isn't, that taking advantage of that drunk person isn't wrong. Date rape is wrong. But your wording goes beyond that and offers no exceptions, which is highly unrealistic and oversimplifying adult interaction.

Again, what happens if both people are drunk? What happens when both people, while sober, consent to getting more intoxicated and having sex? What happens when, the next day, both parties are totally ok with what happened? If you are unable to answer these questions you should reconsider rewording your position.

1. A big ol' clusterfuck
2. Seems fine to me, assuming consent is not withdrawn during the act
3. No problem

The corrollary to these is the situation where someone regrets what they did later, but I have never gotten the impression that there is some epidemic of "wow, I regret that one night stand. Oh I know, I'll accuse him of rape!" and I'm not sure where this came from. There are by contrast numerous situations where people have plied others with liquor and other drugs in order to get ''consent'' which was not in their collective right minds, and then went "aha! You said it was OK after that sixteenth shooter! :smaug:

"

I guess I would personally note that I don't get the appeal of getting totally shitfaced in order to gently caress, but I guess we have this culture-wide fetish for that which is its own separate ball of wax.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 18:55

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

rkajdi posted:

Again, keep on agreeing with Glen Beck-- that's worked out so well for people in the past.

And I will say on the moral level regardless of what contortions you've done, if you're liquoring a girl up to sleep with them you're human filth. If you seriously did this, get help or better yet get help for the other people's lives you've hosed up.

I believe the context for this incredibly stupid hypothetical situation is two consenting adults in an established relationship resolving to get drunk and gently caress, with the question being whether or not the first part renders the second part sexual assault or rape. This is being highlighted as an absurdity because it, or something near to it, happens quite a bit, and is technically identical with "someone screws a drunk woman at a party," which we (presumably) all agree is in fact wrong, even if the drunk woman is not completely unconscious with the burthen of the demon rum.

The question would then be how to establish a legal standard which is able to define rape of the intoxicated as rape, without (presumably) also technically outlawing this drunken gently caress-party people seem to crave, even though it would seem as a practical matter that a consensual in-home drunken gently caress-party with your s.o. is effectively no issue, because neither party will press charges.

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 19:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 19, 2024 09:42

Nessus: Dec 22, 2003; After a Speaker vote, you may be entitled to a valuable coupon or voucher!

GreyjoyBastard posted:

In theory, if we had an actual healthy response to rape reports, women would feel comfortable enough with the accusation that a rare few would use it frivolously.

In practice, 1) this would be a more than acceptable tradeoff, and 2) I would also like a flying unicorn that shits rainbows.

Right, I mean that an exhaustive amount of effort is being put into an issue which while probably non-zero is not exactly an epidemic (false or malicious rape reports) versus the amount being put into the actual issue (rape reports suppressed or otherwise covered over). Of course, putting a vastly disproportionate amount of effort into edge cases that specifically affect the interests of those with established power and privilege is more or less "humanhistory.txt."

# ¿ Jun 1, 2014 19:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Elliot Rodger and misogeny