To Learn About the Far Right, Start With the ‘Manosphere’

[laylalex 7,285]

I was reading this yesterday, and it made me think of the other thread we have going about women and what some men think about their need to have children young, and some of the other thoughts expressed about the differences between the sexes.

 

"When plugged into the anti-feminist tradition, these ideas translate into a scientific 'truth' that men are intellectually and physically superior, and, therefore, that their greater political power and wealth through history are justified. Feminism is unnatural, disruptive—and doomed. Mattheis sees an intriguing mirror between this ideology and that of Islamist terror groups such as the Islamic State. The religious version is that men’s superiority has been divinely ordained, whereas the 'secular version is biology, the difference between the male and female brain.' Either way, 'it’s a basic founding part of their worldview,' she said. Both ideologies preach that 'for men to be strong, women have to be in their right place. That’s what makes society okay.' The manosphere offers disaffected young men a comforting, nostalgic vision: a return to order in a world that can seem frightening and fast-changing."

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/08/anti-feminism-gateway-far-right/595642/

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Quote

 Anti-feminist rhetoric is a powerful gateway to violent white nationalism, and it is calculated to appeal to the demographic overwhelmingly responsible for mass shootings: young white men.

 

    The above quote from the article certainly seems to be the common theme in some of the recent shooting incidents. Yet people still want to blame video games or too much medication or not enough medication or lack of parenting or too much parenting. I'll throw in a Ayn Rand quote here (for all the fans on the site) - you can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.

[yuna628 9,676]

There's something I've noticed in a lot of these cases, well.. in pretty much all of these cases where there is a white young male shooter psychopath, regardless of if they have white nationalist tendencies or not: they are not so much anti-feminist as they are pro-misogynist. They literally think, in their psychosis that a woman's purpose isn't just for some traditional baby-making or homemaker role, they believe a woman is worthless and so low as to be abused in all ways. This trend can actually be found in some international terrorist ideologies and even with serial killers. IMO a lot of these young men who go out ''in a blaze of glory'' so to speak, would have gone on to be sociopathic serial killers if they hadn't taken this 'quick path'. The Ohio shooter, like many of them before him, had long term issues with women and likely a long ranging history with multi-personality type psychosis. Some of them, like Sandy Hook, aim for their mothers first. In his case, his first target seems to have been his sister, that was transitioning to be male. It is not just endless message boards and sites where white nationalism abounds and propagandizes young men (in the same way Jihadists do), but young men that are very mentally unwell are increasingly becoming radicalized on boards dedicated to death, abuse, and torture of women. It's gone beyond anti-feminism to the disturbing and evil.

 

As I used to say... I used to moderate some really disturbing behavior of kids back when the internet and forums started being popular.. back before these places cropped up, or even before social media existed in these mass forms. It was sick back then, and I wondered and worried what the kids would become and grow into.. Now there thousands of little mini Charles Mansons with the power to spread their message far and wide.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

To try to link most mass shootings to white supremist is absurd. There is no pattern or trend to support any of this. Most dont have a political motive or can their political leanings be determined. They few than can be determined tend to be liberals..

[Steeleballz 7,550]

29 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

To try to link most mass shootings to white supremist is absurd. There is no pattern or trend to support any of this. Most dont have a political motive or can their political leanings be determined. They few than can be determined tend to be liberals..

 

   You may want to read the linked article. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   You may want to read the linked article. 

I did. No facts other than the El Paso guy was anti mexican. The guy the killed over 60 people in Vegas was a leftie and dem. So using the articles flawed logic being a liberal leads to mass shootings. The guy in Ohio was a leftie 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I did. No facts other than the El Paso guy was anti mexican. The guy the killed over 60 people in Vegas was a leftie and dem. So using the articles flawed logic being a liberal leads to mass shootings. The guy in Ohio was a leftie 

People tend to try to figure out the why, so it is only natural for them to try to find commonalities among all the mass murderers.

 

The #1 common thing is that they are all lacking emotions/empathy/feelings that most of us hold toward other human beings.  Their political slant means little, IMO.  Nor does this attempt to make it about feminism.  The article was a weak opinion piece, at best.  

 

It's not about anti-feminisism, misogyny,  white nationalism.  It's about a mentally disturbed person who knows he (mainly males) doesn't fit in, and probably never will.  It's about destroying that towards which he is most jealous.  Perhaps most afraid of.  Many reasons likely come into play that most here would not be able to identify, because most here are rational human beings that care about others and human life.

 

But no one is able to nail that down well enough to prevent the murders, so we attack guns (as if any sort of gun control would have prevented either of the previous two shootings), or the perceived ideals of the shooters.  In reality, the family and friends of the shooters are to blame for not trying to get said shooters the proper mental health care they need (likely couldn't afford it even if they wanted to).  At least the mom of the one kid tried, but she went about it the wrong way (gun control).  She should have been pointing towards evidence of a will to harm.  That may have led the police to a means of preventing the havoc that ensued.

 

All just my opinion, worth as much as the OP, I reckon.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

24 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I did. No facts other than the El Paso guy was anti mexican. The guy the killed over 60 people in Vegas was a leftie and dem. So using the articles flawed logic being a liberal leads to mass shootings. The guy in Ohio was a leftie 

 

  People can claim to be anything they want online. Hell, I know a guy who claims to be middle of the road and yet 95% of his criticism is against the left. For some reason there seems to be a media blitz with every one of these guys to prove they are Democrats or Republicans, when it doesn't really matter. What is claimed, (from the article), is there were anti-feminist links that seemed to influence many of these guys. 

 

  So back to what the article claims - that the far right anti feminist influence is becoming a breeding ground for some of these recent shooters. It not saying the shooters themselves were far right. It's not saying every mass shooting in history was committed by young white males. It's saying there has been recent influence in these events that seem to have links to far right rhetoric. It doesn't actually identify anyone as Democrat or Republican. That's a typical red herring anyway. The demographic it mentions specifically in these recent events is young white males. 

 

 

    

Edited August 11, 2019 by Steeleballz

[TBoneTX 45,309]

12 hours ago, yuna628 said:

The Ohio shooter, like many of them before him, had long term issues with women

The term being used is INCEL = involuntarily celibate.

[Dashinka 24,512]

8 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  People can claim to be anything they want online. Hell, I know a guy who claims to be middle of the road and yet 95% of his criticism is against the left. For some reason there seems to be a media blitz with every one of these guys to prove they are Democrats or Republicans, when it doesn't really matter. What is claimed, (from the article), is there were anti-feminist links that seemed to influence many of these guys. 

 

  So back to what the article claims - that the far right anti feminist influence is becoming a breeding ground for some of these recent shooters. It not saying the shooters themselves were far right. It's not saying every mass shooting in history was committed by young white males. It's saying there has been recent influence in these events that seem to have links to far right rhetoric. It doesn't actually identify anyone as Democrat or Republican. That's a typical red herring anyway. The demographic it mentions specifically in these recent events is young white males. 

 

 

    

So why not delve further?  The identity politics primarily used and promoted by the Left tends to isolate those that are not part of a political identified category.  So could we not posit that the Left is breeding these whack jobs?

[Dashinka 24,512]

15 hours ago, yuna628 said:

There's something I've noticed in a lot of these cases, well.. in pretty much all of these cases where there is a white young male shooter psychopath, regardless of if they have white nationalist tendencies or not: they are not so much anti-feminist as they are pro-misogynist. They literally think, in their psychosis that a woman's purpose isn't just for some traditional baby-making or homemaker role, they believe a woman is worthless and so low as to be abused in all ways. This trend can actually be found in some international terrorist ideologies and even with serial killers. IMO a lot of these young men who go out ''in a blaze of glory'' so to speak, would have gone on to be sociopathic serial killers if they hadn't taken this 'quick path'. The Ohio shooter, like many of them before him, had long term issues with women and likely a long ranging history with multi-personality type psychosis. Some of them, like Sandy Hook, aim for their mothers first. In his case, his first target seems to have been his sister, that was transitioning to be male. It is not just endless message boards and sites where white nationalism abounds and propagandizes young men (in the same way Jihadists do), but young men that are very mentally unwell are increasingly becoming radicalized on boards dedicated to death, abuse, and torture of women. It's gone beyond anti-feminism to the disturbing and evil.

 

As I used to say... I used to moderate some really disturbing behavior of kids back when the internet and forums started being popular.. back before these places cropped up, or even before social media existed in these mass forms. It was sick back then, and I wondered and worried what the kids would become and grow into.. Now there thousands of little mini Charles Mansons with the power to spread their message far and wide.

And yet the Ohio shooter was a big supporter of Elizabeth Warren.  Go figure.  I know, in the case where a whack job mass murderer is linked to a Leftist political stance, the Left will find all kinds of excuses to show how complex they are, and try to bury any political linkage (James Hodgkinson), but have they even a small linkage to Right leaning political thought, we will hear about it in the biased media forever.  Heck, when James Holmes shot up the theatre in Aurora, I believe it was Brian Williams attempting to immediately link him to the tea party through a man with the same name.  Of course that is the same Brian Williams that is a major narcissist and potentially believes in the whole 8/8 hidden message.

[laylalex 7,285]

20 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   You may want to read the linked article. 

Thank you! Misogyny isn't a problem that is only on the left or the right, or anywhere along the spectrum. It is pervasive in many societies, including our own. I don't think anyone can deny this in good faith. But there just isn't a streak running through the far left that women need to be controlled, to be vessels to be filled with children who can be raised to defend a philosophy, to tend the hearth and home, or that men are somehow naturally leaders and that women should know their place. Why don't we hear about Antifa cells out in Brooklyn or Portland spouting off about how women shouldn't be on the front lines, helping to fight, and should be at home making sandwiches or whatever? 

 

This topic isn't just about whether a shooter, any mass murderer, is naturally right or left. It's also about why it is that this kind of backwards-thinking mentality is found in the hearts of men -- and it is almost always men -- who commit these killings. There was another article about this very same topic yesterday in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/mass-shootings-misogyny-dayton.html What is happening in our society that makes contempt for women, our bodies, our minds, our rights to be in the world, so common? Don't get me wrong, I love men and don't buy into the whole "toxic masculinity" thing. But why is it almost exclusively men who act in such atrocious ways, either on a grand scale (like in El Paso or Vegas or wherever) or in the privacy of their own homes?

 

It's just been on my mind a lot recently. I want to hear from men -- and there are plenty of them here -- why they think that we see this kind of acceptance of misogyny again and again. I'm a millennial, and I'd been told over and over that this mindset was dying out, but clearly it isn't. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

On 8/11/2019 at 1:28 PM, laylalex said:

Thank you! Misogyny isn't a problem that is only on the left or the right, or anywhere along the spectrum. It is pervasive in many societies, including our own. I don't think anyone can deny this in good faith. But there just isn't a streak running through the far left that women need to be controlled, to be vessels to be filled with children who can be raised to defend a philosophy, to tend the hearth and home, or that men are somehow naturally leaders and that women should know their place. Why don't we hear about Antifa cells out in Brooklyn or Portland spouting off about how women shouldn't be on the front lines, helping to fight, and should be at home making sandwiches or whatever? 

 

This topic isn't just about whether a shooter, any mass murderer, is naturally right or left. It's also about why it is that this kind of backwards-thinking mentality is found in the hearts of men -- and it is almost always men -- who commit these killings. There was another article about this very same topic yesterday in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/10/us/mass-shootings-misogyny-dayton.html What is happening in our society that makes contempt for women, our bodies, our minds, our rights to be in the world, so common? Don't get me wrong, I love men and don't buy into the whole "toxic masculinity" thing. But why is it almost exclusively men who act in such atrocious ways, either on a grand scale (like in El Paso or Vegas or wherever) or in the privacy of their own homes?

 

It's just been on my mind a lot recently. I want to hear from men -- and there are plenty of them here -- why they think that we see this kind of acceptance of misogyny again and again. I'm a millennial, and I'd been told over and over that this mindset was dying out, but clearly it isn't. 

 

   I was also hoping to see more responses from the "regulars". I have seen a few people getting slightly defensive and I'm not sure why. None of us here are far right, far left, or mass murders. I would have like to have seen more objective responses than just trying to deflect everything to the other side of the political spectrum. 

[laylalex 7,285]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I was also hoping to see more responses from the "regulars". I have seen a few people getting slightly defensive and I'm not sure why. None of us here are far right, far left, or mass murders. I would have like to have seen more objective responses than just trying to deflect everything to the other side of the political spectrum. 

I was wondering if the timing of my post (Friday afternoon) had something to do with this topic sort of withering, but then I see a bunch of posts from Saturday, so... I mean, I know it's an uncomfortable topic, and it doesn't lend itself too well to being dismissed with memes without looking, ummmm, a little misogynist! Like:

 

Q: Why are women treated as lesser creatures in so many societies, suitable only for domestic activities?

A: Shut up and make me a sandwich.

 

(Please take that in the joking manner in which it was typed!  )

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Perhaps we don't see ourselves as our peer group is presented in the article.

 

I also am gracious to people of both sexes and do not judge people based on color. I am married to an Asian my daughter.is maaried to a Black, there are multiple Hispanics sprinkled throuout the family.

 

I believe in equal pay for equal work, personally I abhor the thought of abortion but believe your body, your choice. I have guns, I like to shoot, I do not hunt. I have never voted for anyone that is not a Republican but did not vote for Trump. I do not believe Obama Was a great president, I would have preferred Ben Carson as our first black president, but for me he lost a little luster for me when he shifted towards Trump. While I don't believe Trump helps his case being such an avid social media addict, I believe he is a better choice than Hillary would have been. 

 

That is why I abstained from this discussion.

 

 

Edited August 13, 2019 by Randyandyuni