On #YesAllWomen, and the Discomfort of ‘Good Men’



Following Elliot Rodger’s hate crime against women (yes, I know many news reports seem to have missed the misogynistic message he was sending, I know Wikipedia has decided to classify it as generic violence instead of violence against women, and I know The Good Men Project has decided it was really all about virginity, but make no mistake, it was a hate crime nonetheless), women all over the internet rose up with the hashtag #YesAllWomen, sharing stories of misogyny and sexual violence, pointing out how the little and not-so-little experiences that women are subjected to on a regular basis combine to create a society in which a killer like Rodger is made.

Somewhat predictably, there has been resistance from men reluctant to acknowledge the sexist culture that surrounds us; more specifically, they are uncomfortable with the idea that they, with their ‘harmless banter’ or only slightly sexist behaviour, could be complicit in a hate crime of such immense proportions.

One example of this is this piece by T.J Holmes, who believes that the hashtag is unfairly placing blame on men who consider themselves good men, who have never attacked women and probably never will, who are only guilty of what he sees as innocuous sexist behaviours, such as giving a woman their arm, or getting women to pass through doors before themselves. He states that “there is a huge gap between the man who catcalls a woman walking down the street and the man who opens fire on her”, and that #YesAllWomen has somehow led to a confused population of women who are unable to see the distinction between these two actions.

Yet, as someone who has followed the hashtag quite closely over the last week, I see no evidence of this “sense that all sexism is created equal”. There is nothing on the hashtag to suggest that shooting a woman is just the same as whistling at her on the street. What I have seen though, over and over again, is women asserting that we must connect the everyday sexism and harassment that women experience, with the underlying attitude of male entitlement to female bodies, thereby creating the conditions necessary for Rodger’s hatred of women to take root and flourish in that particular way. I have seen women point out how charged with fear many romantic / sexual interactions are for women, where it is often hard to tell if rejecting a man’s advances will lead to an uneventful evening, or an encounter with violence. I have seen women unite in their common experiences of being women in a man’s world, and call on men to take the responsibility of tackling the misogyny rampant in socialised masculinity. Nowhere have I witnessed the notion that a man who has regressive beliefs about being a “gentleman” is exactly the same as a mass murderer, which makes Holmes’ opening lines puzzling, to say the least.

And let’s not forget that we live in a world where women are brought up to expect and get over unwanted touching in bars and clubs, a world where a woman’s clothing and behaviour can be blamed for her rape, and where an unambiguously woman-hating killer is called a ‘madman’ rather than an extremist in a misogynistic society. Given this background, can you imagine that from now on, due to #YesAllWomen, any man who engages in sexist behaviour will be viewed and treated as no better than a mass murderer? Of course not. The idea that this is a serious concern for men is patently ludicrous.

I’m not surprised that many men are feeling uncomfortable after reading tweets on the #YesAllWomen hashtag. If one has lived one’s life completely oblivious to the systemic sexism that pervades everything we do, it can be a shock to suddenly realise that you, a well-meaning, kind-hearted man who would never hurt a fly, are complicit in a culture that has led to horrific instances of male violence against women. In fact, I’m glad of this discomfort. I would find it much more worrying if all men read about the harassment, fear and violence that women experience, and felt absolutely nothing. But don’t pretend that this discomfort is in anyway comparable to the actual lived reality of women’s oppression. Don’t ask women to censor their words and hide the truth because it makes some men feel unfairly blamed. Recognise how tiny sexist acts, while so seemingly harmless to you, can add up and add up and add up, to a culture where women are assigned inferior status, and hate crimes against women are a dime a dozen. Then take that discomfort and use it to drive change, rather than taking the easy path of denial.

100 thoughts on “On #YesAllWomen, and the Discomfort of ‘Good Men’

  1. Equating our “discomfort” to being ignorant on the topic is a weak argument. In fact it is that we are “discomforted” by feminist that want to clump us with people that Rodger that is the rub. Or would all women care to be associated with mothers that slaughter their babies? But a woman did it… not the same thing to you? I figure it wouldn’t be, but that is the issue men have with feminist and women. They only want to see their view and they chalk up opposing views as “ignorance.” Whatever makes you feel better I suppose. I also find it odd you didn’t mention the Asians or the men killed in this attack either… biased much? Or do you just pick and choose what to care about. -OM

    • 1. Actually, I said the discomfort came from men’s unwillingness to see how their own behaviour could in any way be linked to Rodger’s feelings and actions. And your comment, on how feminists “want to clump [you] with people [like] Rodger” proves my point.

      2. I think you’ll find that the number of incidents of men killing their children is MUCH higher than of women doing the same.

      • What does your number 2 have to do with anything? We are speaking of associate a sex with an action. Do you then equate all men as baby killers since you came up with that random “fact.”

        • No, YOU have decided that you’re arguing against randomly associating a sex with a random action. Obviously I’m not suggesting that if one man likes banana ice cream, that means all men do.
          I am speaking of patterns of behaviour across a whole gender, and if you look up crime stats you’ll see that over 90% of violent crime (including killing spouses and children) is committed by men, not women. So we need to ask – why? What is it about the socialisation of men that is leading to this?

        • Men have always been more physical and violent as a sex, but that doesn’t mean ALL men are. That really is the basis of your post isn’t it? That you wish for other men to “recognize the potential” harm from their own kind and “bond” together with women in a united front? I will agree that humans are all equal and violence against women is awful, but I won’t accept the blame for some crazy ass kid that has nothing to do with me. The attempt by feminist and women to place that guilt on men “as a whole” is sad and pathetic.

        • See, that’s the difference between you and me. You think that the reason why so many men (ah, not ALL!) are violent is because they are naturally so, whereas I believe that these men are the product of society and are not born violent, and have the potential to be better.
          Why do you have such a low opinion of men?

        • There is a reason why men are used in war and used to kill. To deny those reasons is to deny the very basics of humanity, men show less emotion than women. You can show me your “facts” and I can in turn point you to EVERY military in the history of the world that has tested this fact. You realize that right? That it is possible to test this trait?

        • I love how you say “I can in turn point you to EVERY military in the history of the world that has tested this fact” as if it’s a major trump card. Do you really think “EVERY military in the history of the world” conducted rigorous scientific analysis into the violent propensities of male and female infants before deciding to exclude women from the military?
          Anyway, I can sense that this conversation isn’t going to be very productive, and I don’t want this thread to clog up the comments section, so am ending it now.

    • Please don’t link all feminists and women to this opinion. I am a feminist and woman and don’t personally support the claims of this article.

      • You don’t support helping women by trying to teach men that it’s not okay to cat call, or to demand sex, or to get aggressive when a woman says no? You don’t support that little things often lead to larger issues? If you don’t mind me asking, how do you perceive feminism? It seems to me that the author is not making outrageous claims here. I have often personally, and also heard other accounts, of men feeling uncomfortable even talking about violence or sexist attitudes against women. Why is it such a bad thing she is calling them out on it? She’s merely trying to bring attention to how the larger issue prevails due to the everyday, smaller things women experience and, quite frankly, she did a wonderful job.

        • “Little things often lead to larger issues.” Or… they don’t. But I am sure pointing out to men that they “could” rape is a great quest you women seem to be on. Or that men “could” kill is a great achievement in the feminist agenda right? Sigh… so silly. What about women? How often do you stop and consider YOU could kill, rape, and etc etc?

        • I’m pretty sure I never stated such things as you pointed out. Could you better clarify your position? Are you trying to claim reverse sexism? Just like reverse racism, reverse sexism does not exist. Prejudices do, and yes women are capable of those things too. But do you not understand the major issue? That many women face many of these problems, big and small, everyday? All I speak of is support for protecting women’s rights and equality for all, but I won’t stand by to support sexist comments or the rather popular blame the victim antics that often happen with anti-feminist people.

        • You implied that with your connection of cat calls and “lesser sexist actions” leading to greater deeds. Was that not what you were saying when… You said that.

        • I don’t which is why I am commenting on this post and your comments. I see a lot of posts like this where women blame all men for things. I felt the need to educate some of you to the fact that #notallmen do these things and not all men need to feel guilty. I feel I was pretty clear on that in my first comment.

        • I think you need to re-read the article and take a class on feminism. You seem hell-bent on making us into villains when all we are trying to do is give a voice to a large portion of the population that doesn’t have one. What is the harm in that?

        • And to clarify when you said little things lead to big things you most definitely implied that if a young man does a small sexist act he “could” do what elliott Rogers did. If that wasn’t your intention you should probably work on your wording.

        • That’s just a natural order of things: little things lead to big things. You’re concentrating on a single individual while I’m concentrated on the bigger picture: if it’s okay for a man to catcall a woman, another man might think it’s okay to grab her, and then if that’s okay another man might think it’s okay to force things upon her…do you see where I’m going? This is what the article was suggesting about little things into big.

          Furthermore, why do you think it’s okay to commit any sexist activity? How is that equality for women? Why do you feel you get to decide what women are comfortable with? Please explain.

        • I never once said it is ok. What I said was it is stupid to equate small actions to larger ones. So a kid that whistles at a woman will grow up to rape because no one called him out for his smaller sexist act? Do you honestly believe that or is that dogma you say to hold fast to the ideal that men are sexist pigs that are empowered at birth?

        • Wow- where on earth are you coming up with that? I did not say a kid who whistles at women will become a rapist (please quote it if that is the case). Furthermore, I don’t think you quite understand the smaller picture to larger picture and I’m doing my best to explain but, as I stated before, you seem to want to make villains out of feminists and that’s rather insulting…

        • Your smaller to larger picture is EXACTLY what I am referring to. The fact you don’t recognize this makes it even more amusing and clarifies things a ton actually.

        • Who is insulting? Merely wondering if you perhaps wrote something completely different than you intended. It happens to the best of us. ;)
          The wink isn’t me being sexist btw.

        • I did not write something different than what I intended. I have thoroughly perused your arguments and others on this comment section and the only thing I see is some man trying to claim reverse sexism is happening (and that is an assumption on my part, but the statements you have made qualify as such.)

          If you think cat calling is innocent, then you don’t understand the underlying idea behind it: that women are not in control of their bodies, that they are not the ones to decide what looks good, that men get to judge on the side (and yes I have seen FEW women do it too) without retribution simply for entertainment. That is objectification within an overly sexualized culture. Perhaps if the tables were turned, you would better understand. You are entitled to your opinion only so far as it is supported by evidence. But in this case, I think you are rather wrong and I think you should re-evaluate the evidence against your claims as I see little to none for your claim…

        • I never once said cat calling is innocent, but it isn’t as large a deal as you women want to make it out to be. Trying being a minority for a few days and see who gets “more calls.” I am not claiming reverse sexism, but instead pointing out how silly it is to group all men together because of the actions of one sick kid. But you guys have fun doing that if that’s what gets you going.

        • We’re not grouping men together and yes catcalling is an issue, I’m sorry you don’t see it as such. I would hope that if you have a young daughter, you wouldn’t want such attention thrust her way. I don’t quite understand where you are making the assumption that ALL men are being grouped into Elliot Rogers, merely the men who participate in large and small activities do not help to dissuade invidiuals such as Rogers.

        • I have two thanks for asking and they will learn about racism first. As is the case with most minorities. They also will learn to be strong, to not have a need for a silly feminist banner, and to not whine and blame anyone and everyone for their life.

        • This is why it’s so hard for women now, because of small comments about how feminism is bad or “silly”. I would fear the world if everyone had your thoughts and to bring a young lady into it. What about Hobby Lobby? Do you think it’s fair a bunch of old men get to decide whether or not your daughter gets to prevent pregnancy? Or have balanced hormones? Viagra doesn’t have to be regulated and men aren’t required to have annual check-ups…how is that not an example of men having control over women? Again, a small example for now but with big repercussions.

        • Corporations are not obligated to pay for birth control and abortion is evil. Further, I have ZERO need for feminism. I wave the banner of equality called humanism. If you need to carry around a flag with the “female” in it to feel empowered, good for you. I don’t.

        • Why is it your right to dictate if abortion is “evil” or not? I assume then you are religious, which would speak loads about where your opinions come from. Again, you can have an opinion but it is another thing to have blinders on to reality and other people’s needs/lives. And Hobby Lobby is not just about corporations paying for birth control. They often pay for health care, so why is it an issue for birth control to be included? Ah, yes, then you would have to admit it has everything to do with men’s control and religious privelage.

        • So the board of hobby lobby is made up 100% of men??? See how you immediately blamed men at the end… Or is that just a “tick” of yours? Calling me uber religious is actually laughable. You made my day. Killing babies is evil by any standard. But I guess sucking out fetuses isn’t that huge of a deal to some.

        • You do realize the scientific community does not recognize fetuses as living beings? And aside from that, you are saying that women should be used as nothing more than incubators?

          And yes, it was all men that voted on the Hobby Lobby decision. Perhaps you should peruse Ruth’s scathing rebuttal…

        • No need to, still of the same opinion. If women want birth control they can go buy it or get it for free through planned parenthood. You mean a bunch of doctors said a fetus isn’t a child but those same doctors have allowed criminal law to rule double homicides for killing a woman that is pregnant? See, there is a flip to everything. Funny how pro choicers don’t see the irony.

        • Now you are clumping doctors into one lump, you should take a page from your book. Well, it’s been great fencing with ya, but I think you’ve been more on the outside of the ring, skirting the fight, Ta!

        • You claimed the “scientific community” here, not me. My father is a doctor and views a fetus as a living human. Good to know people will make up anything to make themselves feel better. And it seems you have avoided the whole question as to why it is a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, but you claim a fetus isn’t a life to scientist. That doesn’t surprise me most pro-choicers don’t have a response to that one. You enjoy being on the outside of the ring pumpkin.

        • Uh where did soul come into this? I don’t believe in “soul” it doesn’t (at the moment) scientifically/realistically exist. Pain is defined by how neurons are fired in your brain to their respective destinations. As these articles purpose, such brain activity is not yet relevant in fetuses under 24 weeks and thus, as most abortions are before then, there is no reason for a woman to feel she is killing a living thing (and again it is HER choice and HER choice alone) as it does not meet the qualifications of what we understand in scientific community to be a living thing.

        • Furthermore:

          “So the laws banning abortions about two weeks before the 24-week threshold affect very few; 98.5 percent of abortions occur before 21 weeks”


          Finally, to address your absurd “flipflop”, the double homicid is ruled by outdated science. As they are only now trying to better understand if fetuses feel pain (and the evidence thus far is no), they have not yet changed the double homicid. Our government does not function so quickly. Also, politics has a huge role in both claims, thus while some scientists have evidence supporting the fetus does not technically qualify for life, other different scientists may claim (because they were bought, have a stake in something, political reasons, etc) that the courts should real double homicid if a woman is pregnant. I will admit I’m pessimistic (and it is truly the way our legal system works), so my understanding of that ruling (and no it’s not the first time an anti-choice person has brought that up, so please give us some new ammunition to bat away) is that courts would rather slam someone with a heavier sentence, more money for them.

        • So your answer to when a fetus and a soul unite is by definition of when it feels pain? That is splendid! I wrote an article suggesting if women want an abortion they roll down a specific hill to kill their baby since “fetuses don’t feel pain.” How do you feel about that since it is supported by your science.

        • And please do not quote phony science to me. I’m rather tired of it between creationists, phony doctors, politicians, etc. of misuing science. Science is, at best, unbiased; yet it is grossly misused/misinterpreted (as in the case of anti-choicers and climate deniers).

        • Oh yes you got me, I’m being so combative. You quoted a family member as a doctor who personally decided that fetuses are living things. That, as far as I can tell based on what you gave me, is pseudo-science. I’m sorry, but as Leopard pointed out, your answers are rather tiring. You can’t seem to hold an educated argument; you throw your opinions around like they are evidence in and of themselves. I am opinionated, but when evidence is presented against my claim, then it changes as it should. You seem to be obstinately against all this evidence. When your misinformed opinions begin affecting other people’s lives, that’s when it becomes a problem and that is why you will find people on here being “combative” towards you. Fare thee well.

        • Actually that was a joke since you said I was aggressive above. Never try to joke with a feminist though right? So my father’s opinion doesn’t count why again? He is a doctor and part of the scientific community you so proudly announced doesn’t view a fetus as a living being. Actually your arguments are getting old and I hear them repeatedly. When you get backed into a corner over matters of “proof” for when a soul enters a baby you resort to safe answers and attacks, life above. A shame actually since you had my attention. Pseudo science? My father’s name is doctor William Cushman and he is the leading research physician in studies of hypertension in the world. But sure, his opinion must be pseudo science because it isn’t in line with yours right? Again, your argumentative skills are poor. Work on them.

        • Hypertension, yes, not anything to do with fetuses. You see my point? I have several family members in the medical field, so I understand as well as hopefully you do that doctors don’t know everything. They study one specific field (and if you are going to attempt to deny that then I will have a ball of a laugh!). P.S. It doesn’t matter what your father’s name is. What studies has he done? What has he led? Was it peer reviewed? Was it peer reviewed across disciplines? Did he do studies specifically on fetuses? If the answer is no, then it is his opinion and he is not qualified to give an argument if he has no evidence for it.

        • Lucky lucky daughters is all I can say with a father like you. Having a father that is so anti equality must be tough – which privilege that feminism took away has put your back up soooo much? The right to vote as a taxpayer, the right for a woman not to become a mother, the right not to rape your wife, equal pay for equally skilled work? Sorry, don’t answer that but really …

        • How about the right to not feel I need to associate with that movement? Since when did it become RIGHT to force people to want to be a part of a movement? What humanist put your back up? My daughters are just fine, thanks for asking pumpkin.

        • Then why come on a feminist website to insult people and tell them you hope they never have children? No one is forcing you to be here or to join any movement – I was just asking which feminist won human right did you have such a grievance about. You seem to just want to harrass women on line who are talking about a subject, which, being male, you have no real experience of, except as a hostile bystander chucking insults. Maybe you should ask yourself what exactly you are trying to do here?

        • Sharing my view on WordPress just like every one else. LoL obviously. If you guys want a closed forum make your website private otherwise WP is an open website. You sound a little bitter. I’m sending you love.

        • That was a horrible insult on your part, perhaps you should not fall to ad hominems or judgement. Just because I don’t believe in a soul does not mean I don’t find wonder in life or poetry in science. And quite frankly, I would make a wonderful, amazing mom. I am a fantastic human being and you are lucky I wasted breath to even try and have a civil discussion with you. You seem hellbent on making me out to be an evil person and it’s rather hurtful. You have been nothing but insulting, rude and demeaning to me. If you can’t continue an educated discussion, do not, for all purposes, choose to insult people simply because you don’t agree.

        • Very much appreciated. I don’t mind trying to have a debate, but it is beyond my understanding when people start with such insults. I’m perfectly fine with the rest, I think most with a head on their shoulders will see his statements for what they are :p

        • The part where you say men set the standard for what looks good is completely false. Women set those standards for each other through models, commercials, and media. I wouldn’t know the difference between two high heels so don’t start blaming me for your hurt feet ok?

        • Really? Please go read some more articles on the subject, you are sorely misinformed (and I mean no offense only that you need more evidence to back your claim). You seem to assume that women are the head hanchos in the fashion industry–most of the people who set the standard in the items you claim are men. Now I said most, do not misquote me, thanks.

        • … I don’t buy it since women influence everyday fashion simply by wearing an outfit around. If another women does this because of a fashion show held by a man… That is on her.

        • You still don’t get it. Catcalling is a way to put ownership on someone’s body, saying I think that is what is hot/sexy/beautiful, etc. Men are setting this standard and ownership. It has nothing to do with what women wear! How is it fair to say a woman deserves to be catcalled because of what she is wearing? What if she doesn’t want that attention? What if it makes her feel uncomfortable? Please address the issue at hand rather than putting people off topic or trying to blame the victim.

        • If a woman walks around naked like feminist are currently doing to bring this issue to the spotlight then I laugh. It is stupid. Women use clothes to get what they want in life and that is their right as the fairer sex. Calling it unfair at this point is silly, speak to God.

        • I am comment on a public post ok? I am not spamming her board, merely responding to your comments back. If she wants to ban me she can, I reblogged this post as well because it is allowed per WordPress policy. Calling me a troll because our opinions differ is a bit lame. But your right.

        • It’s not lame, it’s a legit question as your responses have been more attacks rather than discussion. I’ve tried to hold one as such and I have no problem speaking with people who don’t see eye to eye, but if you are a real humanist, why is it so difficult for you to understand feminism? It’s not a far jump…indeed, feminism is being framed now under humanism. I’m sorry you seem so blatantly against women’s rights; it’s important that we learn to evolve and progress. Good luck to you and yours and please be respectable to those who do want to fight for women’s rights and stop trying to label us as some sort of villain or ignorant pessimist.

        • Because current day feminism is about man hate. Do you even read current blog posts under the tags feminism and feminist? They are NOT about equality, they are about hating men and often they are written by women who haven’t seen a “hard day” in their lives. But the bandwagon is rather long isn’t it?

      • Could you be a feminist with a penis perhaps? Or just a liberal feminist who denies violence against women is linked to men as that would be sexist?

  2. Your post is brilliant and you nailed it when you wrote this –

    “. I would find it much more worrying if all men read about the harassment, fear and violence that women experience, and felt absolutely nothing. But don’t pretend that this discomfort is in anyway comparable to the actual lived reality of women’s oppression. Don’t ask women to censor their words and hide the truth because it makes some men feel unfairly blamed. Recognise how tiny sexist acts, while so seemingly harmless to you, can add up and add up and add up, to a culture where women are assigned inferior status, and hate crimes against women are a dime a dozen.”

    I’d really appreciate your feedback on – http://akritimattu.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/elliot-rodger-a-symptom-of-a-society-so-morally-warped/

    Might strike a chord :)

  3. Yes, it’s interesting how many people want to ignore the misogyny and patriarchy here.
    Here’s a paragraph I found on Feministe: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2014/05/30/revenge-rampages-obscuring-the-issue-and-missing-the-point/

    “How is that a man can leave a 140-page manifesto describing, in explicit detail, how much he hates women, why he hates women, why he thinks women deserve to be punished, and precisely how he plans to punish them — and then his subsequent killing spree is attributed to everything but misogyny?”

    I’ve noticed that my “intro to women’s studies” students can more easily see sexism when I show how the matter would sound if it were a problem of racism. So I reworded the above paragraph this way:

    “How is that a man can leave a 140-page manifesto describing, in explicit detail, how much he hates blacks, why he hates blacks, why he thinks blacks deserve to be punished, and precisely how he plans to punish them — and then his subsequent killing spree is attributed to everything but racism?”

    But I have a comment on your observation that “The Good Men Project has decided it was really all about virginity.”

    Feministe made an important critique of the blog and GMP has worked to rid itself of the offending concerns. The problem with continuing to criticize something that responds to criticism is a loss of incentive to make change. Because then what’s the point?

    True, the above post didn’t discuss Elliot Roger from a feminist perspective — although it was trying to keep men from attacking women. Yet GMP did post something with a feminist perspective, as well:

    Elliot Rodger: Blaming Women When Patriarchy is the Problem

  4. You’re spot on. Shooting up a sorority house because you think women owe you sex isn’t the same as catcalling or unwanted contact, but I think it’s along the same scale of entitlement to women’s bodies and misogyny. Rodgers’ actions weren’t ‘crazy’ or ‘mad’, they were a logical progression of what he believed.

    I do think men’s discomfort with reading what’s been said on YesAllWomen may not always be that they were oblivious to it. My partner gets upset if I read out a few rape and violence against women statistics, and says he doesn’t want to hear it, because he feels powerless to do anything about it. It’s the same way I get really rage-y and hopeless after reading too many things like that, because what can one person really do.

    • I guess when I refer to the discomfort, I’m talking more of the knee-jerk defensive reaction of “Not all men are like that! I may do some sexist things but that has -nothing- to do with Elliot Rodger!” etc etc etc that many men have shown in response to #yesallwomen.
      Love your first paragraph, you put it very well.

      • I’ve never experienced the ‘not all men/not me’ as a knee-jerk from people I know, I find instead they tend to criticize feminism (‘feminazis’, ‘want to take over and subjugate men’, etc.), and when I calmly respond to all points and explain what feminism is, they just go silent. So they don’t even get to the part of pondering if they do display sexist behaviours.

        I do live in Australia, where everyday sexism like catcalling seems to be much less prevalent, but that doesn’t mean it’s widely recognised as a problem, even though you only have to look at what happened when we had a female PM to see how sexist and homophobic our culture is. Thankfully for every particularly sexist or knee-jerking guy, there’s a lovely one who wants to learn or already is a feminist :)

    • I think most men wont talk about sexism is they don’t want to acknowledge their privelege because then they’d have to share power, wealth, work and justice a bit fairer in their own families to name but one space that a good many dont work to democratic traditions.

    • Yes! Shooting up a sorority is the next step in every sexist agenda. Right? Oh god… You guys are taking a “kid” that obviously had social, mental, and personal issues and making him into the model man. How does that even click in your heads?

      • She used Elliot Roger’s as an example of how this type of thinking and behavior allowed him to justify his actions- just like the same type of thinking and behavior you have shown Opinionated Man has been to condescend and belittle every person who has posted on here. You have tried to invalidate every woman who has commented with rudeness; and by doing so you ARE that guy. Your responses alone have proven why this article is so necessary.

  5. Reblogged this on LA Reverie and commented:
    This is old news in reference to Elliot Rogers, but the author constructed a brilliant answer and I had to share it. This issue is tremendously important to me and it is not just manifested in the physical world but in the literature world as well, a perfect example being Game of Thrones (among others, of course). No matter how small, sexist comments can build up and, as the author mentions, it is a lot about who is in possession of that body (which should always be that individual). Please take a quick read.

  6. Reblogged this on HarsH ReaLiTy and commented:
    I pretty much disagree with everything in this post. Further I think the comments are equally amusing considering so many women seem to want other men to feel “guilt” for the actions… of other men. The reason I reblogged this is simple. I just learned telling a woman she is “ranting” is considered sexist. My feminist education is complete… Thank you world! (insert any number of eye rolls you wish here). -OM

Say things here:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s