Thanks for posting. "Wound collector" seems to fit but it is very scary to see how someone could progress to the murder stage. I have certainly known some men in the early stages.

K&R

And old people. Weak man-children who think they are owed and prey on the less powerful, stoking their sense of being oppressed with like-minded entitled men.

Being told we have to try to understand their wounds to fix them makes me vomit.

Tons of social reinforcement for it, easy to do cuz women are smaller and weaker. And it overlaps with that tingly thrill......sex and violence, you know. Hell, hunger, animality, anger--the lowest states of life.

The second one from SPLC doesn't mention misogyny.
Using and simultaneously resenting women. Whereas to me, it's self-evident.

The SPLC has been putting a cautious toe in the water on issues of misogyny and MRA groups, but they've been inconsistent on it. I hope they'll develop a more robust exploration of the connections in the future.

I try to describe how I see certain dynamics...... I really appreciate knowing when I make sense.

not all of them men, granted, but it is a fact of our American experience: collecting wounds is chic. It's so much more satisfying than collecting degrees and honors, and so much more accessible to the basic loser mentality.

Collect degrees and honors, and you have nice wall hangings, that once might have meant gainful employment and a satisfying life....but not any more. Besides, it involved work, investing time and money.

Collecting wounds just involves narcissism, laziness, complete lack of ethics, and a huge sense of entitlement. It's being stuck at 2 years old.

What is dangerous is that a lot of people of all genders are going to find themselves lost. It is easy to say "wound collector" but what will happen when there are people who DO get the degress, who do work the long hours, who do the things that used to be reliable, and are told they are woerthless.. That si happenign right now, as people with experience and degress are now unemployed and unemplyable..

What hapens, the oligarhcs will make sure these wound collectors are there, in the wings ready to offer an explanation, which will keep them from seeing the truth, and keep them from killing the oligrachs that really did hurt them.

as the details emerged on this story. I don't believe this disturbed individual is/was alone in his beliefs. He just happened to take them to an illogical conclusion. Sadly, this was just the most egregious shooting story of the day. I saw any number of other shootings listed on national and local media outlets. It seems to me most of these stories have their genesis from an outrageous sense that the perpetrators are owed something, whether by society, an offending individual, or the entire population of women. I would like to preempt anyone who might feel the need to say "not all men..." with the response, "enough men do."

I like your sig line too.

He is a typical member of MRA groups. These groups are at the very least hate groups, but if actions like this become more common, they should be considered terrorist groups.

I'd like to keep this discussion focused on our SOP, which relates to being able to have conversations on things and how they affect women, thanks.

And there are several articles available on Rodgers' accessing MRA ideology.

The poster I was responding to asserted that he was a member of some group. That didn't fit the facts I've seen.

There are multiple other links here at KOS: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/24/1301671/-Elliot-Roger-Gunman-in-California-Mass-Shooting-was-influenced-by-the-Men-s-Rights-Movement

I'm not sure I want to visit any group with "hate" in their domain name. What's up with that? Are they women haters?

You can't visit PUAHate at the moment, they pulled their site down when they realized the murderer was among their membership.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that documents hate groups, on the shooter: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2014/05/24/shooting-suspect-elliot-rodgers-misogynistic-posts-point-to-motive/

if this disturbed young man was a member of an MRA group or not. What matters was how the influence of such groups drive the behavior of those who might come into contact with it. This becomes exponentially worse when groups in question view themselves as victims despite the fact that they are, as a group, at the top of society's food chain. White male patriarchy has, and still does rule in the United States. Women who have the audacity to deny the self-entitled men they encounter access to their bodies run the risk of anything from verbal abuse to violent death. Words have consequences and one can find on any day of the week the messages put out by MRA types feeding the insecurities and perceived threats felt by men like Friday's killer Elliot Rodger. One little piggy went on a killing spree, but don't for a minute think that little piggy wandered all that far from the sty.

I see now I was drawing a distinction that does not matter in this case, though it might in other contexts.

I though the claim was that he was a member of a group that meets, which didn't jive with the profile. But it turns out he is a "member" of sites. Normally merely having an account at a site ("a membership" if you will) does not mean that you necessarily share the views unless there is party line policing or purist moderators. But in the shooter's case, his writings show that he bought into the sites' views and then some, going way beyond "accessing ideology" into psychotic hyper-rationalization of ultra-extreme beliefs.

It does seem that the sites have played a role in his self-justification and nurturing his festering "wound collecting", a term I read today in a thoughtful piece that I can't find in my browser history.

this pathetic woman-hater?

(Are YOU a member of an MRA group? If not, how do you know so much about their members? And, why are you posting your condescension on this particular thread?<~~~ just asking, really.)

Ask that poster how they know so much about their members.

Their assertions don't seem to jive with facts and the poster didn't provide any links. I can't find any reference to him being a member of any group, nor to MRA groups being terrorists. The Isla Vista shooter is effectively a lone wolf, unless there is some credible evidence the other way.

We don't just make stuff up, do we? Even when angry?

P.S. There is no condescension in my post you object to. All 19 words are neutral. There is no reference to the poster, just their post, nothing personal, just discussing facts. You are reading stuff in there that is not there or maybe carrying over some emotions found in some other post.

P.P.S. Before you go too far on your high horse, I don't have any time for MRA groups. So take your distasteful attempt to mount a personal attack somewhere other than DU and let's return to the facts and label speculation as speculation.

with a soupçon of disdain.

But, I see you're apparently pursuing further information, which apparently renders your original negation moot. Good on ya.

Rodgers was a lonely young man who felt rejected. He strikes me as a likely victim of bullying himself.

He expressed his frustration and anger in misogynistic terms, but at the core, he most likely had difficulty empathizing or loving anyone. He probably did not even love himself really. He was totally self-centered and insecure. His misogynism was the result of a twisted personality, not the cause. The misogynists with whom he communicated online are angry men who focus their anger against women.

I have noticed that there are women online who focus their anger against men.

But the anger is at the root of it. And the anger is the result of the inability to accept and love others.

I've been married over 50 years to the same man, and we have lived in societies far more misogynistic than the US. It takes two to tango. Men and women can learn to live together and accept and love each other. It takes an effort on both parts.

I am very happy to see that young couples today tend to have relationships that are even more cooperative and harmonious than those we had in our day. And I'm happy to see that my daughters have career opportunities that I could not have dreamed of. Feminism is making big strides. I don't think we should focus so much on the few set-backs there are. Women have it so much better today than we had it back in the 1950s and 1960s.

As for the Isla Vista killer. He just didn't know how to love and accept others. That was his problem. I would bet he did not have a lot of good men friends either.

He had plenty of positive people in his life actually. I agree that he lacked empathy and the capacity to really love anyone; he seemed to view people as his narcissistic supply source, like many sociopaths.

However, I think it is still important to explore how the culture of online misogyny fed into his eventual urge to go on a spree killing.

bullied and they don't go on shooting rampages.

Why all that "understanding" for young men?...If a young woman did this

she'd be crucified, at least figuratively.

Loneliness and lack of empathy are not the territory of only one gender.

It's a society-wide problem, not just a gender problem.

Gender plays a role in how the loneliness, lack of empathy and resulting hostility are expressed. But a bitter mother who feels lonely, lacks empathy and is hostile can do a lot of damage to her family and friends without shooting them.

and when it comes to murder "how it is expressed" makes ALL the difference.

happened in his apartment. So it wasn't just about women.

Check the court records. It isn't just men who stalk and/or are violent although men are more frequently violent. Maybe their usually superior physical strength makes them more confident about being violent.

but I suspect he was jealous of guys he thought did better with women

than he. He was, of course, also mentally ill.

As for women, I don't have to read the court records..Women are "catching up"

to men in terms of violent behavior, but they are still FAR behind males

and always have been.

I suspect it might have something to do with testosterone, but I think the

culture plays a large part as well.

I read two separate editions of The Darwin Awards, and the "awardees"

are One Hundred Percent male..If you've read even one, you'll understand

the implications of that fact.

He's a psychopathic murderer. I don't see anyone rising to his defense. But please, cite something if you have it.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

The question is, why is it that few to zero "lonely and rejected" and

even psycho females go on shooting sprees?

may play a role too.

It is excruciating to read. It's 138 pages and it took me hours. But I didn't want to skim, I thought it was important to follow his thought processes. It was repetitive, in his responses to both the events & the people in his life, but terribly mesmerizing.

Calls them brutes and slobs.... And he killed his MALE roommates. So, more of a misanthrope than a misogynist.

So, it goes back to his hatred of women, and resenting them for going for men the murderer thought were unsuitable. I know he killed his male roommates. Bigotry is irrational.

Such a true statement.
I find it to be true even when an event reinforces the observer's own prejudice against another group of people.

That the patriarchy/some man or men should have complete control and dominion over women and that women should have NO choices about whom or whether they have sex or reproduce - men should decide FOR them. Look at the legislation the bastards have been passing all over the country. That's EXACTLY what it seeks to do- control women and deprive them of any choice about their sexuality or reproduction. Same as Elliot Rodger said he felt women should be treated.

I'm reminded me too of that panel that met to discuss whether women ought to get BC under the ACA. NO WOMEN were allowed on the panel.

These attitudes also form the societal basis of our insidious rape culture in the U.S.

What we see here, IMO, is a disturbed young man who was infected by what are essentially the roots of modern patriarchy/misogyny in our country today. Everything he wrote about it reflects what the GOP/Republicans say and do. Some of it sounded to me just like some of our conservative politicians ie: "she should put an aspirin between her legs" and "abortion Barbie".

I think there were three factors which resulted in this gruesome outcome:

1. mental illness
2. easy availability of guns, even for someone who has long since been formally diagnosed with mental illness
3. Insidious misogynist conservative attitudes about women from MRA sites/groups he visited combined with an American society which largely supports those attitudes - from the highest governmental levels.

What the hell should we expect to happen? Duh.

The War on Women has manifested itself once again in gruesome terms (once again) and I'm sure we'll all still be told it "doesn't exist" that there "is no war on women" and that we're "just imagining things".

Bullshit. What we saw from the websites and message boards Elliot visited and participated in (and what we see from any of these MRA groups) is the modern ROOTS of this war. They have pushed themselves deep into a society whose women have repeatedly been told it doesn't exist. Well - THERE it is in all of its hateful, controlling glory. THERE. IT. IS. And women are still suffering and dying in that war at the hands of angry men. And yes I know he killed some males too. But it was because he wanted to control the women and felt entitled to them.

We need to deal with the issue of mental illness.
We need to deal with the issue of insidious gun culture and the fact that guns are easily available to anyone - no matter how deranged or mentally unstable they are.
We need to deal with our misogynist society and our misogynist government.

Otherwise - this is going to happen again. And again. And again. Maybe to someone on DU or someone in their family.

My niece lives in SB. My brother is evidently involved with these MRA people and is very angry towards women as a result. So this situation is really upsetting to me.

Out of the ballpark.

Do you know what misogyny means?

Are you lost?

He hated his inability to attract women. He was angry at women because he felt they did not like him. But he didn't hate women. He was angry at women. Those are two different things.

You can be angry at someone or something you love.

If he had hated women, he would not have been angry that they did not like him.

You won't have to hypothesize about his feelings. It's all in there.

the thought of trying to develop a relationship with any female who didn't meet the physical standard he mentions throughout his sociopathic rambling (usually 'hot' and 'blonde') was inconceivable to him.

This is the signature Nice Guy "tell." There are plenty of nice females of all ages, shapes, colors, and sizes--but these supposedly nice, accepting, non-judgmental, non-barbaric, open-hearted guys only seem to care about the most shallow attributes of women whom they bizarrely claim are then brutally rejecting of them.

Women like me can say, well, I don't date beefcake, I date nice guys who have a sense of humor, read books, play the trombone, etc.

Then the Nice Guy© tells me the only guys who would date me are substandard because I'm not "hot". The only real women, who matter, are the "hot" ones.

and the movies.

But I remember (I'm a woman) working with a group of men in maybe their thirties who complained that they weren't married because women cared only about money and they were not well paid.

So, these ideas, these preconceptions make the lives of both men and women impossible.

possible to do both.

but it isn't normal. This guy is not representative of normal men.

But 69 of the last 70 mass killers were men. So there's that.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that 69 or the last 70 Wooly Mammoths were killed by men. Men have always been the ones required to do most of the killing. The idea that such biological hard-wiring can go very wrong is not just a concern of feminism.

We talk about feminist issues, from a feminist point of view.

Now we seem to have travelled from "not all men" to "we hunted the mammoth"

This thread is about misogyny, and how it is getting stoked in our culture, especially online, to the point where it is creating a certain kind of male. Is there something you'd like to add about that?

You were posted on the main webpage. And yes, I would. What do you suggest be done about it?

Creating awareness of the problem, and giving people sources of information.

I have also tweeted Chris Hayes to ask him to cover the misogynist angle of this shooting. We need a wider spread to the media.

I am having this discussion with allies on Facebook, and hooking up with the aim of joining coalitions.

Those are things anyone of us can do.

Good luck.

I know not all women are angels. But killing through dramatic violence, fueled by online hate, was the topic here. (And yes, I know there are Black Widow killers.)

Hollywood and the advertising business. That's who is to blame for the exaggerated importance of sex in our society.

He's not articulating a hatred of his limitations, he's placing the blame on women. Big difference.

several "men" who harbor this mindset. And many more who don't take action against whille saying..."yeah, he's like that." And they never do anything about. The "Men's Club".

There was one reference to PUAHate that I caught, but apparently not the in-depth analysis I've seen in some of the postings here at DU. I'm too sick over this to write to any news outlet myself (I live in Goleta, 3 miles from the University and Isla Vista), but I highly recommend that others do -- whether in an LTTE, a comment on the articles or tv news, or a direct email to the authors of same. Please.

The self-reinforcing nature of online communities is something I've observed ever since getting into this one. DU encourages diversity within boundaries, which is still it's greatest strength; DU also encourages and often demands honest research and sources. But some others are just hateful echo-chambers of solipsistic hatred -- and that is ultimately a danger to us all.

interesting............

...so kind of, yeah. But then went and killed both men and women.

The guy was a psychopath.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

Most men are real men. They do not abuse women, nor do they tolerate those who do. The power of real men is limited in taking on the power of capitalist commodification in any form, just like it is with everyone. Sweeping gender generalizations are not useful in discussing such issues. Propose a solution. That can be discussed.

The OP or the guy who just killed a bunch of people?

was focused on his roommates and sorority girls. Otherwise, his shootings appear indiscriminate. This kid was mad as a hatter and had a den of vipers in his head. I think misogyny was only one of them. So, I unsure what party he's belongs to.

I said that generalizations about gender are not useful. I implied that gender stereotyping is not conducive to problem solving. I can't recall trying to impose any rules on your discussion.

and apparently there are many, many sleeper cells just waiting to explode. this is not an isolate incident.

Agreed.

i have two lovely,smart 20-somethings nieces. i really worry about them because they are smart, accomplished, outspoken, beautiful, and independent, financially and otherwise. they are prime targets for this type of terrorist.

Let's suppose that he's still ASD, he's still having no luck with relationships, he's still entitled, he's still got a gun, but when he goes looking for help online instead of finding PUA and MRA groups he finds relationship advice that starts out with the assumption that women are people? Dr. Nerdlove maybe. Does any of this happen?

I can't really imagine a scenario where it does. Which is why I'm not really buying the argument that his mental illness or the gun or being an entitled douche with a douchetastic car and an account at the bank of daddy was the problem. There are a lot of smug pricks with BMWs who manage not to shoot anybody for failing to fall worshipfully on their dick. Mostly they just do a lot of coke and then go into real estate.

I think he went online and found what he was looking for.

Here's what he needed to hear: "Start treating women like they're human beings." "Go talk to them about things they're interested in." "Stop focusing on getting laid and go do stuff where you interact with women without expecting anything." "Stop being mad at other dudes for getting women you want, nobody owes you shit. Anyhow it's college and people break up. Be nice to everybody, even if they're seeing somebody." "Instead of working on your pickup lines work on yourself as a person. Be interesting and fun to know."

Instead he read a bunch of shit about putting women down to get them to like you, and a bunch of stuff about how women are whores who will put out for anybody who is good looking or has money.

This reminds me of the time a man told me, like it was a secret, what horrible things some men say about women when they are just with guys. I told him, I know. Do you think they don't say it to our faces?

Who would stop them?

This just chills me to the bone. Do I have to really that afraid of men?