By now, everyone has heard that some psycho piece of shit called Elliot Rodger has gone on a shooting spree because he had a grudge against the world — especially against young women who didn’t think being rich was enough to turn a creepy weirdo into someone who should be seen as a romantic prospect.
Rather predictably, the lowlife dirtbags known as feminists are using his obvious hatred of women to blame the Men’s Rights Movement for psycho-boy’s shameful rampage. Never mind that his main problem seems to have been feeling rejected by women and that the MRM makes a point of repeatedly telling men that life is not about gaining female approval and that Rodger does not seem to be a member of any online MRM group! No, what matters is lying about the opposition in order to discredit their ideas in the eyes of those too stupid to know the difference between shit and chocolate, ad hominem and actual argument. And if that means using the tragic deaths of several young people to their own benefit, that’s just fine by the plutocracy’s lapdogs.
Manslug goes about it in a subtle way, simply making a link between misogyny and the murders and pointing out Rodger’s association with some anti-PUA site. But the implication is still there – after all, who are seen as the main spreaders of “misogyny” on the ‘net? That’s right, it’s us nasty MRAs.
Others have been less roundabout. Something called The Belle Jar (alas, I am not making that up) starts by telling us that it is not fair to assume the psycho isn’t psycho because…
“ We have no evidence yet that he suffered from any kind of mental illness or was under any sort of treatment.”
Is this just idiocy, or is there a darker meaning to it? Could this person really believe that a man who shoots several people for no good reason is somehow normal? If he is not mentally ill then surely he is mentally healthy. Is this how she believes mentally healthy people act? Or is she trying to imply that this is how mentally healthy men act, that this is what lurks in all of us? Perhaps, perhaps not, but she does follow it up with this rather suspect claim…
“ What we do know is that he was a Men’s Rights Activist, or MRA.”
That probably tilts things towards the interpretation that, in her view, it is indeed only in men that such behaviour is not a sign of mental illness. She also claims that he subscribed to several MRA channels on YouTube but fails to tell us which channels those are. Funny, huh?
She then claims that the MRM teaches young men that…
“… women, and especially feminist women, are to blame for their unhappiness. It teaches them that women lie, that they cheat, trick and manipulate. It teaches them that men as a social class are dominant over women and that they are entitled to women’s bodies. It teaches them that women who won’t give them what they want deserve some kind of punishment.”
This is quite simply a lie. While we do point out the evils of feminism, we certainly don’t blame them for everything – just the shit they are responsible for. Neither do we claim that women as a group lie, cheat etc, only that many do and many don’t. As for being entitled to women’s bodies, I have yet to come across that bizarre claim on an MRA site, much less the idea that women who don’t put out deserve punishment. I’ll tell you another thing I have never seen an MRA suggest – that it might be okay to wipe out all the other men in order to increase one’s own chances of getting laid. Elliot Rodger, on the other hand, did once suggest exactly that.
But the vilest attack comes, predictably enough, from that steaming cesspool known as The Daily Dross, er, I mean Kos. As is so often the case, left-wing means anti-male and any opportunity to shit on people who dare to try to make the world a better place for men and boys is eagerly welcomed. Some asswipe called OllieGarkey, aka Will McLeod, begins his lying at the very top of the page with the title “Elliot Rodger, Gunman in California Mass Shooting, was influenced by the “Men’s Rights Movement.” The worthless weasel then goes on to give zero evidence of Rodger’s links to the MRM, posting instead evidence that he belonged to some sort of anti-PUA site. The entire article is an avalanche of bullshit the likes of which would make even the harpies at Jezebel blush…
“The true Alpha Male. What those who call themselves the Mens Rights Movement aspire to be.”
The reality is that the movement, in general, eschews the very idea of the alpha male as a damaging one that we can all live without. Why we would aspire to be that which we reject is something that only a character as twisted as McLeod can understand.
“We know for a fact that Rodgers was influenced by this movement, as he is subscribed to multiple “pick up artist” or “mens rights” channels on YouTube.”
This supposed fact is a straight out lie, one which even McLeod contradicts with his own list of Rodger’s channels…
“The Player Supreme Show” which rails against the feminization of men and talks about how to pick up women.
“RSDfreetour” which is a series of self-help seminars run by RSD Nation, a “pick up artist” site.
There’s also a user called McHenry Cruiser who in addition to being a pickup artist is a comedian who has some kind of beef with Louis CK, and another called “Squatting Cassanova,” who seems to be your average PUA.”
You will notice that the term MRA is not mentioned in that list. No, these guys are wannabe pick up artists and wanting pussy does not make you an MRA – if it did we would have the largest social movement in the history of humanity!
Notice how he follows up his list with this disclaimer…
“I’m still digging through some of the folks he’s subscribed to.”
In other words, “Yeah, I kinda admit there’s nothing MRA going on there, but trust me on this one.”
McLeod then spends the rest of his flimsy piece repeating the same lie, namely that PUA = MRA, despite the well-known animosity between the two groups. He may as well argue that Democrat = Republican and that MSNBC = Fox! He also claims that the guy should have sought mental help, by which I assume he means treatment of some sort, so I guess he isn’t totally shit-brained, which is more than can be said for Belle Jar.
But let’s make no mistake. These people do not actually care about the untimely deaths of all these kids. They feel no real sorrow over what has happened, they merely see this as a great opportunity to vilify their political enemies. Chances are that as soon as they saw the CNN bulletins about a gunman killing a bunch of girls they started muttering breathlessly “Please be an MRA! Please. Please. Please.” And when the lukewarm news came down their reaction was “Oh, well, a former PUA and frustrated virgin. Close enough!” This is the kind of mentality on display in these articles. While the rest of us are going “What the fuck!?!?!” they are going “Yipee!” Indeed, it wouldn’t surprise me if the kind of people who are so willing to exploit the slaughter of innocent youngsters with their whole lives ahead of them spend half their day hoping for this kind of thing to happen – just so they can use the tragic events to vilify an enemy against which they have no real arguments.